Aesa

What exactly are they offended by? Can you link to a media source or something?

What you are not quite fathoming is that the environment shapes behaviour. This explains things like church attendance and crime going up during economic downturns. That includes this sort of behaviour. People make bombs and that sort of thing, because they have to in that environment. We need to drop the idea of inherent good or evil, it goes against all of our knowledge about the human being. First of all, they really aren't limited in the sense that you're talking. There is more than enough to go around for everyone if it's managed on a holistic level, and with advances like hydroponics we can produce -insane- amounts of food.The culture will produce an abundance for everyone, and with resources that might be scarce we will have invention of substitutes (which can be and is done quite easily). You see, and even on top of that fact that we can begin right now to create this abundance - we also have the coming advancement of things like nanotechnology (I wont go into detail on the solutions that's going to provide unless you want me to). You must not be aware of the energy capabilities for sustainable energy on this planet. Unfortunately sustainable energy is so abundant that it could not possibly have a price tag if it was officially harnessed. If you don't believe me please watch this excerpt from "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and I can back all that up with further data if you'd like.We have total energy abundance, just no brains in politics. You need to seriously question the idea that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist against Americas "freedoms." Although, even in the "if" case on either side of such an arguement, you need to ask -why- there are such people out there as Osama. It's an absolute joke to believe that he's against our freedoms, what a load of bs. I mean, the guy worked for the CIA and by all reports has had a great relationship with some of the Bush family. The reality is that these sorts of people rise up because there is so much inequality in the unfair distribution of resources. It's the same reason why a lot of people theorise that China would "love" to take Australia - because of the resources. Almost all wars are just resource grabs. The bottom line is that the problems in the Middle East descend from (among other things) the oil resources that're available there, and the vested corporate interests of the US want to maintain a decent degree of control over those resources so that they can control the price and access to it -- because we use a lot of oil. Essentially once we destroy the basis for war it wont happen, and then on top of that we need to destroy every weapon on the planet as soon as possible. Especially nuclear weapons. If there is nothing to gain (because access to resources is equal, and no one can profit off you) people will not want weapons in the first place. Well if you want to keep up this monetary-ism that's exactly what is going to happen. This is basically what the World Trade Organisation is all about - cutting off trade barriers so that big corporations can go in and control resources for 'pennies on the dollar.' This essentially destroys the indigenous economy.You might think you have freedom but you really don't. You might be free enough to walk down the street and such, and go to the supermarket and purchase all sorts of food -- but you're only as free as your purchasing power and you've only got two political parties to chose from which are supported by the same financial powers and which are really two sides of the same coin. They're there to protect the vested interests of the corporations and established institutions, not yours.

Well, they really are - because Science and Technology do not appeal to nations, creeds or ideologies. Every human being has the potential to equally benefit from them.A Resource-based Economy is not man-made in the sense that it isn't an 'ism'. All our present systems appeal to clinging to an ideology at all costs, whereas in a resource-based economy the social system would be recognised as emergent (in a continual state of growth and change) rather than established. That is because they base them on opinions, and modes of control, rather than a system designed to benefit the well being of people.Communism for example -- it's great that Marx realised the problem of money -- but they have no means to eliminate scarcity, corruption or any other such thing. Not to mention Communism/Socialism is pretty much the 'founder' of modern day genocide. Capitalism is great, in that it appears to allow people to be 'free'. Well, you might be free to go outside and walk around your nation (etc) but you're only as free as what you can afford. Unfortunately for our monetary system, the supply-demand equation no longer works because production does (and has the potential) to far exceed that which is profitable to a monetary system. Oh yeah? And how have we done that? Economic manipulation, domination of resources and indigenous land, indoctrination, ...

I don't think religion needs to have an "influence" to be valid in the first place. Unfortunately, there appears to be no religious ideology that isn't a little political.

