We are one

[Aesa]

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. Edited April 6, 2009 by Aesa

[Traveler]

The problem is marriage. When society refuses to uphold and support the concept of a lifelong marriage (as a minimum) with real commitment to family; every ill of society will continue to multiple until that society suffers collapse. Providing money, food and shelter will remain temporary solutions until permeate families has privilege place and status in society.

Until we take family seriously – as the only means by which a next generation can survive and overcome the stupidity of selfish greed and selfish need and replace that greed and self need with respect for marriage and family you will only mask the cause and treat a symptom.

The Traveler

Edited April 6, 2009 by Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

We must begin to address the root causes of our social problems...

Good to see the next generation of idealists is out and about. I'd hate to see that phrase no longer used as much as every preceeding generation has used it since the dawn of time.

LM

[beefche]

I'm thinking the way to change society is by the word of God. Where's that scripture where Alma gave up the judgment seat to preach the word? He said he knew that the sword, or famine won't have the effect on the people as much as bearing down in testimony.

[Hemidakota]

Perhaps a posting of Elder Ballads talk from Saturday Conference will illustrate life history changes is repeatable process of the arrogances one, as every new generation will strive to correct the last and fail to learn eternal principles is the only way to true happiness

Edited April 6, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

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 recognize that we have problems, but we most devise workable solutions.

Same sentiments, coming from the church view of the world. However, the world will only become Celestial in the end through the means of the righteous people of the many nations.

[rameumptom]

I read up a little about the Zeitgeist Movement and its founder Jacque Fresco. I'm concerned that there is little real or solid information given. Much of it hints at establishing a world order, wherein all resources can be controlled to build technology and spread around to benefit everyone.

This sounds like a form of communism to me. The problem with placing all resources in the hands of a few, is the reality is, you will have a few men who will be playing god. They've tried this before in several nations (Soviet Union, China, etc), and the end result is always the same: instead of producing, the nations end up being chief importers of goods. Quantity and Quality go way down; progress and invention slow down.

For example, the Ukraine was known as the bread basket of Europe, until it became a part of the Soviet Union. No longer could it produce as it once did, and millions of Ukrainians starved under Stalin's attempts to create the perfect society. Only after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Ukraine became a democracy, was it able to again be an exporting and producing nation.

The danger of having so much power at the top, and its corrupting influence, would eventually make it a worse system. Why? Simply because a communistic or United Order society cannot work as long as telestial-type people are in it. And if those telestial-types get to the top of the government, they will undoubtedly seek to promote their own power-base and power-grab.

You would also see that any opposing voice would be silenced. What if the new organization insisted on allowing same sex marriages within LDS temples? What would happen to the freedom of religion, if such freedom is perceived to be homophobic or a hate crime?

It is better to promote freedom, and actively teach charity and compassion for the poor, and to allow people of their own free wills to do good things. Only when the Millennial reign begins, and the wicked are destroyed, will we be able to hope for such a system to work.

[Newcomer4831]

The problem is marriage. When society refuses to uphold and support the concept of a lifelong marriage (as a minimum) with real commitment to family; every ill of society will continue to multiple until that society suffers collapse. Providing money, food and shelter will remain temporary solutions until permeate families has privilege place and status in society.

Until we take family seriously – as the only means by which a next generation can survive and overcome the stupidity of selfish greed and selfish need and replace that greed and self need with respect for marriage and family you will only mask the cause and treat a symptom.

The Traveler

I fail to see how martial problems can lead to world hunger. And as for the knowledge of God, I don't think that may even solve anything. If anything, it might cause more problems than it can solve. Max Weber talks about Christian ethics and how it only complicates things.

World peace can come to the masses, and it will be hard. Peace through diplomacy, through aid, through hope doesn't exist. Peace isn't a peace of paper that says one country will not attack another. Nor is it feeding the hunger. Nor is it praying for one nation to overcome. We have seen all these examples turn into violent wars. No, peace is actually a state of mind. If the world can achieve inner peace, then peace and the metta and compassion that follows will seep into this world. if you want to conquer all that is evil in this world, first you must conquer yourself. And from what I've seen, so very few people have done this.

[Aesa]

The problem is marriage. When society refuses to uphold and support the concept of a lifelong marriage (as a minimum) with real commitment to family; every ill of society will continue to multiple until that society suffers collapse. Providing money, food and shelter will remain temporary solutions until permeate families has privilege place and status in society.

In a resource-based economy the nuclear family would be able to flourish with the removal of the pointless and the monotonous jobs.

sounds like a form of communism ... problem with placing all resources in the hands of a few

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.

