Skeptic Project

OK - to start off, I'm a little perturbed that I just wasted almost 3 hours of my life on this video. That said, there were some illustrative points that made sense. There were also an innumerable amount that did not. Here they are:

Part I:

Poorly shaped arguments regarding societies and violence. The correlation between violence in youth and violent behavior as an adult is correlative, not causual. This said, unless there is an omnipresent entity monitering your behavior, there is no way of telling who is "abusing" children. Further, this is an entirely subjective issue.

What a child in America views as unreasonable punishment, a child in Africa would view as trivial. As with all our behaviors, violence is individual and anthroprogenic.

It is also useful, and a biologically encoded (Monoamine Oxidase A, for example) imperative that is useful for survival. The survival of the human being is based on the calculated use of intelligence, instinct and ability. Attempting to remove instinct by environmental means may assist, but it will not eliminate the propensity. There is no evidence in the video that supports the claim that it will, and here are some faulty examples:

The Amish

The Amish who refuse to fight in wars, and are strict pacifists may be so. That said, the Rumspriga has various, well documented cases of Amish youths engaging in drugs, sex and violence as a ritual. Hardly a credible example of a society who's "eradicated" the impulse to commit destructive acts.

Kibbutzim This concept came into maturation as a mutual defense community. Ironic it's being used as an example of non-violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz#Sta...</p>

Native Americans The Natives have a long legacy of inter-tribal warfare, especially in the Desert Southwest, and Meso-America, where human sacrifice of captured slaves was common. Negligence of history is no excuse for making false assertions. http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/... Next, the concept that there is no "social equality" - there isn't, and never will be. Even under other "centrally planned economies", there was absolutely no ability to harness the human impulses that give rise to greed, gratification of aquisition or inequity.

Maybe read here:

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/strai...</p>

Part II:

The assertions that:

-The Lockean provisos state that money negates legitimate ownership - This is a blatant misinterpretation. The Lockean provisos said no such thing, though I will concede that there's no way he could have forseen the trading of money as a revenue generator.

-Race of Labors equals Genocide - This is again, a bold, unsupported claim. The indifference may be unethical and immoral, but to label it genocidal is irresponsible and hard to defend. There are limitations to what we can do, wealthy or not, based on social situations of nations with lower standards of living. Millions of millions of dollars have poured into "developing" nations, as well as UN, UNICEF and Red Cross support - so why haven't there been gains?

This is essentially tantamount to the proposed solution or redistributing wealth to allow the flowering of other cultures.

Is there something else to blame? Cultural predispositions that cannot be changed by outsiders, perhaps?

Zeitgeist's thinking is a bit myopic and utopian - the reality is it's not simply to change socio-political precedents abroad.

-Sick and Dying = Economic health - This is flawed on the assertion that health care represents "sick and dying" people - Health care is significantly more encompassing than simply sick and dying individuals. In addition, the remedial and diagnostic advances have made very real, tangible improvements to many peoples' quality of life. Therefore, it could be said that GDP as it relates to Health Care represents the amount of mitigation a nation is applying to its sick and dying.

-No profit in "peace and balance" - Mike Ruppert This is hyperbolic and rhetorical.

I see no way to "base" this assertion on science, which ironically is what the Venus Project proposes we do with all social issues. Another dead-end. I couldn't agree more about the definition of Economization/Anti-Economy.

-Spot on, intelligently laid-out and well defined. Planned obsolescence as well. Necessity is directly proportional to inefficiency - this again is an unquantifiable subjective evaluation which has no logical meaning.

It does, however, raise some interesting questions about the relationship between development and necessity. It'd submit that the relationship isn't "fixed", ergo, isn't directly or inversely proportional, but varies greatly based on a variety of scenarios and possible impetusus and demands. Structual classism is destructive, and the Ownership of "wealth" is inherently evil.

This opens a can of worms that cannot be philosophically defended for long. It's evident of superficial thinking on a subject with significant "real-world" case-studies that preclude it from having any real worth to the presented ideology.

The notion that Drugs/Mental Illness/Mental Capital/Education/homocide rates/crime and imprisonment/teen birth rate are lower in "equal countries" - you'll have to do more than flash a quick graph in front of me to prove this.

How is it measured?

Who defines the parameters with which we measure things like "mental capital", "Mental Illness" or what exactly "Drug problems" are?

Holland has "drug problems" by our view, and we by theirs.

Who's correct? Subjectivity strikes again.

Part III:

I found this entire segment to be worthless.

This is a thinly veiled attempt at promoting a centrally planned economy which uses absolutely ideal circumstances to predicate its assertions. Not a great way to convince anyone, if they're thinking critically. Science is almost useless in reference to the Socio-Political issues we face - the human network is simply too complex and stochastic to "predict" how any given approach would actually affect the society. For example, the progressive solution for alcoholism was Prohibition.

