Skeptic Project

Nanos, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

http://img301.imageshack.us/ifs/8819/img300/4/wat6610684.jpg

"Muertos, I read the article. It was a very complete dissection of common arguments made by supports of TZM. I have many comments to make, but I've already spent enough time here today and have to get back to work. I'll be back." -bkyle.

"I'm looking forward to these comments." -Muertos.

I applaud your effort creating such a complete analysis of common responses. I've been working on replies to the issues you raised, but there are so many that it will take too long to try and put them into one reply. Instead, how about I try to reply to each common response, one at a time. Here's the first one...

1. “The movies aren’t the movement.”

"The purpose of this argument is to turn attention away from the deceptive conspiracy aspects of the ZM" -Muertos.

I'm not going to argue that the movies aren't the movement. The movies started the movement and the association cannot be lost for the reasons you make clear.

My comment is, "So what?" Peter, along with a lot of us, were a little naive a few years ago about conspiracy theories. He's a young man, and passionate, and human, so he makes mistakes, just like the rest of us. He was/is a musician and video producer, not a politician or sociologist who has the experience to choose his words carefully. Knowing what he knows now, I bet he would love to go back in time and make the movies differently.

A movement goes nowhere if it doesn't have enough supporters. For example, The Venus Project started in 1975. 35 years ago! Most people have never heard of them because they didn't have enough supporters.

The Zeitgeist movies jump-started the Zeitgeist Movement and gave exposure to The Venus Project like they've never had before.

If one believes the Movement has good intentions, one can likely forgive some mis-steps early in the Movement's development. When the original Zeitgeist movie was made, there was no plan for a movement. When Addendum was made, Peter thought it might be worth seeing how much interest was out there for changing the world. To be critical of the Movement in general because of Peter's early mistakes is short-sighted.

It's easy to sit back in your chair and look back to think how things should have been done differently. Many people do nothing like this for fear of being wrong or publicly looking bad. I applaud Peter for having the guts to put his neck out there and try changing the world. Peter is not perfect. I'm not perfect. You're not perfect. Let's move on.

"Most ZM members are conspiracy theorists." -Muertos.

Please define conspiracy theorists, and provide details why this group you're labelling are bad, which is what I assume you're implying.

If you mean that people who are open-minded and willing to give all ideas/theories fair consideration, regardless if some people think those ideas are not worth considering deserve such a label, then you're entitled to your opinion and you can name-call such people as you like. We won't mind.

If you mean conspiracy theorists are generally people who perpetuate stories they've heard without doing enough research to use all available information to prove beyond a doubt that a story is true, then you've called just about the entire population of the planet conspiracy theorists.

"The ZM is a conspiracy movement." -Muertos.

What does this mean? Are you implying that the main goal of the Movement is to spread conspiracy theories? Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but it isn't true. The main goal of the Movement is to raise awareness of problems with the world, and to propose positive change, like that suggested with the Venus Project.

"Zeitgeist I is ... the #1 recruiting tool used by the ZM" -Muertos.

Please define tool. If you mean the main way people have become aware of the Movement is by spending 2 hours watching the Zeitgeist I, and then being interested enough to spend another 2 hours watching Addendum, then yes. That was how it started.

However, now their are enough supporters, with local chapters around the world and in most major cities, that the #1 way people are exposed to the Movement is by word of mouth. Many new supporters of the Movement in recent months have not seen Zeitgeist I. Will they end up seeing it? Probably. Will they care about some conspiracy theories within it? That remains to be seen, but I believe they care enough about the future of humanity and the planet that they will forgive some unfounded claims made early before the Movement got organized.

"Zeitgeist I DVDs are still routinely handed out by ZM members at recruiting events, routinely promoted by ZM members." -Muertos.

People are free to do whatever they want. Perhaps you're right that some ZM supporters hand them out. I've been to some ZM public events to raise awareness and I've never seen Zeitgeist I DVD's handed out. I've only seen Addendum DVD's and the Orientation DVD's. I would argue that supporters of the Movement promoting Zeitgeist I is not as widespread as you're implying.

Perhaps it comes do to the classic conundrum, "Does the 'ends' justify the 'means'"? In this case, I say it does. For a movement to succeed, it needs supporters. How those supporters are initially made aware of the movement does not matter to me, if the movement's goal is for the betterment of everyone and for the good of the planet.

