Jump to content


Active Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 0blivious

  • Birthday 11/04/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

806 profile views

0blivious's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  1. Brandy probably does it better than me: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/vi...130664810283699 :)
  2. I'm sorry but these things are a waste of time, just decide for yourself.
  3. Again, we have no set of ideas nor ideas set. It is ever changing. Right now the best solution available (show me others) is The Venus Project. Tomorrow might be different. Yes, children will get an education. And yes, it will be very unlike the education they get today (if they even get one). They will have teachers that are passionate and love to help children. They will get many more opportunities and will be educated on as much as possible, so they can make real choices (they don't HAVE to) on what they want to do with their lives. So it's not about indoctrinating and forcing ideas upon them like it is today, it's about showing and presenting as much as possible. Would you do it any differently? And yes, The Venus Project is a non-profit organisation. Does it matter that it's privately owned? The Zeitgeist Movement isn't. We just support the ideas presented. You're just stating things to make it look obscure (like your 'cult' word choice) because you don't agree. But that's OK, nobody's telling you what to do. You contradict yourself, maybe you didn't understand the meaning of chaos (or maybe I didn't, Chaos=no structure; so no way of working together; collaboration is the opposite). But it's ok, I understand what you're trying to convey, but don't agree. Also a contradiction when you say we thrive in trying loads of new things, except this one particular thing. Cute. Of course there is a point and destination, saying there isn't would mean you'd have to ignore what life is about. Life is about happiness. People will do everything to be happy. Even when some are happy through misery; but that's a result of cultural biases. We are alike in that you want social evolution as well.. Funny.. I just noticed that I'm searching for the similarities while you are searching for the differences :) Yes, they are doing better: http://www.africanculturalcenter.org/5_2_1health.html But is that good enough for you? Well it would be hypocritical to expect it from someone else when clearly you didn't as well. And I did say that I would do it if it guaranteed me certain things. And you didn't answer my question. Or many of the others. And yes most are rhetorical, but not everyone will understand that, so you can safely answer anyway. What's the point of saying that most of the advances came from rich nations? All I'm hearing is another point that supports our "claim". If only the poor nations had the chance (and don't pretend they do), our advances would accelerate tremendously. Well, again, you're ignoring a few things. You would indeed hate to live in a cave, but that's only because you have the knowledge of living in a comfortable home. Cavemen don't have that knowledge. They have a certain situation (are happy to even have that!; if you were naked out in the open and would have it very cold and then someone comes along and presents you a cave (or you found it yourself); you would be happy!), adapt to it, and might improve some things to make it better. To them it's not about hating the situation and thus driving them to find or create a better situation. It's possible to be happy with something and be even more happy with something else. That new happy becomes the regular happy state. In the end, actually, it's a strange way of thinking. Hate drives you to be happy. It's like war driving you to be peaceful. Personally, war drives me to KILL :D
  4. Again, people will not be forced to think differently. And yes, there is no sure way to know it will work (i guess all discoveries almost never have the expected outcome), the only proof would be by practice and it's no reason not to really consider or even try it. No one ever did pretend otherwise. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. And also, no, it's not a tightly controlled thought experiment. Quite the contrary, it's open to anyone. Our goals are based on having the best given with what we know up until that moment. Please try to step out of your mindset and try to look at it with a fresh mind. Then ask yourself: how could I make it better? A scientist is a person (or just a being or thing) that asks questions. Didn't you see the videos I linked previously? Not that this proves anything, but keep an open mind and really take it into consideration. That's just a statement based on assumptions as well :) But consider this: We are in The Venus Project. Linux just started it's first development. How could it look 10 years later when you know that people have the time and are not tied down to jobs they hate. It's wasn't my argument you "attacked": Essentially you say that my arrogance blinds me, but said in kind words lol But no offense, you don't have to agree with me on anything, I just ask you take it into objective consideration, if possible. Means to an end = psychopathic Anyway, I'm not denying this, never did, never will, so why bring it up? Return to capitalism? This is capitalism, and these are the results. The point is that even though we did get this far because of it, does not mean we shouldn't change it. You're taking it out of context. It was a hypothetical situation. But you seem to like this system very much. It might just be too progressive an idea for you. Which is actually strange because I didn't expect people on this board (well, you don't represent everyone here so, you might just be an anomaly) to have problems with future ideas that are very different. It's funny you say you've seen it before as if it happened in a culture-free environment (which doesn't exist on this planet) and that person had no influence whatsoever that might have caused this response. But if you mean leader as a person that has the ability to manage and manage well, that's a different thing. Then yes, there will be leaders in The Venus Project, but they would have no power. And don't understand me wrong (because you might and might want to), we're talking about project leaders here. These are temporary roles that exist for a certain goal. For example building a world wide transit system, which might require multiple project leads. Not if you take into account that the current infrastructure is not optimized and it would be a waste of resources to keep patching this current system instead of building a new one that is built with efficiency in mind.
