DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

 

 

If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

 

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

 

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Philosphorous

Resource-Based Economy vs. Anarcho-Primitivism

37 posts in this topic

I've tried multiple times through mutliple venues to get in touch with TZM and VP people to discuss/debate their absurd concepts. So, I made this video.

 

They can debate capitalists all they want, but they won't engage with a primitivist. They simply can't win.

 

http://youtu.be/gr90vBwnx-Y

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what is anarcho-primitivism or why is that exclusive or contradictory. Seems to me you just want to disagree with TVP no matter what. TVP is much more sophisticated than you say - it's simply that state of the art technologies are used, doesn't matter which ones. If anyone has a problem, all he needs is to present empirical evidence for it. There is no necessity to make gigantic geoengineering projects, any technical solution with a given power output will do. There is no commercial interest or interest groups to force our hand into a particular solution. The problem is not technology, the problem is people misusing technology for profit. Money are universal wild card that can get people anything they want, so they just grab natural resources, slap a brand on them, throw them on the market and get some sweet sweet profit, not caring what happens with the resources or nature.

 

It also seems to me, that you idealize nature. Natural processes are slow and probabilistic. Animals do not lead happy and stress-free lives in the wild, they usually lead short, difficult lives, in the end eaten by something, usually alive. Nature equals suffering. 

 

Fresco basically proposes to turn Earth into one big wild park, save for very compact and carefully limited network of relatively small cities, connected by quiet maglev trains. He even speaks of carefully displacing the top soil before building a city. He speaks of rebuilding coral reefs. TVP and TZM and RBE are the best thing that can happen to nature. Nobody in TVP would cut down a tree to make newspaper or blow up a mountain because there's gold or diamonds underneath. Technology is the friend of nature. 

 

No, no person will be forced out - we talk, we use our head, we negotiate, we find reasons of why and what. There are no good people or bad people, as Fresco says himself. Nobody ever does anything for no reason - and if yes, they don't do it very determinedly, and if yes, they're usually low functioning autist and can be negotiated with by experts on autism who are usually high functioning autists.

The point is, the cities are not going to be much good anyway, if people move out to a different cities and most of the goods and services will be gone and capitalism will go even sooner, due to technological unemployment, credit crunch and whatnot. But a rooftop gardener would be very valued in TVP, someone who would voluntarily look after gardens or hydroponics or do a personal research, can be a gardener for a whole city, along with other volunteers.

 

As for birds... Do you know how many birds lives in a city? Pigeons, owls, kestrels, crows, whatnot... Not counting the birds in nature...

In RBE we don't build underwater wires. Fresco speaks about reconstructing coral reefs and building facilities for marine biology research... He says each research branch should have a trouble-shooting task force, in case of marine biologists these will probably be folks who push whales off the beach or mercilessly brutally slaughter crown of thorns starfish and the recent voracious lionfish infestation. (good riddance)

 

If you think we are short on rare earth elements and silicon for solar panels... Just think how much resources we had, if we did not produce a new edition of Play Station, XBox, Wii, GameCube, iPhone, Mac, a few hundred cell phone brands and whatnot every year, none of which can be updated and none of which is easy to recycle as a resource. This is in direct violation of TVP design rules.

You're proverbially crying on a wrong grave, man.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You addressed nothing I said in the video. What Fresco is proposing would be horribly destructive to the natural world. There's no denying this. It's another human-favoring domination techno-fix at the expense of the rest of Earth's inhabitants.

 

"It also seems to me, that you idealize nature. Natural processes are slow and probabilistic. Animals do not lead happy and stress-free lives in the wild, they usually lead short, difficult lives, in the end eaten by something, usually alive. Nature equals suffering."

 

You obviously know little about anthropology. Most "native" or hunter-gatherer tribes work(ed) 2-3 hours per day and spent the rest with leisure time.

 

Hunting and gathering was humanity's first and most successful adaptation, occupying at least 90 percent of human history. Until 12,000 years ago, all humans lived this way.

 

Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers

 

That is the essence of primitivism. It's proved itself. Humans didn't grow food; food grew. They didn't try to enslave and control nature as Jacque Fresco is proposing.

 

"But a rooftop gardener would be very valued in TVP, someone who would voluntarily look after gardens or hydroponics or do a personal research, can be a gardener for a whole city, along with other volunteers."

 

Agriculture began the rapid downfall of human health and well-being and led up the wonderful society we have today. It was the worst thing that could have happened to people.

 

Agriculture and its negative health effects:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12494313

 More (expanded): http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html

 

Birds living in cities proves birds are adaptable. Believe it or not, those birds all lived in nature long before cities existed. Are you implying humans did them some sort of favor by building through their habitats?

 

TZM is becoming like a religion with its god-head Peter Joseph.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see. So because a big fish eats a small fish and there is conflict, that justifies utopian donut cities that will further destroy nature? His answer is domination, so I guess if I want to live in his house and since I'm bigger and stronger than him, I'll just take it since that's what he advocates. Colonize the oceans!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't encourage him, if only for you're own philosophical sanity and integrity.. I always thought this forum returned more sophisticated trollage. Not a return to the dark ages frankly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, this is already a community, and many members have objective results from their efforts, that anarchy is possible in our own lifes, including me. 

 

Go have your own community of primitivism, as close to your own ideal as possible and show us that, instead of living in words, and being a complete hypocrite. All I know is that you have not tried a single thing that you preach, and you need others to change before you change, and that is a charlatan to me. ps: just the USB stick has saved more trees and nature than any ridiculous plead to "save the world", and you don't even want that...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, this is already a community, and many members have objective results from their efforts, that anarchy is possible in our own lifes, including me. 

 

Go have your own community of primitivism, as close to your own ideal as possible and show us that, instead of living in words, and being a complete hypocrite. All I know is that you have not tried a single thing that you preach, and you need others to change before you change, and that is a charlatan to me. ps: just the USB stick has saved more trees and nature than any ridiculous plead to "save the world", and you don't even want that...

 

So, we're not allowed to discuss things that we haven't fully tried. There goes Stefan's argument for free-market capitalism, since it's not possible to really live that way in a statist society.

 

Where exactly are you getting that I haven't tried what I'm proposing? I know edible plants (and teach them to others) and grow most of my food. I use very little technology and live an extremely minimalist lifestyle. Almost 100% of what I buy is local. Keep in mind that I am blind. I actually tried TWICE to go to survivalist schools but failed miserably. If I could see properly I can tell you that I wouldn't be spending time on the Internet.

 

Nevertheless, what I'm proposing has been tried. It was in place until about 12,000 years ago and was sustainable. After that began the fairly rapid degradation of the species and the planet.

 

What you've said is just a character attack. If I'm wrong, tell me how.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I use very little technology...I am blind."

 

You are fully using technology while saying that, which is hypocritical.  

 

 

"Nevertheless, what I'm proposing has been tried. It was in place until about 12,000 years ago and was sustainable. "

 

This is about you trying it, not some people x years ago had a great Friday that we should imitate. Living till 20 and dying from a toothache sure does not sound like sustainable though.

