Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Zeitgeist: Addendum - Part Three - Page 6

Author: Edward L Winston
Added: August 16th, 2009

This is the sixth page of part three in my series of articles on Zeitgeist: Addendum. Please refer to the introduction if you were lead to this page.

[Jacque Fresco]
The society that we're about to talk about is a society that is free of all the old superstitions, incarceration, prisons, police, cruelty and law. All laws will disappear. And the professions will disappear that are no longer valid, such as stockbrokers, bankers, advertising, gone forever. Because it's no longer relevant.

When we understand that is it technology, devised by human ingenuity, which frees humanity and increases our quality of life, we then realize that the most important focus we can have, is on the intelligent management of the earth's resources, for it is from these natural resources we gain the materials to continue our path of prosperity.

Understanding this, we then see that money fundamentally exists as a barrier to these resources, for virtually everything has a financial cost. And why do we need money to obtain these resources? Because of real or assumed scarcity. We don't usually pay for air and tap water, because it is in such high abundance, selling it would be pointless.

Since when do people not pay for tap water?

So then, logically speaking, if resources and technologies applicable to creating everything in our societies, such as houses, cities and transportation, were in high enough abundance, there would be no reason to sell anything. Likewise, if automation and machinery was so technologically advanced, as to relieve human beings of labor, there would be no reason to have a job, and with these social aspects taken care of, there would be no reason to have money at all.

So the ultimate question remains, do we on earth have enough resources and technological understanding to create a society of such abundance, that everything we have now could be available without a price tag and without the need for submission through employment?

Yes, we do. We have the resources and technology to enable this at a minimum, along with the ability to raise the standard of living so high, that people in the future will look back at our civilization now and gawk at how primitive and immature our society was.

I think everyone views the past as primitive - well, not those people who think the Egyptians had nuclear power and flying chariots.

[Jacque Fresco]
What the Venus Project proposes is an entirely different system that's updated to present day knowledge.

[Roxanne Meadows]
We've never given scientists the problem of how do you design a society which would eliminate boring and monotonous jobs, that would eliminate accidents in transportation, that would enable people to have a high standard of living, that would eliminate poisons in our food, give us other sources of energy that are clean and efficient. We can do that out there.

Once someone told me that scientists couldn't plan a technocratic world because "they're too busy with science, they don't have time to play politics." The idea that no scientists are interested in these problems is idiotic at best.

[Roxanne Meadows]
The major difference between a resource based economy and a monetary system is that a resource based economy is really concerned with people and their well-being. Where a monetary system has become so distorted that the concerns of the people are really secondary, if they're there at all. The products that are turned out are for how much money you can get. If there is a problem in society and you can't earn money from solving that problem, than it won't be done. A resource based economy is really not close to anything that's been tried. And with all our technology today we can create abundance. It can be used to improve everyone's lifestyle, abundance all over the world, if we use our technology wisely and maintain the environment.

"If there is a problem in society and you can't earn money from solving that problem, than it won't be done", that's not necessarily true, as people like Martin Luther King, Jr. really had no monetary incentive for getting involved in the civil rights movement. More often than not, though, Roxanne is correct.

[Jacque Fresco]
It's a very different system and it's very hard to talk about because the public is not that well enough informed as to the state of technology.

To nay-sayers I often bring up the fact that in 60 years we went from flying what was basically a lawn mower to going to the moon so in 60 more years it's nearly impossible to image what kind of technology would exist.

Page Navigation: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 ]