Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement/Archive1

Navbox
I've skimmed their website and it seems that they are not into conspiracy theories, at least not above the baseline level among people forwarding stuff like Kony2012 on Facebook. In the blogs aggregated at thezeitgeistmovement.com you can find stuff like this, but also someone trying to explain to them The Basics.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * New AGe works for me, but then again the dolphin icon cracks me up. Тy Bother me 19:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Too much futurism, too few crystals to be New Age.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Politics will work then. Тy Bother me 20:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the issue with the Zeitgeist Movement, it actually has little to do with that film when you get down to it, but all the naive "we can change the world with wishful thinking" attitudes can attract the wrong sort of person. Scarlet A.pngpathetic silverbrain.png 21:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Politics won't work. The movement believes that all problems are technical of nature and that politicians don't have any relevant knowledge to solve those problems. Taken from the FAQ #3: 1st+2nd: "TZM is very different from the majority of Activist Communities or Political/Social Movement's today due to the way it views the majority of the societal problems common to the world. In short, the Social System itself is considered the root cause, with Human Behavior and its resulting effects - corruption, pollution, wars, waste, exploitation and hence distortion of values and psychology - seen as symptoms of this fundamental root source." and FAQ #3: 5th: "The real issue and hence logic is Technical - not political or financial. Starvation is a technical problem where clean, life supporting resources are not made available to a certain region for some reason."--Gac123 (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All political statements boil down to "society should be destroyed", "society should work the way it does now", or "society should work differently". TZM is very clearly making a political statement of the third type. 193.130.116.241 (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's politics by most people's use of the term. You can claim it isn't, but that doesn't make it so. It should probably read non-partisan, or non-governmental, as that would be a better description. Scarlet A.pngnarchist silverbrain.png 12:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And this is exactly what TZM doesn't boil down to. It is more of an if-statement "IF you want a sustainable future THEN ..". And it is their hope that with the "educational" material they bring alternative initiatives will pop up that might lead to this sustainable future. I guess they are an education activism movement.--Gac123 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The "if-then" cop-out sounds like sophistry to me. You can re-frame most, if not all, current political creeds into that manner. "IF you want prosperity, THEN a free market is the way to go." I also doubt it represents the view of the average Zeitgeister.
 * Also, [citation needed] about "their" intentions. (Are you one of "them" or not?)
 * Anyway, I think that at this point, the discussion has gone purely academic. Does anyone still want to add the Politics navbox? --ZooGuard (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can take or leave the navbox depending on whether there's a more appropriate set of categories. Scarlet A.pngd hominem silverbrain.png 15:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Futurism is in Category:Political movements and Category:Political philosophies without having a navbox. I think that the former category is suitable.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right about the sophistry, but it wasn't my intention. Maybe I should have said it this way: TZM doesn't really propose a solution in itself, like the 'we need a RBE', it is more a 'people need to have a better education so they can have a better understanding so we as a planetary species can arrive at a better economy, one true to its very definition (from the Greek oikonomia meaning domestic management) or economy, which will probably look like a RBE, oh and this is how a RBE could work:"", and this "" is where the current model is failing'. More along those lines. (Yes, I consider myself a contributor to this movement for over 2 years.)
 * I think academic is good, TZM is in a constant search of validity and I'm helping them and myself by being critical and being aware that I have my biases.
 * I personally see TZM, if we want to define it as being political or not, more like a propaganda machine for hire. Like publicist enterprises. The difference is that they don't get paid and they choose the subject they want to propagate. Those types of enterprises can't be labeled political, they do it for the money. TZM does it for the hopes and dreams of a sustainable future they are highly unlikely to see in their lifetime. And I personally like that. I look up and have a deep respect for people who dare to dream, like Stephen Hawking, Martin Luther King Jr., etc...--Gac123 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