 

"After that began the fairly rapid degradation of the species and the planet."

 

Which gave a blind man the ability to reach the world from the comfort of his couch, and chose his own community,  while he grows up till 80...

 

"If I'm wrong, tell me how."

 

Live the life that you want others to live, instead of going on about it.  If you don't care for living it, why would anybody else care? Start with modern medicine and electricity, don't use them and see what you want others to go through. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Armitage Got a question. What is the difference between a resource based economy and a resource based economic model?

RBE can not have a model, because it is just an abstract concept. We see specific examples of RBE everywhere around in nature and in society. 

The Venus Project is a specific example of RBE that should be able to be tested and simulated digitally. Once the team develops a realistic city model, it can hook it up to other virtual cities like that, even simulate Corcen, the computer with global information on resources and so on. I suppose then it will be an example of a resource-based economic model.

 

Then people will basically play Sim City - probably sending all kinds of trouble and catastrophes at the model, to see how it behaves under conditions like too much people, energy surge, energy blackouts, etc - how fast other cities respond, how soon can supplies arrive or be sent, stuff like that. Then they'll turn it over to the internetz as a MMORPG. Probably a Second Life mod  :)

 

In any case, TVP is not anarcho-primitivism, if anything, it's anarcho-scientifism, only science is no ism.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I use very little technology...I am blind."

 

You are fully using technology while saying that, which is hypocritical.  

 

 

"Nevertheless, what I'm proposing has been tried. It was in place until about 12,000 years ago and was sustainable. "

 

This is about you trying it, not some people x years ago had a great Friday that we should imitate. Living till 20 and dying from a toothache sure does not sound like sustainable though.

 

"After that began the fairly rapid degradation of the species and the planet."

 

Which gave a blind man the ability to reach the world from the comfort of his couch, and chose his own community,  while he grows up till 80...

 

"If I'm wrong, tell me how."

 

Live the life that you want others to live, instead of going on about it.  If you don't care for living it, why would anybody else care? Start with modern medicine and electricity, don't use them and see what you want others to go through. 

 

This entire post is ad hominem attacks and a display that you know nothing about anthropology. There are still hunter-gatherer tribes today and they aren't dying of toothaches at 20.

 

Trust me--if I was sighted I would not be here. My circumstances also have nothing to do with the arguments. I am the messenger. Attack the message.

RBE can not have a model, because it is just an abstract concept. We see specific examples of RBE everywhere around in nature and in society. 

The Venus Project is a specific example of RBE that should be able to be tested and simulated digitally. Once the team develops a realistic city model, it can hook it up to other virtual cities like that, even simulate Corcen, the computer with global information on resources and so on. I suppose then it will be an example of a resource-based economic model.

 

Then people will basically play Sim City - probably sending all kinds of trouble and catastrophes at the model, to see how it behaves under conditions like too much people, energy surge, energy blackouts, etc - how fast other cities respond, how soon can supplies arrive or be sent, stuff like that. Then they'll turn it over to the internetz as a MMORPG. Probably a Second Life mod  :)

 

In any case, TVP is not anarcho-primitivism, if anything, it's anarcho-scientifism, only science is no ism.

 

TVP has existed since the 70s as sociocyberengineering or something. Where is the model? They raised 100k for a motion picture that never materialized. Where's that money? Pay somebody to make a simulation.

 

It is not anarchy by any means. If the super computer denies you you're out of luck. It's a technocracy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried multiple times through mutliple venues to get in touch with TZM and VP people to discuss/debate their absurd concepts. So, I made this video.

 

They can debate capitalists all they want, but they won't engage with a primitivist. They simply can't win.

 

http://youtu.be/gr90vBwnx-Y

 

 

Hi, I am not apart or subscribe to TVP or TZM or RBE but I have found a individual by the name of Outbound who supports a RBE and is willing to debate you. He has a lot of criticisms towards the video you made. Outbound attends TZM open dicussion meetings (not official meetings) every Monday at 10 pm est. Outbound welcomes you or anybody else (including freedomain radio memebers) to attend the meeting anytime on TZM team speak 3 for open dicussions that are held every monday. They are holding a meeting later on today at 10 pm EST if you want to debate today.

 

 

 

TZM teamspeak connect info

 

Open dicussion meetings held ever monday on TZM team speak 3 server at 10 PM EST

 

Server:[/size]thezeitgeistmovement.com  Pass: ts_129tzm [/size]

 

Teamspeak 3 download[/size]

http://www.teamspeak.com/?page=downloads

 

How to install teamspeak[/size]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S32AGZdY5yA

 

 

click link below to go directly to channel after download and install teamspeaks 3[/size]

Open Discussion Teamspeak 3 channel

 

 

How to read UTC (Zulu) Time Conversion Chart[/size]

http://www.scc-ares-races.org/generalinfo/utcchart.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

TVP has existed since the 70s as sociocyberengineering or something. Where is the model? They raised 100k for a motion picture that never materialized. Where's that money? Pay somebody to make a simulation.

 

It is not anarchy by any means. If the super computer denies you you're out of luck. It's a technocracy.

The talk was about a computer model if that's what you mean. Fresco on his ranch has a plenty of plastic models of everything, including cities. Also blueprints. 

 

Fresco was much of the time busy designing the social and technical side of future global society. One has to think of school curricula, linguistics, city organization and such, so that the society is not prone to stupidity and opinion. It's not all just technology or models. 

I think the 100k are for the professional screenplay writer working on it right now. They hired some famous dude in retirement or something. However, as major motion pictures go, that will probably take tenths of million at least and some sponsor. Having a screenplay is the first thing when begging sponsors for money.

 

Also, a simulation is basically a game. You know how much game development costs today? It's one of major industries. But nevermind me, my relationship with money is...difficult. I can admire pretty much anyone who is not bankrupt doing what they love, considering how little I can support them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RBE can not have a model, because it is just an abstract concept. We see specific examples of RBE everywhere around in nature and in society. 

The Venus Project is a specific example of RBE that should be able to be tested and simulated digitally. Once the team develops a realistic city model, it can hook it up to other virtual cities like that, even simulate Corcen, the computer with global information on resources and so on. I suppose then it will be an example of a resource-based economic model.

 

Then people will basically play Sim City - probably sending all kinds of trouble and catastrophes at the model, to see how it behaves under conditions like too much people, energy surge, energy blackouts, etc - how fast other cities respond, how soon can supplies arrive or be sent, stuff like that. Then they'll turn it over to the internetz as a MMORPG. Probably a Second Life mod  :)

 

In any case, TVP is not anarcho-primitivism, if anything, it's anarcho-scientifism, only science is no ism.

 

@Armitage interesting so you don't think a RBEM is very good but a RBE is better.

