Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - Some Queries

Tags: zeitgeist, The Zeitgeist Movement, TZM [ Add Tags ]

[ Return to The Zeitgeist Movement | Reply to Topic ]
unfathomable_boPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 09:25
(-1)
 

Level: 0
Hello, I'm new to the boards and I have a few questions. I'd call myself a sceptic and a rationalist, and I really like a lot of what I see on this site (especially the climate denial stuff), but I'm a bit confused by what I see relating to the zeitgeist movement.

Firstly, I'll put it out there that in a broad sense I do agree with the general direction put forward by TZM, that is; the need to transition to an economy which is more empirical, scientific and sustainable. I however am very comfortable with saying that I disagree with some aspects of TZM, and that it tends to fumble over some of the finer scientific issues; however the direction as a whole seems to be entirely reasonable and benign.

Now don't get me wrong, I can see that both Peter Joseph and Jacques Fresco can be a bit bull-headed and arrogant sometimes, and I acknowledge the fact that some followers of the movement seem to regurgitate what they have heard with a kind of sickening zeal, rather than researching the topics themselves, but does this really constitute a cult, or even a dangerous organisation?

I can also see that the first film is a bit of a car crash, and that there are various oversimplifications and minor errors through the latter two films, but at no point did I feel that this detracted from the central position of using science in society.

Similarly, the ideas put forth are not really conspiratorial (in fact if I remember the third film pretty much discredits the classic NWO/illuminati thing entirely) ; there is no new age spiritualism or religious aspects, and the information put forth doesn't seem geared towards deception or indoctrination, more as a starter towards a greater body of reading.

Instead what we have is a collection of fairly placid ideas which have been talked about for decades without such vigorous 'debunking', by the likes of BM Fuller, the technocracy movement, the libertarian socialists, the anarcho-syndicalists, NEF, William Catton, Prof Steven Keen, Paolo Soleri, Michael Pawlyn, Tim Jackson, Herman Daly, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi / Ed Deci, EF Schumacher, Gar Alperovitz, C H Douglas etc etc etc.

Even if science determines that what is envisaged by the group as a 'resource based economy' is completely impossible, this still doesn't really harm the tenet of using the scientific method in society (as Peter Joseph has said numerous times). Similarly, meticulously examining the rationale behind each of his actions on the message board also does little to 'debunk' the overarching principles put forward. He's just one guy, and whether he calls himself Peter Merola or Elton John doesn't really matter in my eyes.

So I guess my question is why does this pretty harmless movement attract so much interest from both the sceptics, who want to debunk it, and the conspiracy theorists who swear that its "pro NWO"? Surely there are bigger fish to fry than a fairly nondescript internet group that promotes sustainability with a bit of a knob for a leader? Think of the dangerous drivel that comes out of Fox News on a daily basis (Tiller Tiller the baby killer?), or the violent paranoia of Alex Jones. Surely this is of far more concern?

Please don't let a petty little squabble between two forums soil a series of questions that we need to be asking about our current economy.

Thanks,
#1 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 09:27
(0)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original
You emailed this to us, I don't know why you felt the need to publish it here too, you should've picked one. Here's the email I sent in reply:
Hi Gregg,
I'm honestly surprised that you're emailing me about TZM at all. I don't know if you noticed, but the ship has sailed for TZM, it's a dead horse, in fact at this point it's a horse skeleton. Criticisms of TZM go beyond just "minor errors" and "bull headedness," into the realm of the kind of censorship and totalitarianism exhibited by Merola and others, that makes it frightening if they were ever remotely able to get their way.

Further, I think it trivializes people involved in the technocratic movement and anarcho-syndicalism, because let's face it, a lot of those people often contributed something, anything, to society and had goals in mind to do so. TZM does neither, Merola simply wants us to blindly trust him, and have the entire world at the whim of his plans, with no clear short-term goals on working towards changing the world. I don't know if you knew this or not, but people don't trust in ideologies without evidence, so unless he can show he actually cares about making things different by putting it into action (and putting it into action doesn't mean making videos and putting them on the internet), people aren't ever going to give a shit.

When TZM started two years ago, it rocketed pretty fast in membership, but even they realized that there was nothing else to be done at that point other than "spread the word," and people began steadily jumping ship at about the same rate new people were joining, with an average of 200 forum posts before abandoning the "movement" all together. It was basically stagnate with < 1% growth per month until its death. And shutting down all means of communication directly under control by Merola and instead creating a one-way voice is death for any movement.

Fresco has been doing this for literally decades, and you don't have to go very far to see a lot of evidence of him taking tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of dollars from people and throwing them away as soon as he gets his money. This was a part of the reason TZM and TVP split, because Fresco wanted to privately raise money to create a TVP movie; I think they're up to something like $60,000 right now in donations to just write a script... I'm willing to bet that the person writing the script is probably going to be Roxanne or Fresco.

Furthermore, Fresco has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from believers to buy tons of land in Venus, Florida, which he has put to no use, other than building a few models on.

What I'm getting at with all this: Merola is a crank and Fresco is a scam artist.

It doesn't matter if people in the past have promoted similar or the same ideas, it doesn't change the people we're talking about. Furthermore just promoting an idea a smart person has promoted, doesn't automatically make you smart.

The first film was really a great example of Merola's crank magnetic beliefs, and the fact that he still promotes the first film at all that he doesn't care about accuracy, only that people are listening to him. He's also stated several times he does still believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories, plus why is someone who believes in post-industrial technocracy promoting right-wing federal reserve conspiracy theories? It's because he can't admit he's wrong, so he still promotes things from when he was a Ron Paul follower. This is a great example of a massive flaw in someone who promotes himself as a leader, and it's a great reason to not follow him.