I fail to see how martial problems can lead to world hunger. And as for the knowledge of God, I don't think that may even solve anything. If anything, it might cause more problems than it can solve. Max Weber talks about Christian ethics and how it only complicates things.

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.

Good to see the next generation of idealists is out and about. I'd hate to see that phrase no longer used as much as every preceeding generation has used it since the dawn of time.

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.

the world will only become Celestial in the end

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."

[Traveler]

I fail to see how martial problems can lead to world hunger. ..........

The general trend for both poverty and criminal activity is much higher in broken families than in families with both a loving father and loving mother.

In Chapter 4 of the Book “Freakonomics” there is data presented that correlates abortion with lowering the segment of the population associated with broken and single parent families thus lowering the crime rate and those that live below the poverty line. In the USA over 85% of the poverty and crime is generated in the segment of the population directly associated with broken families. I assume this is also the case in the world arena.

The biggest concern is if the trend continues to cycle with broken homes and poverty that within a generation over 50% of the population in the USA will be below the poverty line and up to a third of the population should have served jail time. Currently there are pockets with very low family involvement that reflect the result of such a trend.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

In a resource-based economy the nuclear family would be able to flourish with the removal of the pointless and the monotonous jobs.

........

Not sure I agree with this statement. I know of nothing that can happen without some incentive. Water flows down hill because gravity gives it the incentive to do so. Saying that we will make water "free" to flow up hill does not mean that it will.

Also if everyone has plenty of food - what encentive is to be offered to them to contribute. What we have learned by entitlements (even among the rich) that people tend to become more selfish and demanding of more entitlements.

I submit that only in a family setting can a person truly become unselfish and turn from the needs, wants and desires of self.

The Traveler

[DigitalShadow]

Please read this article on a Resource-based Economy (The Venus Project).

An interesting read. I have always thought that eventually society will move beyond the monetary system as more and more tasks become automated and we no longer have a need for a workforce humanity to survive and even thrive, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon, partially because I don't think we are at that technological level yet and also partially because so many people are very invested in and attached to the current system.

[Moksha]

Why? Simply because a communistic or United Order society cannot work as long as telestial-type people are in it.

I thought the Celestial bound folk were the most strident opponents of this communistic or United Order. Will that change when either the less holy are booted out or their thinking finally becomes perfected?

[prisonchaplain]

I fail to see how martial problems can lead to world hunger. And as for the knowledge of God, I don't think that may even solve anything. If anything, it might cause more problems than it can solve. Max Weber talks about Christian ethics and how it only complicates things.

Instead of imagining a world without religion, how about imagining a world without fatherless children, single-parent homes, foster care systems, and a majority of people so scarred by the marital failures of their parents, and by the multiple empty casual sexual encounters, that they cannot begin to fathom what a "two become one" lifelong relationship would be like. Imagine a world in which children feel safe in their homes, see enduring models of couples loving each other "in sickness and in health." Imagine children who do not worry about their neighbors or uncles being potential molestors. That's a world with strong, enduring families. And, quite frankly, it remains the faith communities that strive towards such. Yes, there are occasional individual couples who may simply love each other because they do, and make it through a lifetime. But, more often, it is those who hold to the strength of their faith during the rough times, that manage to keep marriages lifelong.

World peace can come to the masses, and it will be hard. Peace through diplomacy, through aid, through hope doesn't exist. Peace isn't a peace of paper that says one country will not attack another. Nor is it feeding the hunger. Nor is it praying for one nation to overcome. We have seen all these examples turn into violent wars. No, peace is actually a state of mind. If the world can achieve inner peace, then peace and the metta and compassion that follows will seep into this world. if you want to conquer all that is evil in this world, first you must conquer yourself. And from what I've seen, so very few people have done this.

IMHO this is some type of New Age pantheistic "hope in hope."

[Jim108]

The problem is marriage. When society refuses to uphold and support the concept of a lifelong marriage (as a minimum) with real commitment to family; every ill of society will continue to multiple until that society suffers collapse. Providing money, food and shelter will remain temporary solutions until permeate families has privilege place and status in society.

Until we take family seriously – as the only means by which a next generation can survive and overcome the stupidity of selfish greed and selfish need and replace that greed and self need with respect for marriage and family you will only mask the cause and treat a symptom.

The Traveler

Traveler, these are very wise words. I think you hit the nail on the head. Thank You, Jim

[Aesa]

The general trend for both poverty and criminal activity is much higher in broken families than in families with both a loving father and loving mother.

