How humanity can go from the monetary system to resource based economy?

[Agota]

I'm making a separate thread for this, although this was discussed in Wealth Re-Distribution thread.

I've met few people who are very enthusiastic about Zeitgeist movement and the Resource Based Economy ideas who explained them to me. However, it seems that most people don't have answers to practical questions of implementation of these ideas and dealing with inevitable problems that will arise. Zeitgeist 3 also doesn't talk about the practical implementation of Resource Based Economy. I'm wondering is there someone who can actually explain how these ideas can be implemented in reality, meaning how can humanity go from monetary system to Resource Based Economy (by "in reality" I mean practical steps which can be taken in current world, not "by raising awareness of humanity")?

[veloci]

Sometimes going back to step one is the answer to all of your problems. If humanity doesn't learn to function under the basic concept of "unconditional love for thyself and others," nothing will be solved. You can try to intellectually solve everything you want, but if there are more that only care for the superficial, for themselves, and whatnot it is senseless to discuss about the future.

Sorry that is my take on this. Wow I can criticize others for thinking about the future or dwelling on the past, yet I do it myself. I am such a frigging hypocrite, I outta take my own realization to face. Bejeebus Veloci...

Anyways... it would be impossible for the resource based economy to take effect with the way humanity currently is. There are too many apathetic and sometimes outright selfish, materialistic people.

EDIT: I also know you said practical methods. There are none really unless you consider a genocide or something drastic to be practical.

[Agota]

Originally Posted by veloci

EDIT: I also know you said practical methods. There are none really unless you consider a genocide or something drastic to be practical.

This is the thing with RBE. There are no methods to actually implement it without violence or some form of opression. This why I agree with people who say that the idea is dangerous. As I said, the most dangerous people in history were the ones who though (probably) that they're doing good to humanity and that because of that end justify the means. We all know the consequences of that.

Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe I don't understand the possible implementation process? I'm wondering if any of Zeigeist fans would be able to explain me that. I mean, if people believe in a possibility of a system, they should be able to answer basic questions, right?

[Brutha]

There are none really unless you consider a genocide or something drastic to be practical.

The great thing about RBE is that the genocide would be organised by a computer and the responsibility would be distributed enough that nobody would have to feel guilty about it.

It just a decision that the computer makes to serve the common good.

[Ilikeindowem]

What is a resouce based economy?

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Agota

This is the thing with RBE. There are no methods to actually implement it without violence or some form of oppression. This why I agree with people who say that the idea is dangerous. As I said, the most dangerous people in history were the ones who though (probably) that they're doing good to humanity and that because of that end justify the means. We all know the consequences of that.

Exactly. Amongst the crowd behind every political movement that is invented and touted as the answer to all of humanities problems, there is a Lenin or a Stalin or a Ceausescu; or on the capitalist side of the coin, a Bernanke (yeah I went there).

The reason Zeitgeist members don't have an answer to the question of implementation is that they have spent hardly any time considering the actual inner workings of their proposed regime.

They have been spending all of their brainpower on developing the rhetoric, or "How to Talk to a Backwards Capitalist (if fate distributes to you such a conundrum)". They know that they have a near impossible task on their hands differentiating their doctrine from totalitarian communism, therefore the most important task on their hands is debating and convincing cynics and critics.

And of course there are the distracting euphoric science fiction documentaries.

The great thing about RBE is that the genocide would be organized by a computer and the responsibility would be distributed enough that nobody would have to feel guilty about it.

Which leads to the next obvious question, who would program the thing? Would it be members of the politburo or party elite? Because if it were to be open source, that would really put a downer on Linux and the current Android craze.

[Criseyde]

I thiiiiink this would involve a good amount of de-industrialization. A resource based economy works on a small scale, because communities have a vested interest in the survival of their members, so they help each other. But most people unfortunately have no vested interest in the survival of someone who lives 500 miles away. So we have the monetary system, to incentivize production on a large scale.

Think, like, communes.

I guess some sort of collective could work where, like, one collective was responsible for making one thing, and another was responsible for making another thing, and all these resources circulated... somehow... but that seems like it would take a lot of bureaucracy/overhead to get running smoothly. It also sounds suspiciously like what failed in Eastern Europe.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Agota

I'm making a separate thread for this, although this was discussed in Wealth Re-Distribution thread.

