File[Spirit of the Times.swf] - (7.95 MB)
[_] [L] Anonymous 12/29/10(Wed)19:00 No.1442694
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] sage sage 12/29/10(Wed)22:16 No.1442760
>>>implying everyone agrees with peace and communism
f'n fascist
>> [_] Suiseiseki !iqJWfpglSc 12/29/10(Wed)23:12 No.1442780
>>1442760
i agree with peace and communism
fn facist
>> [_] NameFag 12/29/10(Wed)23:36 No.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 12/29/10(Wed)23:38 No.1442793
>>1442792
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/29/10(Wed)23:58 No.1442798
>>1442793
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 12/30/10(Thu)00:05 No.1442800
>>1442798
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 12/30/10(Thu)00:24 No.1442809
I was enjoying the prospect of a debate. Does no one have anything they'd like to add?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)00:27 No.1442811
>>1442793
>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
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)00:35 No.1442814
>>1442809
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 12/30/10(Thu)00:41 No.1442818
>>1442811
"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 12/30/10(Thu)00:42 No.1442821
>>1442818
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)00:43 No.1442822
>>1442800
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?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)00:44 No.1442823
>>1442822
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 12/30/10(Thu)00:48 No.1442825
>>1442814
"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.
>>1442821
If machines are responsible for industry, I suppose social structure becomes somewhat irrelevant.
Disregard that part of my argument.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)00:54 No.1442828
>>1442825
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 12/30/10(Thu)01:00 No.1442829
>>1442822
>>1442823
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)01:00 No.1442830
>>1442825
>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
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)01:01 No.1442832
>>1442825
>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 12/30/10(Thu)01:01 No.1442833
>>1442829
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 12/30/10(Thu)01:08 No.1442835
>>1442830
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.
>>1442832
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.)
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)01:13 No.1442838
>>1442833
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)01:15 No.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 12/30/10(Thu)01:17 No.1442841
>>1442838
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 12/30/10(Thu)01:19 No.1442844
>>1442839
Don't be a dick, m'kay? Argue in a civil manner please.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)01:23 No.1442845
>>1442829
>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=1gKX9TWRyfs
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)01:26 No.1442847
OK, one more post
>>1442835
>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!!
>>1442839
we don't, but we can build hard drives that are designed to last as long as possible
>> [_] NameFag 12/30/10(Thu)01:26 No.1442848
>>1442845
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)01:28 No.1442849
>>1442841
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 12/30/10(Thu)01:29 No.1442850
>>1442847
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 12/30/10(Thu)01:30 No.1442851
>>1442849
YHVH?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)01:38 No.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 12/30/10(Thu)01:41 No.1442862
>>1442858
Actually Jehovah had crossed my mind, but I disregarded it because of the y.
>> [_] NameFag 12/30/10(Thu)01:43 No.1442865
>>1442858
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)01:59 No.1442868
>>1442792
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 12/30/10(Thu)02:05 No.1442874
>>1442868
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?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)02:13 No.1442880
>>1442874
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 12/30/10(Thu)02:17 No.1442881
>>1442880
Which begs the question: How would mankind continue to develop and progress as a whole after the
advent of world peace?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)02:42 No.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
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)04:26 No.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.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)04:28 No.1442923
lalalalala these fking kids.
>generational change
> becoming exponential change
do a barrel roll
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/10(Thu)04:47 No.1442929
Todays Hippie!
Stop whining kiddies, If you hate it so much put a bullet in your head.
