View Single Post
Old 05-11-2009, 02:54 PM   #11
Marco Roy
Senior Member

Activity Longevity
0/20 18/20
Today Posts
0/11 ssssss156
Location: Montreal, Canada

Originally Posted by bittman View Post
Because it is a fanciful fictitious belief that luxury can exist without poverty. They come hand in hand, it's all to do with measurement. Centuries ago people were seen as well off if they lived to the ripe old age of 45, nowdays we deem that to be an unbearable thought and the height of poverty.

If you go back as far as evolution, you'll see there is always a monkey better off than another. If you go down a religious route, there have always been people of higher power. Either way, it's the social hierachy, and it is defined by poverty and wealth, though wealth nowdays is measured in luxuries rather than land or followers.
No, it is not. It may not be easy, but impossible, no. 60% to 70% of the population today have jobs that could easily be replaced by technology. 100 years ago, no one would have thought that one day you would get cash from a machine rather than from a human cashier working for the bank. And we’ll see more and more of this in the future; it’s called technological unemployment. And that is the key: technology. You may compare today’s society to past one, but we have something they did not: technology. However, because of the monetary system, the development of technology is restrained.

I don’t know if you have ever heard about planned obsolescence? That’s when companies purposely make their products to break after a certain period of time, so that you have to buy more from them. Don’t tell me you think razor blades that never wear are impossible to make? It would simply not be “profitable” to make them. Very few things made in our society are designed to last: it is simply not worth the investment.

Originally Posted by bittman View Post
So, on your "I haven't given it much thought" and "obviously this is just another democratic pig" or something Marxist which will make me laugh: Marxism is a failed experiment. The notion would work if it was tested on robots, but it was designed for humans with human nature.
So, apparently, if you don’t like the capitalism system, you are automatically, somehow, a Marxist? I guess you have not watched any of the videos. This is a very old duality problem that seems to appear very often. Why couldn’t there be a third system (or as much as you want), better than the others? I know Marxism is a failed experiment, but what the Zeitgeist Movement promotes, a Resource Based Economy, is nothing like it. It is not based on ANY current system. Marx recognized some of the problems of the monetary system, but his solutions were wrong. And that is obvious: he never addressed any of the root causes, problems of behaviour, problems of production; he only was aware of the growing problems of the capitalist system.

One of these problems, a major one, is cyclical consumption. The basis is such that cyclical consumption is going to always be a necessity. In other words, all systems in the profit structure have to continue self-preservation. In order to do so, they have to continue differential advantage. So, in the medical establishment for example, it is profitable for the public to be sick (more on this later). In the bottled water establishment, it is profitable for non-bottled water to be polluted. The more problems there are in society, the more some sect of the profit system can gain. That poses a very sick reinforcement to our structure. We cannot justify a system which allows for people to gain off of the misery of others and the destruction of the environment. That alone should be absolutely self-evident.

Originally Posted by bittman View Post
Human nature may be partially greedy and ignorant, but it also desires to be justly rewarded for work and further improve upon what they have.
First of all, profit is about gaining money, not helping society; there is a colossal disconnect in this regard. Between honesty and dishonesty; which is more rewarding in the profit system based on what history has shown us? Obviously, dishonesty and corruption have been the most profitable endeavours. Almost all of those in the higher echelons of power have engaged in severe forms of dishonesty. Ethics are unaffordable in this system. It has nothing to do with the progress of society. Granted, I will admit, certain things that have been created in society have come from the pursuit of profit, but that is FAR from saying that because of the profit system, that’s why things get done. Profit puts human concerns second to monetary gain, period; and this is the current state of normality on this planet.

The reward, the incentive you are talking about, is the ONLY pro of the profit system. Even then, I don’t even think it’s a pro since it does not lead to social progress. And do you believe that without it, people would do nothing? They would just sit there and wait to die? Most of the greatest technological discoveries that have helped humanity have not been for profit.

There is no such thing as human nature. Human behaviour is a condition of its environment.

The incentive of income, like everything else, can be replaced by something better. In the future, we will have a different incentive system. It will be an incentive system based not on the narrow self-interest of monetary gain for an individual, but it will be an enlightened system, where the individual realises that their integrity is only as good as the integrity of society as a whole. Because society will produce everything that the individual requires. Therefore, the true incentive is the benefit of society as a whole, because there is a direct relationship of the person to society at that point.

Peaceful coexistence is only going to happen on this planet when the world will learn to work together. You can call it collectivist, call it whatever you want, it doesn’t matter. Of course you’re going to have wars, when certain countries have resources, and certain do not. A resource based economy is the natural progression of society, and is the most efficient on every single level, from production, to resource management, to environmental protection, and everything else. It is a simple logical progression.

People will contribute to society, because they know their contributions have meaning. The link with game design lies here: meaning. If you want to make games that are just fun and nothing else, that don’t have any meaning, I won’t stop you; I’m sure I’ll have a great time playing them! At this point in time, you have people in advertising, and all of these agencies, insurance, stock brokers, etc. What are they really doing to contribute to society? These are intangible, repetitive jobs, invented to perpetuate the system. Just like a cashier. They don’t actually do anything, they just help the system go on, like supports.

When we finally reorganise the system, when people contribute to society, they actually do something real. They actually create a product that’s beneficial, that’s designed to be optimized, that helps people, improves peoples’ lives. They’ll do it because it benefits them, and society as a whole.

Before World War Two, consumption was half what it is now. After WW2, coming out of the great depression, the psychologists got together with the advertising corporations in order to create a new value system, to get people to buy anything and everything, constantly. Nothing to do with necessity, just keep buying crap so we can keep the economy going, because that’s what the economy is. It doesn’t matter what you create, it doesn’t matter its relevance; if you can condition the public to think it has relevance, then they’re going to sell it and continually waste the resources, not to mention polluting the human mind with sick distortions of materialism and values that have no basis or relationship to society whatsoever.

Originally Posted by bittman View Post
Well, I'm foggy on 1984, but BNW was about a "Utopia" forced upon humans which, though sickening to us, almost works. Poverty does not exist, because it is eradicated. Chaos theory runs rampant through this novel also, with the main characters all being anomalies of some description. I did this in my English classes, so I read further beyond the "conspiracy theories" than you may have.
I guess “conspiracy theories” was not a good term. What I meant is they are both about a controlling “big-brother” society, which is often referred to as conspiracy theories when you talk about it today. The US Government organising the 9/11 attacks in order to invade Iraq? Of course that’s not possible... why would they do that...? Anyway, that’s not important.

Originally Posted by bittman View Post
And if you are here to see the monetary system fall, it's because you like the idea of anarchy and war in our lifetime. Because if it fell, it would fall harder than Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Like I said, we don’t want to see it go away in one day; there has to be a transition period. I like the idea of anarchy and war? C’mon man, don’t say stuff like that. No one sane likes that. And by the way, the profit system is falling kind of hard right now. Haven’t you noticed? If it wasn’t, Jill would still be working here.
Aspiring game designer and software engineering student at École de technologie supérieure (ETS)
CONJUREIGDA ProfileLinkedIn ProfileFacebook PageMy Website

Last edited by Marco Roy : 05-11-2009 at 09:06 PM.
Marco Roy is offline   Reply With Quote