The reason TZM was focused on for so long over Alex Jones is because it was spreading faster than Alex Jones has ever spread, and it promoted anti-scientific reasoning in nearly every aspect of research and development for humanity; the TZM forums were absolutely full of natural cures, cancer woo, alternative medical crank, organic farming bullshit, etc.

Merola may claim to want to use the scientific method on society, but how can we trust this when he can't even use it on his own beliefs? Yes, believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories, organic farming, and so forth, and claiming you care about the scientific method, is being a crank.

TZM may be dead, but the point is, we're talking about someone who claims he has the answer to improve the entire world and we should blindly trust him. Who cares how big his movement is? Does that mean we can't question him until it's a certain size? Absolutely not, we can question anyone, any time, we're not bound by bad feelings about questioning crank beliefs.

It seems like you're coming from the position that if we disagree with TZM, we therefore must like what's in place now, and nothing could be further from the truth. I, myself, am profoundly anti-capitalist.
#2 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 09:28
(1)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original
This entire post is an underplay of how conspiratorial thinking is benign, it could not be farther from the truth.
#3 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
KeppPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 09:33
(3)
 

Level: 5
CS Original
Quote from unfathomable_bo

I'd call myself a sceptic and a rationalist
You can call yourself whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true. Once you become a zeitard you loose all claim to the title of skeptic. Unless skeptic with a c means something new.
#4 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 09:34
(0)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original
My drive-by post sense is tingling.
#5 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 09:36
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original
Bo just made himself fathomable and it ain't looking good for him.
#6 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 10:05
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original
tl;dr
#7 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
unfathomable_boPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 11:43
(-1)
 

Level: 0
Hi there,

Thanks for the quick responses; sorry about emailing/posting but I didn't know if there was some lengthy vetting procedure for new accounts, so I just fired the email off. Apologies if this was against the rules.

As I've said in the original post, I think that Fresco and Joseph are pretty arrogant people, and I wholeheartedly disagree with their stance on fundraising and donations (particularly Fresco's). However this does little to discredit the fundamental point of using science in society.

If I take that single overarching concept and completely ignore the rest of what the zeitgeist movement does, am I irrational for doing so, simply because it is a jingle made famous by a man who is a crank? I don't think I am, although I'm intrigued to hear your thoughts on this.

I also disagree that Peter Joseph is demanding that everyone follows his lead. As far as I know TZM has many different spokespeople now (granted Joseph is the still most prominent) - all of which draw information from wildly different and varied sources, free from any "central" influence.

I want to reiterate here that I really don't care what Peter Joseph does or thinks. I don't care that he is a 911 truther, or a grumpy bastard, or that he fishes for donations on the site. Peter Joseph could be a mass murderer for all I care, it is the integrity of the ideas that he presents, assessed on their own merit that should be considered. Imagine if Isaac Newton's work was discredited based on his belief in alchemy. (To pre-empt any retorts here; no I am not comparing Joseph to Newton, but this is a perfect example of where ideas are more important than personalities)

As I've said I disagree with things that the movement says, but the central tenet is that we must follow science is a very good point. Again, Peter Joseph has even said himself numerous times that if some scientific truth demanded that an "RBE" was not possible, then we must go where the science takes us. This really doesn't sound like the "I have all the answers" dictator that is portrayed on this board.

Now I've never really been to TZM forums, so maybe his behaviour there is very different, but from the radio shows and lectures that I've seen from him, he repeatedly comes back to the idea that he alone is not the sole voice of truth. In fact contrary to what you claim, he has also become increasingly frustrated by people simply asking him what to read up on.

My only point here is that I fear people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. I feel that applying science for social concern is such a powerful principle that it really transcends whatever movement is preaching it. It was exactly the same with the Technocrats, when Alfred Sloan, CEO of GM challenged Howard Scott repeatedly on radio, to the point that people forgot about the message and where more concerned about Scott.

That is exactly what is happening here: "Peter Joseph did this, Jacques Fresco did that, lol circular cities" - its an asinine discussion that is clouding the real issue. I'm glad to see that you are against capitalism, so surely the idea of a less dogmatic and taboo economy and a more rigorous, scientific and empirical approach to society appeals to you at least on some level? I'm sure we can come to concordance in some broad way.

Quote from Kepp

Quote from unfathomable_bo

I'd call myself a sceptic and a rationalist
You can call yourself whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true. Once you become a zeitard you loose all claim to the title of skeptic. Unless skeptic with a c means something new.


Hmmm, just by stating that I agree with some of the overarching concepts put forward by a group, I am worthy of the title "zeitard" - come on, I was honest and polite with my question; give me the same. (by the way, 'sceptic' is the UK English version of 'skeptic' to clear that up)

As for the rest of the posts, grow up.
#8 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Burger KingPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 12:03
(0)
 

I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?

Level: 5
CS Original
@unfathomable_bo were you ever apart of the TZM dev team?
#9 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 12:03
(2)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original
But Peter Joseph Merola does not use science. No one in the Zeitgeist Movement does. Their approach to everything is completely UN-scientific.

I am extremely skeptical of the idea of "applying scientific method to human society," first of all because no one has any idea what that really means, including the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project, but also because it ignores that a tremendous part--the most important part--of the human experience is not quantifiable by scientific means. But putting that aside, where do you get the idea that the Zeitgeisters use science in the first place? They don't. They believe in quackery, woo, alt medicine, conspiracy theories, New Age crap and other anti-scientific concepts. They sneer at the idea of experts and what PJM calls "credentialism," which they are required to do in order to insist that a 95-year-old con artist in Florida is qualified to redesign society when people with advanced degrees in sociology and economics can't do it.

I see nothing scientific about the Zeitgeist Movement. The whole notion that the Zeitgeist Movement stands for "scientific method applied to society" is a fig leaf for anti-scientific and anti-rational beliefs anyway, so why should we give it any credence?