...and categories
I've added "Organizations" and "Environmentalism" because they are both used in The Venus Project article. At least "Organizations" should be uncontroversial.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Zeitgeist Movement is not The Venus Project, but, seeing I'm not a native English speaker, something like "sustainability-ism" would be more appropriate, because that is what it seems to boils down to.--Gac123 (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Communism
The Zeitgeist Movement is utopian communism, should be mentioned on the page.Zeitgeistiscrap (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Split with Venus Project and Fresco
According to this FAQ, there was some kind of falling out.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is what is being said in that FAQ: "The early manifestation of TZM was as a Social Movement to create mass awareness regarding the train of thought that underlies the work of a man named Jacque Fresco - an industrial designer and social engineer who founded an organization called The Venus Project. However, in early 2011, tensions abruptly emerged from Mr. Fresco and his associate Roxanne Meadows. This eventually generated a split between the two organizations which now operate without each others active influence. It is important to note that there is no opposition between the two organizations. The differences between the two organizations rest in function & strategy while the broad goal is essentially the same."--Gac123 (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you haven't noticed, the link above leads directly to that section, so there was no need to reproduce it here.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the recording of the exact moment: http://goo.gl/DQy4w Word of warning; it is emotionally loaded.--Gac123 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Politics
"Politics" is a wide-ranging category that includes not just governments and men in suits shouting at each other, but also of social structure and social issues as they relate to positions of authority. This runs the risk of becoming an argumentum ad dictionarium, but it's important when figuring out inference people derive from what you say. Claiming to be non-political is just an act of trying to distance yourself from the negative connotations of politics, from corruption to partisan divides. Yet everything on this FAQ falls within the remit of political philosophy.

It doesn't matter what the movement says about itself, that's irrelevant. There's a very good reason Wikipedia, for instance, demands external secondary sources for its information. It's as political as any other group out there, it's just blind to it. d hominem 15:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it should fall under the politics definition but I just don't see it. Neither does the link you provided on political philosophy. Or point out exactly what you think makes falls within it as a (yet another) political philosophy. Nowhere do I see that 'using the scientific method for arriving at decisions', instead of making/taking decisions based on someones opinion/ideology, in a description of political philosophies. I'm not convinced (yet). Remember that the goal of this movement is to popularize this alternative economic model called a "Resource-based Economy" (or -economic model) and you seem to be more on that case than the movement itself. Also remember that this movement has no other purpose and would become obsolete once it has reached this goal. I should find a reference for this but I'm not exactly sure where I came across it.--Gac123 (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole of communism is about establishing an "alternative economic model". :) And it definitely goes under "politics", or at least "political philosophy". (One of the reasons why I'm using that specific example is that the "movement" reminds me of Ivan Efremov's utopian visions of communist future Earth.) See also Futurism, the Technocracy movement, etc.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is where this movement differs, it does not uphold something as the one and only solution. Though as it stands today they will mostly only talk about this Resource-Based Economic model because they haven't seen anything different that might be better. The end goal is promoting a sustainable non-violent world system, that in itself is not politics as I understand it, this is activism.--Gac123 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How is activism not politics? — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk Do You Believe That? 14:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yeah, because activism is mutually exclusive with politics. /sarcasm. My point was that changing the economic model and/or the "world system" is a political goal, because governance and economical system fall under the broader sense of "politics". You seem to take it to apply only to the day-to-day workings of a given political system - parties, elections, etc. in the case of democracy.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Activism does not equal politics. It might imply it, but by strict definition you can be an activist of many different fields.--Gac123 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've posed this to a few people who are either politics graduates, or actually work in political spheres. There seems to be an edging towards them agreeing that this is politics. No matter how much you try to say it isn't. Scarlet A.pngd hominem silverbrain.png 14:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I can't be wrong, but from what I understand them to be after having done research into what TZM is and does, it just doesn't seem to fit the (political) bill for me. I'm not sure who would be the ultimate authority for classifying this group. My goal is just to have a correct definition, I don't mind being wrong, on the contrary that is how I learn.--Gac123 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Political movement operating outside the establishment" is the best description. OWS being another movement who tries to pull the "we're not political" card, even though they blatantly are. Scarlet A.pnggnostic silverbrain.png 15:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also found the Occupy movement a useful analogy and I was saving it For When I Sit Down to Improve The Article. :) Like the Occupiers, the Zeitgeisters are dissatisfied with the status quo. Unlike the Occupiers, the Zeitgeisters have a proposed solution. But it's unclear how they propose to get from point A to point B, which is where "politics" in the narrower sense comes into play.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's probably where TZM is going to run into a lot of issues. OWS at least knows it has to play within the current political sphere, hence targeting the current economic system and politicians. But TZM is going to struggle to effect real change if it refuses to admit it has to play a little within the current system to get everything done - it's not going to magically disappear. Scarlet A.pngsshole silverbrain.png 15:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's probably where TZM is going to run into a lot of issues. OWS at least knows it has to play within the current political sphere, hence targeting the current economic system and politicians. But TZM is going to struggle to effect real change if it refuses to admit it has to play a little within the current system to get everything done - it's not going to magically disappear. Scarlet A.pngsshole silverbrain.png 15:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have this big steaming pile of innuendo and credulity?
The zeitgeist movement considers itself scientific, just like the creationists do. They beg out of any scientific or economic strictures by simply pointing the the facts that stand in their way, and declaring them part of an outdated world view. This "article" needs massive revision. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 10:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Hipocrite (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

