The Zeitgeist Movement

I've been lurking the forums for quite some time and I always enjoy reading the posts. However, I think it is time for my first post. It will be about the Zeitgeist Movement, as indicated in the title.

My friend introduced me to this seemingly utopian movement, called the Zeitgeist Movement (the active arm of The Venus Project, link below) which promises peace, prosperity, sustainability, independence, individuality (as opposed to uniformity), and an overall increase in the well-being of the entire population of the planet. (I'm unsure of the last bit but it is implied by the following quote)

"The Venus Project is an organization that proposes a feasible plan of action for social change, one that works towards a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative to strive toward where human rights are no longer paper proclamations but a way of life" (Be wary of this quote, it was found in a secondary source)

This sounds like the perfect society, which worries me. My friend, however, is really "into it" and has invited me to a meeting. I'm going to check it out and watch the two documentaries about the movement. It sounds interesting, but seems just too fantastic to be attainable.

Some of the means to achieving such a society: creating a cybernated government which is more able to deal with incredible amounts of information and react accordingly; ridding society of the monetary system because it "is not capable of providing a high standard of living for everyone, nor can it ensure the protection of the environment because the major motive is profit" (This is, once again, from a secondary source); creating a resourced-based economy.

These means scare the hell out of me.

Here's the basic principles and goals of the movement:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project-introduction/aims-proposals

I'm trying to keep this post relatively short so I'll end it here. In conclusion: What do you guys think of this organization, its plans, means, and goals?

I have many questions for that meeting.

Post 1

Friday, February 25, 2011 - 5:45pm

Sounds like another creepy religion to me. Let us know what you think about it after the meeting. :)

Post 2

Friday, February 25, 2011 - 6:25pm

They want to "design" a society? Sounds like social engineering to me ... and that's something that instills the deepest fear and abhorrence in me.

Sam

Post 3

Friday, February 25, 2011 - 6:25pm

That is pure fantasy based upon real ignorance of economics, politics, ethics and psychology.

Take just one line from the home web page, "A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all."

He is calling physical equipment a resource! What tree does physical equipment grow on? Isn't it a produced by labor working under management and using capital?

All of these so-called resources... if they can't be picked off a tree (which actually takes ladders, trucks, labor, etc.), then I guess the idea is to steal them from current owners and divide them up or put them under some central authority?

If one of these places already existed I'd love to go look at it, but wouldn't I be expected to make some kind contribution in exchange for getting my food/shelter/transportation needs met?

He talks about how all it took to make all those aircraft for WWII and says all it took was resources. False. It took labor, it took investors, it took the selling of a massive amount of bonds (debt) and then for a long time after the war was over, taxpayers paid off the interest and the principle of those bonds.
--------------------

He writes, "In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people."

Does he explain anywhere how he talks all the different governments everywhere to step down? Or why the governments would melt away leaving no boundaries?
---------------------

"As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems."

So, we don't need lawyers... there are no laws? But the last sentence says we have elected leaders? How does that work?

No insurance companies - so we have no way to manage risk - if a hurricane destroys your home, it's just too bad for you.

No competition - so there is no competition - that means no freedom to compete - no freedom to create what you want.

Who is going tell you that you can't open a competing function? Who holds the gun that enforces that lack of choice?
---------------------

I won't go on. It is full of things that make no sense.

Post 4

Friday, February 25, 2011 - 7:00pm

Welcome Kyle.

Wow...don't take your checkbook! I'm sure they'll tell you that they can provide peace on earth, they just need a little money first! I've actually seen this same kind of project. They look for money to buy up some real estate, create a utopian "proof of concept", usually in some tropical paradise. Of course, the proof of concept can never work, since the whole goal is simply to take all the wealth of the world and redistribute it. I'm sure when the project is deemed a failure, the poor guy running it walks off with 100 acres of tropical paradise.

For me, it doesn't even sound like a perfect society. It sounds like a hellish nightmare. Sure, they use words like "peace", but like all would-be tyrants, they mean "order", and they will break anyone who doesn't go along.

If an Objectivist were to talk about peace, they would be suggesting a world where each individual is able to live their own life how they want, and interactions between each person would be voluntary. You can I can make a trade if we both agree. You can I can start a business together if we both agree. Customers can buy from us if we all agree. The initiation of force is outlawed, freeing each individual to make their own choices and live their own lives.

Is that the kind of peace that they're suggesting? No. They would to abolish money, and with it goes private property. They want the government to centrally plan the entire economy, and with it the lives of each individual. We already see what happens in this country when the "commerce clause" of the Constitution is interpreted in a wide way. It started off dealing with actual trade across states. Then it affected trade within states. Then it affected private behavior that might impact trade in some way. How big is your toilet? How much junk food can you buy? And then it goes on to whether you exercise enough, or read enough, or whatever they want. A government that completely controls the economy, and the resources, is a government that completely controls your life.