In any event, Roxette is correct. The Zeitgeist Movement is virtually dead. That ship sailed a long time ago.
#10 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 12:08
(2)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original
I also disagree that Peter Joseph is demanding that everyone follows his lead. As far as I know TZM has many different spokespeople now (granted Joseph is the still most prominent) - all of which draw information from wildly different and varied sources, free from any "central" influence.
No, he's the only one. He makes all the official content, he does the podcast, he runs the site, he has absolute control.
Peter Joseph could be a mass murderer for all I care, it is the integrity of the ideas that he presents, assessed on their own merit that should be considered.
And they have no real integrity, because they're based on a lot of false assumptions, such as tabula rasa. Imagine if people still considered phrenology a real science just because it appealed to them, not basing their conclusions on actual science.
Imagine if Isaac Newton's work was discredited based on his belief in alchemy.
That's a creationist argument and it's a huge straw man. He used mathematics and testable science to prove his physics, he couldn't do that with his claims about God running the universe or beliefs in alchemy, not to mention he lived in a time before science was widely accepted. Further he didn't make the claim science runs his life and should run the world, Peter Joseph does, meanwhile still trying to believe in magic. If you're going to try to create a higher standard, you have to be judged by it too.
Again, Peter Joseph has even said himself numerous times that if some scientific truth demanded that an "RBE" was not possible, then we must go where the science takes us. This really doesn't sound like the "I have all the answers" dictator that is portrayed on this board.
Saying and doing aren't the same thing. Anyone that questioned TZM or Peter Joseph would be banned from it, even if they believed in RBE. It wasn't about science, it was about Peter Joseph being unquestionable, and that's what he is in TZM. He's never wrong, and his claims are never falsifiable. The ends he went to, to try to prove the Acharya S claims show he cares less about science, and more about not being wrong.
Now I've never really been to TZM forums
See above, this is exactly why. You're only hearing the talk, not seeing his actions. That's often how dictators work, they'll say one thing, and do another.
My only point here is that I fear people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.
There's always technocracy, which has had real scientists support it, RBE has never had that, because RBE is just a scam. If you want to believe in technocracy, fine, but believing in TZM, Fresco, or Merola is a foolhardy thing to do.
That is exactly what is happening here: "Peter Joseph did this, Jacques Fresco did that, lol circular cities" - its an asinine discussion that is clouding the real issue.
The real issues have been discussed here time and time again, as well as on related blogs such as Muertos' blog. We have lengthly examples of the failures of TZM, TVP, etc on the forums, in articles, etc. They aren't hard to find, ignoring them doesn't mean they don't exist. There have been real discussions as to why circular cities are stupid here, but we're not going to go into the science ad nauseum when it's been discussed before.
I'm glad to see that you are against capitalism, so surely the idea of a less dogmatic and taboo economy and a more rigorous, scientific and empirical approach to society appeals to you at least on some level? I'm sure we can come to concordance in some broad way.
Of course it does, but the unquestionable and scam artist nature of both Merola and Fresco make both TZM and TVP jokes in the eyes of the world, except those who don't know any better or are just blind believers. I believe in science and democracy, which is why I can't believe in TZM.

I just have to say it though, the show is over, time to move on. TZM is dead as a door nail, why are you beating this dead horse still? No one cares, least of all us. The entire concepts of RBE and TZM are based on the idea people are born blank slates, and it's absolutely not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

You can't have an ideology based on something that is bullshit, pure and simple.
#11 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Omni-SciencePosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 12:08
(0)
 

Ordo Ab Chao.

Level: 8
CS Original
@ Bo

You can't possibly claim that TZM is scientific when it promotes a FUCKTON of altmed, and basically everything else fringe.

The altmed is pseudo-scientific. You best say TZM is that. That's the closest it will ever come to being scientific.

This is my argument: TZM is not scientific, in part, because they tolerate and promote altmed.

You best get crackin' to refute this tip of the iceberg.
#12 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 12:13
(2)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original
Science is already being used in society how do you think we have gotten this far ?

Fresco or merola use no science therefore backing people who have no education or skills in science while professing that society should utilise and trust scientists and science more is a flawed stance.


If you want to follow science follow Dawkins, Kaku, Hawking etc...

Lets be real if we're going to profess science needs utilising then quote real science and scientists.
#13 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
KeppPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 13:18
(1)
 

Level: 5
CS Original
Quote from anticultist

Science is already being used in society how do you think we have gotten this far ?


Exactly, this is where science and society has taken us organically. Just because we aren't living in circular cities with no doors and sex bots doesn't mean we aren't using science.

Quote from unfathomable_bo


However this does little to discredit the fundamental point of using science in society.


Strawman, see above.

Quote from unfathomable_bo


If I take that single overarching concept and completely ignore the rest of what the zeitgeist movement does, am I irrational for doing so,


That's exactly what your action implies. Why even follow the movement to begin with if you don't agree with anything they do except "using science in society" ? Which is even more irrational when you consider the fact they aren't even promoting science, but pseudo-science.
#14 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 14:25
(0)
 

Level: 6
CS Original
I was a member once for similar reasons - evaluating the thoughts behind their unorganized and naive efforts to change the world, and the whole thing really doesn't make a lot of sense. It's like evaluating an exam that starts off interesting, then gets the question wrong and gives an answer that's 25% right, 25% wrong and 50% so outlandishly off target that it's neither/nor.

I am extremely skeptical of the idea of "applying scientific method to human society,"


So am I, because science requires testing. We can't use the whole world for a social experiment and go "oops" when it fails and kills a bunch of people. Strangely, this is what TZM wants to do because the current system has its flaws. Sorry, as much as I'm a die-hard postcapitalist and would love to see an alternative, what TZM is offering isn't too convincing once you take a look at the details.