BoN additions/edits
The Zeitgeist Movement is an explicitly non-violent, global sustainability advocacy group currently working in over 1000 Regional Chapters across 70 countries. The basic structure of The Movement consists of Chapters, Teams, Projects & Events. Overall, the Chapters are essentially what define the Movement and each Chapter works to not only spread awareness about the roots of our social problems today but also to express the logical, scientific solutions and methods we have at our disposal to update and correct the current social system and create a truly responsible, sustainable, peaceful, global society. Working through global and regional educational projects and community programs, the intermediate goal is to obtain a worldwide movement, essentially unifying the people, regardless of country, religion or political party, with a common value identification that we all invariably share, pertaining to our survival and sustainability.

It is the assumption of The Movement that the educational/activist pressure generated, coupled with what is currently a failing social system, will inhibit and override the established political, commercial and nationalist institutions outright, exposing and resolving the flaws inherent. It is our view that the traditional mediums of politics and commerce as forces for change will not obtain the goals needed to make our social system sustainable and humane for they appear to be born out of the same traditionalist, flawed logic that has created the problems as they stand.

The transitional goal, once such a global presence and pressure is obtained, is to implement an economic model that follows a truly scientific train of thought with respect to the technical factors that allow for human propensity, public health and environment responsibility over generational time. This new model, since it is based upon Resource Management and Natural Law (Science) as the logical starting point for all decisions and processes, is often referred to as a "Resource-Based Economic Model". However, the realization of this direction is not that of an institution but of a train of thought - the train of thought of objectively applying The Scientific Method for Social Concern and allowing its natural emergence to flourish without limitation as new efficiencies present themselves. General Observations:

In the view of The Movement, the society today has become increasingly detached from the physical world, with techniques of production, distribution and social ordering that have little to no relationship to the environment, or the current state of scientific knowledge with respect to public health and sustainability.

Cyclical Consumption

For instance, our use of a profit based, "growth" driven monetary system has become one of the greatest destroyers of the natural world and sustainable human values. The entire global economy requires "cyclical consumption" to operate, which means that money must constantly be circulating. Thus, new goods and services must be constantly introduced regardless of the state of the environment and actual human necessity. This "perpetual" approach has a fatal flaw for resources as we know it are simply not infinite. Resources are finite and the Earth is essentially a closed system. To assume the need for constant consumption to keep people employed and hence the market system going is eco-cidal on a finite planet. The true goal of an economy, by definition, is to strategically preserve and create efficiency. The system today demands the opposite.

Infinite Growth

The Monetary-Market Model is based upon money being treated as a Commodity and its origination from Debt; sold for Interest Income. This is a "Ponzi Scheme". Each time this Commodity (Money) is sold (Bank Loans) it needs to be paid back (Debt) with more money charged as a fee for profit (Interest). The problem is that the Interest Value required to settle the debt does not exist in the Money Supply outright. In other words, Bankruptcy and Default are not byproducts - they are inevitable – as there is always more debt outstanding than money in existence. This creates severe, offset monetary scarcity that oppresses many people on many levels.