 

Got another question. I've heard various terminology spinoff's of a RBE. What is the difference of a resource based economy, resource based economic model, Earth economy, natural law economy, and natural law resource based economy? [1][2]

 

Refernces

 

. RBE VS RBEM VS Earth Economy VS Natural Law Economy

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5519/australian-tzm-member-david-zwolski-upsets-the-leaders-of-tz/#reply-bf3228ef

 

ECONOMIC CALCULATION in a NATURAL-LAW/ RESOURCE-BASED ECONOMY -Peter Joseph

http://www.eventbrite.de/e/economic-calculation-in-a-natural-law-resource-based-economy-peter-joseph-tickets-8908291941

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hi, I am not apart or subscribe to TVP or TZM or RBE but I have found a individual by the name of Outbound who supports a RBE and is willing to debate you. He has a lot of criticisms towards the video you made. Outbound attends TZM open dicussion meetings (not official meetings) every Monday at 10 pm est. Outbound welcomes you or anybody else (including freedomain radio memebers) to attend the meeting anytime on TZM team speak 3 for open dicussions that are held every monday. They are holding a meeting later on today at 10 pm EST if you want to debate today.

 

 

 

Do you have any contact info for this person? I would really prefer a Skype debate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any contact info for this person? I would really prefer a Skype debate.

 

It would be most convenient if you could do teamspeak but I'll ask. I know you have been contacting TZM and TVP  I just wanted to point you in a direction where you would encounter more indivduals who beleive in that particular ideology. Why talk to one when you can meet a group of them to debate?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Armitage interesting so you don't think a RBEM is very good but a RBE is better.

 I don't understand, what do you mean by "RBEM? You know what a model is and what is it for. Eh, I see on the first link that there has been some development in terminology. I am not in contact at all with TVP or TZM forums or authorities. So my take on this is pretty basic:  RBE is an idea. A RBEM as you say is a model. It's not for living in, it's a specific manifestation of the idea through science into a model, the purpose of which is testing, debugging, troubleshooting. Not living in. So we can not judge that a model is better or worse than an idea, they're not the same category, they're a subset (model) and a set (idea). The thing that transforms an idea into a model and beyond is science. (or other selective process such as mother nature)An example of the idea of RBE is a project which will go through the stage of a model, and specifically called TVP. A project is something that goes purposefully and scientifically through all the stages / sets. As I said that's pretty basic. I've got no idea what do other people mean by RBEM. Do you think I should read it all through and catch up on what do they mean by RBEM? Isn't it better to keep things simple? 

Got another question. I've heard various terminology spinoff's of a RBE. What is the difference of a resource based economy, resource based economic model, Earth economy, natural law economy, and natural law resource based economy? [1][2] Refernces . RBE VS RBEM VS Earth Economy VS Natural Law Economyhttp://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5519/australian-tzm-member-david-zwolski-upsets-the-leaders-of-tz/#reply-bf3228ef ECONOMIC CALCULATION in a NATURAL-LAW/ RESOURCE-BASED ECONOMY -Peter Josephhttp://www.eventbrite.de/e/economic-calculation-in-a-natural-law-resource-based-economy-peter-joseph-tickets-8908291941

As for your other question, I must warn you, I digress somewhat from the official Fresco's terminology, but for important reasons. When he speaks of "RBE", he means a future society with scientifically designed environment that makes life easier and happier - which results in what Stef wants to accomplish with peaceful parenting (which obviously can't extend beyond his family, so he has to keep his girl out of state school etc). Well, think of it as a peaceful environment. You can read a story from that environment in his free e-book Looking Forward. However, I go a little deeper and I say that every integrated economic system that I know of that does not use money, market and price system is a RBE, albeit not necessarily scientifically designed.  As for the second link, it doesn't say much, but I agree with PJ, RBE is a natural phenomenon. I'd call it a natural law of integrated systems. Your body is a RBE. When you burn your finger, the centralized computer of the brain registers it as pain and sends a muscle order to pull the hand back. Your body is an integrated system. It works and it works to minimize suffering.Let's say there is a forest behind your back yard. In that forest, when a fox catches a hare, the hare feels pain, but the fox doesn't feel the hare's pain and happily eats it. The natural competition in ecosystem is not a very integrated system, loosely connected at best, population explosions, extinctions and so on. It works, but it does not work to minimize suffering.Let's say there's a market in front of your front yard. People compete there, basically trying to get the better deal than other people. Let's say you have a shop there and someone has more savings, can afford to lower prices for a time, he undercuts you puts you out of business and you he gets to buy your goods at cheaper price, leaving you free to go to the forest to get some hare. The market is also not an integrated system. It works, but it does not work to minimize suffering.

 

An integrated system that minimizes suffering means there are no built-in antagonistic actors in the system, such as buyers and sellers, peasants and kings, or hares and foxes. 

 

I see that this doesn't follow the official terminology whatever it is, but I aspire to be clear and simple enough so that I don't need it. One can always dream...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't understand, what do you mean by "RBEM? You know what a model is and what is it for. Eh, I see on the first link that there has been some development in terminology. I am not in contact at all with TVP or TZM forums or authorities. So my take on this is pretty basic:"

 

"I've got no idea what do other people mean by RBEM. Do you think I should read it all through and catch up on what do they mean by RBEM? Isn't it better to keep things simple?"

 

"I see that this doesn't follow the official terminology whatever it is, but I aspire to be clear and simple enough so that I don't need it. One can always dream..."

 

 

 

I'm just a bit shocked you would have no clue what a RBEM is though. If you are not in TVP or TZM or TVP authorities forums then why would you speak on behalf of them or a RBE? Defend them or a RBE? It doesn't really sound like your really that involved in your own ideology much at all really so what makes you think you can speak on a RBE/RBEM? 

 

I will have to explain a ideology that you claim you have studied. A RBE aka resource based economy is made by the venus project, a RBEM aka Resource based economic model is a ideology made by Peter for the Zeitgeist movement which is a ripped off ideology of TVP. [1] [2]

 

 

Refences in responce to what a RBEM is as opposed to a RBE:

[1] http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/4765/my-open-source-text-response-to-tzmbigsteelguy-youtube-video/#reply-f7926829

 

TZM RBEM definition

RBEM term is now on the new tzm website.

RBE vs RBEM:

Out of a general respect to TVP's work with what they consider to be the proprietary notion of a "Resource-Based Economy" [RBE] and its definition, TZM adapted to the term "Resource-Based Economic Model" [RBEM] to separate the Fresco-specific association/definition and also allow for a more general flexible understanding of the premise.

Strategy:

In their communication, TVP, tends to source themselves as the solution and hence operate as an Institution, often claiming intellectual ownership of various ideas of Jacque Fresco. For example, the term and hence definition of a "Resource-Based Economy" was sought for Copyright by TVP in 2010.

 

TZM does not limit its solution reference to TVP or any single person or institution and also does not claim ownership or origination of any idea promoted. Instead, it focuses on the underling reasoning behind the approach of applying Scientific Efficiency to society, sourcing the whole of scientific inquiry indiscriminately, without the emphasis on any specific institution or figure.