How is that peaceful? How is telling every single human being on the planet that they either do what you say or you'll kill them (or just let them starve!) an example of a peaceful society? And how does controlling every aspect of their lives an example of independence of individuality? Just because people are forced to do different things does not make it a society that promotes individuality!

The sad part is, it's not even original. If you're going to propose a bad idea, you'd at least try to be creative. Why promote a failed idea that everyone already knows is wrong. I guess maybe they're trying to promote green technologies by recycling bad ideas. If you go to talk to some socialists, they'll give you the same plans. There's nothing new here. The reasoning is very old, and goes something like this:

1.) I want free stuff!
2.) The current system of private property doesn't allow it. I'm told I have to work to buy stuff. But I don't want to.
3.) Imagine a world where we could just have whatever we want. If I want a new car, I just take one. Why should someone else be able to tell me otherwise? The worlds resources belong to all of us!
4.) What's that you say? If we can just take the stuff without trading for it, nobody would work? Hmmm...
5.) I dismiss that by saying that resources are plentiful and wealth is artificially limited by money and profit! Get rid of those, and we'll have unlimited wealth and I can get my free stuff! It is the capitalist system that creates poverty! Abolish that, my friend, and utopia will be ours!
6.) You say that central planning has been tried over and over again and not only led to death but also poverty? Well, they just weren't smart enough or weren't noble enough. (Let's make supercomputers to do it!)

There's nothing new here. It's the same old nonsense. The only creative part, which isn't very creative, is the idea of the guy running it to make a profit off of all the chumps who buy into it. He'll spend all his time denouncing money as evil, and then ask you to hand over yours!

Post 5

Friday, February 25, 2011 - 6:59pm

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Teresa, I will let you know how the meeting goes. I have a feeling I won't be very popular.

Sam, I am also wary of people who want to make such changes without first thoroughly explaining how they are going to do so. The lofty goals don't help much either.

Steve, I don't think he called physical equipment a natural resource. I think he meant that this type of economy would utilize the resources from the land and sea AND utilize physical equipment AND industrial plants. I think it was just poor sentence structuring. Nevertheless, it is questionable how such an economy would function without some form of currency. I have a quote which supports this, though, keep in mind it is also from a secondary source.

"It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form or debt or servitude...Earth is abundant with plentiful resources; today our practice or rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival."

All goods, services, and resources are going to be accessible by everyone at any time? Who would regulate this? How would they be distributed? The implications are, once again, terrifying.

Good post Steve. It was well thought-out.

Post 6

Friday, February 25, 2011 - 7:58pm

Thanks Joseph.

I think the leader of the movement has already bought some land and is planning to begin building some structures, but it's something I only vaguely remember and I'm not sure if it's true.

I made the mistake of not clarifying the "perfect society" part. I should have said that it seems like a perfect society when only the superficial aspects are considered and the implications ignored.

The reason I think the idea of such a society has kept its appeal is because of its utopian promises: everyone is equal, poverty is eliminated, everything is free, little work needs to be done, harmony between man and nature is established, and independence is guaranteed. Little thought is given to the monsters which lurk beneath such promises. Those promises are excellent for enticing others into buying into such an idea. The lead men of such a project profit off the ignorance of others.

This is actually the reason why I fear for my friend. I don't think he fully understands what he's getting into and I don't want to see him get scammed. In fact, I hope he doesn't fully understand the consequences of such a society. This may sound odd but if he fully understood the end results and still decided to go along with it I would be horrified. I've known him for a long time I don't consider him evil, just misinformed.

"You say that central planning has been tried over and over again and not only led to death but also poverty? Well, they just weren't smart enough or weren't noble enough. (Let's make supercomputers to do it!)" or were corrupt or humans just aren't perfect enough to run the perfect society. IT'S HUMAN GREED, AFTER ALL, THAT RUINED THE USSR. SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM IS INFALLIBLE, HUMAN NATURE MESSED IT UP.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard the above argument.

Post 7

Friday, February 25, 2011 - 9:04pm

"No money"? In other words, no voluntary exchange, exchange of value is controlled by the government, or its not controlled by the government and everyone can steal from everyone. Which means that in such an economic system, individuals do not realize any gain for themselves for the work they do. Which means that no one will be motivated to work... its socialism or extreme fascism. Which means its either mass starvation or mass genocide, or both.

Or in short: "No money" -> "mass death"

Post 8

Friday, February 25, 2011 - 9:38pm

"The reason I think the idea of such a society has kept its appeal is because of its utopian promises: everyone is equal, poverty is eliminated, everything is free, little work needs to be done, harmony between man and nature is established, and independence is guaranteed."