In Chapter 4 of the Book “Freakonomics” there is data presented that correlates abortion with lowering the segment of the population associated with broken and single parent families thus lowering the crime rate and those that live below the poverty line. In the USA over 85% of the poverty and crime is generated in the segment of the population directly associated with broken families. I assume this is also the case in the world arena.

The biggest concern is if the trend continues to cycle with broken homes and poverty that within a generation over 50% of the population in the USA will be below the poverty line and up to a third of the population should have served jail time. Currently there are pockets with very low family involvement that reflect the result of such a trend.

The Traveler

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.

[Aesa]

Not sure I agree with this statement. I know of nothing that can happen without some incentive. Water flows down hill because gravity gives it the incentive to do so. Saying that we will make water "free" to flow up hill does not mean that it will.

Also if everyone has plenty of food - what encentive is to be offered to them to contribute. What we have learned by entitlements (even among the rich) that people tend to become more selfish and demanding of more entitlements.

I submit that only in a family setting can a person truly become unselfish and turn from the needs, wants and desires of self.

The Traveler

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.

partially because I don't think we are at that technological level yet

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)?

many people are very invested in and attached to the current system.

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.

Instead of imagining a world without religion, how about imagining a world without fatherless children, single-parent homes, foster care systems, and a majority of people so scarred by the marital failures of their parents, and by the multiple empty casual sexual encounters, that they cannot begin to fathom what a "two become one" lifelong relationship would be like. Imagine a world in which children feel safe in their homes, see enduring models of couples loving each other "in sickness and in health." Imagine children who do not worry about their neighbors or uncles being potential molestors. That's a world with strong, enduring families. And, quite frankly, it remains the faith communities that strive towards such. Yes, there are occasional individual couples who may simply love each other because they do, and make it through a lifetime. But, more often, it is those who hold to the strength of their faith during the rough times, that manage to keep marriages lifelong.

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. :)

[prisonchaplain]

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.

Yeah...not like it was 40 or 50 years ago, when farmers worked 12-14 hour days, 7-days a week, and when net incomes were so much lower than now. Sorry, but the money thing is an excuse. We choose to work those long hours, choose for both parents to work, choose to shower our kids with stuff instead of loving parental presence.

There are legitimate reasons why families break up. But, more often than not, it has much to do with broken promises, lack of integrity, choosing stuff over relationship, and yes, living beyond means.

Eh...so much easier to blame Walmart, the Chinese, or the Madoffs of the world.

[Aesa]

Yeah...not like it was 40 or 50 years ago, when farmers worked 12-14 hour days, 7-days a week, and when net incomes were so much lower than now. Sorry, but the money thing is an excuse. We choose to work those long hours, choose for both parents to work, choose to shower our kids with stuff instead of loving parental presence.

There are legitimate reasons why families break up. But, more often than not, it has much to do with broken promises, lack of integrity, choosing stuff over relationship, and yes, living beyond means.

Eh...so much easier to blame Walmart, the Chinese, or the Madoffs of the world.

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.

We choose to work those long hours

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)

Edited April 7, 2009 by Aesa

[rameumptom]

In a resource-based economy the nuclear family would be able to flourish with the removal of the pointless and the monotonous jobs.

Ram: This is a nice sentiment, but there's more to existence than pointless and monotonous jobs. Many kids today live comfortable lives, but still get into trouble because their lives are filled with pointless entertainment, and nothing truly fulfilling. Salvation of the family and the individual comes from self-sacrifice and altruism, not from having an interesting job. Madoff had an interesting job, as did Al Capone....

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.

Ram: But what is your definition of "abundance"? Even most poor Americans have more than 90% of all others in the world. Poor Americans have cars, air conditioning, cable television, etc. Why is it that some are not happy with the abundance they currently have, while others are blissful? Once again, while basic needs are required to stave off desperation and starvation, anything beyond the basics is a mindset thing.

Nobody fights over a slice of bread when there's tons around. But people will tire of eating bread, and many will seek jam and other toppings to go on top. Once that happens, a new economic divide occurs.

Only when people get beyond themselves and become Christ-like, can global situations actually be solved, because there will always be greed and avarice waiting around the corner to destroy the current system.

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.

This is a problematic statement. Many poorer nations do not go to war with anyone. Define poverty. Does it mean having enough to eat? Does that mean bread and water, or does it mean steak and lobster? How about shelter, does it mean dwelling in a cave or in a 3500 sq foot home?