 

It could be argued that all knowledge is serially developed through cultural and informational evolution and the concept of "Credit" and "Institutional Proprietary" becomes intellectually untenable in reality. This is not to say that those with expert authority are no to be favored in a situation that needs such merit in application. But, on the data/reasoning level, information always stands on its own and endures its own logical scrutiny and the messenger becomes unimportant.

 

TZM see the Values System Shift and educational imperative as the most critical issue at this time which is why public interaction programs are at the forefront.

 

The highly specific technical designs characteristic of TVP which would actually comprise the mechanics of the social system are seen to emerge as a natural consequence once the train of thought is digested by the public.

 

Furthermore, TZM, while working to promote the open source train of thought to educate the public as its most important goal through community interaction and media, it also has a more traditional activist side, with ongoing Food Drives, Protest Actions and Charity work to help ease the growing stress being caused by this system.

 

TVP engages no larger order activism or charity actions and, again, operates solely for the expression of the work of Jacque Fresco.

(5) What are some of the central characteristics of the solution proposed (RBEM)?

No Money or Market System

Automation of Labor

Technological Unification of Earth via "Systems" Approach.

Access over Property.

Self-Contained/Localized City and Production Systems.

Science as the Methodology for Governance

1) No money or market system.

Market theory assumes a number of things which have proven to either be false, marginally beneficial, or outright socially detrimental.

 

The core problems to consider are the following:

 

A) The need for "Infinite Growth" which is mathematically unsustainable and ecologically detrimental. The entire basis of the Market System is not the intelligent management of our mostly finite resources on this planet but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them for the sake of profit and "economic growth". In order to keep people employed, people must constantly consume, regardless of the state of affairs within the environment and often regardless of product utility. This is the absolute reverse of what a sustainable practice would require, which is the strategic preservation and efficient use of resources.

 

B) A "Corruption Generating" Incentive System. It is often said that the competitive marketplace creates the incentive to act for the sake of social progress. While this is partially true, it also generates an equal if not more pronounced amount of corruption in the form of planned obsolescence, common crime, wars, large scale financial fraud, labor exploitation and many other issues. The vast majority of people in prison today there because of monetary related crime or non-violent drug offenses. The majority of legislation exists in the context of monetary-based crimes.

 

Also, if one was to critically examine history and peer into the documented biographies/mentalities of the greatest scientists and inventors of our time, such a N. Tesla, A. Einstein, A. Bell, the Wright Brothers, and many others - it is found that they did not find their motivation in the prospect of monetary gain. The interest to make money must not be confused with the interest to create socially beneficial products and very often they are even at odds.

 

C) A disjunct, inefficient industrial complex which wastes tremendous amount of resources and energy. In the world today, with the advent of Globalization, it has become more profitable to import and export both labor and goods across the globe rather than to produce locally. We import bananas from Ecuador to the US and bottled water from Fuji Japan, while western companies will go to the deprived 3rd world to exploit cheap labor, etc. Likewise, the process of extraction, to component generation, to assembly, to distribution of a given good might cross through multiple countries for a single final product, simply due to labor and production costs / property costs. This "cost efficiency" generates extreme "technical inefficiency" and is only justifiable within the market system for the sake of saving money.

 

In a RBEM, the focus is maximum technical efficiency. The production process is not dispersed, but made as centralized and fluid as possible, with elements moving the very least amount, saving what would be tremendous amounts of energy and labor as compared to methods today. Food is grown locally whenever possible (which is most of the time given the flexibility of indoor agriculture technology today) while all extraction, production and distribution is logically organized to use as little labor/transport/space as possible, while producing the "strategically best" possible goods. (see more below) In other words, the system is planned, to maximize efficiently and minimize waste.

 

D) A propensity for "Establishments". Very simply, established corporate/financial orders have a built in tendency to stop new, socially positive advents from coming to fruition, if there is a foreshadowed loss of market share, profit and hence power. It is important to consider the basic nature of a corporation and its inherent need for self perpetuation.

 

If a person starts a company, hires employees, creates a market and becomes profitable, what has thus been created, in part, is the means for survival for a group of people. Since each person in that group typically becomes dependent on their organization for income, a natural, protectionist propensity is created whereas anything that threatens the institution thus threatens the well being of the group/individual. This is the fabric of a "competition" mindset. While people think of free market competition as a battle between two or more companies in a given industry, they often miss the other level- which is the competition against new advents which would make them obsolete, outright.

 

The best way to expand on this point is to simply give an example, such as the US Government and 'Big Oil' collusion to limit the expansion of the fully Electric Car (EV) in the US. This issue was well presented and sourced in the documentary called "Who Killed the Electric Car?". The bottom line here is that the need to preserve an established order for the sake of the well being of those on the pay role, leads to an inherent tendency to stifle progress. A new technology which can make a prior technology obsolete will be met with resistance unless there is a way for the market system to adsorb it in a slow fashion, allowing for a transition for the corporations ( ie - the perpetuation of "Hybrid" cars in the US, as opposed to the fully electric ones which could exist now, in abundance.) There are also large amounts of evidence that the FDA has engaged in favoritism/collusion with pharmaceutical companies, to limit/stop the availability of advanced progressive drugs which would void existing/profitable ones.

 

In a RBE, there is nothing to hold back developmental/implementation of anything. If safe and useful, it would immediately be implemented into society, with no monetary institution to thwart the change due to their self-preserving, monetary nature.

 

E) An inherent obsolescence which creates inferior products immediately due to the need to stay "competitive" This little recognized attribute of production is another example of the waste which is created in the market system. It is bad enough that multiple companies constantly duplicate each others items in an attempt to make their variations more interesting for the sake of public consumption, but a more wasteful reality is that due to the competitive basis of the system, it is a mathematical certainty that every good produced is immediately inferior the moment it is created, due the need to cut the initial cost basis of production and hence stay "competitive" against another company... which is doing the same thing for the same reason. The old free market adage where producers "create the best possible goods at the lower possible prices" is a needlessly wasteful reality and detrimentally misleading, for it is impossible for a company to use the most efficient material or processes in the production of anything, for it would be too expensive to maintain a competitive cost basis.

 

They very simply cannot make the "strategically best" physically - it is mathematically impossible. If they did, no one would buy it for it would be unaffordable due the values inherent in the higher quality materials and methods. Remember - people buy what they can afford to. Every person on this planet has a built in limit of affordability in the monetary system, so it generates a feedback loop of constant waste via inferior production, to meet inferior demand. In a RBEM, goods are created to last, with the expansion and updating of certain goods built directly into the design, with recycling strategically accessed as well, limiting waste.

