The Zeitgeist Movement - Give me your best shot.

Post Reply New Topic

@Vigilans, I'm willing to discuss something with you if you have any interest in actually talking about the topic at hand, which you don't. Intead you just wanna talk about me. Which qualifies your input as ad hominem. If you make these logical fallacies, it is not an ad hom for me to call you out on your logical fallacies.

Like I said, we're done.

So your assertion that "I HAVE stated that resources are finite and not scarce." Which is as I said contradictory provided that there is a demand for said resources and that said resources are not renewable. However, if said resources were renewable, then they are per definition infinite.

Now, you assert


Scarcity is a result of demand, IE there is more demand for a finite resource than there is supply. Let's say there are 9 apples, but a demand for 11 apples, in this case apples are scarce. You don't even need to bring economics into it for supply and demand to be true.

In order for your assertions to hold true, the finite supply would either have to be sufficiently large that it does not appear to be scarce at a given moment, in which case the resource is in fact scarce, however the demand/time ratio is wrong. Or there cannot be a finite supply.

It's simple a matter of allocation over time, yes we do have enough resources to feed, clothe and supply housing for every single person... right now, but as the resources we draw on to do so are finite so it would be unsustainable over time. In order to "squash" this criticism, your movement cites inventions and technology that does not exist at this time, and thus cannot be taken seriously.

I'm going to do half your job for you and tell you exactly what you have to do in order to refute my post:

A. Figure out how to supply an infinite desire with a finite amount of resources and put in into practice. Without speculating about future technology. You simply have to use the technology that is available to us now.

Most people would love a world where everything is abundant, but this is not the world we live in. To use similar debating tactics as you, put down the crack-pipe, come back to reality, then make your argument. Also, a picture of yourself in a straitjacket is not a good thing when you're advocating theories which boarder on insanity.

If you did not want me to get involved, you should not have insinuated that I am ignorant and uninterested for pointing out the superiority of documentation (where one can CTRL+F keywords, for example) over hours of rambling podcasts.

Please show the logical fallacies I have employed. And stop with the hypocrisy, few of your posts do not involve ad hominems of some kind. Other than pointing out you have a temper, I have been criticizing your debate style and devices exclusively. Which is actually on topic, because the purpose of this thread is to "debate" you. So if you are going to act in an unfair manner in this "debate" expect to get called on it. Otherwise this is not a debate, it is you shouting people down, like all your threads.

You're right though, we are done here. But first, I have to ask: Do you list yourself on your CV as a reference?

*facepalm* Again, you're not reading this properly. I'm correcting you on your analysis of what I have said.



How does this apply to an RBE?



*facepalm* What part of "we have the technology and the resources to feed, clothe, educate and provide for all humanity" don't you understand?



How well versed are you to the current state of technological development?



Well first off desires are environmentally determined. They are not synonymous with emptical human need. Your argument falls in on itself because you are applying the wrong terminology.



Of course. Coz we live in a monetary system. Money is not synonymous to life on Earth.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 08 Jul 2012, 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@Vigilans, You chose to get involved on this thread of your own choice, so you cannot hold me accountable. If you cannot stand being called out for not addressing the topic at hand, then that's your problem. If you cannot tell where I have each time called you out for your logical fallacies and what logical fallacies they were then you're beyond help mate. If you think the point of this thread is to "debate" me, then you clearly haven't understood the point of this thread to begin with.

Have a nice life.

The problem with this one is it needs active proof to the contrary to show the world that it can be done on a smaller level. Without that, to claim that global tech-communism would be the most beautiful thing but that you'd need global abolition of capitalism first is like the Waahabi's saying that all of the hellholes for humanity who claim to be practicing Sharia are failing because they don't have global Sharia or they've been too corrupted by the House of War's existence to show the true beauty of what would happen if it weren't for the contaminants.

I'm not putting it that way to say its impossible or BS, its going to take a microcosm (even self-elected) of volunteers in the right place, well documented, that could create a realistic roadmap. Seeing it as a realistic possibility and having that roadmap is how you get around that contamination of a current system or a whole human history of shortage prior to the present. Similarly Islam would need to create a heaven on earth state running on Sharia to show it actually can work - without it they don't have a particularly credible claim.

Human power structure of some sort must be necessary since lack of resources is not the only thing that drives people to violence and criminal activity. So there must be power structures to uphold law. There must also be a power structure to coordinate all this. Machines need maintenance and a power structure to do that maintenance would have to come into existence. There's your weak point for corruption.

Self interest only becomes social interest on very small scales. People have each other's back on a very small scale. Once you get larger than the family, NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) becomes the way people deal with each other. Do you think a community will just accpet that the "objective" software has chosen their community as the place where the garbage dump will be? People don't act in the interest of somebody on the other side of the globe. Frequently not even on the other side of town.

Now I must cook dinner. Discussion of the rest of the post later.

So I should be held accountable for your decision to insult me for not being able to load your podcasts and then lamenting over how audio is inferior to text in conferring intellectual points? Okay then. You have some serious issues



Again: which fallacies? You haven't even called me out for anything, the sum of what you have had to say to me is "You are ignorant for not wanting to listen to hours of my rambling podcasts". Besides being incapable of actual debate are you also a liar?



The thread is titled "Give me your best shot" What else is it supposed to be for than to debate you? Is there a hockey net I am unaware of where people are taking shots at you, and that was your intention with this thread?

Absolutely. I completely agree. Which is why a "test-city" is a good idea to be built to demonstrate the train of thought in function.



Ok, first off, could you define what you mean by this?



In a sense I do agree, however I agree with Richard Buckminster Fuller when he said:

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”



I appreciate your collected exchange here. And maybe you're right to an extent. In my view it is the innovations we have created along with the understanding that we as Earth are one big interconnected organism along with the knowledge that things have to change constantly, that is gonna change anything for the better. When we embrace those things, we can overcome what shackles we have willfully placed on ourselves.