The answer to prohibition was: The birth of all the agencies that Zeitgeist blames for subjugating the misunderstood addict. Ironically, the "Scientific Method" failed, and create a more abysmal failure during the restitution. I see little reason to believe that Progressivism (The Scientific Method applied to Society) is going to be beneficial.

With the "trial and error" approach to science, we have latititude to create hypothesis, test them in a controlled environment and refine them as is necessary. In society, such moves could be potentially catastrophic - indeed, it's inevitable.

So how will such a society react to systemic failure? Does it offer any advantages to seperate, politically diverse societies? After this market system passes on, we will be once again forced to adapt, diversify and outgrow our means - this is the process of natural selection. Trying to mitigate it seems almost counter-intuitive to the progressive way of thinking.

To say there is "no logical alternative" is a bewildering statement to me. There are, and have been innumerable examples of successful social models, and there will continue to be.

Need based distribution - This is flawed thinking at its finest. This is the "fuse" to the "centrally planned economy's" dynamite. If you produce goods only in a quantity in which they'll be possessed by those using them presently, you'll open the door for possessive instincts to create internal dischord. This is a fairly well understood component of human nature. Maybe it's environment... ask the Soviet Union what they think. Oh, wait, they're not here anymore...

If the predominant issue in this segment is the lack of ability to produce enough goods to satisfy all, while preserving finite resources, why hasn't the idea of keeping a smaller population been approached?

This is not only a more simple, direct solution, but it's inevitable, again, by way of the Darwinian process of natural selection which states:

• Heredity: Offspring inherit their traits from their parents, in the form of genes.

• Heritable individual variation: Members of a population have slight differences among them, whether in height, eyesight acuity, beak shape, rate of egg production, or other traits that may affect survival and reproduction. If a trait has a genetic basis, it can be passed on to offspring.

• Overproduction of offspring: In any given generation, populations tend to create more progeny than can survive to reproductive age.

• Competition for resources: Because of excess population, individuals must compete for food, nesting sites, mates, or other resources that affect their ability to successfully reproduce.

http://www.biologyreference.com/Mo-Nu/Na...</p>

Simple Solution - mitigate population.

Which the "responsible, systems approach" completely neglects considering.

Further, the assertion that these systems are proven understandings is ambigious and deceptive.

Proven how?

Where?

The assertion that faster mechanisation is somehow tied to enemployment needs something more substantial than a chalkboard graphic, please. Resource based economy needs no money - Oh really?

This assertion is obviously terminally shortsighted, or is operating on the premise that the Venus Project will instantly ensnare every nation and human on the face of the planet simultaneously.

If it did not, it would still need a medium of exchange with which to aquire the goods and services to build its cities. Also, in a population where only 3% of the population is needed workforce, what in the hell are people going to do with themselves?

We have endemic lethargy now with the minimal excesses of our society - I can't imagine that people would strive towards the difficult when they'd never known any sort of actual work. This is a really illogical assertion, and again, some backing is absolutely necessary in order to even make silly claims like this. Of which there was none.

I'm sure that their claim to the "assurance of volunteers" is true, however. Who wouldn't want to sit on their ass and do nothing in paradise? o.O

Unbacked assertion #14,928: Substantiate the assertion that Money is not an incentive and causes "100x" more distortion than contribution ("in fact").

Unbacked assertion #14,929: Global reduction in crime by 95% immediately in the resource based economy...mhm. Lacking understanding of human nature, perhaps?

Soldiers are not serial killers (even with machineguns) - they'd technically be "mass murderers", but combat is largely consensual, so it's not even technically "murder".

Lacking philosophical and legal context and comprehension, yet again... Abborated people who're victims of culture say: "don't tell me what to think!" Well, so do Communists, who were thoroughaly indoctrinated into a centrally planned economy. Governments hijacking personal atonomy tends to do that to the body of citizens.

Part IV

Nice that all dissenting voices are characterized as idiotic, rhetorical-minded simpletons. I'm sure this is 'incidental', rather than intentional, right? No propaganda, I'm sure.

The claims that this idea is Marxist - where did it come from? The central planned economy, maybe.

Valid point on bailouts.

Africans "are not dying of the HIV Virus, they're dying because they don't have the money to pay for the drugs to keep them alive" ...and they staple condoms to pieces of paper with instructions on how to use them.

Long story short isn't really anything different than their last attempts at revealing Xanadu. Unrealistic, impractical and utopian. Yep, I said it. If they hear it so often, perhaps they should temper their concept with a bit of reality.

I want 3 hours of my life back.

Ugh...

Aaron

http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/zeitgeist-moving-forward/51608?page=2