No, but as demand for a religious center existed it would be constructed. Yep, and the majority (like it or not) are enslaved to the monetary structure. This is because they have faith in money (which is really the most important thing in this system -- "consumer confidence"). The only reason money works is because people are confident that it will be sufficient for gaining access to whatever it is they desire. Certainly not. But if you can't see that religion CAN easily divide people then you need to do some thinking about this. Mormons should know very well that religion can divide, usually due to people not understanding what others believe. How many of you have experienced adverse reactions from others in regard to your religion from time to time? What was the cause of the Anti-Prop8 protests outside of the temples last year? Lack of understand on both sides, both sides engaged in some level of fear-mongering. Nope, that's a psychological and sociological understanding my friend. This is easy to understand - crime goes up in economic downturns. Why? Because people don't have access to what they need or what they think they need (and unfortunately marketing companies make people think they need a lot of junk they don't need). And we're not saying that society would be perfect. No one would be so stupid to do so, but we can decrease the stress caused by our present society DRAMATICALLY. This movement has no relation to the New World Order, which is basically Global Fascism."Remember in all things the poor and the needy" (D&C 52:40) This scripture doesn't read as one that says "Only the Christians."

Well, I don't think they'd be "planned" in the traditional sense. Because what if in the designs a certain religion were "forgotten"? You could then have the trouble of people getting angry because they don't have a building to go to to worship. I think it'd more or less be on a demand basis. If there's Mormons in the city that want a Church, then one is created, etc,. It'd be interesting to so what sort of evolutionary Church designs people would come up with, too. :) My "take" on religion is that it CAN be separatist. This is usually because most religious people believe there's to be the only way. They are ignorant of other religions in that they don't realise that nearly all religions share common threads of treating your fellow man as self, coming together, etc,. I consider that the world unification that would occur in a resource-based global economy to be the utmost of spirituality.

The natural man is a product of his environment. You reorient people, and so will behaviour be changed. It isn't hard to unite humanity, but it wont happen in Monetaryism.

The problem is that humans constantly perceive lack. This is the immutable incentive. If you don't understand that, just look at our Western World. WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OUR STANDARD OF LIVING. So it's definitely not money that provides an incentive. People like Albert Einstein, or Isaac Newton certainly were not doing their work for the monetary incentive. Volunteer work on this planet, amounts to what would be billions of dollars in paid work -- and in this "crisis" a lot of people are opting to do volunteer work to replace their unemployment. This is very encouraging for us, to realise that it's not money that actually provides a true incentive. "Those with sufficient supply have no incentive to add value..." That is largely untrue. If that were the case, corporations would reach a certain point and then just... stop expanding. We are always reaching for more, but what makes people lazy is a culture that conditions them into such behaviour. I.e., if you have enough money to live, you need do no more.

It is certainly achievable, but none of us are claiming that it would be perfect - just that a lot of wastefulness and stress would be removed.We have to -try- to get the millions of starving fed. Anyone is welcome to believe that people also need a spirituality, but one of the things it will not do for all those people (no matter how much you want it to) is create food out of thin air. I actually wonder how much of a contribution to such an effort your church would make - if they realised what a great avenue a resource-based economy would be to feed and house -all- people if they'd be quite involved? Basing such a question on the Church's past humanitarian work, I'd hope so. None of us are saying that mundane work would be "unheard" of. Merely that there is no absolute requirement for you to go out 9-5 and work your butt off doing nothing to contribute to society but earning yourself a buck. What benefit to anyone, is a person standing behind a cash register? It's a very robotic task, and very sad. No one else would be supplying "for" them. That's the idea of a cybernated system, which is really where we're heading now very quickly. Almost all of the stuff we have, is a total result of our reliance on Science and Technology. But it's really because of how our monetary system raises those rich people to a way of thinking that they should only care for themselves and ignore everyone else. Basically it follows the logic of if I'm comfortable why should I care about anyone else? Ah, I was reffering to the race genetic and all that insane stuff.It's not that we want to "replace" religion (I think you misunderstand) but merely that there's no need for religious institutions to 'rule' over society -- in other words -- every religion should be allowed to freely practice it's beliefs without one pressuring against another and fighting. But really, if politics goes so does the ability of a religious institution to interfere with the running of society. This would free people to seek for themselves, and it'd remove any dictatorship-like image from all religions. You're quite right to bring this up Dravin. But really, it's not a good reason for us to stagnate the advancement of something that could improve everyones life. We just need to be wary of the abuse and misuse of it, and stand against such an evil. All technology are inanimate objects, so it's up to us what we do with it. :)