  5. I can guarantee you guys one thing (really two things, but they encompass the same): If you think it won't work, it won't work. If you do nothing, nothing will happen.
  6. You couldn't be more negative about this positive idea that could solve world hunger, sickness, criminality, and so on.. If it were a safe fantasy, then why are you attacking it? Doesn't seem safe to me. I think otherwise. I put my neck out to have presented this here. But again, no, it's not about controlling people, it's about changing the environment. I find it funny that you used the word 'cult'. Let's see if that is correct: Definition of 'cult': The counter: 1. We don't have rites or ceremonies, and we have no religious belief. 2. There is no ideal or person we revere. Yes we look up to Jacque Fresco for all the research he has done and the ideas he introduced, but we don't regard him or his ideas as the final frontier, they will improve over time. 3. It's no object of devotion. People are volunteering and 'devoting' some time to help this ever changing cause. 4. See no. 2. 5. Again, no sacred ideology, as there is no final idea or final concept. It will keep changing the more information is available. 6. Again, not a religion, we have no beliefs, we aren't extremists, we discuss ideas of a possibly better system, and our "members", which "we" don't have, don't live outside of conventional society, and we have no leader. We reject the idea of a leader. It's the idea and way of thinking that brings and drives people, not someone that leads the pack. It would never be possible to. 7. Again, no "members". 8. We have no sole insight on how to change a person (negative behavior could be considered the sickness here), the information "we" have is readily available, as "we" didn't create this information, it's based on scientific studies done over the last centuries. So we can agree that the word 'cult' you used to describe this movement is clearly inaccurate. I will never agree that using force is the way you can change people. And for the rest of what you are saying, yes, you are stating the obvious. Of course "we" think it would be better than what "we" have, yes, "we" hope to get the chance to do this. But no, the price won't be to high. Unless you talk about money, yes, there is not enough money in existence even to pull this one of. Unless you meant something different with "the price you want". What price do I want? You can't call paying your taxes and having medical care or central services, "thriving in chaos". Unless you live in Africa and are dying because of starvation or decease. It might be a reality for you and me, but for many it is still a dream. You can't just live your life blissfully and ignore the poverty that makes your wonderful life possible. Well, maybe you can, but I can't. You can't have it both ways in this system. No rich without the poor. It's not chaos, but incentive by motivation and passion that makes us want to do better. And again, our idea is not fixed. We are about change. Change is the only constant. Do you really believe this? I'm not sure "the greats of our time" Pasteur, Curie, Einstein, Newton, Tesla would agree with that statement. Clearly not a fact, just someones opinion. But you are free to say whatever you want, even if it is utter nonsense! YAY :)
  7. Well, "I'm" basing my facts on what we know today. Tomorrow might be a different story. If that's what you are saying, then I fully agree. And again, this is what we are about. Change. If tomorrow we discover new information, it will not be tossed aside, it will be considered, tested,.. you know.. the scientific method, which is the whole premise of The Venus Project. LOL Did you just compare The Venus Project to Nazi's? Or because Zeitgeist is a German word? Not to defend the Nazi case, but Hitler youth were geniuses :) (and shows that we have the potential) But again, it's not about controlling people, people do what they want. We just assume (assumptions based on scientific facts known to this day) that the behavior of people reflects the environment they live in. So again, it's not about making people think a certain way, we're only talking about changing the system, not the people. I'm not sure how I can make myself clear, I've repeated this a few times now.. Again, you misunderstood things. There is no one that will decide what is irrelevant or not. Irrelevant stuff will phase out on it's own and people will have the time to explore their own passions and ideas. You make me seem like an arrogant prick, please don't bash me just because you don't agree. I like to discuss this and want to hear your opinions/ideas/concerns. I'm not all-knowing and will never be that, on the contrary, I will never consider myself an intelligent person. Never. The point I can make here is this: Lasers, Linux, other cool inventions and art have mostly been created in recreational states. Side projects that didn't get any funding and thus started as self-funded hobbies are part of what makes this society so successful. Now, imagine a world where only such projects existed. (not because someone said so or made you to, but because the profit motive doesn't exist anymore) These are for me the perfect examples that promotes a system like The Venus Project proposes, people would still create things, they wouldn't get lazy, no, they would finally have the time and possibility to make those discoveries. All people are scientists. Yes, there are many transition plans, but