A scientific approach would be to specifically define everything your new system would entail - TZM doesn't do that. Some form of supercomputer governs everything and robots mine resources so we can all have stuff. All right, how does the supercomputer work, how does it process requests and deal with shortages? Are the material costs for robots included in the bold claim that we can all live like millionaires do today? Is there a list of all jobs, machines, production lines and applications required?
Nope, just drawings. Sorry, that's pathetic for who-knows-how-long Fresco has been doing that.

I've started and killed threads about this until my brain hurt, it led nowhere. Nobody is interested in economics at TZM - a friend of mine started a thread about flaws in out current understanding of microeconomics as well as in TZM's interpretation and it somehow disappeared; you can read a similar one on VTV's forum (google for economics, alias is .hex)

To make it short: TZM is for idealistic perfectionists who don't want to do anything. CTs match this perfectly, as they make you seem even more powerless than you are, but give you an easy idea of how everything could be fine. Nobody wants to work on the details, or actually test something in the real world, let's just spread awareness and let it all happen naturally. Let it all sink into oblivion, that is.
#15 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
RealSciencePosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 17:40
(2)
 

"In all of science we are looking for a balance..between data and theory." -Michael Shermer

Level: 0
The movement is filled with over exaggerated information or just plain and simply, false information.

The only thing that was somewhat 'good' was in the 3rd film, when he interviewed Robert Sapolsky and a few other legitimate professors/scientists. It really wasn't all that good at the same time though, because he distorted (at least what Robert was stating and assuming he did the same to the rest of them) what they were arguing. He made it seem as if they support (and I know that Robert does not) the 'nurture' side while actually they (Again, assuming, because I know Robert does) seen to believe it's a dynamic. Not nature vs nurture, or G+E, but actually GxE.

I can 'back up' Robert Sapolsky as is a legitimate, respected scientist. As for the rest of them, I don't know, haven't read any of there stuff nor have I looked into them. I am going to assume for now, until I look into them, (which isn't necessarily the right thing)that Peter probably took what they were saying out of context and applied them to his own preconceived notions.
#16 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
unfathomable_boPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 19:31
(0)
 

Level: 0
Hi there,

Quote from 2012 CT

@unfathomable_bo were you ever apart of the TZM dev team?


No I have never been "part" of the movement.

Quote from Omni-Science

@ Bo

You can't possibly claim that TZM is scientific when it promotes a FUCKTON of altmed, and basically everything else fringe.

The altmed is pseudo-scientific. You best say TZM is that. That's the closest it will ever come to being scientific.


I am not aware of any altmed or anything of the sort in any of the movies (even the dross of the first one) or any of the ancillary material. I may have to plead ignorance here as I have not watched 100% of the material or ever really visited the forum, but rest assured any mention of silly altmed cures would not rest easy with me. If it is essentially members of the forum promoting these ideas, then I suggest that be taken with a pinch of salt, as with the ramblings of any forum, if not then please point me in the direction of where altmeds are enshrined and I may have to rethink my stance.

Quote from anticultist

Science is already being used in society how do you think we have gotten this far ?

[.....]

If you want to follow science follow Dawkins, Kaku, Hawking etc...

Lets be real if we're going to profess science needs utilising then quote real science and scientists.


Well, science is being used in society sporadically, I agree with you there. But our methods of commerce and governance are far from scientific, or empirical - this is fairly self evident. Again, this argument is not really anything new; Steve Keen has been ranting about the inadequacies of neo-classical economics for years, Herman Daly has been ranting about the lunacy of economic growth for decades... I could go on. Its not really a good sceptic argument to make such gross oversimplifications like "how did we get this far", likewise a lot of Peter Josephs material is extensively 'borrowed' from scientists such as BM Fuller and William Catton Jr.

As for "following" Dawkins/Kaku etc. Again, I don't "follow" anyone - I don't think anyone should follow anyone. I accept ideas based on their own merit, and I still think that SOME ideas within TZM are worthy of merit, that is all I have ever said here.

Quote from CyborgJesus

[.....]
I am extremely skeptical of the idea of "applying scientific method to human society,"


So am I, because science requires testing. We can't use the whole world for a social experiment and go "oops" when it fails and kills a bunch of people. Strangely, this is what TZM wants to do because the current system has its flaws. Sorry, as much as I'm a die-hard postcapitalist and would love to see an alternative, what TZM is offering isn't too convincing once you take a look at the details.

A scientific approach would be to specifically define everything your new system would entail - TZM doesn't do that. Some form of supercomputer governs everything and robots mine resources so we can all have stuff. All right, how does the supercomputer work, how does it process requests and deal with shortages? Are the material costs for robots included in the bold claim that we can all live like millionaires do today? Is there a list of all jobs, machines, production lines and applications required?
Nope, just drawings. Sorry, that's pathetic for who-knows-how-long Fresco has been doing that.

[......]



I agree, and I fully understand your concern. TZM doesn't really give a good answer at all. It doesn't give a full algorithm for a global resource management system. The movement is also fairly naive and basic in its assumptions, but the point to this is that its overall direction, i.e using scientific reasoning to work toward the betterment of society is pretty sound, regardless of whatever primitive and uneducated ideas are being put forth to supplement this.