And where does religion fit in? If we feed all the world's Muslims and give them nice automated homes with their own personal robots to serve them, will they suddenly quit having Sharia law and stop blowing up Israeli school buses?

Why did the shooter kill a bunch of people, and others who also lost their jobs at IBM didn't? Were they somehow immune from the loss of wages and the stress of losing their jobs? Your example is an anomaly, and not a ready example. I can provide examples of rich people who kill people, also (anyone seen OJ Simpson, lately?).

Of course, who can foretell if the leaders of any nation or global community wouldn't impose their form of law on their people, for the "good of the people?" Stalin believed that he was creating a better socialist state, while killing tens of millions. Pol Pot believed that an agrarian society was where equality and egalitarianism lay, and so had all the doctors, teachers, and scientists tortured and executed. Hitler dreamed of establishing the Third Reich, a Millennial reign of peace for all the world.

Millions of dollars in food and aid have gone to nations like Zimbabwe and Sudan, only to be diverted by the leaders for their own purposes, as they seek to wipe out their enemies. How will technology aid those poor, as long as their leaders seek to destroy?

Need I go on? As long as there are evil people, you will not be able to use technology to truly solve all wars, hunger, nor anything.

I suppose they may have, but none of the past ones have quite had the tools at their hands we have today -- namely Science.

Ram: This was Hitler's viewpoint also. Science was used extensively in his goal to achieve his Millennial peace for the Third Reich. Nurses and doctors were very good at scientific research, even attempting to develop chimeras between humans and animals! And look at their jet and rocket technology, amazing! Of course, Hitler's ally, Mussolini, made sure the trains ran on time. Efficiency like that cannot be bought.

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.

The point is, science cannot and will not solve all problems. It can help increase food productivity and lifestyles, yes. But it won't get food to those impoverished by tyrants. And Hitler's goons proved that science can be used for what ends up being very terrible things. Religion must be a part of the equation, as it gives guidance on why to do things ethically. Unfortunately, until the Savior comes again and the wicked are destroyed, we will not be in a position to have only good and honorable people of the earth running things. Until then, there will be Sharia law, Stalinist-type socialism in places like North Korea, and the terrors of genocide in places like Sudan and Zimbabwe. There will be those who believe they are doing God's work in trying to develop or obtain weapons of mass destruction (science), in order to obtain power in the world. There will be those eager to bilk the honest out of billions or trillions of dollars, in order to bring about their own ideals.

The only way to fix people's minds is by force. And that means going to a Soviet style life.

I'm pretty sure Christians believe that there will not be banks, poverty, war, crime, corruption, elitism, advertising and so forth in heaven?

Actually, there may be banks and advertising in heaven. We don't know. The Bible says that there was a war in heaven, when Satan rebelled, so I guess there can be war in heaven. I would assume that Satan was corrupt and a spiritual criminal, and Isaiah 14 tells us he wanted to replace God on his throne, so I would assume that means elitism.

Anything I miss there?

"Thy will be done - On earth, as it is in Heaven."

The problem with this is who is to determine God's will? Is it the Christians? Which sect? Some Southern Baptists would ban Mormonism and every non-Baptist Christian form of worship. Would it be the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus? I think Osama Bin Laden believes he is trying to do God's (Allah's) will. Is that the right one?

How about the atheists and agnostics; where do they fit in this? Would they have a problem with God's will being done?

Perhaps the discussion isn't as easy as making a few robots. Perhaps that is why the robots in the movie "I, robot" deemed that humans were a menace to themselves and would have to be ruled over with an iron fist, in order to keep them from harming themselves..... See how this returns to a Socialist/Communist concept?

[rameumptom]

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.

This is all a matter of perception. Can people today live on one salary? Most in America could. How many of them want a small 800 square foot house like their parents had, and waiting until they are in their 40s to be able to afford it? How many are happy with one small car, cramming all the kids in the back? How many are happy with one small black and white television with bunny ear antennae?

Money does NOT divide people. Perceptions and belief systems divide people. Is a loaded gun good or evil? Neither. The good or evil lies in the choices made by the person carrying the gun. So it is with money. Bill Gates chooses to give all his billions to charity - using it for good. Mike Tyson blew all his millions ($350M) on himself - good or bad?