none definitive, of course, as we are a movement of change and the ideas of tomorrow might not be the same as those of today. We are a movement of education, in this phase, and want to make people aware that 'something else' is possible. It doesn't necessarily has to be The Venus Project, just something better than what we have. Unless you think this system doesn't need any improvements or can't be replaced with something better, then our discussion can end now. How can one rule a system like the one proposed by The Venus Project? It's impossible to rule and there is nothing to gain by ruling it. If they use it for themselves, why not? If someone starts a system like this on their own, they will have much difficulty. As the world is "crumbling down", people will see this system and will want to live there. But it will not be able to sustain the worlds population. What we propose is a world wide system change, so either we benefit everyone or it doesn't happen. That's the only way it could work. (with what we know today...) It's no utopia, I know it seems that way because it's so much better. Rest assure, it will have problems, just far less. But that's why I started this topic, to discuss with you all this new system, how it can be improved, and to spread the word it is possible to live in a world that is better than this one. The current "plan" is to spread awareness and create critical mass. About actually building; it's shown in the movie. There's no point on trying to patch up the flawed system. It would be far more efficient (and resource friendly) to start from scratch. Then why ask questions if you can already predict what my answer will be? Or maybe it's just a subjective opinion you have about the ideas presented that I regurgitate. But again, no it's not about changing people, it's about changing the environment and how that will be reflected in peoples behavior. Yes there is a destination and to get there will be a very big big big journey. No destination without a journey.
  8. You do know that people can get over their phobias if they want to, right? "I'm sick of being afraid of spiders." Most fear are irrational, and it's just a question of education. Well you did say sloth people, so I assumed you meant it was already in them. :) I don't agree, but that's why you came up with the next example I guess :) But my response would be: Partying= consumes energy. So you may seem lazy the day after. If you consume too much energy by partying all the time you might get chronic exhaustion (not sure if this is correct, it's a literal translation how we say it in Belgium). If you have this, you won't be able to party anymore and will need medical assistance. Oh btw, people do get tired of partying.. People want to contribute. You might not see this on a daily basis in this system (the profit motive makes it hard to think that way), but when you look at world disasters, people are eager to help and contribute however they can. This is human nature. Helping=greater change of survival. I understand your example, but again you are basing this on how it works in this current system. You are giving an example of a person that doesn't cope well with loss. Some people do it better. So I might say that this person did not receive the needed education or experience as a child to cope with loss. Even if it were to happen, it would be easier to process this, as setting up groups (like AA meetings) wouldn't cost a dime (there's no money in The Venus Project) and will be able to talk about it. Even professional help, if you wanted to, would be free as well. I'm not sure what you mean. This has been addressed. Because: you will never hear anyone say that The Venus Project is a perfect system, no you will only hear that it's just a far better system than what we currently live in. So, yes there will be problems, but solving those problems would be much much easier. Oh, that's a negative thought.. I think that people are special animals. We can do so much more than just eat and reproduce. I think you've said it all with "people become stupid and have unprotected sex". When you look at which (type of) families have the most children, you'll notice that it is those that didn't have much education or don't have a lot of money. There are of course rich families with a lot of children, but the motive there is not much different. It's about gaining something. Ego is thing you can gain as well. Look at how well I'm doing.. So again, it's profit and education. In Belgium for example the government pays you a certain amount of money for child support. The more kids, the more money. Clearly the wrong motivation to have kids. It wouldn't be 'having kids' anymore but 'shitting kids' lol In The Venus Project, people would have much more choice. You could have your own kids (if you want to see it as your kids, ultimately we are everyones children, yours are mine and mine are yours) and raise them, help raise other children, and so on.. Children are our future, so all children are equally important and need our utmost attention and care. Today we don't have time for our kids (having to work) and we drop them of at nurseries just so they are fed and kept clean until they go to school at a later age. Those kids aren't nurtured mentally, and you even said it, this moment is very important in the later state of that person. In The Venus Project, you would have time for your kids, time for your family and friends (in the end we are all 1 big family).