I agree with you on all of this. But what you perhaps don't understand is that all over the world right now our system is systemically failing.From this global financial crisis, to the failure of "free trade" and so on -- nothing is working anymore. Goods and services produced no longer have any relevance to the money that prices them, etc,. People will only take so much. I do, yes. Crime, illness and all sorts of things go up when people lose access to what they need or perceive they need. In our Movement Manual, the "Merva-Fowles Study is cited. Please reference that.I agree with you, people could survive without a lot of the crap they think they need. But if people decide to do this, they wont be supporting the system anymore and this would collapse our monetary economy (because consumption has to keep going to keep it all going) -- this is why they want us to spend crazy right now, because it's all even more at threat. That's a nice thought, but those values are actually promoted by every religion. Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Paganism, and all the others.It is really each and every one of our faults, for non-action, if the rest of the world remains in poverty in the face of the fact that there are more than enough resources for every person on the planet. There are a lot of people that are coming to the realisation that all their spiritual values would be fulfilled in a resource-based economy, or at least considerably better than they are in our present systems. This is very encouraging for all of us.

Ah, yes.

They certainly are, but why? Advertising. An abundance is access to the necessities of life. Food, water, clothing, shelter, etc,. You asked to define poverty, it is the opposite of this. I would say that simply creates more need, it just exemplifies the fact that humanity always aims higher. Because of the high stress of this system. Think: Hedonistic LEAKY jars. This bad behaviour manifests, in rich and poor, out of fear of losing what one has. They are all struggling to maintain what is an unsustainable aim. Those leaders can only maintain power as long as the people allow it. They are not inherently powerful, but it's the structures that they exist in that're causing it. On top of that, our monetary economics through IMF loans and so forth is making their problem even worse by basically putting them into unaffordable debt. "Evil people" only exist because the system perpetuates them. Bankers are not greedy, banking is greedy. You should've said pseudo-science, because as we know a lot of it wasn't really Science at all. The difference is, we wont have a person or their opinions implementing the Scientific method but rather scientists implementing it -- and technology managing it. No room for humans to louse it up. Perhaps it, or spirituality at least, on some level should. But is it not much more fair and equitable to allow religion to be "itself"? What I mean is, celebrating quite literally, freedom of belief? We don't have that today, unfortunately. If you consider education a force, then sure. People need not be brainwashed. I think most people would prefer to see humanity uniting rather than continuing in division. Well, that's kind of "in the past" of the story isn't it? Wont the "heaven of tomorrow" be home to those who are exalted to Gods level (not above or below, but a JOINT heir)? I think everyone should be able to actively seek that out for themself. On top of that, almost all religious traditions share common imperative of doing good and not harm to one's fellow human beings, uniting in loving care, etc,. I can find quotes and scriptures from just about every religion on the planet that say that sort of stuff. Religions share a lot more than they often care to acknowledge, which is really very beautiful. Not really. I can understand how you've come that conclusion to some extent, but you really shouldn't use fictional films as a point of reference. They are no indication as to what we're capable of. Ofcourse they could, but industry HAS to continually profit and because of advertising people think they need a lot of stuff that they really don't. Money essentially is a belief now, because it has no actual relevance to the goods and services produced today. This is why we're having all these economic problems. Perhaps not, but the government do. If people have access to all their needs -without- having to work until they return to the dust of the Earth to achieve it, you'll have lasting happiness. This is easy to understand. It's the high-energy, high-stress nature of what the State is raising people to live like that's the cause of all this nonsense. I'm glad you said that. This is the core reason we must utilise high technology for our betterment. You can use an airplane to transport people, or you can use it to drop bombs on other countries. It's an inanimate object. :) I do realise that what we're aiming for is quite a "quantum shift." But we have to start somewhere. Can we really just sit back and act all powerless, in the face of such great possibility? We have to try.