I've met few people who are very enthusiastic about Zeitgeist movement and the Resource Based Economy ideas who explained them to me. However, it seems that most people don't have answers to practical questions of implementation of these ideas and dealing with inevitable problems that will arise. Zeitgeist 3 also doesn't talk about the practical implementation of Resource Based Economy. I'm wondering is there someone who can actually explain how these ideas can be implemented in reality, meaning how can humanity go from monetary system to Resource Based Economy (by "in reality" I mean practical steps which can be taken in current world, not "by raising awareness of humanity")?

The main problem of wealth distribution is selfishness:

Someone who has enough to eat do not understand the urgent need of those who are starving.

Our limited brain processing capacity allows us to feel empathy towards at most 150 people (closest ones). Beyond that people are just numbers and stats, objects. So instead of a human being, you have an object called teacher, a cop, etc.

Money game turns us into avatars in a Monopoly game, so people fight for money against each other, instead of supporting each other. In the end money has no substance, it is just a concept, not real, and if money lost the ability to be exchanged for goods, the entire world economy would be a videogame. So indeed we live in a world where ludopathy is seen as a positive thing.

A resource based economy should assign value to resources, which is nothing else than money. Also, if people can't distribute money (which is just a concept), what makes you think that selfishness will allow to distribute tangible goods properly? During emergencies like in Haiti, you could see people stealing goods that are aimed to help people in disgrace.

So you can change the rules of the game, but ludopathic people will adapt to the new rules and will create the same inequalities in the new game of resources. So basically you are moving from one game to another similar game.

So unless people understand that the videogame is a videogame, and money ludopathy stops being rewarded and becomes punished, and values of humanity prevail above ludopathy, we are gong nowhere.

A problem can't be solved in the same level it was created. To solve a gaming problem people may think about changing the rules, but it remains a game. Something called moral values determines the behavior of gamers, and that's the problem. But it seems that morality is seen as something wrong these days.

Money game is the goal for many people, so instead of trying to work hard and produce and earn, people prefer to make money with the work of others or take other people's money with gambling in the Wall Street casino. This is how executives make big bonuses with taxpayer money from the bailout. This is how those who are richer are not those who work harder.

Unfortunately when moral values are lost, the boundary between good and evil becomes very orwelian and relative. US started as a nation with strong moral values. Losing those values changed the behavior of players. For example sexual revolution caused 1 of 6 Americans to have herpes nowadays. In the economic field, change of moral values also had an effect. Intellectual property is being used to create monopolies.

The nature of the banking system is money and ultimately power, and power is something that should belong to a government. Without government or a weak government you have a failed state like Haiti or Somalia.

In the end the game of money is also a game of power, and power is a zero sum game, what one loses is other people gain. How could you abolish games of power? For sure a resource based game will not abolish it.

[Kali]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

I thiiiiink this would involve a good amount of de-industrialization. A resource based economy works on a small scale, because communities have a vested interest in the survival of their members, so they help each other. But most people unfortunately have no vested interest in the survival of someone who lives 500 miles away. So we have the monetary system, to incentivize production on a large scale.

Think, like, communes.

I guess some sort of collective could work where, like, one collective was responsible for making one thing, and another was responsible for making another thing, and all these resources circulated... somehow... but that seems like it would take a lot of bureaucracy/overhead to get running smoothly. It also sounds suspiciously like what failed in Eastern Europe.

think more like the kibbutz kinda think they have had going in Israel for a long time now.

Remember there has never been a truly communist system on a large scale.

Unfortunately, people are so deeply tied to the concept of money that until whole economies start collapsing, I doubt people will be able to grasp the concept.

Let me put it this way - does anyone here understand how conceptual money developed? It took centuries to become established. Up until the last century, most of the world used a gold standard to base currency off of. Now, there is nothing that currency is valued at other than the level that the rest of the world governmental systems consider that country to be valuable at. This is called "fiat currency/money."

Ultimately, there is no way to continue the world economy based on fiat money. It will run out of steam. Fiat money - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Here is the wiki about fiat money, by the way, for benefit of the OP. Check out the Nixon Shock, too, that was the beginning of the end (IMO)...but it takes decades for these shock waves to continue.

Until people can learn to think beyond that which we were heavily heavily heavily conditioned to think is the "only way" - we will probably descend into a period of complete anarchy and Mad Max style living.

[Kali]

But yeah - if we try to maintain big countries that span vast geographical areas, a RBE is not really possible. I don't understand the point of having huge countries that span vast geographical areas, though. You just end up with a population that is too diverse to agree on anything. Hello, UN...