  9. Great stuff guys :) I'm not sure what you mean because I don't understand it. You can consider human nature more like propensities that may or may not have an outcome depending on the environment. So ultimately it's the environment that shapes the behavior of a person. Now evolution is another thing, evolution of human nature is the evolution of those propensities. So again a positive environment will reduce the chances of 'negative' behavior through those existing propensities that might have been passed on by genes and it's evolution. So you're saying, if you ate tomatoes everyday and bought 3 daily for that 'want', suddenly when they become free you would take home 300 tomatoes daily because there is no limit anymore on your 'want'? I don't agree with that. If I go to a cheap restaurant all you can eat buffet (=~free), I would only eat what I need, nothing more, nothing less. Of course there are people that would do the opposite and eat more and more. But this is because of the profit motive. Because, the more you eat, the more value (=profit) you have for what you payed for. So what if suddenly it was completely free, you could go anytime you want, eat all that you want, would you or anyone else stuff their face every time they went? No they wouldn't. It's not about control, it's about the profit motive. Like bargains for example. When something expensive becomes cheap, people rush to get it because of the profit they make. They have more value (it wouldve cost more than it is now) and would thus make profit by buying it. Now, if those things were free to begin with, where's the profit? Would people still stuff their house full of stuff they don't need? Would you? That's great man, thumbs up! I understand the need to be skeptic, people have been duped before by all kinds of schemes, it's difficult to take anything serious these days. The more you learn about the movement and the project, the more your mind will be at ease :) There is no money involved, only the effort of thinking about stuff and being open to new ideas and looking at things differently. There is nothing expected from "members" (there is actually no such thing as a member, yes you can subscribe on the main zeitgeist movement website, but this is for newsletters and stuff), but we do encourage that you talk about these ideas with people and help spread the word. There are of course possibilities to help with translations, setting up events, passing out flyers, trying to get mass media attention, and so on.. But it would be your choice. And it's not as if you have to sign a contract lol. If you have time to spare, you can help. There are still many things to do ;) What I meant by that is that not all children are the same. So you can't point your finger and say, ha! you see? this is human nature! :) Don't forget that young infants at a certain time need to be educated, so if they show negative behavior (like destroying things like a crazy person), the child can be taught to show positive behavior. Like people already do today. And have done for centuries. Generally, people care about their kids and put effort in creating an environment that is positive. But sadly enough, most of this is undone by the outside environment they live in on a daily basis. That's true. But don't forget, we are humans. We have the power to change ourselves. For some it would be more difficult than others, some don't even notice the change. And again, it's not the human that needs to change, people adapt to their environment, it's the environment, system, that needs to change.
  10. I strongly suggest you watch the video again :) It will never be mandatory to give up your beliefs. The point was that, with education, intangible things like beliefs would just fase out. It's true that this behavior has existed for a long time. But it's not true that it has always been that way. If you were lazy in prehistoric times, you wouldn't have food or be able to run away from predators and thus die. Your 'lazy genes' (if there is even such a thing, but I'm indulging you in your argument) wouldn't get passed on. There really are no sloth people, it's a behavior, shaped by the environment. Let's be clear on one thing; people want to contribute. It's an instinct that has been overrided because of environmental influences. Your chance of survival is much higher if you work together with people actively and watch over each other than if you were completely on your own, being lazy. And even with these arguments, in The Venus Project, 85% of the people wouldn't need to work. They could just lay around, get tanned, for the rest of their lives. But let me ask you one question: Would you want to live a life like that? I'm not sure what categorization has to do with how different solutions exists for the same problem. But about your ultimate flaw: even though there might be different solutions for the same problem, there's always 1 solution that's the best and that one will get executed. It's not based on an opinion but on scientific fact. You could build a bridge many different ways, you could just build a straight bridge or one that makes a big curve or even one that makes a loop. You could use wood as a material, spaghetti, gold or steal. How would you make a choice? You wouldn't say, hey, I like shiny things and want a fun bridge where you do a loop and it's made of gold. Gold is actually a soft metal