 

You will notice the term "strategically best" was used in a statement above. This qualification means that goods are created with respect to state of affairs of the planetary resources, with the quality of materials used based on an equation taking into acct all relevant attributes, rates of depletion, negative retroactions and the like. In other words, we would not blindly use titanium for, say, every single computer enclosure made, just because it might be the "strongest" materials for the job. That narrow practice could lead to depletion. Rather, there would be a gradient of material quality which would be accessed through analysis of relevant attributes - such as comparable resources, rates of natural obsolescence for a given item, statical usage in the community, etc. These properties and relationships could be accessed through programming, with the most strategically viable solution computed and output in real time. It is mere issue of calcualtion.

 

F) A propensity for monopoly and cartel due to the basic motivation of growth and increased market share. This is a point that economic theorists will often deny, under the assumption that open competition is self regulating that that monopolies and cartels are extremely rare anomalies in a free-market system. This "invisible hand" assumption holds little validity historically, not to mention the outstanding legislation around the issue, which proves its infeasibility. In America, there have been numerous monopolies, such as Standard Oil and Microsoft. Cartels, which are essentially Monopolies by way of collusion between the largest competitors in an industry, are also persistent to this day, while less obvious to the casual observer. In any case, the "free market" itself does not resolve these issues - it always takes the government to step in and break up the monopolies.

 

This aside, the more important point is that in an economy based on "growth", it is only natural for a corporation to want to expand and hence dominate. After all, that is the basis of economic stability in the modern world - expansion. Expansion of any corporation, always gravitates toward monopoly or cartel, for, again, the basic drive of competition is to out do your competitor. In other words, monopoly and cartel are absolutely natural in the competitive system. In fact, it is inevitable, for again, the very basis is to seek dominance over market share. The true detriment of this reality goes back to the point above- the inherent propensity of an "Establishment" to preserve its institution. If a medical cartel is influencing the FDA, then new ideas which void that cartel's income sources will often be fought, regardless of the social benefits being thwarted.

 

G) The market system is driven, in part, by Scarcity. The less there is of something, the more money that can be generated in the short term. This sets up a propensity for corporations to limit availability and hence deny production abundance. It is simply against the very nature of what drives demand to create abundance. The Kimberly Diamond Mines in Africa have been documented in the past to burn diamonds in order to keep prices high. Diamonds are rare resources which take billions of years to be created. This is nothing but problematic. The world we live in should be based on the interest to generate an abundance for the world's people, along with strategic preservation and streamlined methods to enable that abundance. This is a central reason why, as of 2010, there are over a billion people starving on the planet. It has nothing to do with an inability to produce food, and everything having to do with an inherent need to create/preserve scarcity for the sake of short term profits.

 

Abundance, Efficiency and Sustainability are, very simply, the enemies of profit. This scarcity logic also applies to the quality of goods. The idea of creating something that could last, say, a lifetime with little repair, is anathema to the market system, for it reduces consumption rates, which slows growth and creates systemic repercussions (loss of jobs, etc.). The scarcity attribute of the market system is nothing but detrimental for these reasons, not to mention that it doesn't even serve the role of efficient resource preservation, which is often claimed.

 

While supply and demand dictates that the less there is of something, the more it will be valued and hence the increased value will limit consumption, reducing the possibility of "running out"--- the incentive to create scarcity, coupled with the inherent short term reward which results from scarcity driven based prices, nullifies the idea that this enables strategic preservation. We will likely never "run out" of oil, in the current market system. Rather, the prices will become so high that no one can afford it, while those corporations who own the remaining oil, will make a great deal of money off of the scarcity, regardless of the long term social ramifications. In other words, remaining scare resources, existing in such high economic value that it limits their consumption, is not to be confused with preservation that is functional and strategic. True strategic preservation can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient technical applications of the resource in industry itself, not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation.

 

 

[2] Here is TVP defnition of a RBE

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/4765/my-open-source-text-response-to-tzmbigsteelguy-youtube-video/#reply-10656359

 

Here is a TVP definition of a RBE

 

What is a Resource-Based Economy?

To transcend these limitations, The Venus Project proposes we work toward a worldwide, resource-based economy, a holistic social and economic system in which the planetary resources are held as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants. The current practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant, counter-productive, and falls far short of meeting humanity's needs.

Simply stated, within a Resource Based Economy we will utilize existing resources - rather than money - to provide an equitable method of distribution in the most humane and efficient manner. It is a system in which all goods and services are available to everyone without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude.

To better understand a resource-based economy, consider this. If all the money in the world disappeared overnight, as long as topsoil, factories, personnel and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we needed to fulfill most human needs. It is not money that people require, but rather free access to most of their needs without worrying about financial security or having to appeal to a government bureaucracy. In a resource-based economy of abundance, money will become irrelevant.

We have arrived at a time when new innovations in science and technology can easily provide abundance to all of the world's people. It is no longer necessary to perpetuate the conscious withdrawal of efficiency by planned obsolescence, perpetuated by our old and outworn profit system. If we are genuinely concerned about the environment and our fellow human beings, if we really want to end territorial disputes, war, crime, poverty and hunger, we must consciously reconsider the social processes that led us to a world where these factors are common. Like it or not, it is our social processes - political practices, belief systems, profit-based economy, our culture-driven behavioral norms - that lead to and support hunger, war, disease and environmental damage.

The aim of this new social design is to encourage an incentive system no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people toward self-fulfillment and creativity, both materially and spiritually.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/faq

 

Resource Based Economy

The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holistic socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

 

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

 

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.

 

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

 

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. This is the unifying imperative.

 

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

 

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

 

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.

 

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

 

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

 

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

 

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

 

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. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

 

With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

 

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

 

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

 

http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy

 

 

The Venus Project-Resource Based Economy

The term and meaning of a Resource-Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holistic social and economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

 

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

 

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.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo

 

 

RBE is an idea. A RBEM as you say is a model.

 

 

Wrong actually you just made that up, here I'll correct you on that. A RBEM is basically TZM's version of a RBE. It also indicates in a RBEM the definition of a RBEM is different than a RBE as well which you neglect to suggest what the difference between a RBE and RBEM is. [1]

 

At that TVP does not endorse a RBEM and has said so in their lectures as TZM distorts TVP's RBE and what it does.

 

Refernce:

 

[1] http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/4765/my-open-source-text-response-to-tzmbigsteelguy-youtube-video/#reply-f7926829

RBE vs RBEM:

Out of a general respect to TVP's work with what they consider to be the proprietary notion of a "Resource-Based Economy" [RBE] and its definition, TZM adapted to the term "Resource-Based Economic Model" [RBEM] to separate the Fresco-specific association/definition and also allow for a more general flexible understanding of the premise.

 

 

However, I go a little deeper and I say that every integrated economic system that I know of that does not use money, market and price system is a RBE, albeit not necessarily scientifically designed.

 

 

Wrong, since we're talking about a RBE we're talking about TVP ideology not TZM's RBEM ideology. TVP is very specific at least it says so and does not want to be mixed up in any other ideology except TVP ideology as other ideologies do not have the direction of where TVP's ideology wants to go. [1]

 

Reference:

 

Threats towards TVP

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX2IfjZXJZg#t=23m10s

 

 

As for the second link, it doesn't say much

 

 

I agree it was to note the name of TZM's RBE is now called a Natural law resource based economy.