[Brutha]

You just end up with a population that is too diverse to agree on anything. Hello, UN...

According to the Zeitgeist people who call their "political philosophy" resource based economy you don't need to have the population agree to everything. The central computer that manages all resources just tell them what to do.
People might like their individuality? The Zeitgeist people have a solution. Doctrinaire all children to accept their system and prevent them from developing thoughts that go against the social consensus.

[Kali]

Originally Posted by Brutha

People might like their individuality? The Zeitgeist people have a solution. Doctrinaire all children to accept their system and prevent them from developing thoughts that go against the social consensus.

I read all over the site and couldn't find this information...

Also would anyone suggest something that is clearly impossible? It's just that this has been tried before? See "The Century of the Self" (google videos has this in 3 or 4 parts, as I recall)...even the US tried and failed at this! hahahaaaa.

IME when a revolutionary concept generates a lot of opposition it is actually going in the right directions.

I sincerely hope that everyone posting on this thread knows who said this quote (and minus 100 points if you don't! ):

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

I dunno bout you, but I am friggin DONE with fiat money. Stick a fork in me. It's probably one of the most ludicrous concepts that human beings have ever tried to base their reality on...(I said ONE OF, ok??)

[zabjoa]

I got it:-)
We all start selling weed, then the majority will fallow and before you know it we will all smoke weed and exchange vegetables for service.
Thats what you meant with resource based economy, right? Oh and as you said we need to develop unconditional love, well, marijuana will do that for us, ever met a mad stoner?

[Agota]

I think what Brutha was referring to was the idea that people have to be taught from early childhood to sacrifice their individual desires for higher good and accept decisions made by the computer (well, obviously Zeitgeist fans won't say it like that, but that's the idea as far as I understand it). This is often phrased as "raising the awareness of humanity".

This movement is not getting a lot of opposition. It's actually getting more and more following as far as I understand. There are loads of horrible things that are being done solely for money, many people are dying because they can't afford food or basic healthcare, many are unemployed and on top of that financial crisis is still going in many countries. Who's to blame? Many people think that it's capitalism and monetary system. Therefore, they are easily sold on the RBE ideas without questioning them. What worries me about the RBE followers is that it seems that none of them can actually explain how exactly can this eonomical model be implemented in the current situation without violence or repression. I mean, if people are so passionate about the idea, they should be able to explain how it can be applied, shouldn't they?. When people are so mesmerized by pretty idea that they don't question it and instead of answering the questions about implementation they go on about the evils of capitalism, well.. Isn't that fanaticism? As we know from history lessons, fanaticism hasn't brought many good things to humanity, but it's responsible for wars and genocides. And as I said, the bloodiest regimes started out as pretty ideas.

I believe the reason why the idea of RBE is getting a lot of opposition on this particular forum is because people here tend to take responsibility for their lives, that's why they're more immune to "Monetary system is the root of all evil" stuff and not sold out on RBE idea that easily.

I started this thread because I've watched Zeigeist 3 and I did find the idea interesting, but the practical steps of implementation and dealing with inevitable problems was what was missing, therefore I decided to ask maybe Zeitgeist people who are here would be able to explain me that. I'm obviously interested in a better world. I'm just wondering how it can be done.

[Neobian]

The day isnt far. A world leader will arise to unite all nations hence it will be possible to establish a single currency and because there wont be competing interests among people living 100 miles away, it will be possible to live resource based.

That is what exactly being predicted by Bible. A single leader who dictates who gets what based on their belief/religion (not on currency). So there it is .. maybe within 25 years for that anti-christ reign.

[Brutha]

I read all over the site and couldn't find this information...

The bit about the computer organizing genocide isn't something that the Zeitgeist people advocate directly.
It's possible that an AI which has no direct human supervision but optimizes according to a badly set utility criteria would do such a thing.
If you watch Zeitgeist you frequently find the claim that they want to be nonpolitical but instead trust "scientific" algorithms.

Zeitgeist makes it clear that public opinion shouldn't matter. The thing that is supposed to matter is "Scientific Truth".

If you watch Zeitgeist 3 you find a discussion that humans aren't by nature individualistic. They claim:
"It isn't in the genes! If you set up the environment in the right way kids don't develop individualistic tendencies. People will integrated themselves into society."

Individualism is something that's supposed to be eliminated by "Science". No human being should take political responsibility but instead everything should be decided by algorithms and scientific experiments.