You state that scientific progress requires testing. I agree with this, however I disagree that such tests would involve Robert Owen style experimental villages that could "get people killed." From a scientific standpoint, we understand a satisfactory amount of human behavioural tendencies through various tests to at least suggest the following:

--Inequality generally has a negative epistemological effect upon social relations (I am not a fan of the Spirit Level as I think it oversimplifies the cultural aspects of human behaviour, but extensive study none the less attests to inequality triggering unpleasant stress reactions in human neurobiology)
--Contingent rewards for effort generally stifle creativity, impetus and quality (Csikszentmihalyi and Deci have put extensive study into this field, as well as numerous economic schools.)
--Game theory tells us that human cooperation is highly nuanced and sensitive to a plethora of fully controllable social factors (human behaviour in coop-comp mixed motive games is very counter intuitive, but generally quite predictable in relation to factors like the Dunbar number, levels of communication capacity and sense of social responsibility)

Based on the above alone (I am massively paraphrasing and could add much more to this list), we can at least "plot a course" towards an economy and a society which fosters cooperation and interpersonal relations far more than a consumer society. This isn't unreasonable.

Quote from The Real Roxette

I also disagree that Peter Joseph is demanding that everyone follows his lead. As far as I know TZM has many different spokespeople now (granted Joseph is the still most prominent) - all of which draw information from wildly different and varied sources, free from any "central" influence.
No, he's the only one. He makes all the official content, he does the podcast, he runs the site, he has absolute control.
Peter Joseph could be a mass murderer for all I care, it is the integrity of the ideas that he presents, assessed on their own merit that should be considered.
And they have no real integrity, because they're based on a lot of false assumptions, such as tabula rasa. Imagine if people still considered phrenology a real science just because it appealed to them, not basing their conclusions on actual science.
Imagine if Isaac Newton's work was discredited based on his belief in alchemy.
That's a creationist argument and it's a huge straw man. He used mathematics and testable science to prove his physics, he couldn't do that with his claims about God running the universe or beliefs in alchemy, not to mention he lived in a time before science was widely accepted. Further he didn't make the claim science runs his life and should run the world, Peter Joseph does, meanwhile still trying to believe in magic. If you're going to try to create a higher standard, you have to be judged by it too.

[.....]

I just have to say it though, the show is over, time to move on. TZM is dead as a door nail, why are you beating this dead horse still? No one cares, least of all us. The entire concepts of RBE and TZM are based on the idea people are born blank slates, and it's absolutely not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

You can't have an ideology based on something that is bullshit, pure and simple.


Firstly, I apologise for the poor strawman argument, it was a bit of a stretch. However, my point still stands that if someone makes some reasonable arguments, then those arguments should be perused independently to the proponent's character. All I have ever said in this thread is that some arguments put forth by TZM are valid. I have not suggested that this is rationale to "follow" the movement, simply that the entire collection of ideas cannot be dismissed simultaneously. Again, there is a great deal of TZM which I disagree with, but simply I cannot honestly dismiss the good points made based on this - it is not intellectually honest.

Secondly, you are wrong about Peter Joseph being the sole creator of content. There are literally dozens of speakers who contribute without any sort of vetting. Ben McLeish is a contributer who has become more vocal recently, and his views are often dissonant with Joseph's without any form of censorship:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBmkMj03DA8

As for the blank slate argument, this is a point of contention where I distance myself from what TZM says. The nature vs nurture argument is well recognised in science to be a false dichotomy, and that complex gene-environment interaction is the hand that sculpts our behaviour. However it is clear from the scientific literature, and social anthropology that there are wildly differing levels of social cohesion amongst societies of different cultural and environmental factors.

I staunchly disagree with TZM's idea that in the future there would be no police or law enforcement, but I fully agree with their ideas that we should empirically study non-violent societies in order to see what environmental aspects foster such behaviours. I can't really see what is wrong with this position.

Again my main point is here is that while TZM may be naive and overzealous in its proposals, the core ideas of the movement are sound. I do not care about the opinions of Joseph or Fresco, or the ideals expressed on the forum or by the "followers", I do not champion circular cities or blank slate hypotheses, but the idea of the movement in its most basic form is not something that I can honestly dismiss based upon its other shortcomings. I don't care if the movement is considered to be "dead" or "last year" I still feel that some of its ideals can be happily incorporated into the postcapitalist discussion.

Can I be an advocate of a more empirical and scientific economy, and accept some aspects of the movement as valid without being intellectually dishonest and being labelled a "zeitard"?
#17 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 19:47
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

Its not really a good sceptic argument to make such gross oversimplifications like "how did we get this far", likewise a lot of Peter Josephs material is extensively 'borrowed' from scientists such as BM Fuller and William Catton Jr.

As for "following" Dawkins/Kaku etc. Again, I don't "follow" anyone - I don't think anyone should follow anyone. I accept ideas based on their own merit, and I still think that SOME ideas within TZM are worthy of merit, that is all I have ever said here.


Sorry to piss on your bonfire, but Fuller is old news round here, every one of us is absolutely aware how much content Fresco has lifted from Fuller and other more articulate scholars such as Marcuse etc..[A lot of us have watched and read all the crap Zeitgeist and Fresco have put online]. This is also another reason his movement gets little credit in that it is a watered down nonacademic plagiary of others work. Fresco's work is quite simply a patchwork quilt made of papers and ideas more worthy and credited scientists conducted. Likewise Merola came along and meshed conspiritard ideals with genuine scientific ideals from other documentaries and books and attempted to look academic, whilst simultaneously pissing on academia and its merits. Simply put Fresco and Merola are two faced shit bags who want to look academic and use academia's hard efforts, whilst saying to anyone who listens that academia is unworthy of being treat with any serious respect. This is intellectual dishonesty at its most putrid.

The fact you are not even aware of all this and are here trying to tell people who have been involved with the movement internally and externally since its inception is rather telling. You may well believe you have some kind of knowledge about it that others do not, but I have a news flash for you...everyone here is extremely well versed in the media and history of Fresco and Merola, not only as people but also their output to the movements. Our conclusions are formed from interactions with the movement, its leaders and its members over the last few years, they are not un thought responses which you appear to be reaching for. This website was enemy number one to Peter Joseph for years, [he and his members actually said words of such content on their forum also] due to the fact the people here were all outspoken about the faults of tzm and tvp.