 

As for the second link, it doesn't say much, but I agree with PJ, RBE is a natural phenomenon. I'd call it a natural law of integrated systems. Your body is a RBE.

 

 

Wrong, TVP made up RBE in the first place. Just because Peter says a RBE is this does not make it so. If you agree with a RBE then you agree with TVP if you agree with a RBEM then you agree with TZM. TVP and TZM ideology cannot mix because both are attempting to differentiate from each other.

 

It's clear to me you do not even know what your own ideology is with a RBE. At that asking you if you know the differences between a resource based economy, resource based economic model, Earth economy [1], natural law economy [2], and natural law resource based economy [3], is futile. Don't get me wrong there are differences but you clearly do not know what they are even within your own TVP and TZM parameters/ Though most TVP and TZM do not understand their own ideology nor are familiar with any form of economic thinking in general as well as it doesn't help when Peter says economists are bad and it's a waste of time to learn about economics. The problem here is most free market advocates at least know what they are talking about, you however clearly do not even know your own ideology.

 

Though I know more than the average person when it comes to TVP and TZM's ideology it's also pretty sad. To refute TVP and TZM I often had to bone up not necessarily TVP or TZM website but on Marxism and studying the different socialist societies of the world.

 

You've not answered any of my question and I deliberately  asked you those question for a reason, I wanted to gage your knowledge on a RBE and RBEM at which you have no clue and at which I very much have a clue on.

 

[1] Earth Economic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Economics

 

[2] Natural Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural+law

"This new model, since it is based upon Resource Management and Natural Law (Science) as the logical starting point for all decisions and processes, is often referred to as a "Resource-Based Economic Model"."

 

http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq

LAW121 - Natural Law Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqtsExnYeFI

 

Natural Law Theory in less than 6 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IQqKHVhJ0g

 

 

[3] Natural law resource based economy

Jen Wilding- Natural Law, Resource-Based Economy Presentation 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikSQcej4wHU

This "Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy" is about taking a direct technical approach to social management as opposed to a Monetary or even Political one. It is about updating the workings of society to the most advanced and proven methods Science has to offer, leaving behind the damaging consequences and limiting inhibitions which are generated by our current system of monetary exchange, profits, corporations and other structural and motivational components.

 

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/mission-statement

 

"This new model, since it is based upon Resource Management and Natural Law (Science) as the logical starting point for all decisions and processes, is often referred to as a "Resource-Based Economic Model"."

 

http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

I figured out something kind of funny with TZM awhile ago if you really examine the terminology they/Peter use which is basically that TZM believes in a ripped version of TVP's RBE which they call a RBEM which specifically is natural law resource based economic model. In short Peter/TZM says Natural law is based on science which to believe in natural law one has to believe in God therefore that would make TZM RBEM creationists LOL because of course believing God made everything is a science.... Peter doesn't know what he's talking about he's a total buffoon  much like most of the member base in TVP and TZM. So TZM is basically promoting creationism which they call a Natural Law resource Based Economy or RBEM.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just a bit shocked you would have no clue what a RBEM is though. If you are not in TVP or TZM or TVP authorities forums then why would you speak on behalf of them or a RBE? Defend them or a RBE? It doesn't really sound like your really that involved in your own ideology much at all really so what makes you think you can speak on a RBE/RBEM? 

 

I will have to explain a ideology that you claim you have studied. A RBE aka resource based economy is made by the venus project, a RBEM aka Resource based economic model is a ideology made by Peter for the Zeitgeist movement which is a ripped off ideology of TVP. [1] [2]

 As I said, I am not from any forum or a group. I speak on behalf of RBE, because I understand it and consider it a solution to most of today's problems. I studied RBE from Fresco's talks, Fresco's books, TVP channel discussions, to which I added my layman's understanding of biology, ecology, automation (graduated from that), and systems theory or regulation of systems in general. Plus of course, sociology which I study. What Fresco says still makes perfect sense. I don't know what TZM says and I am not interested in hair splitting. Ultimately it does not matter what any group or individual says, TVP is merely an application of science to social problems, nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't matter what Fresco says, what Fresco knows of science will be superseded and he is fully aware of that. In fact, he counts on that.

 

 

Wrong actually you just made that up, here I'll correct you on that. A RBEM is basically TZM's version of a RBE. It also indicates in a RBEM the definition of a RBEM is different than a RBE as well which you neglect to suggest what the difference between a RBE and RBEM is.

 

At that TVP does not endorse a RBEM and has said so in their lectures as TZM distorts TVP's RBE and what it does.

Of course I made it up. Till this moment I had no idea what is RBEM and I said so, in case you're counting wrong and right score with all these wrongs. And I still have no idea. And I'm still not sure I should care. I care about application of science and technology on the problems still occupied by the obsolete practices of market and politics.

 

 

Wrong, since we're talking about a RBE we're talking about TVP ideology not TZM's RBEM ideology. TVP is very specific at least it says so and does not want to be mixed up in any other ideology except TVP ideology as other ideologies do not have the direction of where TVP's ideology wants to go. [1]

Yeah, I suppose so. TVP does not want other people meddling with their model, because other people may not be self-educated geniuses or they may not understand Fresco's intention behind all the design.

But I'd say my understanding of TVP is pretty canonical and standardized. My impression is, I have understood the concept itself and I can generalize from that, without mixing in any cultural notions.

 

 

Wrong, TVP made up RBE in the first place. Just because Peter says a RBE is this does not make it so. If you agree with a RBE then you agree with TVP if you agree with a RBEM then you agree with TZM. TVP and TZM ideology cannot mix because both are attempting to differentiate from each other.

I don't know what are you trying to prove here. I probably need the difference between RBE and RBEM spelled out explicitly. But just in case, my preliminary agreement is with TVP, because that's what I studied.

 

 

It's clear to me you do not even know what your own ideology is with a RBE. At that asking you if you know the differences between a resource based economy, resource based economic model, Earth economy [1], natural law economy [2], and natural law resource based economy [3], is futile. Don't get me wrong there are differences but you clearly do not know what they are even within your own TVP and TZM parameters/ Though most TVP and TZM do not understand their own ideology nor are familiar with any form of economic thinking in general as well as it doesn't help when Peter says economists are bad and it's a waste of time to learn about economics. The problem here is most free market advocates at least know what they are talking about, you however clearly do not even know your own ideology.

Nothing is clear to you. I do not believe in ideologies, I believe in application of science to social problems. Groups and their ideologies or opinions are irrelevant to me. I have found many parallels in nature that inspired Fresco to make his designs and ultimately it's the nature and science that has the final word, not Fresco.