Running highly optimized scientific experiments to indoctrinate children with the value of integrating themselves into your system can validly be described as advocating brainwashing.

If you know a bit about online businesses you know the difference between a sales page that highly optimized to sell a maximum of unit and a sales page that written by a human that wants to connect with his audience.

You accused myself of having blind faith in statistics. I don't. I understand when I should use it and when I shouldn't. The Zeitgeist people have blind faith in "Science".
They advocate to get rid of all democratic institutions and replace them with "Scientific Decision Making". Granted, they have strange ideas about "Science", but I think they consider statistics to be part of "Science".

I believe the reason why the idea of RBE is getting a lot of opposition on this particular forum is because people here tend to take responsibility for their lives, that's why they're more immune to "Monetary system is the root of all evil" stuff and not sold out on RBE idea that easily.

Just for the record, I'm no supporter of present monetary system. I like ideas like competing currencies. I wish John Robb luck with his present project.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Brutha

According to the Zeitgeist people who call their "political philosophy" resource based economy you don't need to have the population agree to everything. The central computer that manages all resources just tell them what to do.
People might like their individuality? The Zeitgeist people have a solution. Doctrinaire all children to accept their system and prevent them from developing thoughts that go against the social consensus.

I have a book called Seeing Like A State and this plan, if it is actually true and ever gets implemented, fits all of the author's criteria for a utopian social movement that would fail and kill a lot of people in the process.

They are:
(1) the administrative ordering of nature and society;
(2) a high-modernist ideology;
(3) an authoritarian state that is willing and able to use the full weight of its coercive power to bring these high-modernist designs into being;
(4) a prostrate civil society that lacks the capacity to resist these plans.

Just throwing that out there..

[Brutha]

I have a book called Seeing Like A State and this plan, if it is actually true and ever gets implemented, fits all of the author's criteria for a utopian social movement that would fail and kill a lot of people in the process.

There are a lot of reason why the project might fail but the situation above would be a description of how it would look like if it succeeds.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Brutha

There are a lot of reason why the project might fail but the situation above would be a description of how it would look like if it succeeds.

It sounds rather unfortunate.

[Kali]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you watch Zeitgeist 3 you find a discussion that humans aren't by nature individualistic. They claim:
"It isn't in the genes! If you set up the environment in the right way kids don't develop individualistic tendencies. People will integrated themselves into society."

From a culturally relativistic point of view, this is true. Western society has bred a record number of people with mental illness, and sociopathic and narcissistic traits are not only lauded, they are rewarded in western society. The vast majority of politicians, for example, exhibit pathological levels of narcissism. The thing is, mental illness isn't "on the rise" - the society itself is sick. The excessive emphasis on individualism over the good of the many is (to borrow a comparison from SP) cancerous, at best.

Hello, Nixon Shock?? Fiat money???

Running highly optimized scientific experiments to indoctrinate children with the value of integrating themselves into your system can validly be described as advocating brainwashing.

This is clearly stated from a definitively western perspective. Many eastern cultures do not support the same tenants that western society does. I wasn't raised to put myself before the group, actually, in the culture I experienced the emphasis was on putting the well being of the family before everything else. Back in the old country, this would extend to the village, as well. Lord knows I have heard the gossip grapvine of my cultural heritage extends up the east coast of the US...lol.

Can you admit that your perspective is decidedly western in its flavor?

[Plays With Life]

Liberty Dollar creator convicted in federal court | The Asheville Citizen-Times | citizen-times.com - 19 May 2011

The leader of a group that marketed a fake currency called Liberty Dollars in the Asheville area and elsewhere has been found guilty by a federal jury of conspiracy against the government in a case of “domestic terrorism.”

http://www.libertydollar.org/



The U.S. defends their monopoly on currency.

“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins said. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.”

I really liked the liberty dollar. Calling an alternative currency "domestic terrorism" seems like complete crap, to me. People tend to have an idea that money is a *foundational necessity* for society to operate. How else would we buy things, after all? What we would we do with our time if we didn't have money-making to occupy us?

The whole money system shapes the way that people live their lives. The way they think about what actions will get them what they want (make the money, then buy it), the way they think about "what people do" (has anyone ever asked you what you do, and NOT meant "how do you make money"?), and the way they plan their lives (go to school, so I can go to college, so I can work, so I can make money). I think under the weight of all these beliefs about "the way the world works", it can seem impossible that "a society without money" could even exist.