And as has already been said above a few times, Zeitgeist is a dead fish flapping on the shore waiting to gasp its last breath. Why you feel it is a good idea to rekindle the notion anyone here even cares about zeitgeist any longer is unusual. You have started a long thread about something none of us actually consider worthy of our time, this has been iterated on numerous occasions on the forum. [in this thread and before you arrived]


My advice you can take it or leave it, if you want to study zeitgeist go study it, read the posts in this forums history, go check blogs about it and fill your boots with all the crapola you want. I will warn you though, talking about zeitgeist incessantly on the forum wont make you many allies.

I would like to be done talking about zeitgeist and venus project if possible, they're old news.
#18 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 20:09
(0)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original
Again, there is a great deal of TZM which I disagree with, but simply I cannot honestly dismiss the good points made based on this - it is not intellectually honest.
So what exactly are the "good points"? Are these points non-existant in any other movement that isn't TZM? Or do you just want to believe in TZM so badly as to ignore major problems with it, and say "well, at least they..." How are the technocratic movement's positions different from the basics of RBE? Why does it have to be TZM you follow?
Secondly, you are wrong about Peter Joseph being the sole creator of content. There are literally dozens of speakers who contribute without any sort of vetting.
He still creates all the official content for the sites, he may not write it all, but he has control over it and is the editor in chief. It doesn't matter what Ben McLeish says, so long as it doesn't go too far off. Has Ben ever said anything like "I don't think Peter Joseph should be the face of TZM" or anything similar? I highly doubt it. Even if he disagrees with Peter on tiny things, guaranteed he'll tow the party line at the end of the day if he wants to stay in Peter's good graces. If Peter doesn't like you, your content is bullshit and unofficial, that is essentially the definition of having a vetting process. You're not being intellectually honest pretending otherwise.
As for the blank slate argument, this is a point of contention where I distance myself from what TZM says.
Again, so if this is yet another thing you disagree with, what fine points of TZM do you agree with, that you can't salvage for another movement, instead of latching on to one that's dead, desperately straining to explain why you care so much and think it's still okay, there's hope!?
Can I be an advocate of a more empirical and scientific economy, and accept some aspects of the movement as valid without being intellectually dishonest and being labelled a "zeitard"?
Yes, if you would have joined talking about your technocratic beliefs and not fawning over Merola and how we just don't understand his nature, when you admit yourself you know nothing of him beyond his podcasts.

So please, explain to us all, what is so great about TZM that isn't great about the Technocratic Movement or the many other similar groups? Why can't you let go of TZM when it's associated with pseudo-science, shooting sprees, 9/11 truth, etc? I know you don't care what people think, but guess what, everyone else does. No one is going to take a movement seriously that is deranged in such a manner. Maybe that says more about your inability to judge character properly, rather than TZM's ease at recruiting people that will disregard even major flaws in order to accept tiny points of hope.
#19 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 20:42
(0)
 

Level: 6
CS Original
Based on the above alone (I am massively paraphrasing and could add much more to this list), we can at least "plot a course" towards an economy and a society which fosters cooperation and interpersonal relations far more than a consumer society. This isn't unreasonable.


But, just to go sure we're on the same page here, you do see that this kind of society would drastically differ from what TZM proposes? That applying Dunbar's number (whether valid or not, let's assume it is) to social engineering directly opposes Merola's vision of people simply awakening and deciding to use resources cautiously and within the boundaries of sustainability - however one might interpret these?

Can I be an advocate of a more empirical and scientific economy, and accept some aspects of the movement as valid without being intellectually dishonest and being labelled a "zeitard"?


Just tell us what you find agreeable and why. Agreeing with some parts is the kind of weasel phrase we're used to getting from all kinds of people. Somebody says he thinks some part of the 9/11truth might be valid and a few minutes later you find yourself debating molten steel and fake planes.
#20 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
unfathomable_boPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 21:33
(0)
 

Level: 0
Quote from The Real Roxette

Again, there is a great deal of TZM which I disagree with, but simply I cannot honestly dismiss the good points made based on this - it is not intellectually honest.
So what exactly are the "good points"? Are these points non-existant in any other movement that isn't TZM? Or do you just want to believe in TZM so badly as to ignore major problems with it, and say "well, at least they..." How are the technocratic movement's positions different from the basics of RBE? Why does it have to be TZM you follow?

[.....]

So please, explain to us all, what is so great about TZM that isn't great about the Technocratic Movement or the many other similar groups? Why can't you let go of TZM when it's associated with pseudo-science, shooting sprees, 9/11 truth, etc? I know you don't care what people think, but guess what, everyone else does. No one is going to take a movement seriously that is deranged in such a manner. Maybe that says more about your inability to judge character properly, rather than TZM's ease at recruiting people that will disregard even major flaws in order to accept tiny points of hope.


I'm going to wrap this up, as we seem to be going round in circles.

You've really hit the nail on the head here: How are the basic tenets of technocracy different from TZM? Answer: They actually aren't too dissimilar, as you have implied.

So I may be justified in supporting the tenets of technocracy, yet not TZM, despite them being essentially the same... This is what I am getting at. There is such a fervour to debunk and discredit TZM, based upon its leader, the comments on its forum, the specifics of its direction etc, despite the point that its central ideals are essentially the same as technocracy. This is especially absurd when technocracy was similarly dismissed based on the poor public relations of Howard Scott.

This is where my confusion arises.

I could logically see the position of this board to be that TZM presents some good technocratic points, but the conclusions are convoluted and the leader is arrogant and naive (essentially my view). But instead, what is seen is a more fervent and vitriolic attack on absolutely everything; that the movement is a cult which must end, that anyone who believes anything of the sort is a "zeitard", that the movement is a conspiratorial sect frequented by 911 truthers and new age crazies. This just reeks of half truth and intellectual laziness.

