Skeptic Project

Oh Zeitgeist, sometimes I miss having people try to oppress me over the internet.

It is available since yesterday, I wonder how many click Peter will claim to have this time. Probably more than Facebook.

Too many.

"Then I got a lecture on this new world that is coming, he was surprised when I said Zeitgeist"

Not sure I'm understanding, so I just want to check. Does he believe in some New World Order or is he a Zeitgeister and wants an RBE world?

I'm not sure what's the worst...the world as it currently is, a NWO takeover, or a TZM takeover.

I don't mind that someone essentially ripped off my review because they posted a link to the site, that's what matters: backlinks!

Peter is doing a concept based on Ted Talk lecture (not going to find ti right now), where in the ted talk they say the must successful business ask why not how they do things and they sell the "why" versus "how it's so good to people" apparently (not surprising) selling the why is a bigger emotional people than the how. Their is a Ted Talk someone basically explaining how to give the best sales pitch.

Watching it now on YouTube. He seems to be arguing that genetics does not predetermine behavior or illness (mostly). Okay, assuming that's true, that still doesn't mean that an anarchic society can be designed in such a way that it can discourage undesirable behavior to the point where the society is workable, which is what would be required for an RBE to function. This is a huge argument to make and I seriously doubt it can be done.

One of the interviewees was even careful to make a distinction between predetermination and predisposition. Genetic predispositions will still exist and cause problems.

EDIT: I gotta say, it's nice to actually have some science in his movies for once. Also, the production quality of the intro stuff was quite good.

Oh, here we go with this cyclical consumption/planned obsolescence crap. We've been over this so much yet Peter refuses to recognize that you CAN'T make every fucking table out of titanium just because it'll last forever. Resources have value and therefore cost, whether or not we have prices associated with them! Get rid of money and you will be left with the same problems of resource valuation and allocation - they won't go away. Resources won't magically become abundant. And you won't be able to build titanium tables responsibly.

EDIT: And I'll go over planned obsolescence again for good measure. The short of it is, IT DOESN'T WORK. It's a bad strategy to adopt in all situations except when you have a monopoly. Why? Because you have competitors that will make longer lasting products than you, and they will steal your customers when your products break early.

Whoever this old dude is, he's claiming that lending with interest "creates money" and you have to create even more money to pay for that created money or something, which doesn't really make sense. But yes, you have to print money, but that's because human labor also creates value and therefore economic growth and if you don't create money to match that growth, you end up with deflation and eventually a deflationary spiral. So there's nothing inherently irrational or wrong about printing money to match economic growth. In fact, it makes a lot of sense to do so.

EDIT: Oh, he's still on this money = debt thing. Sigh. This equation doesn't make any fking sense really. If money = debt, then you're paying back debt with debt? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Or how about paying back money with debt? lol. It's really pretty simple: the point of lending with interest is so both parties benefit. The lender gets some return on investment, and the indebted gets some money to use to create something that will get him more money. Where is the problem with this? I don't see it.

EDIT: Peter claims debt doesn't really exist. Sure, just like how words don't really exist. Or ideas. Or verbal contracts. What a meaningless thing to say.

EDIT: What? Make computers modular and make each module upgradable and interchangeable according to standards? You mean like how they currently are!? Great idea!!

Of course there's better production. TZM is a cash cow.

Apparently there was an after party after the Z3 projection in the cinema, 50 or so people got drunk: smoked Marlboro and pot, drank beer and groped each other's balls until 5AM congratulating each other on successful step number 17 being achieved. How the hell did I miss such a spectacular gathering :-)

There were lots doctors and professors in the movie, most of them seemed pretty normal, not crackpots or anything. I doubt most of them support the Venus Project or anything like that, they were probably just eager be interviewed about their fields of study. Like for example one engineer is in the movie talking about 3d printers and stuff of that naure, of course this really didn't have much to do with anything except "we'll use 3d printers in a resource based economy".

As for the movie itself, all I have to say is that it was boring and forgetable. It probably is the best Z movie simply for having the least ammount of lies and distortions in it. However Z1 was far more entertaining and Z2 seems like better propaganda for explaining TZM and getting people interested. "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" actually seemed like an addendum to "Zeitgeist: Addendum" more than anything.

One of these 'experts' claims that illnesses such as schizophrenia are not genetic at all. He also says that behavior depends on surroundings and I agree on that.

We all know that enviroment plays a very important role, its that the ZGM and the Venus Project underplay just how much of a role genetics has.

"There's no human nature, just human behaviour" - Roxanne Meadows

Basically, there's no such thing as instinct... uh yes there is Roxy.

I still haven't got round to see thing this yet.

Dr Mate was just interviewed on NPR. He talked about how people who were abused as children are much more likely to have an addictive personality, or something like that. He sounds like he's done his research, but that he's also somewhat in the fringe.

That being said, even if I accept his theses, it lends no support to TZM. His ideas, if true, could be used for the benefit of any system, capitalist or RBE. If ZMF is trying to claim, "see! People are blank slates that we can bend to fit into our crazy RBE system!" I think they still have a long way to go before they can really say that. For example, they still haven't gone over the science of motivation, getting people to work for free, getting people not to commit crimes, etc. At most they've shown that schizophrenia and addiction might be avoidable, which is great if true. But the sheer magnitude of what they're trying to prove (that an RBE society can function) makes it a near impossible task.