File: Spirit of the Times.swf-(7.95 MB, Loop)
[_] Anonymous07/01/12(Sun)05:13No.1710602
>> [_] Anonymous07/01/12(Sun)14:21No.1710819 boop

File[Spirit of the Times.swf] - (7.95 MB)
[_] [L] Anon 1442694 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] sage sage 1442760 >>>implying everyone agrees with peace and communism f'n fascist
>> [_] Suiseiseki !iqJWfpglSc 1442780 >># i agree with peace and communism fn facist
>> [_] NameFag 1442792 If I understand what I just watched, the singer attempts to sound peaceful and show disdain for war, but is also attempting to incite a desire for revolution in his audience. However, such a revolution would more than likely result in war. Plus, revolution doesn't necessarily guarantee the desired change and could easily be twisted or manipulated by an influential person in order for the outcome of the conflict to benefit that person.
>> [_] NameFag 1442793 >># Furthermore, the concept of world peace - though desirable and theoretically possible - is not likely to ever be possible without an Orwellian type of government. That is to say, in order for world peace to be achievable every individual would have to strive for the realization and maintenance of that peace; denying any individual the right to strive for their own well-being and desires. In the end, a world without conflict or struggle would mean an end to competition on any level outside of sport or entertainment; denying individuals the right to attempt to improve their station in life, simply by virtue of the fact that there would be no differing social or economic status. The lack of unequal individuals may sound like a good thing in theory, but in practice it means that what people are allowed to do with their lives would be heavily controlled in some way, depriving them of their free will.
>> [_] Anon 1442798 >># Counterpoint: what's inherently good about free will or competition? If they would be stifled by a universal effort to promote peace, isn't that the same as saying that they're the source of strife and suffering and ought to be abolished?
>> [_] NameFag 1442800 >># While that is a viable argument, you also have to consider that a person might be forced into a particular education and career path because of a role that needs to be filled. That person might want to pursue an entirely different life, but they are not allowed to do so because their is no demand for what they want to do that isn't already being met. For them to follow the path they want, competition would arise between that person and the people who were already fulfilling that role. In order to prevent this that individual must suffer. Perhaps many individuals must suffer. Is it really worth it then?
>> [_] NameFag 1442809 I was enjoying the prospect of a debate. Does no one have anything they'd like to add?
>> [_] Anon 1442811 >># >denying any individual the right to strive for their >own well-being and desires. why? the system the singer is promoting does not require anyone to participate. you live as you see fit. there is no money in this system so ALL crime related to money (most of it) is effectivally removed. you may argue that some people will kill anyway, yes they will. but they will be treated as sick patients. the reason they killed will be researched. >denying individuals the right to attempt to >improve their station in life what station? in this system there is no station, everyone is equal. given that there will be small groups of people focused on particular matters but they will come and go as they please and won't have any control over anyone else. I suggest you look up The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement. you may even be persuaded to join them
>> [_] Anon 1442814 >># just a few points you should know when considering The Venus Project/Zeitgiest Movement - ALL manual jobs are done by machine from farming to construction to surgery (machines are better at manual things, plus computers are more accurate than humans) - there is no money. everyone can get what they need (machines again) - everything is designed with being re-usable, recyclable and durable in mind (no more hard drives crashing the day after warranty expires)
>> [_] NameFag 1442818 >># "there is no money in this system so ALL crime related to money (most of it) is effectivally removed" [sic] Money is a stand in, designed to make bartering for goods, services and commodities more fluid. People will still kill for valuable items; without money people will still compete to supply goods and services in exchange for other goods and services. "in this system there is no station, everyone is equal." I already addressed why a lack of social inequality within a rigid society isn't necessarily ideal.
>> [_] NameFag 1442821 >># Continuing. "given that there will be small groups of people focused on particular matters but they will come and go as they please and won't have any control over anyone else." I assume you mean that instead of having one unified world-wide society, you are suggesting that people should live in small tight-knit nomadic groups. (If this is a misunderstanding on my part please correct me.) This seems like a gigantic step backwards from achieving world peace as the groups would have no real structure for interacting with each other and would eventually come into conflict with one another due to competition over resources. Small groups like these would not have the structured industry necessary to provide adequate resources for the entire world's population.