@Vigilans, You're just digging yourself a hole of your own assumptions. Just give it up. I clearly stated on my OP that I'm gathering questions for a future podcast, but for the sake of clarification I will discuss them with those who are actually capable of sticking to the issue at hand. You have assumed I've come here for a "debate". Throw away the shovel mate.

what a way to avoid answering anything I said and to obfuscate further. Now I'm making "assumptions", too! You're about three inches from breaking Godwin's law at this point. I hope the other people in this thread realize: You will NOT be getting the time you spend with Anti-Adam-Um back. So do not expect a refund. Well, that straight jacket suits you, sonny jim. Have a GREAT day!

Your assertion was exactly what I said you corrected me on something which was a direct paraphrase of something YOU SAID. What you said, "resources are finite, but not scarce" is a contradiction.

If you have Scrooge Mcduck style moneybin filled with apples, then there are tons and tons of apples, if there is a demand for 10% of your apples every year however, you barely have enough apples to last you 10 years provided that the demand for apples doesn't go up.




Because a RBE is still subject to basic laws of supply and demand. You are claiming that supply is always greater than demand, in fact it's the foundation of your entire argument.



I have a 14 inch cock that Salma Hayek is currently fighting with Jessica Alba over who gets to sit on. You keep saying it, but you don't have that technology and have given no evidence of having it.

The technology in question, would have to supply energy and matter in abundance, and that is far beyond the reach of current technological progress. Now, fair enough our progression has been fast and furious in the last few hundred years, however until I see this technology implemented and working, this is merely an assertion from you, just like my 14 inch cock and the catfight between Salma and Jessica.



Well enough to know that none of the technology you would require is in a functional state as we speak. Thus, what you are advocating is switching to a system based on "it will work once X, Y and Z" is in place with no guarantee that X, Y and Z is even possible.



I'm going to assume you mean "empirical" when you write "emptical". Your assertion was that the Zeitgeist movement had a plan and the technology to give people a "high standard of living" as a high standard of living is defined by current living standards in the Western world. So, when you say "high standard of living" without defining it, we have to assume that you are using the commonly accepted definition, not one you made up and didn't tell us about. As doing that would be rhetorical mumbo-jumbo.



[/quote]

Money is a tool. Money gains value from the resources it can be exchanged for. Heck, the only reason we use currency is that it makes the exchange of resources easier. Why do some resources cost more money? Because there is a high demand and a low supply.

How so?



You are assuming conditions of an RBE based upon the frame of reference of current value systems and behaviours.



Not necessarily. But it depends whether you mean "power" as in authority, or energy. You see, this is one of the main reasons why I urge people to know what they're talking about in terms of what an RBE is. Coz it saves all these questions that won't be asked when an unerstanding of the RBE is in place.



Howabout the realisation that since we have the technology and resources to provide for humanity, it is none of your busiess what your neighbour is up to. Some will want to help maintain machines, some won't. There's no big deal.

[quote ]Self interest only becomes social interest on very small scales. People have each other's back on a very small scale. Once you get larger than the family, NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) becomes the way people deal with each other. [/quote]

Again, based upon what environemntal conditions reinforce those kinds of behaviour in the CURRENT system. You need to stop thinking about an RBE as a caste of a monetary system. Its like comparing life as a human, to life as a fish. That being completely different environmental conditions.



Well first off, who's to say there will be such need for a "garbage dump"? Again, you're thinking about this in terms of what we know in the current system. Second, what reason is there to disagree with an objective conclusion?



Well that's an unfortunate circumstance of our current value of apathy that is required to keep things the way they are.



Fair dos. Chat to you later, and I appreciate the mature discussion.

• They did not address my point
• They did not appear to be leading anywhere
• If they were leading somewhere, you should have gotten to the point instead of asking inane questions
• I don't have time to engage in silly internet arguments right now

Furthermore, what is the point when it's clear from your attitude that you are so convinced of your own correctness that you are unwilling to give credence to anything anyone with an opposing view says, even when it's clear that they are one hundred times more competent than you in the field of economics?

That's your opinion.



Therin lies the inherant stratification of having a system based on exchange.



Actually, no. Granted supply and demand are elements of the equation, however money is not needed as a mechanism for deciding the allocation of resources. When you erradicate money from the equation due to technological innovations, suddenly it becomes ridiculously simple. In this regard I would urge you to listen to Part 2 of my latest podcast where I read a quote for "The First Civilisation" where Jas explains how resource allocation works in an RBE.



I hardly think that was a useful or relevant comment. Plese stay on topic.



And what are you basing this assertion on exactly? Here's part of what I base my assertions on:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqv0Y1t1bNw[/youtube]



I point you in part towards the "Our Technical Reality" video, and here is another little something for you to ponder. Federico describes some innovations that even suprised and slightly shocked me:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGrM0mTZUog[/youtube]



I point you again to the 2 above videos, and also to the following site. Its a technology news aggrigate site:

Zeitnews.org

I'm going to assume you mean "empirical" when you write "emptical". Your assertion was that the Zeitgeist movement had a plan and the technology to give people a "high standard of living" as a high standard of living is defined by current living standards in the Western world. [/quote]

Says who exactly? Keep in mind I'm talking about standard of living, NOT consumption habits.



Oh really. I didn't know resources claims a stake of influence in fractional reserve banking. And you are right, resources are valued as per their supply, but money is not required for this. You are absolutely correct. It is a tool. But like a medievil tool, it is now obsolete.

@Burzum, if you actually pay attention you will notice I concede to and give credence to a lot of people's views that actually make sense on here and are mature enough to discuss.