I am comfortable with holding views that are not absolutist; I can see that TZM is obviously not a good answer by any stretch of the imagination, yet I am equally able to see that it is not an insidious cult of lunatics pushing an agenda which is devoid of any valid information.

This kind of fervour does nothing to further the cause of rationalism and scepticism, as in all honesty, such one sided polemics are toe-curlingly similar to the hardcore conspiracy theorist treatment which TZM gets from the Alex Jones crowd.

Again, all I have ever said in this thread is that I see TZM as just another discussion point in a wider spectrum of questions which we will have to address in years to come. I do not "follow" or "believe in" the movement and I have repeatedly said this, despite even the latest posts still suggesting that I do.

Having read through some other parts of the forum, I have seen gleans into Peter Josephs forum conduct, and it is not very pleasant. Ironically it is very comparable with how Howard Scott acted in the dying days of Technocracy Inc. but we will leave that parallel for now as I can't really condone his actions.

I apologise for any upset I may have caused here, but it just really bugs me when I see people who call themselves rationalists labelling a somewhat misguided organisation as a cult. Such prima facie associations are not becoming.
#21 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
KeppPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 21:45
(0)
 

Level: 5
CS Original
Quote from unfathomable_bo



I that the movement is a cult which must end,

yet I am equally able to see that it is not an insidious cult of lunatics pushing an agenda which is devoid of any valid information.

but it just really bugs me when I see people who call themselves rationalists labelling a somewhat misguided organisation as a cult. Such prima facie associations are not becoming.


You seem to enjoy strawman arguments.
#22 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
KeppPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 21:47
(1)
 

Level: 5
CS Original
Quote from unfathomable_bo


This kind of fervour does nothing to further the cause of rationalism and scepticism, as in all honesty, such one sided polemics are toe-curlingly similar to the hardcore conspiracy theorist treatment which TZM gets from the Alex Jones crowd.


The only difference between the two conspiracy movements is that one is full of moonbats and the other full of wingnuts.
#23 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
unfathomable_boPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 21:57
(0)
 

Level: 0
Quote from CyborgJesus

Based on the above alone (I am massively paraphrasing and could add much more to this list), we can at least "plot a course" towards an economy and a society which fosters cooperation and interpersonal relations far more than a consumer society. This isn't unreasonable.


But, just to go sure we're on the same page here, you do see that this kind of society would drastically differ from what TZM proposes? That applying Dunbar's number (whether valid or not, let's assume it is) to social engineering directly opposes Merola's vision of people simply awakening and deciding to use resources cautiously and within the boundaries of sustainability - however one might interpret these?

Can I be an advocate of a more empirical and scientific economy, and accept some aspects of the movement as valid without being intellectually dishonest and being labelled a "zeitard"?


Just tell us what you find agreeable and why. Agreeing with some parts is the kind of weasel phrase we're used to getting from all kinds of people. Somebody says he thinks some part of the 9/11truth might be valid and a few minutes later you find yourself debating molten steel and fake planes.


I'll just reply to this one quickly for your interest:

The first point, I don't really see how TZM advocates that people will just "start using resources cautiously" - the whole thing revolves around a very advanced system of integrated production, inventory and resource management to maximise resource throughput and efficiency of usage. But this is TZM stuff, you can read up on that surely.

If what sociology and epistemology tells us is in stark dissonance to an RBE (which is probably would be) then follow the science, as I have said - do whatever will foster the most functional society.

As for what I personally believe, I could easily write a book here but I'll try to whittle it down:

Vapid consumerism is socially damaging as echoed in various literature
Inequality is damaging to cohesive social units
Drawdown of resources must stop
Self directed competitive systems are inadequate for fostering stable long term populations, observation of natural ecology has confirmed this numerous times.
Economic growth for the sake of itself is absurd
Modern currencies are quite inefficient in modelling real value
Neo-classical economics is primitive and oversimplified
Humans are very responsive to cultural and environmental stimuli, though not unbound by genetics.
Conventional democratic systems are outdated given the power of the internet
Energy and resource efficiency must improve
Renewable energy infrastructure must improve

bleh that will do
#24 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
unfathomable_boPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 21:59
(0)
 

Level: 0
Quote from Kepp

Quote from unfathomable_bo



I that the movement is a cult which must end,

yet I am equally able to see that it is not an insidious cult of lunatics pushing an agenda which is devoid of any valid information.

but it just really bugs me when I see people who call themselves rationalists labelling a somewhat misguided organisation as a cult. Such prima facie associations are not becoming.


You seem to enjoy strawman arguments.


You may say that but I have seen the word cult used many times, both on this forum and on the blogs which supplement it.
#25 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
KeppPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 22:02
(1)
 

Level: 5
CS Original
Quote from unfathomable_bo



I could logically see the position of this board to be that TZM presents some good technocratic points, but the conclusions are convoluted and the leader is arrogant and naive (essentially my view). But instead, what is seen is a more fervent and vitriolic attack on absolutely everything; that the movement is a cult which must end, that anyone who believes anything of the sort is a "zeitard", that the movement is a conspiratorial sect frequented by 911 truthers and new age crazies. This just reeks of half truth and intellectual laziness.



Good technocratic points are irrelevant since this isn't a technocrat forum. Rejection of TZM isn't exclusive to skeptic project, I'm sure you'll find the same theme on every skeptic forum. If you don't see TZM as anything but a conspiracy movement full of nutjobs, then perhaps you are the one guilty of intellectual laziness.
#26 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
KeppPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 22:10
(0)
 

Level: 5
CS Original
Quote from unfathomable_bo


You may say that but I have seen the word cult used many times, both on this forum and on the blogs which supplement it.


