I am just asking some questions. Please don't troll me <object class="emojione" data="https://resources.enjin.com/1489581540/themes/core/images/emojione/svg/1f61b.svg?0" type="image/svg+xml" standby=":p">:p</object>

I watched the video on the Zeitgeist movement from sawine's forum signature. I believe that basic idea might be a solution to many of our problems today. I agree that the human population should grow out of degenerating forms of government that lack stable control of their people and can not maintain the needs of ALL the people. In most of society today(capitalism), everything is revolving around the open market where price and quality are above strategic reasoning. I also believe that politics is starting to become a field of "social" popularity of constant disputes that just waste time and take extremely long to solve a problem. I think a zeitgeist government may go somewhere if it evolved out of its current "maybe" state. I do see some faults in this Zeitgeist system however. First of all, they forgot to mention human greed which is why communism doesn't work. I believe greed is the ultimate fault of humanity and is the reason why cooperation among all peoples is lacking. Second, in the video I saw, it failed to mention who had the authority to carry out such immense operations that impact the entire nation and earth (but I might have missed it). Third, such a government can not exist because it requires every nation in the world to become part of it. I highly doubt that nations will just unite because of nationalistic views and different cultures. These are all major setbacks that will not allow such a government or "idea" to exist. I know not much can be done in the current situation, but I think this is a very interesting topic. Can some one further explain the details? Also, if a forum mod finds this inappropriate you can by all means delete the post. (This is why age doesn't matter, this is coming from a fking 14 yr. old <object class="emojione" data="https://resources.enjin.com/1489581540/themes/core/images/emojione/svg/1f61b.svg?0" type="image/svg+xml" standby=":p">:p</object>)

The question here : Is greed from humanity itself or are we conditioned to it by our society ?

In fact, the Zeitgeist movement objective is to get people to know the truth about how the world is ruled and etc. (alot is covered in movie 2 and 3)

And the Venus project, as you stated in your 2nd and 3rd points, is the "possible/suggested alternative".

They had no choice to present an alternative, otherwise their movie would be too much doom and gloom. I mean, if they just made a documentary, exposed the dirty truth in some cases and suggest no alternative... that could lead to anarchy lol.

And of course, the world is far from being ready to live in something like the venus project.

I just wanted to point the distinction between the movement and the project.

Hope this short answer can help clarify a bit, there is alot to say on the case. If you are interested, you should watch movie 2 and 3.

Cya

Thx bro

I'm going to speculate on some improvements to society and the way it exists. I have not viewed the movies but have actually spent a large amount of time thinking about this subject.

There is little about humanity that covers the proper path from evolution. The original version of instinct was the idea that the species should systematically compete to make the better version of the species (aka the original survival of the fittest). survival of the fittest is the propogation ad infinitum of physical capability, scavenging and hunting ability, physical capability to deal with more diverse circumstances, and only recently direct intelligence.

Intelligence was originally a genetic solution to a problem not a mental solution to that problem. Issues of ability to reach certain foods, ability to go unseen either as a protective or stalking system were solved by genetics. The best solutions to these situations yielded a successful and stable evolutionary status.

The original intelligence status is that of maternal instinct.The next intelligence of animals was that of the reluctance to fight based on the fact that they would die, which is survival instinct. The next one was the creation of the pack mentality in which animals could work together to get better results. The next was the creation of government stage that we are currently in.

The government stage is still in development and while the farther to the left on the political spectrum seems ideal the progress in that direction was limited by the human will aspect. people were initially not willing to work against the structure they were in and therefore only those who decided to lead did so. Then as the turmoil between those that had initially decided to lead as a personal choice, which became the lines of royalty, and those who were now interested in sharing the position, who had remained peasants. the initial democracies and rights based systems were fought for in stages.

Motivation over time became a reason to lead as personal ego developed on a larger scale. The first people with an ego and strength in determination became the first leaders and royalty was kept by trying to ensure ego stayed within the line, which often led to great failures of leaders when the impression of such ideas as leading failed.

(Splitting up my post here)

You should really watch the movie before comenting lol.

Motivation over time developed into the large scale republic system that is carried everywhere as not all developments of ego lead towards leadership but also towards other field such as math science and the arts. These created the first major philosophers and intelligentia. They often created the theories not only for the strength of those fields but also those speculations on how the government could be reformed as outside observers. The people with intelligence are a genetic predisposition not only towards mental capacity but personal motivation.