>> [_] Anon 1442822 >># I would still say it is; lots of people hate their jobs now, yet we're far from world peace. It might not solve every existing problem with human society, but it'd be a good start. And again, your argument is double-edged. The hypothetical individuals you propose may suffer from not being allowed to compete with the people who already fill their desired roles, but they would cause suffering to those people if they were allowed to compete with them. At what point does the suffering caused by free will outweigh the benefit? Only when an individual's desired life directly causes suffering (a rapist or murderer)? Perhaps not even then?
>> [_] Anon 1442823 >># Cont. Even these arguments are assuming that people with free will always act to make themselves happier; in reality, this isn't the case, largely because people don't always know what course of action will make them happy. Forcing them to work for the greater good has certain benefits to others, and may or may not benefit the individuals in question as well, while only the latter is true if they are allowed to do as they will.
>> [_] NameFag 1442825 >># "ALL manual jobs are done by machine from farming to construction to surgery" Whose responsibility is it to maintain the machines and what if some people genuinely want to perform manual labor on their own. "everything is designed with being re-usable, recyclable and durable in mind" There really is no such thing as perfect efficiency. Without a completely renewable source of energy, the sheer number of machines required would be impossible. >># If machines are responsible for industry, I suppose social structure becomes somewhat irrelevant. Disregard that part of my argument.
>> [_] Anon 1442828 >># If we assume machines are able to do all the other manual labor human society requires, I don't see why they can't also maintain and repair each other.
>> [_] NameFag 1442829 >># >># At this point we are examining the point at which free will becomes a burden as opposed to a blessing. Let's consider what we know for certain. Humans have an inherent desire for control over their own lives, and without some level of freedom they will be unhappy. Many people who are free to plot the course of their own lives are not happy so free will does not guarantee happiness. From this we can conclude that in either extreme unhappiness will occur, but free will allows for some to be happy while others are not. Some degree of intervention should be employed to give everyone a fair chance, but no one should be made to suffer for another's squandered opportunities.
>> [_] Anon 1442830 >># >Whose responsibility is it to maintain the machines other machines. think of it like this: something in your car breaks, a light comes on that tells you what broke. we have the technology to make this extremely accurate. once the problem is identified it can be corrected by another machine or if possible, itself. >what if some people genuinely want to perform manual labor on their own. then do it, there's nothing stopping you except the physical limits your mind and body have >There really is no such thing as perfect efficiency. true continued
>> [_] Anon 1442832 >># >Without a completely renewable source of energy, the sheer number of machines required would be impossible. although they would be used in this system, wind, solar, tidal, and all the others wouldn't need to be used. Geothermal power is what we need. Right now, global energy consumption is ~.5 zetawats per year a recent study shows that there is 4000 zetawats of power waiting for us in geothermal energy. all we need to do is update the decades old technology we're using for geothermal energy and then we can leave ALL THE LIGHTS ON ALL THE TIME
>> [_] NameFag 1442833 >># Continued. "Forcing them to work for the greater good has certain benefits to others, and may or may not benefit the individuals in question as well, while only the latter is true if they are allowed to do as they will." You assume that given free will people in general are not interested in the happiness of others. Altruism loses it's meaning and inherent joy when it is forced upon someone.
>> [_] NameFag 1442835 >># At some point humans will want to ensure that the machines are operating as intended. The machines are built by humans in the first place. Just as we are flawed, so are our creations. >># I admit that I am woefully unaware of the science behind geothermal energy and therefore I have no idea what it is capable of in this day and age. I would assume, however that there is a reason we haven't yet fully exploited geothermal energy. Perhaps you can enlighten me? (This is in no way facetious.)
>> [_] Anon 1442838 >># I disagree. People who would choose to act altruistically on their own would still derive joy from doing their best to help others. On the other hand, naturally selfish people would not do their best when forced to work for the public good, but at least they'd be contributing something instead of just taking away.
>> [_] Anon 1442839 >no more hard drives crashing the day after warranty expires I suppose the Zeitgeist folks have some way of beating entropy, then? I'd like to learn the secret of everlasting hard drives.
>> [_] NameFag 1442841 >># I'm going to break the flow of our debate for a moment here. You're not arguing in favor of the machine driven utopia right now, correct? You're just engaging me over the possible society I described earlier?
>> [_] NameFag 1442844 >># Don't be a dick, m'kay? Argue in a civil manner please.