 

Furthermore, I consider myself well-versed in the usual macro and micro-economy (can't vouch for precise English terms though) and also in Austrian school economy, both were in my final exams. Plus of course the study of RBE through TVP and general observation of systems and organisms. Economics works, but it is merely a special case of a principle, a case which extended beyond its circumstances of usefulness, just as any ideology ever does, sooner or later. We need to understand a general principle of how systems work, in order to design a new economy for new circumstances. The most perfect case of a system is an organism-like system. This is the very archetype of RBE and I constantly marvel how close in design is the TVP to an organism, as if Fresco based it directly on biology. Only of course TVP is even more flexible in design than organism.

 

 

Though I know more than the average person when it comes to TVP and TZM's ideology it's also pretty sad. To refute TVP and TZM I often had to bone up not necessarily TVP or TZM website but on Marxism and studying the different socialist societies of the world.

 

You've not answered any of my question and I deliberately  asked you those question for a reason, I wanted to gage your knowledge on a RBE and RBEM at which you have no clue and at which I very much have a clue on.

You have asked me about some forum politics and term-definition conflicts, which has nothing to do with RBE itself. You have not shown you understand anything at all, not even the Libertarian non-violent communication principle, judging from your frequent calling me wrong.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I speak on behalf of RBE, because I understand it and consider it a solution to most of today's problems. I studied RBE from Fresco's talks, Fresco's books, TVP channel discussions, to which I added my layman's understanding of biology, ecology, automation (graduated from that), and systems theory or regulation of systems in general.

 

 

 

I have read the books even when I didn't agree with the ideology I attempted to develop a RBE criteria by listening to TVP lectures I have observed TVP and TZM for years. I have to say after reading what you write you don't really understand what a RBE is as I have proven above.

 

I don't know what TZM says and I am not interested in hair splitting.

 

 

Wrong you better be interested in hair splitting when you talk about a unproven ideology such as RBE.

 

Ultimately it does not matter what any group or individual says, TVP is merely an application of science to social problems, nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't matter what Fresco says, what Fresco knows of science will be superseded and he is fully aware of that. In fact, he counts on that.

 

 

I see cognitive dissonance at work here lol

 

 

Of course I made it up. Till this moment I had no idea what is RBEM and I said so, in case you're counting wrong and right score with all these wrongs. And I still have no idea. And I'm still not sure I should care.

 

 

Wrong you said "RBE is an idea. A RBEM as you say is a model." that's not the correct definition of a RBEM that's your generalization. You just made stuff up and tried to pass it off as a RBEM/word salad now your trying to deflect and say you you never treid to define a RBEM even though I just pointed out you just did.

 

And I'm still not sure I should care. I care about application of science and technology on the problems still occupied by the obsolete practices of market and politics.

 

 

Wrong you should care because I'm pointing out how ignorant you are of your own RBE ideology you claim to of studied. I clearly know more than you on a RBE then again I know more about a RBE than most members of TVP. You don't really care about science or technology in a RBE you just want to live in a utopia where you can be a bum and not work.

 

 

But I'd say my understanding of TVP is pretty canonical and standardized. My impression is, I have understood the concept itself and I can generalize from that, without mixing in any cultural notions.

 

 

Wrong you clearly again and again do not understand your RBE ideology therefore you shouldn't be advocating a ideology you don't even understand.

 

 

I don't know what are you trying to prove here. I probably need the difference between RBE and RBEM spelled out explicitly. But just in case, my preliminary agreement is with TVP, because that's what I studied.

 

 

wrong you just want a utopia where you don't have to work cause your lazy. You don't know your own RBE ideology you shouldn't be speaking on behalf of it.

 

 

Nothing is clear to you. I do not believe in ideologies, I believe in application of science to social problems. Groups and their ideologies or opinions are irrelevant to me. I have found many parallels in nature that inspired Fresco to make his designs and ultimately it's the nature and science that has the final word, not Fresco.

 

 

Wrong you clearly have demonstrated your ignorance of RBE ideology. You don't believe in science when you believe in a RBE. Not proven, not scientific, no academic peer review, no academic review at all, horrible idea, feces is a RBE. Often people preaching for a RBE will claim it's based on science but when one asks them to show the science they say they don't need science, scientists are overrated and Fresco is the proof, or we don't need science it's like eating a hamburger it just works.A RBE is mostly a dogma based belief system at which only works in the believers mind much like Scientology or Destinian belief system. Again RBE is not science, is not open source, has no working model, zero historical presidence (unless including socialism), no academic peer review but it does have believers whose ideology is purely based on faith.

 

Furthermore, I consider myself well-versed in the usual macro and micro-economy (can't vouch for precise English terms though) and also in Austrian school economy, both were in my final exams. Plus of course the study of RBE through TVP and general observation of systems and organisms.

 

 

Wrong, you don't know what your RBE ideology is as I have proven above, I doubt you know about anything else.

 

You have asked me about some forum politics and term-definition conflicts, which has nothing to do with RBE itself. You have not shown you understand anything at all, not even the Libertarian non-violent communication principle, judging from your frequent calling me wrong.

 

 

Wrong, I asked you what the different forms of RBE/RBEM's definitions are you knew nothing and were not correct in the ideologies at all I was the one who had to correct you several times on a ideology you claim to known therefore to me you seem to not know much about your own RBE ideology. If your wrong I'm going to call you out and I'm center of left who believes in the free market which happens to be values libertarians adopt as well. At that I call you wrong because in fact your wrong, that's not violent it's the truth your wrong, learn to take criticism better it's not an attack you just do not know what you are talking about with your RBE ideology as I have proven above several times.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you start off your argument saying the opposing view is absurd, you don't have an argument, what you have is a predefined worldview and the willingness to trash anything that disagrees with it, you're unwilling to change because your mind is too clouded with confirmation bias for it to happen.

 

James Randi hates to be called a debunker, because it implies he already knows the answer before examining the evidence. You haven't examined the evidence, your video shows how little you know about RBE and speaks volumes about your real intentions. What you want is not someone to debate to, what you want is manipulate people into sounding stupid and irrational.

 

Maybe you don't want a debate, maybe you just want to sound important among your peers and massage your ego.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you start off your argument saying the opposing view is absurd, you don't have an argument, what you have is a predefined worldview and the willingness to trash anything that disagrees with it, you're unwilling to change because your mind is too clouded with confirmation bias for it to happen. James Randi hates to be called a debunker, because it implies he already knows the answer before examining the evidence. You haven't examined the evidence, your video shows how little you know about RBE and speaks volumes about your real intentions. What you want is not someone to debate to, what you want is manipulate people into sounding stupid and irrational. Maybe you don't want a debate, maybe you just want to sound important among your peers and massage your ego.

If that is directed towards the Original Poster, I agree whole-heartedly. Many of the arguments are just lazy thinking.

Wrong you clearly again and gain do not understand your RBE ideology therefore you shouldn't be advocating a ideology you don't even understand.

