Zeitgeist: Addendum

[cjppjc]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

I'm pretty sure that was J. Krishnamutri at the beginning of the video. I don't believe Krisnamurti would have liked the tone of Zeitgeist. Always he tried to teach that the individual was responsiple for his or her own spiritual growth. Not society. I don't think you can find too many examples of him telling people how they should think, regarding how the world should be run. And who is responsible for the way things are.

[marvenger]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

I've read up on Krishnamurti quite a bit actually, and I'm sure he would have some problems with the ideas as I don't think he ever really agreed with anyone else and has been quoted as saying something like 'no one has fully understood what I have tried to teach' near his death. I still think he was awesome though. Anyway, my probably very limited understanding of Krishnamurti is that he was all for understanding the interconnectedness of everything of which knowledge is important and society is crucial to impart this knowledge. Where krishnamurti did not like society was when it used some fixed view of knowledge to institutionalise certain concepts, he said it was up to the individual to question the so called experts and if you don't feel the answers you're getting are correct after much research and effort to understand you must not follow the institutionalised view just for the benefit of your own security. Everything in social interaction can be related to this need for humans to be secure and not necessarily follow what is true.

[Rajiv]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

Marvenger,

I would like you to read - Waiting for the Saucers

Particular lessons to be learned from a reading of the article -

.
.
.
.
.
Just now, though, the double bind that drove the radical movements of the Fifties and Sixties – the gaping disparity between the Utopian visions of progress that flooded popular culture and the manipulative and inhumane technocracy so many people saw taking shape around them – has given way to a different one. Where the stresses of an earlier time grew from contradictions to the claim that progress is good, those of the present and foreseeable future are building around the claim that progress is inevitable. A society founded on the unquestioned belief that economic expansion and technological development will continue forever may have a very, very hard time dealing with a future in which economic contraction and the abandonment of technologies too complex to be sustainable will likely be dominant trends. It's not too far of a reach, it seems to me, to suggest that massive revitalization movements will follow.

Not all of those will be as obviously delusional as Dorothy Martin's belief in the imminent arrival of the Space Brothers, though there will doubtless be some, and the approaching "end of the Mayan calendar" in 2012 – I put the phrase in quotes, because the Mayan calendar doesn't end then, and the recently invented mythology that has gathered around the rollover of one of their calendrical cycles has no basis whatsoever in ancient Mayan tradition – may well give rise to a whopper. Still, it's the apparently saner fantasies that may cause the most damage, if only by distracting us from steps that can actually be taken to cushion the descent into the deindustrial age and make life better for our descendants for generations to come.

Thus I'd encourage my readers to be at least a little wary of any movement in the years to come, however reasonable and hopeful it may seem, that claims to have a solution to the rising spiral of crises that is building around today's industrial civilization. I have argued here and elsewhere that those crises define a predicament rather than a problem – a situation that cannot be solved, only lived with – but that definition flies in the face of some of the most deeply rooted assumptions of our culture. I suspect that unless we cultivate an unusual degree of common sense, a great many of us in the years to come may end up doing some equivalent of standing in suburban backyards, waiting for the saucers to arrive.

[Rajiv]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

Talking of Krishnamurti, here are his Sri Lanka talks given in 1980

Sri Lanka Talks 1980 ( free ebook Jiddu Krishnamurti )

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Religion & Spiritual eBooks free love

[cjppjc]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

Rajiv:
Thank you for this. I can't wait to read it. Your links are always very time consuming, and I must go to work. I look forword to reading it tonight.


Marvenger:
with all do respect, I think you miss the central message of teachers like Krishnamurti. In an different thread I posted a quote from a businessman also a great teacher:

We want to change because what we have is not working, even worldwide. But where does that change begin? in the individual, or in the social structure? It seems to me we are up against that question. Now if change begins in the social structure, then, of course I am with you. But if it begins in the individual, in myself, then it surely begins with myself becoming aware for example, that I place too little value on things that cannot be quantified. If I become aware that I place too little value on these things, there is a redressing of the balance that takes place in myself, all by itself. If I really see that I am going downhill, I start to go uphill.

[marvenger]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

I agree but I also think the social environment shapes people and makes it hard to change individually due to the perceived need to conform for security, its a two way flow.

I'm still to get to your posts Rajiv, but will do.

[marvenger]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

Ok done.

Well I understand your concern Rajiv, but I don't think that the failing promise of technological progress is what is causing my concern and causing a desperate and delusional wish for technical revitalisation. What is causing my concern is the likely wasteful use of technology and its use for harm under the monetary system, and its continued development threatening the monetary system itself by the destruction of purchasing power of workers. I think you generally fit into the category of being concerned by these things. Technology is a tool, choices of implementation are made for good and bad. I think the venus project offers an economic system where the choices are generally made for good and if made for bad it'll mostly be due to incomplete knowledge, which will always be a problem, so I guess the system should try to take into account what you possibly might not know.

So, I know that the venus project is not currently a reality, I think I see logic and possibility in this system, I'm excited people are working to see if it can work and they're doing it respecting the current system in place offering money for assets to get the new system started. In sum I don't see where the Dorothy Martin comparison comes into it. I'm not putting all my hopes on some fanciful technological world, I could just as easily live the simple life on a self sustaining farm, I enjoy the simple life. But I think we can have well applied technology and human progress as well. In fact if people were afraid of technology I think the venus project would have no problem with people living on self sustaining farms.

Thanks for your concern if you think I'm obsessing about something and not getting the most out life, sometimes I think the same thing. But I've discovered I'm the type of person who'd prefer to follow what I think is right than stick to what seems reasonable to most, I find doing the later hurts more. I find it more scary if I was to constantly obsess about the gyrations of the economy and why its not working properly and not entertain the notion that there might be a better system less prone to such problems. Surely its scientific and humble and in accordance with evolution to assume that a new system could develop.

Think I've got time to check out that krishnamurti video now

[Supercilious]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

Ok done.

Well I understand your concern Rajiv, but I don't think that the failing promise of technological progress is what is causing my concern and causing a desperate and delusional wish for technical revitalisation. What is causing my concern is the likely wasteful use of technology and its use for harm under the monetary system, and its continued development threatening the monetary system itself by the destruction of purchasing power of workers. I think you generally fit into the category of being concerned by these things. Technology is a tool, choices of implementation are made for good and bad. I think the venus project offers an economic system where the choices are generally made for good and if made for bad it'll mostly be due to incomplete knowledge, which will always be a problem, so I guess the system should try to take into account what you possibly might not know.

So, I know that the venus project is not currently a reality, I think I see logic and possibility in this system, I'm excited people are working to see if it can work and they're doing it respecting the current system in place offering money for assets to get the new system started. In sum I don't see where the Dorothy Martin comparison comes into it. I'm not putting all my hopes on some fanciful technological world, I could just as easily live the simple life on a self sustaining farm, I enjoy the simple life. But I think we can have well applied technology and human progress as well. In fact if people were afraid of technology I think the venus project would have no problem with people living on self sustaining farms.

Thanks for your concern if you think I'm obsessing about something and not getting the most out life, sometimes I think the same thing. But I've discovered I'm the type of person who'd prefer to follow what I think is right than stick to what seems reasonable to most, I find doing the later hurts more. I find it more scary if I was to constantly obsess about the gyrations of the economy and why its not working properly and not entertain the notion that there might be a better system less prone to such problems. Surely its scientific and humble and in accordance with evolution to assume that a new system could develop.

Marvenger, our concern is that you are falling into a subtle and carefully laid out trap. There is no difference before falling for "we have to defend the nation and follow GWB" in 2001 and falling for the techno-socialism of Zeitgeist 2 in 2009.

[marvenger]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

OK maybe you can help me figure out why this is a trap.

Do you think that near 100% automated production is possible? This means that maps and surveys of the world are done locating all resources and these are monitored and data fed into the giant CPU. For instance farming, there's soil monitors and they pick up that nitrogen levels are dropping from what is suitable for the crop being grown. Because everything is linked, the nitrogen factory now knows that it needs to deliver a certain amount of nitrogen to certain farm and a application system is already there that knows how to apply a certain order of nitrogen. This is only one example there could be many ways to grow the crop, hydroponically could be deemed more efficient and appropriate in certain places. At the end of the day the crop is being grown to meet certain demands, say barley needed for beer. The CPU is picking up on all these demands for barley, from beer lovers to muesli lovers and if it looks like demand is going to outstrip ability to supply then the unit of production to grow barley is produced automatically as the blueprints are already in the system. The computer makes decisions about how best to satisfy demand because as the deepblue chess computer shows, computers can make multivariable decisions with lots of data input better than human can.

If this is possible without money once a critical mass has been achieved then why not try to do it. I think your likely answer would be that oh I want a hundred foot yacht, well you can enjoy your sailing along with everyone else as long as your not a selfish bugger about it. Think about all those boats moored in harbors of wealthy coastal cities all over the world, they're hardly bloody used, under this sytem yachts are shared a number of yachts are produced to meet demand efficiently, this could accomodate a variety of yacht design too.

And then there is the very practical and present concern of automation eroding purchasing power of workers and eroding the integrity of the monetary system itself. If this is a slow and painful process, why not try and speed up the automation process and get rid of the monetary system earlier.

[Rajiv]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

The question I have for you is -- "Is this vision sustainable for 9 billion human beings?" Corrollary question "What is the impact of 9 billion people on the ecosphere?"

[marvenger]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

I think there's a massive amount of waste from the current system, Planned obsolescence and lots of private property sitting around doing nothing. If agriculture performed properly and the IMF and US hadn't tried to make developing world dependent on their food then there would be more than enough food for everyone. I think everyone could be easily materially catered for too.

[Rajiv]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

The energy/water/arable land/forest land arithmetic does not add up! At 9 billion people you are going to have a rapid (10 years) population collapse -- when that happens, all bets are off! If skills and resource networks survive, then it may be possible to rebuild -- but it may take a generation or two.

I do not know if you have travelled to India or China -- if you have, you may have an inkling of what I am talking about. If you haven't, imagine what the the US would be if it had a population of 4.5 billion.

[marvenger]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

many energy sources not tapped, geothermal can power us for 4 thousand years, wind, tidal, waves, the amout of sunlight reaching the earth is 10,000 times the energy we use.

Most of our water sources are polluted, correct that and you have more water. More renewable energy means more water from desalination or you can extract it from the moisture in the air, you can just use wind movement and condensation to do this. Collect water runoff and store it, doen't have to be dams each residence can have their own tanks, with access to dams or desal in case of emergency or top up.

There's more than enough arable land, particularly if you reverse current losses and if you start growing hydroponically, you can do this anywhere.

Many possibilities

[Rajiv]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

You are not taking a systems point of view -- this is tale of inertia and of roads not taken (Even forty years ago -- when the problems and potential solutions first saw the light of day -- Small is Beautiful, Club of Rome Report, Buckminster Fuller's work, the work of Paul Ehrlich,-- it may have been too late) -- IMO it is too late to go back and take those paths -- Not that the technologies should not be developed or attempts not made -- so the path forward is not going to be painless (as implied by the Venus project) -- it is going to be extremely painful.

See also Jared Diamond - Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

[marvenger]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

Rajiv, the venus project has never implied that the process will be painless. They are very aware of the possibility of collapse of society and want to use current stresses as an opportunity to gain support for these new ideas. They stress time and time again that theirs is not a utopian vision and that what we know now will likely seem ridiculous in the future, its the nature of progress. They want to create an environment where these changes can happen as painlessly as possible and people are open to new ideas becasue they have security and don't need to cling to old ideas for security. It's not utopian, but they think its better and in theory I agree. We'll have to see what happens in practice but I'm prepared to support them in the process.

Also the the initial stages are obviously not going to be as elaborate as what could be possible.