What would you do with your time if there were no money? I think there are compelling answers to that question.

“We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government,” Tompkins said.

Von NotHaus, 67, faces up to 25 years in prison during sentencing, which hasn’t been scheduled. The government also is seeking the forfeiture of about 16,000 pounds of Liberty Dollar coins and precious metals valued at nearly $7 million.

It's *really, really* important to the U.S. that they control the money.

[Agota]

Originally Posted by Kali

Many eastern cultures do not support the same tenants that western society does. I wasn't raised to put myself before the group, actually, in the culture I experienced the emphasis was on putting the well being of the family before everything else. Back in the old country, this would extend to the village, as well.

When person has to repress his or her desires in order to gain approval from the member of his family or society, it's not healthy in most cases. However, when person doesn't care about the impact of his or her actions on people around them, it's not healthy as well. Therefore there are many problems caused by overly individualistic world view and there are many problems caused by overly communal world view. There has to be a balance.

P.S. You can see the problems that Eastern placing emphasis on putting your family before yourself causes. It's not good that person has to feel this way. However, I assure you that most youngster in West experience the same thing, it's just easier for them to deal with it because of individualistic values:

Confusion in sexuality..

This phenomena doesn't having anything to do with caring about community. It has to do with egoism of the parents and often with desire to live their dreams through their kids. Putting family first would mean that you want your kids to be happy and you let them choose whatever path they want to choose, as opposed to forcing them into the path that makes them miserable, but is the right one in your opinion, correct? However, then sugar-coated in "Family comes first", this egoism makes a lot of young people feel guilty and drop their dreams, who later become depressed 40 years olds. That's not good for society in any way. It's just as harmful as egoism sugar-coated as individualism, which leads to exploitation of people and nature.

P.P.S. I believe kids should be taught from early on that they actions has consequences on other people as well as they should be taught that they're the ones who have a right to decide how they'll spend their lives. There must be a balalance.

[SnerpGoodWord]

A "resource based economy" is just a euphemism for centrally planned economies. And if the 20th century taught us anything, it's that a centrally planned economies are the root of genocide and starvation. No thanks.

[Ender22]

Hey guys,

This thread is loaded with tons of untrue assertions and misunderstandings about the zeitgeist movement.

The biggest one being about the zeitgeist movement somehow thinking individualism is a bad thing or that it would be eliminated in a resource based economy or that 'machines make all the decisions' or that science will eliminate individualism...
This is pure non-sense and is not advocated by any educated member of the movement. The truth is the current society limits individualism, we are all forced from a young age into factory style education, where we are cookie cut to fit the mold of a perfect employee. We learn mostly useless knowledge with no choice as to how or what we learn, we are taught not to question the system, just to follow the orders of our teachers, and that all that matters is completing the project. This problem is emphasized in countries like China where critical thinking is even less valued and they are merely forced to recite countless pages of information without actually learning creative or problem solving practices.
Anyway after school you are forced to make money with a job that is often not aligned with your passions or what your individual desires are... often in a job that has no real benefit to society either... its all very controlling...
In a RBE you are free to pursue all of your individual designs and become the person you want to be without having to submit to specific schooling or employments that don't match your individual passions... i hope you can understand the logic in this... and there are no machines telling you what to do or making the machines...
the computer systems are only for the resource allocation, management, manufacturing, automation, ect... no computer will tell you where to live or what to study or what to do... they are just strategic design systems.

Next is that the idea of a RBE represents a socialist, communist, marxist, centrally planned society. Just because it has some minor things in common with socialist ideas such as working-together, the similarities are few and far between. None of those past systems took into account that the earth is finite. They we're never based on natural law and the most fundamental level of human survival at the life-ground the physical referent of all of our survival, the natural resources and health of the earth. They were all based on government control, police, dictatorship style, concentration camp, re-education. They weren't based on science and technology, on sustainability, on effective resource management, automation, open source everyone contributing.
A RBE is only centralized in the respect that its organized... by systems...
Like a store... if you don't keep inventory, and track things, its going to get disorganized... you might run out of stock, have poor distribution, excess waste... sound familiar?

