next »

[jeb]

You all know the conspiracy documentary "Zeitgeist", right? Well, now they've made another one, and it was with quite bit of scepsis that I began watching it. However, since I saw it I have been thinking about it a lot, so I thought it maybe would be interesting to somebody else as well. It's at the same site as ever, http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

The fun thing about it is that it tries to describe some kind of Star Trek society, which I thought was quite cool. Such a society would actually suit indies well... no mundane work, only philosophy, art and social activities matter...

[Corpus]

Wouldn't be very fair on the people who enjoy said work. Also, if everyone lived like a bohemian, the whole world would go insane, because there would be no normal people to temper them.

[jeb]

Hehe yeah I know. It's also funny to claim that there doesn't need to be any laws, like if money is creating psychopaths. But as an Utopia the idea is quite nice. It's also interesting to think about money as if it had no value. $700 billion can be stored in a 64 bit integer.

[kyn]

I really liked the first one, and I saw this one the other day, and well, they explained this money issue in the first but now they dug it up again to introduce this "Venus Project" utopia.
Not quite sure what to make of it, but what I really love about these movies is that it makes you think, and I've been thinking a lot about it these last few days, and I'm not really sure humanity is ready for this kind of thing, I mean, they talk like energy independence would solve all of mankind's problems. And the other issue I'm really skeptical about is human motivation, they were really vain and quick explaining it, I didn't quite agree with it, if human's lay around doing nothing, why would one want to go to school, or go to work? If everyone has all the resources available, why would we want to continue to contribute positively to society? There would be no scientific progress because there would be few scientists working, and if no one is working, who the hell is harvesting and planting fruits and food and whatever? They didn't really explain it well, either that or I misunderstood.

But the bottom line is, if you didn't watch it, do it, at least the first one as top priority, it's really a good one. I can't stress this enough, seriously watch it. It's full on google video "Zeitgeist The Movie" and "Zeitgeist: Addendum".

[Kinten]

Money controls the world. WHAT?! NOOOOO!!! Who would have thought?
Lets get back to trading hides.

Have to say, not much substance. It's interesting though how much a dramatic score, a couple of slow moving slides and a couple of old guys can add to the false feel of authenticity of this "documentary".

[kyn]

Well the thing is, money that doesn't/wasn't supposed to exist controls the world. It's all made up in thin air by banking systems and now it reached his theoretical breakpoint as we all know. I'm sorry, but this monetary system indeed doesn't work

[Kinten]

There still need to be a monetary system, only in a different manner. That I can agree on. Most of the change is long overdue.

EDIT: Some good points put forth in the movie - though the focus on drama really bothers me. Especially when many of the things they say are just plain utopian and unrealistic that in the end will help no one.

[skrew]

you seem to have all missed the point of the last 5-6 minutes of the entire film about tapping back in to the collective unconscious. reaching down into yourself searching for that pulse and feeling it beat back. this society tries to seperate us and compartamentalize us all but we are really and truly one. and thats the incentive, thats what will motivate us forward. We all have this capacity but we are constantly misdirected and deceived into thinking otherwise.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I saw this like the day it came out, and liked it a lot better than the first one.

Mainly because the first one was very negative: 9/11 conspiracies! Religion is evil! The world is controlled by a secret society of people in power! Nothing you can do!

Whereas the second one is more positive, and proposes how an alternative society could work, and offers steps to reach it. Even if I don't agree with all of the specifics of the utopia they present, I like that tone.

And I do agree with the basics of the utopia: that technology could make most laws obsolete -- their example with drunk driving was a good one: if cars were more intelligent drunk driving wouldn't need to be a crime because cars would refuse to crash or move when the driver is drunk. Most other crimes could be solved in similar ways, prevention is always better than punishment. As an analogy, it's better to prevent a disease by exercising and eating healthy than to just treat the symptoms after the disease has formed.

[Movius]

I loved the first Zeitgeist. Laughed the whole way through, Larouche's appearence at the end being a particular comedic masterstroke.

However, I always thought that one flaw that held it back from being a true masterpiece of conspiracy nutcasery is the lack of any reference to fractional reserve banking being the source of all evil.

Although I've only watched the first 20 minutes or so of addendum, it starts promisingly. Will it continue to satisfy me?

[Alex May]

And I do agree with the basics of the utopia: that technology could make most laws obsolete -- their example with drunk driving was a good one: if cars were more intelligent drunk driving wouldn't need to be a crime because cars would refuse to crash or move when the driver is drunk. Most other crimes could be solved in similar ways, prevention is always better than punishment. As an analogy, it's better to prevent a disease by exercising and eating healthy than to just treat the symptoms after the disease has formed.

But by your analogy, ensuring the car cannot crash under the control of a drunk driver is treating the symptoms of drunk driving instead of the disease, which is being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. To cure that you have to somehow stop people getting into cars while drunk, and to follow your analogy it would be better if people didn't get drunk at all, which would solve the drunk driving problem as well as ease dozens of other problems like strain on the health services, depression, alcoholism, etc.

[Don Andy]

Isn't that ironically exactly what they did in Star Trek? "Synthehol"

[Gnarf]

I like how they add "C:\" to the beginning of things to make them sound more computery.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

But by your analogy, ensuring the car cannot crash under the control of a drunk driver is treating the symptoms of drunk driving instead of the disease, which is being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. To cure that you have to somehow stop people getting into cars while drunk, and to follow your analogy it would be better if people didn't get drunk at all, which would solve the drunk driving problem as well as ease dozens of other problems like strain on the health services, depression, alcoholism, etc.

