Changing the World

[Marco Roy]

Originally Posted by bittman

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

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

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

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

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.

[Marco Roy]

Sorry for the double post, my text was too long.

Originally Posted by bittman

And you don't like competition, yet you want to be a game designer? Come again?

I never said I don’t like competition. My point was more about the duplication of goods and services we see today. Why are there so many airlines today? So many cable and cell phone companies? All in competition with each other, only limiting their exposure to quality materials, therefore they can never create good products that actually last, that actually work: they don’t want them to. They all provide the same services, therefore, we only need one; and if you see a problem with it, you can just correct it (not today of course, but in a resource based economy you could). Or wait for someone else to do so. People today tend to whine too much instead of thinking how to solve problems. In a creative field like game design, of course there is going to be competition, and that is not a bad thing; but it is very different from duplicate goods or services.

More on competition: The idea that competition enables efficiency and production is one of the most incredible textbook capitalist myth that has ever been perpetrated by the profit system. Think about the obvious logical fallacy of this: you cannot have better quality products at a lower price. That is impossible, a contradiction in terms, because the entire system is based on supply and demand. Quality products are always going to come at the highest quality price, therefore, any manufacturer is going to cut corners as much as possible to maintain its competitive edge. You cannot possibly produce optimisation in this system; there is no chance for it: it’s too expensive. And that produces terrible amounts of waste.

Optimisation and sustainability are not only not wanted; they are the enemies of the profit system. If you can create something that lasts, and does really really well, for long periods of time, that’s the most efficient, that’s the most healthy to the environment, you’re going to see a collapse of the system. If this was not the case, you’d have cars that are running on battery technology, that would run for decades without service, they would be optimized with the highest forms of technology. We could do this today. You don’t see that though. Why? Because of the profit system. Because of the cartels that run things. It is impossible to have the highest quality anything: they don’t want the highest quality treatments to cure cancer. Frankly, if you look into B-17, look into Grossman Therapy, you’ll find that there are plenty of means of preventing cancer along with treatments that can actually cure it, that are basically nutritionally oriented and have absolutely nothing to do with chemotherapy or any of that. Why would they perpetuate this, why would they shut the treatments down? Corruption is rampant is the medical establishment, and that should be the most important establishment we have! That’s our health right there, that’s the social organisation to keep us healthy, to keep us focussed, to keep us going, to keep us feeling good, and that system is collapsing faster than probably any other system. It is the most aberrant system that we have. They don’t care. They can’t care. They don’t want to care, because they lose if they care. If they cured cancer right now, you would see a ridiculous drop-off in GDP of the United-States and across the world. It is a negative retroaction in economics to have efficiency, abundance, sustainability, and optimization.

So this statement that just because people compete, we’re just going to use our creativity, we’re going to have the best stuff, quality products, at the lowest possible price, is absolutely asinine. And I hope you can understand that myth thoroughly, because you are going to hear it over and over from people who claim they know about the capitalist system.

My Final answer on this one would be: You think the current system cannot be improved, and YOU want to be a game designer? Design is about solving problems, so good luck with that.

Originally Posted by shaggyglasses

wow, you lack knowledge of the medical field, i can understand putting the claim that HMO's/insurance company are completely unfair but to say that the pharmacists and the doctors are keeping you sick is completely ignorant and that alone makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

My lack of knowledge in the medical field? Ok, I’m not a doctor, but did you know Bayer sent HIV infected pills offshore, because they did not want to lose the investment in they made in the production of those pills. Did you know mercury in vaccines increased the percentage of autistic children by more than 1000%? And even thought they knew, the industry left the mercury in the vaccines and privatised the mercury studies, because it would be too expensive to deal with it in lawsuits and everything. Did you know that the medical establishment/cartels are refusing, shutting down cancer treatments that are beneficial to people with cancer. Why? Because they couldn’t make money out of those treatments: most of them were based on nutrition, homeopathy; they were oriented in a way that did not require pharmaceuticals. Yes, I don’t know everything, but can you tell me I’m wrong to believe that what I just told you is horrifyingly immoral?

Originally Posted by shaggyglasses

and we don't have a lack of space. if you take the three largest counties of oregon in the U.S. and build a city with a density similar to new york city than you can fit the world's entire population. lack of space... no... lack of resources on the other hand is a yes.

I know we don’t have a lack of space, but it is a concern that is often raised. With no more wars or hunger, some people think we’ll have a population problem, which is not true. I agree with you on this one. Lack of resources though? I don’t think so. Unless you consider money (which is not even real, it’s just a concept, it’s fiat: bank bills hold no real value) as a resource?

[bittman]

I read most of the above, but was lost amongst the dribble which I easily parallel to sermon's of religious enthusiasts, which is what this Zeitgeist Movement is, but without the God.

So I finally clicked one of those links out of interest, and found this:

Originally Posted by Lifted from Website

Fluid social change can only materialize if two circumstances are met. One, the human value system, which consists of our understandings and beliefs, must be updated and changed through education and thoughtful introspection. Two, the environment surrounding that value system must change to support the new world view. The interaction between a person's value system and their environment is what influences human behavior.

: and stopped reading, because what you're talking about here is changing human conditioning, and thus our very nature (or "conditioning of the environment"). Are you sure you don't see how Brave New World relates? Are you really sure?

Change values + education = changed society = Brave New World. It's not a leap that requires Quantum Physics. There is nothing Big Brother about BNW, though there is with 1984.