Next is from the original poster that the Zeitgeist movement has no concrete plans to implement a RBE so it can never happen... or something along these lines. I'll first say its true that yes we don't have a written point a to point b plan of changing the whole world... but how could we? how could anyone? a RBE is a long way away still, how can we predict how to go from here to there? Really it depends on two things, whether the RBE or something similar to it arises from a conscious worldwide effort, or whether it comes out of chaos and the collapse of the current system. Are world leaders involved? are governments involved? does the system have to completely collapse first? These things cannot be predicted... The system is evolving every day and the solutions must evolve as such.
What we do know is that the world will have to come together and work globally as one for it to be possible... it has to be a global effort, and that we would have to do a survey to see what resources are available in the world... we would have to transition from a system of growth to a stable system... then its a matter of implementing automated systems to manage the basic needs of human life first, food, water, shelter energy and resource allocation.
This is not to say that we are not working on ideas and strategies for implementation. We are in the first stages of creating a virtual earth which can detail the most efficient places for different renewable energy sources and these such things. Eventually we will redesign all of north america for example in this virtual environment.

The truth is we are still in the education/awareness phase at the moment. We need people to see that the problems of the world today are not due to politics, or different economical policies, or greedy corporations or any of that... but rather are all symptoms of a system with these flaws built into them. We need people to see that the current system is in a state of utter collapse, and the next 20 years on earth are going to be completely different than the last 20 with the facts about technological unemployment, peak oil, resource depletion, environmental damage, growing population, and an economic system that requires growth on a finite planet. We need people to start viewing the world as one complete system, where the problems of the people in Africa are our problems as well.... where we can't expect our children to grow up in a world of peace and harmony unless the children in the middle east can say the same. We are all connected and what effects one part of the world affects all others.... This will be much clearer as environmental damage and resource depletion and the wars over oil increase in momentum.

Exactly how a RBE is implemented is inconsequential compared to the awareness of its necessity.
The logic behind a RBE is self evident... i'm not talking about the Venus projects take on how it should look... that doesn't matter... i'm talking about the core ideas of a RBE.
It is self evident that you cannot have a system of cyclical consumption on a finite planet... because you WILL run out of resources/space/vital life systems... you HAVE to intelligently manage resources and stop growing.
It is self evident that what happens to one area of the world affects all others, so we have to stop fighting each other with our countless wars but instead work together to create a stable world.
It is self evident that the current system cannot meet the needs of all the people of the planet, because poverty and debt is built right into the system... the monetary system has to change before there can ever be a planet without a child dying every 5 seconds from poverty.
It is self evident that the current system cannot sustain itself any longer.

How we get to a RBE is not important, as the world will inevitably end up in one anyway... It might not look like the venus project (i actually hope it wont) but a world that shares resources and works together is an inevitability because it is the only thing that can be sustained. The only question is whether it will happen in the next while, or whether it will happen after all the financial systems collapse, most of the jobs are automated, the vital resources are gone and the world has near permanent damage. An understanding will eventually emerge that our survival must be based on tangible natural resources, not some arbitrary monetary values. The earth has certain natural laws that must be adhered to and if we don't we're just going to destroy ourselves like we are now.

It sad for me to see so many vast misunderstandings about the ideas of a RBE, so I have created a thread here:

where anyone can come and tell me why they think a RBE is a bad idea and i will take each argument one at a time.

Take care,

[Ender22]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The great thing about RBE is that the genocide would be organised by a computer and the responsibility would be distributed enough that nobody would have to feel guilty about it.

It just a decision that the computer makes to serve the common good.

as an extra note... this really hit me to the core with its insanity.
The zeitgeist movement has only ever endorsed non-violent protests as a possible initiative in the future, in the style of Ghandi.

The current train of thought for implementation is that the current monetary system will collapse so bad in the next 20-30 years that people will demand change. (already starting in places around the world)
People will see the monetary system cant possibly ever recover in the current model and want something else.
Then if this happens, you merely start implementing the new technologies and systems...
why do you think there is no alternative by violence and oppression? can't you see that it wouldn't even be remotely possible with violence and oppression used? how deep are your misunderstandings?

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Agota

I'm making a separate thread for this, although this was discussed in Wealth Re-Distribution thread.

I've met few people who are very enthusiastic about Zeitgeist movement and the Resource Based Economy ideas who explained them to me. However, it seems that most people don't have answers to practical questions of implementation of these ideas and dealing with inevitable problems that will arise. Zeitgeist 3 also doesn't talk about the practical implementation of Resource Based Economy. I'm wondering is there someone who can actually explain how these ideas can be implemented in reality, meaning how can humanity go from monetary system to Resource Based Economy (by "in reality" I mean practical steps which can be taken in current world, not "by raising awareness of humanity")?

