Skeptic Project

TZM is asking for rebuttals of the claim below. Unlike Sam Harris' contest, there are no prices to be won other than TZM fame and an interview on their podcast.

With our current understanding of science and technological potential, scarcity now has no ecological / technical basis with respect to meeting all our basic human needs. As such, we can formulate a socioeconomic system that provides an access abundance of all such human needs to every human on Earth, alleviating a great majority of the social problems that exist today. This new system, a NLRBE, would redirect human behaviour to express its more positive traits and remove the environmental basis for most of the socially disrupting ones.

I kinda doubt that people are going to be interested in debunking presuppositional vaporware. I'm going to pass, but I'd volunteer my highly sought after skills as a proofreader if anyone else wants to take a shot.

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/uploads/upload/file/24/tzmchallenge.pdf

I was invited to come to a group on TZM TS3 (not affiliated with TZM) and have been coming into there channel on TZm TS3 a few times. There is not much happening at all in TZM TS3 and once of the times I was within the group that invited me to come on,I noticed a very rare event occurring where there was a chapter meeting being conducted for the California chapter. I had over heard Jason who is the California chapter coordinator stalk about this TZM challenge and that he found it surprising that most people complaining about TZM were and I quote "Are a member inside the zeitgeist movement." .

I thought that was a bit interesting because it would suggest that for 7 years TZM has existed there has been no mechanism where TZM members can send in criticisms within TZM to the extent that they have to join a contest that is intended to be for outside critics; or that there is a mechanism within TZm for TZM members criticisms to be heard but are simply being ignored/not addressed for the last 7 years TZM has existed for any/most criticisms about TZM. I think TZM should deal with it's internal critics first rather than the critics on the outside. There probably going to cherry pick outside critics and continue to ignore the criticisms that's within it's member base


Here is my longer response I posted up on SP.com FB about TZM.

Why would I choose to write a essay that is to be judged by a group who are ill-equipped to be judging any criticisms made when it comes to a NLRBE. It be the same if christian apologists asked atheists to make a essay at which apologists would determine which essays were valid and which were not. That's just silly.

Imagine hypothetically I won the contest and got my essay on TZM.com. Essentially I got judged by a group of people who have no clue what the scientific method is. That in fact because of a lack of understanding of the scientific method their belief in a NLRBE is entirely faith based. Therefore again the people judging the essays are ill-equipped to do so. I wouldn't say winning this contest is really winning when the people that are judging you are pretty handicapped to begin with.

I'd say winning is essentially when you have articles outside the sphere of influence of TVP/TZM (or any organizations/group/person) at which these groups actively rail and protest against. If they honestly loved the stuff we posted on SP.com then we're not doing something right. I'd much rather be hated by these type of people who lack logic and reason than to be loved by them.

I agree with Robert they must be desperate for publicity as well as I would add as it gives the few who are in the TZM member base this perception that their doing something.

To add winning is when Peter Joseph is actively trying to sue people who write legitimate criticism about TZM and the leader of TZM.

FAO Peter Joseph and fellow cult members.

1: Show us a list of every resource on the Planet you intend to use in your RBE, how much left there is of it to utilise Worldwide.
2: Show us how much of each resource is utilised in manufacture of all goods on the planet you deem necessary for your RBE.
3: Show us how many products and objects will be produced to sustain every human being on Earth at the same socioeconomic level in your RBE.
4: Show us all of the future technological advancements and inventions that will improve our lives we haven't yet invented, so we can foresee how much of these resources will need to be put aside for future use so as not to use them all up in the present.
5: Show us how you intend to get consensus and approval for access to Worldwide resources held in sovereign states outside the US territories. Including the rarer elements.

Then people may discuss if your Resource Based ideology is indeed sustainable.