Anyway, all in all your argument has paid no head on my mind other than to assure me of two things:

1) You're a conspiracist, meaning I highly doubt any American will be arrested for anything about a social change unless it requires a plane and a bomb. Though I'm sure I'll get some evidence from you about how the FBI are watching you as we speak and would deny you entry to their country for being unpatriotic in Canada. I can't be bothered reading the laws of the USofA, but what you described should mean that someone saying "Fuck America, I'm going to Cuba" should be jailed on sight.

2) This has turned from a discussion, to a topic of preaching. If I had made a topic called "Do you believe in God?" and then shot down anyone who was Christian because they're ignorant whilst preaching Judaism, I'm pretty sure my thread would get closed or ignored, just as we do for most door-to-door salesman.

So, I've lost interest as this is not a discussion, but marketing of a social, bordering on religious, variety.

[yaustar]

Just to let everyone know, I am keeping am eye on this thread.

[Gshonk]

Originally Posted by yaustar

Just to let everyone know, I am keeping am eye on this thread.

Yea I was going to post the same thing. We don't want this to rip our community apart.

[EvilLlama]

Ok I want to say a couple things,

One of the underlying principles of economics is scarcity. The fact that it exists is perhaps the only not-as-debatable principle of economics, which is considered a rather sketchy science considering a lot of predictions made by "expert" economics end up entirely off the mark. So yes, you will always have your rich and your poor.
However, just because you will always have your "poor" doesn't mean the standard of living cannot be raised. Most poor people in America can still afford to buy a dollar menu meal at McDonald's. A lot of poor people in other parts of the world cannot.
Yet there are ways to improve the standard of living in such places as well. For example, it only costs around $1000 to open a school in Africa. This was accomplished by a girl in my high school class and her mother. $1000 is not that much money for an American compared to the impact it has on education. Other good programs out there to look into are the One Laptop Per Child and Kiva.org, which I won't really explain b/c this post is already going to be pretty long.
The problem isn't money, it's people who care. True, opening a school may only cost $1000, but it costs much more than that it time and patience because it also involves talking to the people and future students there and gaining their trust as well as the dedication to keep following up to make sure the school as a steady income of supplies, etc. "Don't give me money, give me passion"--in the words of a man who is trying to bring wind energy to Rwanda with whom I'm facebook friends with.

As game designers, we may not be able to put money into peoples' pockets, (esp since we're mostly taking it out ) but we can design games that motivate people, or at least make them more aware of the major issues in the world (check out http://www.addictinggames.com/oiligarchy.html for a simple game that deals with the oil crisis).

All in all: We can't make a perfect world, but we can definitely make a better one.

[EvilLlama]

And onto the monetary system.
I def want to check out those videos, although I'm an American...*college, please protect me*. Yeah, not a fan of the Patriot Act.

Anyways, as stated in my previous post, scarcity exists. So we need a system to distribute goods and services, and deciding who gets to be a have and who is a have-not. Currently America has the monetary capitalist system, which you're all familiar with.
The upside: competition that leads to innovation, illustrated by the game industry itself. You have the infamous Wii, that could not compete with the PS3 graphics wise but still made its bang by introducing a different style of gameplay. You can get better products for a lower price, you only have to look at the electronics industry. Any common $100 cell phone has way more computing power than a mega million dollar Eniac. And Moore's Law is still going, an example being that increased storage capacity of flash drives.

The downside: You have competition that leads to scandal and fraud, (ex: Enron), greedy corporate execs (AIG), and other moral issues (check out the Yes Men, they're awesome and explain this stuff way better than I can http://theyesmen.org/theyesmenfixtheworld)

What I'd like to see is a better alternative for the monetary system. The alternatives I can think of are:
a) bartering:
"I want 10 chickens for this peanut butter"
"I don't got no chickens, but I has goats"
"Then give me 3 goats"
"Peanut butter is not even worth one goat, b***!"
*insert hours of squabbling and possible physical injury*
b) inheritance to the eldest child, which result in all the younger siblings going flat broke
c) strict communism where everyone is poor (most modern communist countries are pretty moderate)
d) raiding (ok, can we agree goats aren't worth killing people over?)

None of which seem more appealing.

[Marco Roy]

Originally Posted by Gshonk

Yea I was going to post the same thing. We don't want this to rip our community apart.

Sorry guys, that's really not what I was aiming for; I just wanted to share this idea with the community.


Bittman, your arguments are what I call “angry arguments”. I don’t see where you get the religious stuff and everything. And that’s the same stuff most people against the movement come up with... which is kind of weird. Did you do a Google search for those?


EvilLlama, I think there are an infinite number of solutions to this problem. Maybe it's just too soon (as for technology, the maturity of society, etc.) to try and correct it. But I am pretty sure a resource based economy is what we are going to end up with, whether it be in 100 years, or 1000.

[bittman]

Originally Posted by Marco Roy

Bittman, your arguments are what I call “angry arguments”. I don’t see where you get the religious stuff and everything. And that’s the same stuff most people against the movement come up with... which is kind of weird. Did you do a Google search for those?

First arguments that popped into my head.

Sorry if I seemed to get a bit heated, my tone on forums has always appeared worse than when I say the exact same thing with speech.

[Marco Roy]

Originally Posted by bittman

First arguments that popped into my head.

Sorry if I seemed to get a bit heated, my tone on forums has always appeared worse than when I say the exact same thing with speech.

No hard feelings man, I think I have the same problem lol.