Zeitgeist Addendum proposal is filled with contradictions.

I talked to a russian who told me that soviet regime tried to implement resource based economy and failed.

Also, the idea that technology will save us all has a problem. Income and work are linked, so technology creates unemployment. Also private property causes owners of machines to keep all the money, which would lead to technocracy. To make machines do all the work, income and work should not be linked and no one should own machines, as it would be collectively owned, which brings us to the problem of wealth distribution. Currently, employment is the wealth distribution mechanism in a capitalist regime. Technology leads to unemployment and poverty with our current system.

Lack of government leads to failed states, lawless society, like Haiti or Somalia.

Also, criticism towards religios denies the fact that it once was a source of technology in the past.

Zeitgeist Addendum is a theoretical collage that ignores human behavior. A more sustainable and proven way of living can be seen among Amish who use no money, they have no mortgages to own a house, no poverty, no unemployment and no financial crises. Starting to live like Amish people means we would need to change our moral values and greedy behavior.

[Ender22]

Originally Posted by ar81

Zeitgeist Addendum proposal is filled with contradictions.

I talked to a russian who told me that soviet regime tried to implement resource based economy and failed.

Also, the idea that technology will save us all has a problem. Income and work are linked, so technology creates unemployment. Also private property causes owners of machines to keep all the money, which would lead to technocracy. To make machines do all the work, income and work should not be linked and no one should own machines, as it would be collectively owned, which brings us to the problem of wealth distribution. Currently, employment is the wealth distribution mechanism in a capitalist regime. Technology leads to unemployment and poverty with our current system.

Lack of government leads to failed states, lawless society, like Haiti or Somalia.

Also, criticism towards religios denies the fact that it once was a source of technology in the past.

Zeitgeist Addendum is a theoretical collage that ignores human behavior. A more sustainable and proven way of living can be seen among Amish who use no money, they have no mortgages to own a house, no poverty, no unemployment and no financial crises. Starting to live like Amish people means we would need to change our moral values and greedy behavior.

What is the fascination with humans making concrete statements about things they know nothing about?

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell

I suggest when presented with a new idea you should learn about it, rather than making statements about it as nearly everything you said here is vastly erroneous... encase you need a hint... there is no income in a resource based economy. Please watch the videos and at least the 18 minute TED talk found in this thread...
Discussing a Resource Based Economy and its objections (zeitgeist movement)

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Ender22

What is the fascination with humans making concrete statements about things they know nothing about?

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell

I suggest when presented with a new idea you should learn about it, rather than making statements about it as nearly everything you said here is vastly erroneous... encase you need a hint... there is no income in a resource based economy. Please watch the videos and at least the 18 minute TED talk found in this thread...
Discussing a Resource Based Economy and its objections (zeitgeist movement)

I am talking about technology, which can exist in a resource based economy or in a money based economy. The original post mentioned no practical implementation of resource based economy, so I was discussing how technology will not be the solution in our system, so technology is not the solution.

Technology and resource based economy are different things.

[Ender22]

Originally Posted by ar81

I am talking about technology, which can exist in a resource based economy or in a money based economy. The original post mentioned no practical implementation of resource based economy, so I was discussing how technology will not be the solution in our system, so technology is not the solution.

Technology and resource based economy are different things.

Yes in today's system we do not utilize technology to even a remote fraction of its potential due to how it is inhibited by the monetary system. In addition technology is seen as a hindrance to our lives instead of a betterment due to technological unemployment. I'm sure I don't need to point out how backwards this shows our system to be when something that frees us from tedious labor can be seen as a detriment to our lives.

Discussing a step by step implementation of a RBE is pointless at this time because the current state of affairs the world is in when the shift takes place is unpredictable and the method of which the shift takes place is unpredictable.
Only general outlines can be put in place such as performing a global survey for resources, setting up systems of resource management, allocation, distribution, strategic preservation, access abundance, strategic safety, strategic efficiency and so on. This is detailed in the project earth section Viddler.com - Zeitgeist Moving Forward III Project Earth - Uploaded by zmcolorado of zeitgeist moving forward...
but really, way too much thought is being put into the question, as everything you need for a resource based economy already exists...
as far as how to do it... well... you just build it... all the technology already exists... and the systems exist on a smaller scale... there's no mystery... just put it into place.