OK, I can write you off as an idiot troll. I don't know what a "model" is when some people use it in a context of their own, in a forum far far away. I know what a "model" is objectively and I said so. I've got enough capacity to know both TVP and punctuation. You don't know either of these. And your use of the word "wrong" tells me, how desperate you are to be right.You never understood TVP or RBE to begin with, if you call it ideology. Science is not an ideology, it is a universally applicable method.Yes, I am lazy to work manually. Nothing wrong with that. People who aren't lazy tend to be lazy intellectually and they never push forward the development of technology or society.Now, where is that blacklist feature, I hope it works this time.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be most convenient if you could do teamspeak but I'll ask. I know you have been contacting TZM and TVP  I just wanted to point you in a direction where you would encounter more indivduals who beleive in that particular ideology. Why talk to one when you can meet a group of them to debate?

 

I'll see what I can do. I prefer one on one--mostly so I don't get shouted down. (Loud does not = right.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll see what I can do. I prefer one on one--mostly so I don't get shouted down. (Loud does not = right.)

 

I'm a free market advocate and participate in this discussion every Monday and am able to hold my own there. I agree loud does not mean someone is right therefore I use logic and reason to back up my claims. There have been instances where I have been shouted at but more times than not I can hold my own. I realize when going into a communication medium where it's not hospitable for free market thinking; that I follow their rules and act polite but also use logic and reason to get my points across not various forms of logical fallacies which for TVP and TZM seems to mostly be appeal to emotion.

 

I've handled my own in a room full of TVP./TZMers and most have been able to tolerate me. That's how I first met outbound actually. I do not think of the open discussion as hostile I'm able to get my understanding across, therefore I don't see a reason for you not to come and see your viewpoints either through possible debate. They may or may not start trouble with you I can't guarantee that but if you compose yourself and follow your line of reasoning while they go on attack or appeal to emotion as the bases of their argument, you will be a much better person and you will look much better in any discussion you have.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This subject could have been started by me, I also believe that the only functional economy is the one based on natural resources with inhabitants using very simple technology and living in small villages. 
 
The arguments to destroy the natural system  are always the same and they seem to be copied on the colonialist discourse based on ignorance and fear. 
 
Many indigenous tribes refuse modernity, that is in their view, nothing else than  disguised slavery. 
 
We see here that modern man cannot see the natural world as it really is, he compares it with his modern man self centered education unfit for the analyze. He always bring back every argument to his narrow point of view. One of them the duration of life where length is used assuming it ends at death, so a life of suffering is better than no life at all. This way of calculating is like saying a big bag of candies is better than a fresh fruit, where quantity is preferred to quality, economy to ecology. 
 
Talking about suffering of wild animals is usually done in the colonized human  perspective, by a fearful and weak creature. As indigenous men and animals who don’t fear death, there is no suffering where there is acceptance. Even if he will fight for his life, when he knows it is lost he lets go and the suffering has nothing to feed on. Wild life is connected with  global life there is no difference between the predator and the prey. 
 
As the Indian warrior said before going to war against the white skin invaders: This is a good day to die. 
 
It’s a completely different way of understanding life.
 
Lao Tze said in very short sentence the difference between cultural and fundamental knowledge as he stated intelligence is not erudition and erudition is not intelligence.
In the same vein, oriental philosophy has another basic phrase to explain how performance has nothing to do with efficiency, it say’s as large the face as large the back. 
 
This is to say that our performance based modern societies are proportionally inefficient as the over development and over consumption consequences clearly shows. 
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This subject could have been started by me, I also believe that the only functional economy is the one based on natural resources with inhabitants using very simple technology and living in small villages. 
 
The arguments to destroy the natural system  are always the same and they seem to be copied on the colonialist discourse based on ignorance and fear. 
 
Many indigenous tribes refuse modernity, that is in their view, nothing else than  disguised slavery. 
 
We see here that modern man cannot see the natural world as it really is, he compares it with his modern man self centered education unfit for the analyze. He always bring back every argument to his narrow point of view. One of them the duration of life where length is used assuming it ends at death, so a life of suffering is better than no life at all. This way of calculating is like saying a big bag of candies is better than a fresh fruit, where quantity is preferred to quality, economy to ecology. 
 
Talking about suffering of wild animals is usually done in the colonized human  perspective, by a fearful and weak creature. As indigenous men and animals who don’t fear death, there is no suffering where there is acceptance. Even if he will fight for his life, when he knows it is lost he lets go and the suffering has nothing to feed on. Wild life is connected with  global life there is no difference between the predator and the prey. 
 
As the Indian warrior said before going to war against the white skin invaders: This is a good day to die. 
 
It’s a completely different way of understanding life.
 
Lao Tze said in very short sentence the difference between cultural and fundamental knowledge as he stated intelligence is not erudition and erudition is not intelligence.
In the same vein, oriental philosophy has another basic phrase to explain how performance has nothing to do with efficiency, it say’s as large the face as large the back. 
 
This is to say that our performance based modern societies are proportionally inefficient as the over development and over consumption consequences clearly shows. 

 

 

This is great. We DEFINITELY should talk. Please PM if you have a Facebook or something.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@chrisvaughn

 

 

 
 
Hi, I am not apart or subscribe to TVP or TZM or RBE but I have found a individual by the name of Outbound who supports a RBE and is willing to debate you. He has a lot of criticisms towards the video you made. Outbound attends TZM open dicussion meetings (not official meetings) every Monday at 10 pm est. Outbound welcomes you or anybody else (including freedomain radio memebers) to attend the meeting anytime on TZM team speak 3 for open dicussions that are held every monday. They are holding a meeting later on today at 10 pm EST if you want to debate today.
 
 
 
TZM teamspeak connect info
 
Open dicussion meetings held ever monday on TZM team speak 3 server at 10 PM EST
 
Server:[/size]thezeitgeistmovement.com  Pass: ts_129tzm [/size]

Teamspeak 3 download[/size]
http://www.teamspeak.com/?page=downloads

How to install teamspeak[/size]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S32AGZdY5yA


click link below to go directly to channel after download and install teamspeaks 3[/size]
Open Discussion Teamspeak 3 channel
 
 
How to read UTC (Zulu) Time Conversion Chart[/size]
http://www.scc-ares-races.org/generalinfo/utcchart.html

 

@chrisvaughn

 

Hey just wanted to give you and others a reminder invite on TZM open dicussion meeting on TS3 which starts today Monday at 10PM est. Just a last reminder in case you want to stop in have that debate with outbound. Outbound is willing to debate you in a private channel 1on1 on TZM TS3 as well if that is more comfortable for you so you do not feel as intimidated with a group of TZMer's in there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@chrisvaughn

 

 

 

@chrisvaughn

 

Hey just wanted to give you and others a reminder invite on TZM open dicussion meeting on TS3 which starts today Monday at 10PM est. Just a last reminder in case you want to stop in have that debate with outbound. Outbound is willing to debate you in a private channel 1on1 on TZM TS3 as well if that is more comfortable for you so you do not feel as intimidated with a group of TZMer's in there.

 

I am technologically retarded, plus usually in bed by 10. Does this happen at any other time?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites