Peter Joseph's July 25th 2009 Zeitgeist Movement Lecture

[Psyolopher]

Link:
http://vimeo.com/6346955

Check it out and discuss....

 

[Psyolopher]

I want arguments against it plx....it made some sense to me.

 

[Bastiaan]

I'm watching.. a little ashamed I haven't seen this yet
Edit: just finished watching. Srry no arguments against it
Greatest stuff

 

[Bastiaan]

Seems there's a sequal to this talk by Joseph to be held nov. 15
I hadn't been around the zeitgeist site for a while
Just looked again
This talk of Jaques Fresco I hadn't seen yet either http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwIlPqkp ... re=related
So great as well.. it kind of made my day
I'll certainly be checking up more now

 

[Bastiaan]

Bump

 

[Psyolopher]

Cool, glad ya liked it!!!
Really nice video u linked....He's a really great mind.

 

[Bastiaan]

This concept is greatly tought out
Only thing that scares the crap out of me is people talking about AI..
If we ever make that mistake.. well you've seen the matrix?
People get so caught up in the magnificence of their creativity they are blinded for the consequences.. the typical scientist

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

This reminded me of 'The Culture' from Ian M Banks novels (if your not familiar then you damn well should be!)

It is tricky to argue against this as it is a theory of a utopian future, how can you argue against heaven? I guess that some may argue about wether or not 'human nature' would allow people to live in such a way, though those people should be shot for being so arrogant as to think they alone know the nature of every human being on the planet.
I think my arguement would revolve around a sense of purpose. If everything is done for us by automation and AI's i think life would be quite meaningless. There was a french group that once said something along the lines of 'In order to escape the fear of dying of starvation we accept the inevitability of dying of boredom'. Are we truely satisfied by our 'liesure time' and if our lives consisted solely of it would we really be happy?
I don't know, but its worth consideration surely?

 

[Bastiaan]

Good point, crossed my mind as well.
However this is of course a luxury problem, and if you'd want to work again in this utopia, nobody would get in your way, and it's not pointless if it makes you feel better ofc.
At this moment in time however, we can not even speak about such luxury problems, while on the other side of the world people are dying, war is raging and everywhere around the world there are people in poverty, hating, egoistic, self centered, enstranged from one another and having a shit load of personal problems.
To me, such a 'utopia' is not just wanted, it is nescesary, at least in the long run it is if you want to be purely scientific (theory below), but for me it is also nescessary because I just can't stand all the suffering that I know is real and around me.

So to the scientifics.

According to evolution theory the mechanism of competition is largely what has made us evolve into what we are.
It is engraved into our workings and our mating processes.
However, never has any species, as far as we know, been to the point where we are now; 1 absolutely dominant species of the earth knowing how to take care of ourselves and being able to utilise everything to ensure survival as well and for as long as possible. One might argue we are done evolving for this part.
Yet now we face another problem: ourselves.
We compete rather then cooperate (choice, but not really because by law it is currently our guiding mechanism and obviously we are in a monetary system. Also, not being competitive wouldn't really work as those that are will take from those that aren't).
I compare it to something else: somebody eats because he is unhappy and is unhappy because he eats (name of this disease would much be appreciated).
This mechanism is self destructive (unhapiness, doesn't really get any more obvious then this), self perpetuating, UNLESS consciousness interveins (the person becomes consciouss of the mechanism) and ultimately self defeating (eats himself to death), all on an individual level.
Now lets look at competition.
Only real difference is that it is collective, taking the human being as a single organism when you compare it to the eating disorder.
It's self destructive (if you don't see this.. read again, think more, look around you, watch ZG addendum and afterwards punch yourself in the head), self perpetuating unless consciousness interveins, and ultimately self defeating (all recources used up we all kill each other until one remains, and one cannot reproduce, this has already began because there are a lot of examples of people killing over things).
Competition has brought us where we are, but now for us to survive we must shed this very mechanism.
I mean think about it, why would we even have a consciousness? This consciousness has been evolving in the last milennia (that's why we know less and less about our history the further we go back, except from archeological findings).
We are setting the stage for the next step in evolution.
We evolve or we die.
All the callings around the world for love etc., it's all scientifically explainable according to this model (as much as I can imagine this may sound to some people, when you understand this it is actually quite quite beautiful ).
There's really only one reason this theory of the collective self defeating mechanism might not be correct and that is when the following factors would be in place:
- we found and inhabitet other planets before we got to the point where we would all be dying and killing ech other
- The second thing that must be in place would be that we have to keep finding these planets before we sucked em dry
- last but not least the universe would have to be never ending