Money definitely divides people. 40 to 50 years ago BOTH parents were not working so much as they are now, and that's where the difference is. Imagine then, how much more the family would flourish if both parents did not have to engage in continuous labour to support their kids. It is pretty relevant to blame corporations. Advertising uses a lot of psychological strategies (such as classical conditioning) to manipulate people into feeling they need their product. That not only creates the problem of "Where do I get the money to buy this stuff[junk]?" But also endless waste. Not really. Everyone needs a job, or source of income, to survive in this system. It's not really a choice-matter.What you're saying sounds reasonable but the behavioural scientists, the sociologists, the psychologists would disagree. The evidence seems to show that the way people behave is, in regards to what we can change and improve upon, mostly determined by the environment. Some of you might be interested to know that there's going to be a live radio address from the movement: Next show: 4/8/09 3:00pm EST First Hour: Peter will address the new "Teams" and "Projects" idea and also answer forum questions. Second Hour: Jacque Fresco, along with Roxanne Meadows, will talk about the issue of how 'Environment Shapes Behavior'. (Link to listen in)

Mormons can drink decaf can't they?

Ah, this is a good question. If people have access to the necessities of life they will be left to pursue fields that are actually relevant to our lives, and their interests. If you want to be a photographer, go to the camera center and take a camera and learn. Everything is oriented to education, and that's how society profits. :) Please take the time, when you can, to check our materials on our movement website -- it would be very much appreciated. There's one really strong incentive I can think of that humans will always have. That's called "lack." Even in our Western society, people sometimes complain about their lives and their standard of living. What this means is that we have a tendency to always want to improve what we have and add to it - that's the history of humanity, really. Well that's an interesting thought, but just think how many jobs will go with the end of the monetary system anyway. Stockbroking, banking, advertising and so forth. With all those sorts of jobs gone, and jobs automated, do you think there'd ever be for example a traffic jam? So much waste and unnecessary use of resources would be eliminated.In regards to automation, we really are there. I wonder if you've heard about the automation of it's restaurants McDonalds has successfully tested (as an example)? Only as long as it works for them, and right now, it's having what could very likely be it's final failure. Debt is way beyond our GNP's, tends of thousands die every day from poverty and preventable diseases, etc,. This is a systemic crisis, not an accident out of bad monetary policy and management.Granted, I'll say that this may not be "THE" collapse. It might be 5, 10, 15 years off ... but at the same time it is likely it's happening right now. When I, or most people say, that they want a world 'without religion' what they're referring to is a world without the division that religion is often trade-marked for causing. For people to acknowledge the common themes all traditions share.Thank-you all for discussing this! I'm so glad this hasn't turned into some empty dismissal! It makes this so worthwhile. :)

But you see, you need to get to the root causes of why is the nuclear family broken up? Sure, perhaps some are because they don't have share values. But, even bigger, it's because their parents (most anyway) have to work repetitive jobs 6-7 days a week in order to have the money to feed their children, get the insurance, pay for school and so forth. In a resource-based economy, things would be very different. The family could flourish as the bedrock of society that it should be.

In a resource-based economy the nuclear family would be able to flourish with the removal of the pointless and the monotonous jobs. Well you see, machines aren't people. And when you create an abundance (which we absolutely can do if we want to) there is no need to ration resources out because that only has to occur when there -isn't- enough to go around for everyone. Nobody fights over a slice of bread when there are thousands of other slices of bread available for them.It's great that you're able to discuss some ideas of a resource-based economy but you seem to have a very distorted view. When you have time, have a look at the F.A.Q section on thezeitgeistmovement.com because questions such as yours are answered. Everyone can have their opinions on what will bring peace, if they like, but the fact is that when you have a world organised like ours where most of the worlds wealth is in the hands of the few you will have war, poverty, politics and other forms of differential advantage and control.If you want a simple example, that's recent, the shooter in New York had been put in a situation of depravation -- he'd not long lost his job at IBM. I suppose they may have, but none of the past ones have quite had the tools at their hands we have today -- namely Science. As idealistic as Science may seem at times, all it takes is for us to decide to put it to work. And by the way, we're not talking about religion being "killed off" or something -- just rather than us arguing over it and killing over it we'd seek more to understand each other and respect each others point-of-view. From my experience that sounds fairly Mormon. Please read this article on a Resource-based Economy (The Venus Project). I hope we can advance discussion of this important new direction. I'm pretty sure Christians believe that there will not be banks, poverty, war, crime, corruption, elitism, advertising and so forth in heaven?"Thy will be done - On earth, as it is in Heaven."