While advertising influences people, they are still able to decide for themselves. Otherwise, we wouldn't just have 10% of homes being foreclosed right now, but we'd have 100% being foreclosed right now, as everyone would have purchased something too big and expensive for them really to afford. In 2000, 50 books were published on happiness, while last year there were 4000 books published! There are hundreds of books out right now to teach people how to be happy. Virtually none of them have "buying more stuff" as a method of achieving lasting happiness. Even with all those books, most people in America are depressed. It isn't because they have stuff, but it is because they are seeking happiness in the wrong things. And until you can convince them all they are not victims, and to work towards the path of true happiness and enlightenment (whatever that means to each person), you will not achieve God's will here on earth.

[Aesa]

Many kids today live comfortable lives, but still get into trouble because their lives are filled with pointless entertainment, and nothing truly fulfilling.

They certainly are, but why? Advertising.

But what is your definition of "abundance"?

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.

But people will tire of eating bread, and many will seek jam and other toppings to go on top. Once that happens, a new economic divide occurs.

I would say that simply creates more need, it just exemplifies the fact that humanity always aims higher.

Why is it that some are not happy with the abundance they currently have, while others are blissful?

Because of the high stress of this system. Think: Hedonistic LEAKY jars.

Why did the shooter kill a bunch of people, and others who also lost their jobs at IBM didn't? Were they somehow immune from the loss of wages and the stress of losing their jobs? Your example is an anomaly, and not a ready example. I can provide examples of rich people who kill people, also (anyone seen OJ Simpson, lately?).

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.

Need I go on? As long as there are evil people, you will not be able to use technology to truly solve all wars, hunger, nor anything.

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.

This was Hitler's viewpoint also. Science was used extensively in his goal to achieve his Millennial peace for the Third Reich.

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.

Religion must be a part of the equation, as it gives guidance on why to do things ethically.

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.

The only way to fix people's minds is by force.

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.

Actually, there may be banks and advertising in heaven. We don't know. The Bible says that there was a war in heaven, when Satan rebelled, so I guess there can be war in heaven. I would assume that Satan was corrupt and a spiritual criminal, and Isaiah 14 tells us he wanted to replace God on his throne, so I would assume that means elitism.

Anything I miss there?

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)?

The problem with this is who is to determine God's will

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.

Perhaps that is why the robots in the movie "I, robot" deemed that humans were a menace to themselves and would have to be ruled over with an iron fist, in order to keep them from harming themselves..... See how this returns to a Socialist/Communist concept?

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.

Can people today live on one salary? Most in America could.

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 does NOT divide people. Perceptions and belief systems divide people.

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.

Virtually none of them have "buying more stuff" as a method of achieving lasting happiness.

Perhaps not, but the government do.

work towards the path of true happiness and enlightenment (whatever that means to each person)

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.

Neither. The good or evil lies in the choices made

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.

[DigitalShadow]

Ram: This was Hitler's viewpoint also. Science was used extensively in his goal to achieve his Millennial peace for the Third Reich. Nurses and doctors were very good at scientific research, even attempting to develop chimeras between humans and animals! And look at their jet and rocket technology, amazing! Of course, Hitler's ally, Mussolini, made sure the trains ran on time. Efficiency like that cannot be bought.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to Godwin the thread.

[Aesa]

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to Godwin the thread.

Ah, yes.

[DigitalShadow]

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.

I do think that you have some valid points, but I also don't think the world is ready for such a quantum shift, socially or technologically.

On the social side, we have:

-Many people in powerful positions who have a strong interest in maintaining the status quo because it is the source of their power.

-Billions of people raised to naturally accept the current monetary system with "dreams" to acquire more and more wealth because that is how they are raised. Many of these people aren't even able to imagine a social without money and will violently reject anyone who suggests we do away with it (I'm sure you must have encountered some of them).

-Many people will believe this somehow goes against their religion, especially LDS where it seems many believe the United States constitution was ordained by God and is the best form of government.

-What about people who have spent much of their lives training for and enjoy the jobs that you claim will be obsolete (stockbrokers, bankers, advertisers, ect.)? How will they have a fulfilling life in this new society?

On the technological side, we have:

-Yes, theoretically the technology exists for the society that you are envisioning, but not on the scale that would be needed. Just because a certain technology exists, does not mean we have the technology to recreate and distribute it on a world scale.

-Most of our technology as a society is held as trade secrets of corporations who actively seek to protect it. While I agree that this is an inefficient system and leads to re-inventing the wheel and wasting resources, you would first have to convince these corporations to "give away" this information.

-Most of our population is simply not trained for the tasks that would be necessary to maintain and create the technology of this ideal society. There would be a strong need for engineers and tech savvy individuals and only a small portion of the population could currently fill those roles.