and it wouldn't even be able to hold it's structure. The loop could only work for certain cars. So you have to take into account many things before making a decision. Not just someone's opinion. You're right on one thing: there has never been such a system, so it's impossible to know exactly what the outcome will be. And if you don't try it, you'll never know for sure. I like this quote from The Matrix: Trinity: Neo... nobody has ever done this before. Neo: That's why it's going to work. But we can make predictions based on what we know today. People adjust to their environment. Again, you're example is based on this system. As long as there is money, corruption will exist. Corruption of the mind is part of that. But I would need much more data than just 'perfect environment'. What is perfect? Perfection does not exist in my mind. The child might rebel because even though the family he grew up in is always there, they have all the money they need and more, but their father might always be at work to make that amount of money. He might also impose unrealistic expectations on his child that could force him or her to rebel and get recognition about doing dumb s#it. That's negative acknowledgment because it was impossible for him to get positive acknowledgment, based on those high expectations. My example is based on existentialism. People need acknowledgment. Genes alter everyday.. But we still are humans, aren't we? When your father got with your mother, their genes got combined, and a new, altered, gene was created. Do you consider yourself human? :) Again, it's the environment that influences your behavior. No genes need to be modified to change that. And again, you're only looking at the symptom. Behavior is a symptom. It's almost impossible (unless you already thought this way before) to take in everything proposed by The Venus Project in the Zeitgeist: Addendum movie, and really form an objective opinion about it. There's much more, they just lifted the veil a bit for you to explore :) Be sure to check out "Future by Design" about Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project.
  11. Thanks h3%5kr3w for your reply, you put thought into it and I appreciate that! Here we go: :) To start, I have to say that when my brother linked me to that video, I had to watch it multiple times to really take it all in and even today, when I watch it there's almost always something new I get out of. And I don't want to insult you in any way, but I think it would be good if you watched it again, but then with people that never saw it. This will shine a new light on the subject for yourself, these people will have questions and you will have to push yourself to think differently so you can answer them. I'm saying this because in the video it is stated that it's the environment that shapes us. So if we change the environment.. It's not Human Behavior VS Human Nature but Human Behavior via Human Nature. Here's a good presentation about that specific subject: These 'key things' are the symptoms. So you actually need to look a little further and search for what is causing that symptom. It's the cause that needs to be taken on. The point of The Venus Project is not to give everything, but to have everything available for everyone. There's a big difference between giving and having available. How do people want? You can't possibly compare the 'want' from today with the 'want' in a system like The Venus Project proposes. Today, our wants are influenced by companies that create commercials for stuff you don't need so they can make a profit. In The Venus Project, there is no such thing as profit. So what kind of commercials would you see? Maybe none. They wouldn't be commercials but just information. Information for public safety, health, etc. Like "There's a new vaccine available that will protect you against cancer." This has nothing to do with greed. Instead, the child sees the toy not to play with (a child doesn't know what playing is; we "grownups" assigned it's function as being a toy), but to research it and find out what it does and how it does it. And sometimes just stares at it out of pure fascination.. Like we gaze at the stars :) If that other child doesn't want to let go of the toy, it means that the child wasn't done with it's research or did not learn to share yet. You can't assume that the behavior of a child is the most pure form of human nature. Some will instinctively share and others won't. Enter education. Here's a short video, the relevant stuff about this subject is at the beginning: (but do watch it fully, all of it is very interesting) Your future example is inaccurate. No one in The Venus Project would do a certain job just to impress a girl. You're only giving this example because you're using your current frame of reference to create this example. The way you (might) impress a girl today will definitely not be the same as the way you would impress a girl in The Venus Project. If such a thing would even be necessary, I don' t know :) My personal opinion about a girl that decides to be with a guy because of the job or title he has, is definitely not worth being with. Tt certainly isn't an intelligent way of making decisions. People entail more than what their job or function is. I wouldn't want a girl that decides this way to raise my kids, you know? It's behavior that attracts me, not someone's title or function.