The Value of Scarcity

Likewise, the intents inherent within the monetary system derive a strategic edge from scarcity. This means that depleted resources are actually a positive thing for industry in the short term for more money can be made off each respective unit. This is contextual to the monetary law of Supply & Demand and hence "Value" in economics. It creates a perverse reinforcement to ignore environmental problems and the negative consequences that create scarcity; not to mention reinforcing technically unnecessary human deprivation. This system does not/can not meet the needs of the many because it isn't financially efficient to do so.

Problems/Inefficiency = Profit.

Similarly, the system also requires problems/constant consumer interest in order to work. The more people who have cancer or cars that breakdown, the better the economy due to the servicing of those problems. Needless to say, this also generates an inherent disregard for human well being and the environment. Sustainability, efficiency, and preservation are the enemies of this model.

Cost Efficiency & Irresponsible Obsolescence

There is also the Cost Efficiency mechanism that demands cutting expenses to remain “competitive” in the marketplace. Every single product created by a corporation today is immediately inferior by design for the market requirement to cut creation costs in favor of lowering the output "purchase price" to maintain a competitive edge automatically reduces the quality of any given item by default. It is impossible to create the "strategically best"/long lasting anything in our society, which translates into outrageous amounts of wasted resources and time. Likewise, this same mechanism is reinforcing the environmental disregard, depletion, and pollution that we see as a constant in the world today… among other issues.

Waste & Oppression of the Human Resource

As far as Occupations today, we need to ask ourselves what the point is of a given focus and why it is necessary. The fact is, most jobs today are not directly related to the actual necessities of life. Rather, most are artificial concoctions created in order to keep people employed so they can maintain purchasing power in an environment where our technology continues to expand exponentially, displacing humans from the production force.

It is a common statement in politics today to hear about "creating jobs". Well, in theory, an occupation could be created where people are paid to sit in a room and test chewing gum all day, everyday... but is that a viable use of the human mind? Should we relegate our mental capacity to simple any so called job due to mere "economic" reasons, regardless of what it actually contributes to personal and/or social development? This becomes even more bizarre as a train of reason when we realize that Mechanization not only frees us from labor, it is actually more efficient and productive due to the exponential advancement of science and technology.

On a different level, the very reality that each human being is required to be put in a position of servitude to a corporation or client in order to gain income to purchase the necessities of life not only perpetuates the waste of the human mind and human life, it is also a form of oppression – slavery. If we combine the aforementioned "Infinite Growth" point above regarding the Debt pressure that is build into this system, we see that the combination of the guaranteed Debt imbalance and the requirement to submit to Labor, regardless of its purpose/effect, in order to gain monetary income to survival – is a structural form of oppression against the lower classes (who hold the most debt and need for more period income).

As noted, advancements in science and technology have shown that we can automate a great deal. The more we have applied mechanization to labor, the more productive things have become. Therefore, it is not only negligent for us to waste our lives waiting tables, working at a bus station, fixing cars, or other repetitive, monotonous jobs, it is also entirely irresponsible for us not to apply modern mechanization techniques to all industries that it is possible for, apart from strategic resource management, this is a powerful way to achieve balance and abundance for all the world's people, thus reducing crime generating imbalances.

The fact is, the Market System cannot maintain itself with any viable integrity anymore for corporation will continue to save money through automation, displacing human labor- which also displaces purchasing power, continuing the inevitable loss of "growth" that defines this system.

In the end, today’s society now has access to highly advanced technologies and can easily provide more than enough for all of the earth’s people. This is possible through the implementation of an economy based on scientific resource management and applying modern methods. This is the purpose of The Zeitgeist Movement- to create a global awareness to thus transition into a new, sustainable direction for humanity as a whole.

May I please add why it whines about capitalism, and wants computers to control stuff?
I think it'd make the article more rational to give the context. Pan (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)