I wonder how they know that these things are good, or why they're good. Why should poverty be eliminated? Isn't poverty the natural result of bad ideas sometimes? Will they eliminate every single bad idea that ever lead to poverty? How? Won't there be new ideas that lead to poverty? Do they claim omniscience?

Why is being "equal" a value? How does that idea advance humanity? Are the worst just as good as the best, or are there no judgements allowed to assess human value because everyone is "equal?"

I've never understood what "harmony" between man and nature means. Man is part of nature. Humanity isn't something superfluous in the world. There's no dichotomy between man and nature, so there's nothing to "harmonize" between the two. In other words, they aren't at odds with one another.

You have good reason to worry about your friend. He/she isn't thinking about this at all.

Post 9

Friday, February 25, 2011 - 10:24pm

Dean, from what I've read so far the organization contends that since the earth has an abundant supply of resources that, therefore, money is of little use and is "irrelevant" and even "counter-productive to our survival."

Teresa, I don't think it's difficult to imagine why they think these things are good. Haven't most people been taught so since they were young? It probably seems to the movement that such things are always desirable for one reason or another.

"Do they claim omniscience?" They do give that impression.

At one time I had thought man and his creations were separate from nature. I now know otherwise. However, I'm still able to see how others can think in such a way.

He's a smart guy and I think he just wants to be part of something important even if that something has malicious intentions, though, I hope that that isn't the case. I hope he isn't aware of the organization's true motives and still wishes to belong to it.

He always says that he respects everyone on the planet. Something that I don't understand because not everyone is deserving of respect.

Thanks for the posts everyone. I can't believe this has gotten so much attention.

Post 10

Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 6:25am

Raw resources are abundant, yes. But it takes a great deal of planning, problem solving, and other forms of work to turn some dirt, sunlight, and rain into food, vehicles, shelters, and drinkable water. And when individuals are not permitted to own nor trade the products of their labor, they Do Not Individually Self Gain From Their Own Work. So individuals will not work.

Your proposed society will have lots of dirt to eat, mud to drink, sunburns, and depending on where they live, maybe they will freeze. That's all that raw resources gets you. And a human, I'm sure you are aware, cannot survive a diet of dirt.

Post 11

Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 6:51am

Kyle:

When they decry 'monetary systems', they are bailing on the idea of value-proxies. The introduction of value-proxies into our economies no doubt made them more complex, and introduced additional opportunities for gaming/crime, but the proof is in the pudding: we maintain monetary systems/value-proxies because the additional benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. Sure, the use of value-proxies introduced banks and bankers and banking, but a few corrupt bankers, limited in reach and scope(as long as they are)look far more appealing than even one corrupt emperor.

What are the alternatives to value for value-proxy for value?

1] Direct barter, value-for-value. Try to even imagine those economies. Maybe on a limited, local commune basis, that could work, like the Amish. Nothing wrong with the Amish, but I can't imagine all of America functioning as the Amish. In fact, I can't imagine how one constructs anything remotely like a NYCity based on Amish sensibilities and commerce.

2] Elite emperors of value. Basically, disconnected elites in Manhattan instructing the Amish how to live frugally, to provide food and energy and water both for themselves and Manhattan at Manhattan standards of living. Millions living frugally so that hundreds can live like kings...

Both of the above are giant steps backwards, the latter of which our present government and those who buy access to it have effectively been trying to enact to some extent, governed by how far they think they can get away with it.

3] ??? What are these folks alternative?

Even in pure barter economies, there was still opportunity for gaming/crime-- for offering false value for real value. The difference is, the perp was within your reach, right in front of you. The perp had to risk direct conflict with those they were stealing from.

With monetary/value-proxy economies, the perps can be a thousand miles away, unrelated to the transaction at hand. The principals in most transactions do not have sufficient reach to throttle the perps stealing from them.

And still... the benefits of value-proxy economies exceed the disadvantages. But lately, it seems like the perps are running a very fine line with that, and that is where the impetus for various frustrated reactions -- like this alternative paradigm group-- come from.

Can our swamps be cleaned up? The news isn't encouraging.

In response to the latest economic self-imposed crisis, the perps awarded themselves even more power over the economies. The 'crisis' resulted in the very actors who brought it down on our heads circling up the wagons and grabbing onto power with a vengeance. A totally out of all control federal government, faced with a 1.6 trillion dollar and growing deficit, angsts over reducing the budget by either 0.03 or 0.06 trillion dollars, and fully half the nation rails that an 0.06 trillion dollar cut would be 'Draconian.'