  12. Rationing<>merit. Rationing is dividing a certain resource equally and fairly. Merit is getting more because you need it out of the extra energy you used for a certain effort. Where's the merit in me not working because I have 1million dollars on my bank account, and the yearly percentage I get from the bank for depositing it there generates even more money (in Belgium that would be about 30 thousand dollars, which would be more than enough for a western family of 4; I earn 21k $)? Merit comes from effort and the way you can make money from money has nothing to do with fairness, rationing or even merit. You're using this system as your frame of reference when judging TVP and that will never work. If you train to do a more complicated job, you wouldn't do it because it would pay less. You would do it because it would pay more, because money=surviving. Do you think profit is a good motivation for career choices? Would you rather have a doctor doing heart surgery on you that has chosen this profession with profit in mind or one that does it because it's a passion of his/hers? In a society like TVP proposes, I would do a job with the proper motivation, because I either love doing it or because I can solve a problem that would better my life with it. I wouldn't expect to be payed more or less, I would expect that what I did for myself, will be applied to everyone for free. Even without being recognized for it, doing good for others feels great. Just look at the open source community, most of them do it out of love for it, not because of profit. Try to see it without the greed: Other money-less tribes would do it differently: if you gather more berries than you need, you could give the surplus to your neighbors instead of hoarding or consuming the surplus. It would feel good to help your neighbors. Same for the reverse situation. But the result wouldn't be a monetary system, it would be a system of social coherence. This is essentially rationing. Making sure everything is divided fairly. But you're putting a price tag on effort. It's not the individual effort that really counts, it's the general effort. As if the more effort you put in, the more you should receive. This is what I consider to be a dangerous way of thinking if everybody thought like that. Luckily, not everybody does. Do you think this system pays you more if you put more effort in? I completely agree, it's a big part of our problems. The way this system works, there will never be enough money for this idea. I'm not even mentioning that corruption is a monetary invention. There is no pile, and there is certainly nobody looking at it. If you look at our GDP's VS debt, you'll understand what I'm saying: http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-nati...ebt-by-country/ Let's try and get past the money is nothing thing and look at what money actually does. You will never hear anyone say that money didn't server it's purpose, yes, it's a much more efficient way of barthering, and it did get us this far. But like most things, the monetary system-thing is obsolete and it's time for something better. Unless you believe in Utopia and think the money system will never need to change. BTW your example is nice, it shows that fundamentally the purposes in life is to be happy and be surround by happy people. I like George Carlin's quote: "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity." Yea, I know it's not relevant to what you said, but it popped up in my mind and it's an example of the complete reverse way we today look at things. Yes, there are enough resources if we manage it intelligently. If we look at the amount of food thrown away everyday, this could feed all the starving people in the world, today.
  13. I'm convinced otherwise :) It's not the lack of resources, it's the lack of control over resources that causes some of those wars. So there isn't a lack of resources just lack of control over those resources. What do you think is the cause of that demand? I think that fundamentally we think alike but we're just not really in sync :) It's difficult to see the new system proposed by The Venus Project in a new perspective and step out of your current frame of reference, which is the current system. The goal is indeed an equilibrium with our environment, not forced, but logically attained through rational thinking. I don't see this would stun development. It would definitely stun development of technology used for irrelevant stuff, but this frees up those resources to develop the things that improve our lives. There will always be problems and ways to do things in a more efficient way and to require less resources. I think that it could be the other way around. With all resources available, development of anything and everything could take a huge leap forward. You talk about scarcity (real or artificial), but with technology we can overcome most of those (leaving the irrelevant stuff out). What do you think would happen to the Linux OS if the developers community (and everyone that joins it) would have all resources available for the development of that OS? Wouldn't it take a huge leap forward? I think they would if they could do it guilt and problem free. Here's something relevant: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=124838091 It's not what I'm saying; it's what I think to have understood about that project. To answer your question: If giving up my computer, tv, non essential stuff and eat a more restricted diet would guaranty me that there would be no more war, famine, decease, then yes I would. I'm not selfish, I would give up the things I love for that, yes. Wouldn't you? I purposefully didn't reply to that statement because I thought you would understand my point of view, because it's clear that I think money does not hold any real value. You can't eat money or fuel your car with it.
  14. Do you really think it's this human animal that needs evolution? Or maybe it's just what shapes this animal's behavior; the social system; that needs to evolve :) Like Jacque Fresco (of TVP) likes to say: We are not civilized yet. This social system (and it's inhabitants) isn't aware of the current state of technology and doesn't have the money to incorporate it so these animals living in the system can adjust to it. Do you agree with me that money paralyzes crucial components that make up our system and way of life? What are your thoughts on this?
  15. BTW; I'm not here to convince you guys, just to ask your opinion on this, provide answers where possible and give my different view to help understand the ideas (which I hope to have understood myself :) ) The only person that can convince you is yourself :)
  • Create New...