Others are welcome to see things differently. If you believe the Movement's goal is good, but the movies influence means to you that it cannot succeed, then I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself. Why try to sabotage a Movement if you agree with their goal?

If you believe that the movies have tainted everyone in the Movement and the goal of the Movement is truly not for the good of the planet, but instead is secretly trying to make things worse or at least keep them as bad as they already are, then I suggest you look in the mirror next time you're trying to define a conspiracy theorist.

"I was under the impression that Peter IS remaking Z1, and this time it's going to be accompanied by a 300 page companion guide or something." -Sil.

I've never heard that. Where did you get that information from? Sounds like anti-TZM propoganda, if you ask me.

"Honestly, until TZM/TVP abandons the tabula rasa crap there is absolutely no reason for anyone here, or anywhere else, to take it seriously.
The blank slate theory is outdated and its wrong. Why should a group of people promoting such nonsense even deserve serious consideration?" -Matt the Liberal Wonk.

Matt, I told you I don't understand. What tabula rasa crap is TVP promoting? TVP is all about sustainable use of resources, efficiency wherever possible, relieving humanity of mundane, dangerous, and error-prone work and work that is not for the good of society, and treating everyone equal and fair and with respect. Where does tabula rasa fit into this? I'm not asking this facetiously. Please help me to connect the dots.

Tabula rasa seems like a very unpopular concept here, so I've been reading a little about it on the web. You say it is "crap" and "nonsense", but it doesn't seem everyone believes this. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, and you can use it to make your own decisions, but you talk about it like tabula rasa is absolutely proven to be wrong without a doubt. That is not the case.

Further, can't one successfully argue that tabula rasa does not apply to some parts of human characteristics, such as input, basic motor skills, and basic emotions, but perhaps it applies to other areas, such as personality and intelligence. Is it not fair to say we are partly blank-slate and partly not?

"Abundance of resources will not change human nature." -Matt the Liberal Wonk.

Tell me about human nature. What will not change? Examples might help.

Given that humanity has never had abundant necessary resources, how can you know what will or will not change?

"Also, no, the end goal is not "good." Its a technocratic authoritarian nightmare. But you're probably blind to the power structure and the subsequent abuses of it in your own movement. I'm not." -Matt the Liberal Wonk.

Why is it a technocratic authoritarian nightmare? You cannot make such a claim without explaining why.

Perhaps I am blind. Can you to to enlighten me?

"I find it amazing that a TVP evangelical doesn't understand his own dogma." -Matt the Liberal Wonk.

What dogma is it that I don't understand? Or does throwing ungrounded insults around just make you feel superior?

bkyle how long have you been involved in this tzm stuff?

Marxism has only been possible through violent revolution and subsequent heavy authoritarian control of citizens by the state.

Why is your name Peacenik?

my name is robert, matt, and the method by which marxism has manifested in the past is not the point. capitalism, by its very nature, has suffocated other ideologies, and recent crises in the banking system force us to look at how we choose to let our countries be run. the bankers get huge bonuses during the 'good times', yet the taxpayer foots the bill during the bad? capitalism will never punish the rich.

i have not signed up to tzm as yet mainly because i haven't been entirely convinced they are a bottom up movement, and the fact they don't mention marxism whatsoever in the films, in my opinion, is a sign of weakness.

many debunker comments on believer posts appear to recognise the need for change, and i wonder if we might use that as the foundation for discussions centred around solutions; too often on this site i see debunkers criticise zm suggestions without offering alternatives.

let's open this issue up...

"Often they are not profitable to produce, or, more commonly, the institutions in the current system are making too much money on the old technologies so they have no incentives to change."

That argument only makes sense when you use it for products/services that people can't or won't pay for, but are still valued (health care for poor people, etc).

When talking about new technologies, there are only two options:

a) The new technology is superior, but would lower profits nonetheless. That's what competition is for - Fresco used matches that can be used multiple times as an example. If the match industry doesn't want it, he could sell it himself and compete.

b) The new technology might have some benefits (solar power, etc) but is expensive, i.e. uses a lot more resources and work than the alternatives. To say that "We don't have the money to do that" means only to things: That it's a waste of work and resources anyway, or that the only way to build it would be to be in absolute control of resources and work.