I always knew everything just had to make sense and it will when we reach this new point in evolution.
Actually I think it might be the end of it really.. at least as we know it.
We'll be done
We're not ready yet, but it is comforting that evolution is an exponential process and that indications are there that we are now on a(n extremely near) vertical line.
We never knew what a completely uncompetitive world and thus a completely uncompetitive self would be like, because we've never seen it or heard of it or imagined it (probably).
Well now you've heard of it
We will be able to see everything the way it is now as it fits into preperation for this new phase.
Hah, Darwin and Dawkins! I eat you for lunch! (we ARE still in the competitive thing you know )

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

correct me if im wrong but to summarise what you are saying, our evolution has relied upon competition thus far, and so we are competitive beings. However we are now in a state of moral or social evolution, as oppose to biological or genetic, which should be directed toward a more co-operative society and consciousness?

I mostly agree with this.

I would however argue that we aren't inherently competitive. Conscious competition is different to evolutionary competition. Evolutionary competition relies upon suitability to surroundings and reproduction, it is not a conscious decision to out do somebody, but, due to genetic difference, it will occur. Just because a sphere will roll further than a cube does not mean they are in some kind of race. Conscious competition stems from environmental factors, such as a lack of food or shelter, things that would occur at the 'dawn of civilization'. Society reacted to this by developing hierarchies, in which people compete to achieve a comfortable life. However i don't feel this is a result of some kind of 'selfish gene' or inherent competitive human nature, it is simply due to the environment.
Now that we have achieved a situation in which we can easily supply everyone with sufficient food, water and shelter, we need not live in this way. The reason that we have not changed our society to fit in with this post-scarcity world is because competition is forced into our minds from an early age. It is not our genes or our nature that we need to over come to move into a co-operative society but our conditioning.

 

[Bastiaan]

Right on! My guess however would be that this conditioning can be traced back to an aged evolutionary mechanism (we never consciously, with all the knowledge we have now chose to excercise it, consciousness makes none of our behaviour inherent), and that now we, as a species, having our consciousness developped (or not quite enough, or it would have already happened, but we can do this right now/almost imo) must (partly, like you say, because a round ball rolls faster down the hill then a cube doesnt mean it's a competition, this is about behaviour that we can now/soon (remember it requires the parttaking of most of if not all the people) control due to our consciousness having evolved) shed this behaviour to remain in business P).
You could argue competitive behaviour is conscious, but I for one have been brought up not knowing any better/ in such an environment where this was not just common, but without exception (and affirmed by this theory that competition is a healthy thing bringing more for all and creating incentive that is in practice and the guiding mechanism of the capitalistic western society).
Not something you question.
I have however began questioning it, but not everybody (at all) that has been brought up this way and in this environment will ever do this, also because it will enstrange him from his family, friends and entire society.
I don't think you can call the competitiveness some people exhibit conscious behaviour, for they were never shown an alternative.
To wrap it all up: it's not really conscious behaviour, we just do not yet know any better
Edit: I read your previous post again and only now I really understood what you meant. Good point. For me, I have all the meaning there could be.. but might be different for others ofc.

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

It is a difficult thing to speculate about, particularly because neither of us (i assume) are behavioral psychologists. I can see that saying competitive behavior is conscious may be misleading, perhaps subconscious would be better term to use.
Ultimately though, whether competition is a conscious, subconscious or indeed even instinctive behavioral pattern is irrelevant, as you said it is self-destructive, self-perpetuating and self-defeating. It is something that, in the same way a small child learns to control there bowels and bladder (which is controlled by 'soft muscle much like the heart and lungs are) as to not shit all over themselves, we as a race must learn to control as to not shit all over each other and the environment. Sure this is a tall order but see quote below (signature).

 

[Bastiaan]

+1 Well, what makes one a behavioural psychologist? The interest and talent and having excercised this for a good time and having researched and experienced a lot, using own judgement or does someone need a paper being acquired after mindlesly having taken false information from one paper and having transferred it to another for that?
Nice metaphor

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

I actually thought that after i posted it. A degree in something does not make you a master of it, and the lack of a degree does not make you a fool, and everyone has a very long history of experience in observing and manipulating human behavior, thats just part of living as a social being, arguably it is the totality of living as a social being. Although we do lack a certain amount of peer-review, it would be nice to see what our fellow psychonauts think on the subject but unfortunately we seem to have comandeered this thread.

I was particularly proud of that metaphor actually it seemed to contain exactly the right amount of vulgarity without overpowering the message That one is going in the book 8) .