I wouldn't say that being drunk is the cause of drunk driving being a crime -- being drunk while driving leading to a crash is the cause -- it's final causality (in the Aristotlian sense), the final cause (the crash and injuries resulting from it) are the cause of it being a crime. Similarly, having sex isn't the cause of rape, using force to have sex is. Outlawing sex to prevent rape would make little sense, and outlawing alcohol to prevent drunk driving would also make little sense.

It's possible to have a society with a lot of drinking, but no drunk driving, just by having no cars, or by cars that don't work when someone is drunk or don't crash or are well-built enough that almost nobody is ever injured or killed as a result of a crash. So I think the basic idea -- that technology can prevent most or all crime -- is correct.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I like how they add "C:\" to the beginning of things to make them sound more computery.

I think the documentary was made by only one guy (aside from the music and such -- but one guy did write, direct, and edit it), so it'd be "he" rather than "they".

I like how technology is improving in all areas enough that games and movies (the most technologically demanding art forms) almost as polished as well-funded ones can be made by one person.

[Pacian]

It's possible to have a society with a lot of drinking, but no drunk driving, just by having no cars, or by cars that don't work when someone is drunk or don't crash or are well-built enough that almost nobody is ever injured or killed as a result of a crash. So I think the basic idea -- that technology can prevent most or all crime -- is correct.

Right, but who would control this technology?  If we have a society where you can be prevented from driving while drunk, what if the people in charge decide to stop you driving while pregnant?  Or while gay?

And if it isn't controlled by a few people, if anyone could potentially change when you can drive a car, isn't the system worthless?

And should we really have rigid technology deciding what we should be able do in the organic and ambiguous real world?  What if drink driving is the least worst option?  What if you're drunk and there's a tornado coming?

Everywhere I look (in the UK at least) I see attempts to solve social problems with technology.  It's tasers to solve people who show disrespect, it's scripts that call centre employees have to follow to prevent mistakes, it's Vista asking you every five bloody seconds if you really want to do that.  Sorry, but you have to solve people problems with people skills.  It sucks, it's hard, but the alternatives are much worse.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Right, but who would control this technology?  If we have a society where you can be prevented from driving while drunk, what if the people in charge decide to stop you driving while pregnant?  Or while gay?

And if it isn't controlled by a few people, if anyone could potentially change when you can drive a car, isn't the system worthless?

And should we really have rigid technology deciding what we should be able do in the organic and ambiguous real world?  What if drink driving is the least worst option?  What if you're drunk and there's a tornado coming?

Everywhere I look (in the UK at least) I see attempts to solve social problems with technology.  It's tasers to solve people who show disrespect, it's scripts that call centre employees have to follow to prevent mistakes, it's Vista asking you every five bloody seconds if you really want to do that.  Sorry, but you have to solve people problems with people skills.  It sucks, it's hard, but the alternatives are much worse.

Nobody "controls" technology -- technology is available to anyone. For instance, nobody currently "owns" the technology for a car. Anybody can build their own car if they have the time and resources to do so. I think you're being inappropriately fearful, and not thinking through how technology tends to work.

Imagine we were in 1900, and I proposed that one day there would be a cure for tuberculosis, using something called antibiotics. Would you object with something like "Who would CONTROL these antibiotics? Who would decide who lives or dies?"

[Pacian]

Nobody "controls" technology -- technology is available to anyone. For instance, nobody currently "owns" the technology for a car. Anybody can build their own car if they have the time and resources to do so. I think you're being inappropriately fearful, and not thinking through how technology tends to work.

Right, but if nobody controls this technology which is preventing crime, won't criminals be able to circumvent it?  In which case, it would not be preventing crime.

Imagine we were in 1900, and I proposed that one day there would be a cure for tuberculosis, using something called antibiotics. Would you object with something like "Who would CONTROL these antibiotics? Who would decide who lives or dies?"

We're speaking about crime not medicine.  Crime is specifically an issue of control - what we are and are not allowed to do.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Who would *not* want a car that never crashes when they are drunk? Do you think drunk drivers intend to do it or like the chance of harming themselves or others and the chance of going to jail? People would voluntarily buy those cars, because they're superior to cars which have a chance of killing you or others.

I don't think crime is an issue of control, crime is just a disease. It's a social disease rather than a biological disease, but it's still a disease, and should be treated in the same way, not with punishment. You can't punish cancer out of a person (Mondo Medicals notwithstanding), and you can't punish crime out of a society.

[Pacian]

Who would *not* want a car that never crashes when they are drunk? Do you think drunk drivers intend to do it or like the chance of harming themselves or others and the chance of going to jail? People would voluntarily buy those cars, because they're superior to cars which have a chance of killing you or others.

It depends how the car never crashes.  If I steer to the right, and the car decides that actually, no, it won't, that to me is a case of giving a rigid machine control over a situation that it almost certainly won't be able to fully appreciate. 

Drunk driving is perhaps a poor example though.  Change the question to, "Who would *not* want a gun that couldn't kill anyone?"

I don't think crime is an issue of control, crime is just a disease. It's a social disease rather than a biological disease, but it's still a disease, and should be treated in the same way, not with punishment. You can't punish cancer out of a person (Mondo Medicals notwithstanding), and you can't punish crime out of a society.

This much I agree with, at least if you change the word crime to 'immorality' or 'bad behaviour'.  But I don't think the cure is technology.