>> [_] Anon 1442845 >># >Many people who are free to plot the course of their own lives are not happy so free will does not guarantee happiness. Why are the people who are free not happy? The answer probably falls under money or health. There are very few "free" people today. Everyone who works for a living is effectively a slave. you need money to function in the current system, if you don't have it, you'll be removed or forced into it one way or another. I'm very tired Namefag, this is my last post. I hope you consider the Zietgiest movement, we need intelligent people like yourself http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRy fs
>> [_] Anon 1442847 OK, one more post >># >I would assume, however that there is a reason we haven't yet fully exploited geothermal energy. Perhaps you can enlighten me? (This is in no way facetious.) Oil companies don't want anyone else providing energy. that would ruin their profits!! >># we don't, but we can build hard drives that are designed to last as long as possible
>> [_] NameFag 1442848 >># Thank you for holding this debate with me. I will consider your propaganda sites with a grain of salt and all of my critical observation skills. If the concept holds water under scrutiny I may be convinced.
>> [_] Anon 1442849 >># A machine driven utopia does sound pretty good to me, but no, I'm not talking about that specifically. I just saw your argument against depriving people of free will and felt like playing YHVH's advocate.
>> [_] NameFag 1442850 >># Oil companies can't stop the spirit of entrepreneurship. If anything wouldn't they try to capitalize on it by buying up all of the available naturally occurring heat vents?
>> [_] NameFag 1442851 >># YHVH?
>> [_] Anon 1442858 YHVH = Jehovah or God. I would say I was playing devil's advocate, but it was the devil who said, "do what you will shall be the whole of the law," so it wouldn't be appropriate for the position I took. It was a joke, but probably a bad one if I have to explain it like this. It's quite late here and I should really get some sleep. Thanks for debating this and keeping it civil. Good night!
>> [_] NameFag 1442862 >># Actually Jehovah had crossed my mind, but I disregarded it because of the y.
>> [_] NameFag 1442865 >># Oh, and if you're still here, good night and thanks for the debate. Were I less tired I might have gotten your joke, it was rather clever.
>> [_] Anon 1442868 >># Well, if anything has been constant about revolutions thoughout humanity, is that it has been constantly pushing us forward to the next stage. War may always be a factor, and there may be those who benefit more than others, but on the whole, I can't say that I don't appreciate my life today, on the account of the sacrafice made by those before me. Something to think about. Staying put, is not in our nature.
>> [_] NameFag 1442874 >># While I certainly understand what you mean by that, I'd like to think there is a better way to achieve world peace than by force. It just seems hypocritical; I suppose it may be necessary, but if war is the only way to establish peace can you really say you were successful? Also, if it goes against our nature to accept the status quo, doesn't that imply that once peace had been established we would inevitably revert to conflict?
>> [_] Anon 1442880 >># Yes I am implying that as a possibility, but it's also quite possible that we move beyond the need for constant conflict all together.
>> [_] NameFag 1442881 >># Which begs the question: How would mankind continue to develop and progress as a whole after the advent of world peace?
>> [_] Anon 1442886 Not really one to believe in the venus project, but most of what hes saying is true, that were being deceived and there's more to be had in life beyond the physical part of life, like food money or even possesions in general, Everything will eventually go wrong if left to machines with a one tract process. Where as mans every being [and nature] has multiple functions and uses and doesnt rely on one way of obtaining and distributing, thus its ensured to stand. People are made of organisms, organs and atoms etc that help in unison for multiple goals, thats the way our society should be, everyone who know who they are and truly want to be not a profession but a meaning. not like the selfish goals in our society that is powered by everyones individual want for statues or houses, and has them simply just EXISTING not LIVING, shit causes so many problems drama[to do something], devoting ur life to just a person, pollution eeeeeetccc
>> [_] Anon 1442922 It's a simple idea. It requires machines capable of not only doing the job they are tasked with but also with an AI advanced enough to think and fix problems themselves. You can then have machines who can repair each other because they are capable of accessing the problem. Then we need a renewable power source. The machines would create, maintain and repair each other leaving us to spend our days doing whatever the hell we wanted.
>> [_] Anon 1442923 lalalalala these fking kids. >generational change > becoming exponential change do a barrel roll
>> [_] Anon 1442929 Todays Hippie! Stop whining kiddies, If you hate it so much put a bullet in your head.

File[Spirit of the Times.swf] - (7.95 MB)
[_] [?] Anon 1427065
>> [_] bamp sagegoesinallfields 1427193 bampitty