And it's time to change. YouTube - We are people We must begin to address the root causes of our social problems, or we'll just continue having the same cycle of problems. I represent a social organization with currently over 250,000 members called "The Zeitgeist Movement". Based on our current growth rate, we expect to have well over 1 million members by 2010, conservatively, and we are now active in over 63 countries. The goal of our movement is to address the true foundational causes that are generating the economic/ecological/ethical problems we see in the world today. In turn, we wish to reorient society itself in a way that not only overcomes the problems, but rather the problems will have no basis to begin with. In order to do so, we must all address the one thing that no one seems to have the courage to talk about- and that is the socio-economic system itself. Please educate yourself, take a look at our Activist Orientation Video and respective Activist Orientation Guide PDF. It is not enough to simply recognise that we have problems, but we most devise workable solutions.

It definitely cannot be done because the whole system is unsustainable inherently. It's based on expansions and contractions which for one thing, is completely out of line with how natural systems work. Money obviously isn't natural but we objectify it in such a way that people could not even fathom a world without it ... even though we would be considerably better off, but I digress.

Do you honestly think that'll happen? Don't the trends tell you that bigger wars break out when the financial system is going to break? The whole profit/control thing? It seems like a logical understanding. But do you really think that the proportion of goods and services created through this so called stimulus will even near match the amount of money that will be printed out of thin air?If it doesn't you have a majorly debased currency and in the current state of the U.S., dollar I'm sure you're aware the US cannot afford that? This is not Obama's idea. Clearly it's the motive of those men behind the scenes, the international bankers because Kevin Rudd, Gordon Brown, etc same to have the same "idea." I don't really understand free market capitalism as much as I would like to, as soon as I get the time I'm going to stronger research it for myself. My understand behind that notion is that the idea of the free markets is that in regard to economics we should just "let nature" yes?The problem is, in a system where profit is rewarded (the one who profits more has more access to the things priced by money) you will always have an elite turn up (who are the richest, generally) who take control. This is because differential advantage, and profit are rewarded. So let's all just go along to get along with evil (for lack of better word) is what you're saying?I read the Book of Mormon last year and I could swear there's at least one verse in there about suffering (and other traits) to defeat evil. Though, I can't pinpoint it... but I'm sure there was something like that in there. Honey, have you seen the difference between the debt in the time of the "Great Depression" and now? We are in WAYY more debt than then, and we don't have a commodity standard now. Most of us don't even know how to be provident - eg: store, or grow, food.It's going to take a major collapse, that affects everyone to get in the system... to get them to ask "Isn't there a better way?" That's my view. Truly, there is no shortage of anything except brains in Washington (and might I say, everywhere else).I don't believe the government is "evil" either, merely that they are in conditions which produce bad, stupid, irrelevant behaviour. The Army is exacerbating the situation just like they did in Vietnam. Like pouring Iodine on a bleeding wound.

Why is it that people are still foolish enough to believe that stimulus packages (creating more debt) will stimulate the economy? Why do people think that the government putting more money in their pocket will solve the problem? All that is happening is the creation of more debt and inflation? Tell me, how can creating more debt and inflation solve the problem of debt and inflation?

Anything but the original language is a commentary at best.

Oh my, you have strength.

Ofcourse there's clobbering from the left and the right because they're put in place for the most part through the same lobbying groups, the same funding (corporations, etc,).I like your points Traveler, however, the reality is we cannot reform politics because it's a dead system. Opinions do not help people, they do not solve problems, they do very little at all. Because with opinions, rather than appealing to reality (in other words, most up to date knowledge) the usual way is that someone forms their own IDEAS about something, and then uses rhetoric and other forms of language to convince people that they need whatever the politician THINKS is best. Ugh. Watching parliaments is like... watching a family argue. Pathetic.

This tightens a banks control on your money. Massive problem.