If both are not the case, you could just start a NGO and do something practical.

If the latter is the case, but the former is not, we have the quite common scenario of a need for a "benevolent dictator", somebody who decides where people are supposed to work and what to spend resources on better than democracy can do it right now.
In my opinion, the idea that people can just agree on everything because they use "science" goes in the same direction, but is just as idealistic.

I don't care if capitalism suffocates other ideologies because it works and they do not.

I truly don't care if one ideology suffocates yours. Perhaps it does not deserve to breathe in the first place.

I do not think that bad ideas deserve special consideration just to make you feel better.

Also, Robert, it is not my job to provide you with alternatives on how to save the world because I don't think the world needs saving.

In fact, I think the world is getting better and statistics on the rates of violence and extended life spans back up that opinion.

So why do we need your revolution in the first place? It is not my job to provide you with alternatives to the status quo. It is your job to tell others why they need your revolution.

So tell me: Why do I need your ideology? Why should I want your revolution?

Complaints about the status quo will not convince me. Solutions will.

Do you have any?

>> The only problem I see with the world is the number of people. Maybe it's the fact that I live in the most densely populated state, but damn.

YOU WANNA KILL 99% OF THE POPULATION! WE'RE NOT YOUR SLAVES!

> that abundance and efficiency is the enemy of profit is completely retarded.

Generally agreed.

> I don't think most companies think having more workers makes more money.

I think Henry Ford had something like that in mind, even though he was also a fan of automation, he did realise I reckon that at the end of the day, you need workers or else there is no one with money to buy your product.

The very nature of the capitalist system is that people make individual decisions which is good for them short term, but not necessarly good for everyone including themselves long term!

eg. if you keep automating, but you get rid of your workers, eventually there will be no jobs, and no one will have an income to afford to buy your products..

You can either, provide people with state benefits, so they can afford to..

Or you could job share, and as the number of working hours is reduced by automation and productivity increases, you keep your workers, but everyone works less hours for the same or more pay.

I favour the latter model as it helps avoid the bureaucracy of benefits :-)

> Every country that's tried Marxist economic planning was not industralized,
> but rather tried to use Marxism to industrialize. So, maybe there's more to it.

Offhand, I think its possible to industrialise even better with Marxism than Capitalism if you combine parts from each and you are lucky in having a genuis at the top of the tree who makes sure all the managers below them are up to scratch and sacks the poor quality ones.

In capitalism if you get a bad boss, the business tends to go bust and thus only the well managed ones survive.. (Though this can take decades..)

> "Often they are not profitable to produce, or, more commonly, the institutions in
> the current system are making too much money on the old technologies so they have
> no incentives to change."

I'm reminded of housing.

I know lots of very wealthy landlords, and they are always puttng up the rent, not because they need to, but because they can in the market..

As such, rents now command easily more than half someones wages, yet I don't see competition bringing down rents.. everyones happy to screw the tenent time and time again!

Maybe its just one of those long cycles that has yet to see someone realise that by providing lower priced rents, you can pay your workers less money and thus compete against the competition.. (In fact, providing houses with no rent as part of the perks of the job, would be even cheaper I imagine to admin..)

Thats the route I favour..

> The only problem I see with the world is the number of people. Maybe it's the
> fact that I live in the most densely populated state, but damn.

Agreed! (He says queing with 50+ other folk to use one bathroom..)

Hence I rather like the idea of population control in new communities, something perhaps like child allocation, eg. every couple can have one kid, but to have more, you need permission. Though its not clear how one can enforce this easily, or well, but one needs to do this or you will have 20 people living in each room of a house!

"Hence I rather like the idea of population control in new communities, something perhaps like child allocation, eg. every couple can have one kid, but to have more, you need permission."

That's just because no chicks will fuck you.

> That's just because no chicks will fuck you.

No, its because we get overcrowding and a need for constant growth that we cannot sustain.

Do try and remember that some of us are intellectuals here and are not projecting our insecurities.

It may interest you to know that I've had a vasectomy so as to avoid adding to the population myself unnecessarly, its also a very cheap birth control solution!

Though I have pondered recently that running off batches of clones might be a good idea, as there just isn't enough folk like me to go around..