The people who are in the dead end unmoving jobs have a level of direct intellect corresponding to their role but lack the ego to try to expand past these limits. This is the difference between an accountant who has the same job for 20 years or more and those who constantly push towards getting a promotion in job type not only in pay.

Those who work with creative fields for a living either where new information has to be generated are those with the strongest ego within society. These people make up the theorists, engineers, computer scientists, artists, and often the game system designer, whether they do the coding or just the concept.

Notch falls into this field of people who pushed their position to reach a greater one along with thousands of other people who have the same ambition but apply it in different ways. Personally i focus on the creation of new thoughts and ideas and while i often have to learn the things that came before, I also like to expand upon my knowledge through strict deduction.

I know i have covered a large amount of the both physical and mental evolution processes here but it's necessary background information.

we have two major flaws the misapplication of the pack mentality to include supporting those who detract from the species development and the fake correlation between the obtaining items and the strengthening of a person's status.

The pack mentality meant that we needed more people than only the strongest because there was additional strength in numbers. This meant that the weak were valuable as parts of the pack and meant that we supported the people who failed because we needed them. This is no longer the case. We are at a state of overpopulation in which the strength in numbers is in opposition to a non existing force. This is a genetic strength when you have to deal with threats but a genetic weakness when you reach the top of the food chain. This has made us predisposed to keeping the lower people around anyways.

The other issue is that people think that owning things makes them more advances on a core level. This means that people view progress not as a self improvement but the owning of more property.

(I'll continue later i need to get to bed)

sawine i'm not commenting on the movie just putting out my views on where the world has gone wrong.

Cryston, I disagree with u about some of the aspects u believe about society particularly about survival of the fittest. That mentality can rot overtime because who has the right to say a person is not "fit" whether it be mentally or physically enough to contribute to society? I believe Hitler of WWII thought about survival of the fittest and decided to eliminate the entire Jewish population thinking they were inferior along with the mentally ill, the old, and those he saw couldn't fit in society. Obviously, he was wrong because many people of Jewish background are brilliant scientists, inventors, and hold high government positions today. In particular, I think of Albert Einstein who also had ADHD but he contributed much to society. Also Israel today (correct me if I'm wrong) is the leading producer of advanced technology and medicine. Also the handicapped and the old contribute much to society whether we know it or not. There are many examples but I don't have time to name them all and their accomplishments (gettin ready for school). So basically, I don't think that the true potential of a human being can be realized by another because different viewpoints exist on all corners of this planet. We must work together whether or not we have some flaws because society must function as a whole or else discrimination will run rampant and anarchy will occur on a global level.

The creation of the holocaust was not created for the sake of improving the state of the country. It was a combination of the need for somewhere for blame to be placed and a personal vendetta of Hitler.

Among Hitler's time though this worked as a survival movement as the destruction of these jews was part of how they motivated the entire society. The status of the german people was of a great psycological failure of both motivation and determination. The correction of this mindset with the use of a scapegoat, the jews, improved the overall capability of germany to live and thrive.

I don't endorse what Hitler did, but survival of the fittest is rarely on an individual level anymore. the entire country was motivated and moved forward by the killing of the jews in the holocaust. That improvement in mindset was what was chosen in order to improve the country instead of capitalizing on the mental strengths of the jews.

survival of the fittest when it comes to people is not a model that promotes the removal of the unfit from the system. It is a rule that those that survive are the fittest to continue the species. What we need to stop here is the artificial support for those who would otherwise die therefore taking from those who can sustain themselves. Lets take the difference between Hawking and many other disabled people. Hawking is thriving when it comes to his place within his field and society. He does so well because he is fit for the field. The last time someone went into physics there is no test for physical ability only that of mental and therefore even the disability fails to stop him from surviving within the field. The disabled are not by definition unfit. The disabled just must find positions from which they can survive. if this means for a blind person that he makes sure that he can read braille and therefore continue in an intellectual job that is survival in spite of the disability. Helping provide the faculties to allow continued work by this system is valid as after this issue is covered the person still has to be able to be self maintaining. the disabled may get help with a disability but not a free pass through life if they are incapable of contributing. They don't have to be a Hawking in order to survive as a disabled person they only have to fill a need successfully by their own capabilities.

Ok, that helped me clarify your mind set. I guess you're saying that those who don't contribute to society when they have the capability to should not fit in with society? Like, some one who does not have the correct intentions to continue life and contribute to society in a beneficial way? Maybe an example is an alcoholic who has gone to many sessions but does not wish to change such a habit? I still don't understand the full capacity of what you are trying to say but is this like the general idea of what you're trying to say?