Like it or not, we may all be heading for 'commune' life soon enough. The Amish, at least, are ready for what is coming. I can't imagine what the island of Manhattan is going to look like. The concrete arteries leading out of those fortresses of dependency might become battlegrounds as ten million plus flee the collapse.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/26, 6:54am)

Post 12

Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 9:40am

Dean, I think there has been a misunderstanding. I do not advocate such a society because I do not see how it could possibly work. The goals themselves have monstrous implications. I just simply want to learn more about it and the more I learn the more I see the idiocy of it all. The very line:

"Simply stated, a resource-based economy utilizes existing resources rather than money and provides and equitable method of distributing these resources in the most efficient manner for the entire population."

I think it is obvious how the organization intends to distribute resources. If they aren't going to use money then another medium will need to be used. Imagine the corruption that would cause.

Fred, great explanation on the benefits of money and on the inefficiency and evil of the alternatives. I couldn't agree with you more.

Indeed, the government actions do form a vicious cycle: create disaster, blame someone else, impose "appropriate" regulations, repeat. However, this cycle will only last as long as they can convince the public that it is the other guy's fault. Like all vicious cycles it leads in a downward free-fall to the bottom.

Post 13

Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 11:08am

Sorry, should have said "your friend's".

Money is not something corrupt. Money is an easily tradable quantifiable thing with a limit on increase in its supply.

Money is the critically important tool that is required in order to have functioning trading. Whether the money be in the form of grain, or rare sea shells, or gold, or a reliable fiat currency where the maintainers of the currency guarantee low rate of increase in fiat supply... money enables people to price everything using the same unit of measure, enabling people to make comparisons in value and choose to trade for what is best for their goals.

Money is the temporary placeholder of the real values one has created, which one can then later exchange for the values another had created. Money enables a value creator to maximize the value he creates by trading in the free market with those who value his creation the most. Hence it enables value creators to maximize the rewards of their productive work. Hence it maximizes an individuals motivation to be productive.

Money is awesome.

So when your friend wants to be a part of a society that outlaws the exchange of money... I just want to make it clear how terrible that is.

Cheers,
Dean

Post 14

Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 12:22pm

Dean, "Money is awesome." Indeed it is.

I don't understand the organizations dislike/distrust of money either. I have only performed a very limited examination of the organization but so far I haven't gathered any viable reason to rid society of money other than the claim that money is "irrelevant" and "counter-productive to our survival." Some other reasons are listed in the following quote.

I will be watching the two documentaries soon and perhaps I will find elaboration on the subject. I'm very curious as to how such a society will function because I don't see any possible way outside the horrors of extreme government regulation and distribution of resources. Perhaps my friend can explain it to me.

I don't think I've posted this full quote yet, so I will do it now.

"Our current monetary system is not capable of providing a high standard of living for everyone, nor can it ensure the protection of the environment because the major motive is profit...In a monetary system purchasing power is not related to our capacity to produce goods and services. Today money is used to regulate the economy not for the benefit of the general populace, but for those who control the financial wealth of nations."

Providing a high standard of living for everyone? Hmm I wonder what this entails in a society where resources are plentiful and free. I can most certainly expect shortages, bribery, and corruption.

I think the next few sentences of the quote speak for themselves.

To avoid any further confusion I would like to announce my central purpose and position in case any of my messages are unclear: I do not condone such a society, its means, or goals. I do not think it could work, therefore, I don't support it. I simply want to learn more about it.

Post 15

Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 2:11pm

Ask your friend how a supercomputer would direct the use of scarce resources like the natural environment, physical and mental labor and capital goods to determine what is produced, how it is produced, by whom and in what quantities? Ask him how, without a medium of exchange and the necessary signals that prices convey to producers and consumers, a supercomputer could allocate goods and services in a way that avoids surpluses and shortages? Ask him what incentive people would have to work and produce if they weren't being paid according to the value consumers place on their products -- a value best expressed in terms of a commonly accepted medium of exchange?

Any Utopian social system needs to answer these questions thoroughly and convincingly, if it ever expects to gain a wide following.

Post 16

Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 3:26pm

William, I'll ask him all of those questions but before I can ask him this:

"Ask him what incentive people would have to work and produce if they weren't being paid according to the value consumers place on their products -- a value best expressed in terms of a commonly accepted medium of exchange?"

I'll need to ask him if there is any incentive at all to work since all goods and services are available without the need to exchange some form of value in return for them. Indeed, I'm currently reading an article about The Venus Project's resource-based economy and it states "It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form or debt or servitude...Earth is abundant with plentiful resources; today our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival."

Thanks for commenting.

Post 17

Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 3:57pm

Kyle, Sorry I'm more trying to get my thoughts out about money then accusing or arguing with you. Nice to meet you. I'll look forward to seeing you around.

Post 18

Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 4:24pm

Kyle, I just want to add that I think you're very brave to do this.

So many have learned to give bad ideas a pass until those ideas affect them, sometimes after its too late! Its inspiring to see someone try to understand an idea before most people have even heard of it. I've got to hand it to you. I'd never do it, myself.

Post 19

Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 5:22pm