We had this discussion on the forum and it was determined that they weren't a cult. I think only Muertos said he still felt them to be a cult, but I could be wrong.
#27 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Burger KingPosted: Nov 19, 2011 - 22:25
(0)
 

I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?

Level: 5
CS Original
@unfathomable_bo I know you said you wouldn't reply but I'm just wondering can you tell me how a RBE is based on science without typing out a wall of text?
#28 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
unfathomable_boPosted: Nov 20, 2011 - 08:53
(0)
 

Level: 0
Quote from Kepp

Quote from unfathomable_bo



I could logically see the position of this board to be that TZM presents some good technocratic points, but the conclusions are convoluted and the leader is arrogant and naive (essentially my view). But instead, what is seen is a more fervent and vitriolic attack on absolutely everything; that the movement is a cult which must end, that anyone who believes anything of the sort is a "zeitard", that the movement is a conspiratorial sect frequented by 911 truthers and new age crazies. This just reeks of half truth and intellectual laziness.



[....] If you don't see TZM as anything but a conspiracy movement full of nutjobs, then perhaps you are the one guilty of intellectual laziness.


I did say I was wrapping things up, but this is a shockingly absolutist statement. As I have said, it is a perfectly reasonable position to hold that TZM has some positives and some negatives, as well as some intelligent members and some crazy ones; this is generally the way of most things. But you must see the gross oversimplification in saying such lazy and one sided blanket statements. I could possibly see such statements being used against the likes of Alex Jones, but with a body of study as wide as TZM, and all the swathes of legitimate and illegitimate literature which it references, it is not critical thought in the slightest to dismiss all the points raised as "conspiracy" by "nutjobs" - I hope you understand this.

Conversely, it is far more difficult but far more honest to take a pragmatic approach as I have done and accept that it is a flawed body of work which non the less raises some good issues. I really fail to see where I am being irrational at all.

Quote from 2012 CT

@unfathomable_bo I know you said you wouldn't reply but I'm just wondering can you tell me how a RBE is based on science without typing out a wall of text?


Hi there, I'll point out again that I do not champion an RBE in its totality, as I have said numerous times. I merely see that there are positive aspects which cannot be readily dismissed totally based on the dubious behaviours of the movement. I'll run down a few points I agree with:

The usage of technology to bring about real world value and prosperity, rather than very limited monetary prosperity is something that I see as a strong positive. Since the 1870s, Western civilisation has been able to overproduce goods in shocking quantities. The solution to this under a market paradigm was Sheldon and Aren's Consumer Engineering proposal as put forth in the 1930s, which essentially, along with other authors, brought forth the obsolescence principle which we still deal with today. This approach is unscientific and damaging, both socially and environmentally as echoed in the effects of consumerism and the shocking wastefulness of short lifespan goods. Usage of this production capacity to allow greater access to reliable goods is the most sane and logical use of our technology from an environmental, technical and social standpoint.

Automation has also come on in leaps and bounds, and it seems illogical and inefficient to not reap the benefits that this automation brings, rather than creating a glutted and overcompetitive service sector to absorb the work displaced by the streamlining of agriculture and manufacturing.

Renewable energies must be implemented in order to prevent drawdown of any form. Drawdown leads to overshoot, as ecological science tells us. If renewables cannot provide the energy we need, then we must become more resource efficient. If that doesn't work then we will inevitably enter overshoot, so the stakes are very high here.

Self directed, pseudo evolutionary social models like state capitalism are generally incompatible with stable, long term societies, as observed in just about every biotic habitat in nature. Even phenomena like climate change are perfectly inkeeping and predictable based on simple ecological principles, but our society is considered separate from ecology, which is inherently unscientific.

The open source movement offers tremendous potential for new models of democracy and decentralised organisation to develop. Something which I feel is being squandered in our fairly dated party political system.

Environment has a strong effect on human behavioural tendencies. Cultures such as the Kalahari Bushmen espouse cooperation, consensus and egalitarianism while despising violence. There are numerous other cultures, all of wildly different compositions which also operate with very low interpersonal violence and high social cohesion. Through rigorously studying what makes these cultures tick, we can borrow aspects to develop new cultures and economic models which foster non-violence and cooperation from a scientific standpoint.

Where I disagree:

-The logistics of building circular cities is absurd for a variety of reasons which I need not go into.
-A market will certainly need to remain in some minor form in order to manage items which have value beyond their raw resource constituents - such as collectibles or antiques
-A police force of some form would be needed - this requires more thought
-Tabula Rasa needs to be less prevalent, and instead focus on what is known from environmental stimuli through social anthropology and game theory, while still remaining rooted in genetics
-Some jobs are difficult or unsuited to automate, such as doctors and care workers - this needs more thought
-I obviously do not enshrine Peter Joseph or any members who post absurd ideas

I'm getting toward a 'wall of text' now, so I'll stop. If you want any elaboration/sources let me know.
#29 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Nov 20, 2011 - 08:59
(0)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original
-The logistics of building circular cities is absurd for a variety of reasons which I need not go into.
-A market will certainly need to remain in some minor form in order to manage items which have value beyond their raw resource constituents - such as collectibles or antiques
-A police force of some form would be needed - this requires more thought
-Tabula Rasa needs to be less prevalent, and instead focus on what is known from environmental stimuli through social anthropology and game theory, while still remaining rooted in genetics
-Some jobs are difficult or unsuited to automate, such as doctors and care workers - this needs more thought
-I obviously do not enshrine Peter Joseph or any members who post absurd ideas

I'm getting toward a 'wall of text' now, so I'll stop. If you want any elaboration/sources let me know.
I just can't fathom why you give TZM any credence at all. Literally every point you listed is a requirement for supporting TZM. So, what is it about TZM that's so special, exactly? Why give it any validity or time of day?
#30 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]