We are one

[Islander]

For all the idealism and theorizing in the West, MOST of the world remains in object poverty where death by violence and disease is the norm rather then the exception.

The notion of "equality" is a Christian concept. The notions of charity, brotherly kindness, sharing and concerns fo the fellow man are ALL Christian constructs. Appropriating such values while "surgically" excising the religious root is just plain silly. It would be like discussing fine furniture and avoiding the word wood or tree during the conversation. We may mimic and even aspire to model cetain behavior (charity, for example) but without God at the center it is just another tool to feed our ego and gorge on the adulation of the droid populace.

Without God at the center, no system of government designed by man will ever be successful in addressing the realities of life across the whole world.

[DigitalShadow]

For all the idealism and theorizing in the West, MOST of the world remains in object poverty where death by violence and disease is the norm rather then the exception.

The notion of "equality" is a Christian concept. The notions of charity, brotherly kindness, sharing and concerns fo the fellow man are ALL Christian constructs. Appropriating such values while "surgically" excising the religious root is just plain silly. It would be like discussing fine furniture and avoiding the word wood or tree during the conversation. We may mimic and even aspire to model cetain behavior (charity, for example) but without God at the center it is just another tool to feed our ego and gorge on the adulation of the droid populace.

Without God at the center, no system of government designed by man will ever be successful in addressing the realities of life across the whole world.

Aesa, this is an example of my point about people not being ready for this on a social level regarding religion :)

Edit: no offense intended here, I'm not trying to say that one viewpoint is better than the other, just trying to demonstrate the depth of the incompatibility between them.

Edited April 7, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[blusun7]

GOVERMENT MAKES LIFE HARD TO LIVE=OBLIGING TO ANYTHING THAT MAY MAKE IT SEEM BETTER.

WHEN IN REALITY ALL WE NEED TO DO IS BELIEVE IN HIS GOSPEL AND ALL WILL BE WELL.

Elder ballad gave a great talk.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

Tell a farm wife she doesn't work! I would argue that many, perhaps even a majority of two-income families could make it on one income. They might sacrifice some glitter, some stuff, might have to buy more off-brands, etc., but the gains in parental presence would usually outweigh that. No judgment upon working mothers, but it's often a choice, not a necessity. Also, do you indeed have statistics to show that low income people divorce more often, face more family dysfunction etc. than higher income ones? I'm doubtful it's so.

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.

Relevant? Well...again...so much easier to blame the distant grand entity than to take personal responsiblity for overspending.

[LittleWyvern]

GOVERMENT MAKES LIFE HARD TO LIVE=OBLIGING TO ANYTHING THAT MAY MAKE IT SEEM BETTER.

WHEN IN REALITY ALL WE NEED TO DO IS BELIEVE IN HIS GOSPEL AND ALL WILL BE WELL.

Elder ballad gave a great talk.

IT'S TO THE LEFT OF THE 'A' KEY.

[Aesa]

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.

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.

Tell a farm wife she doesn't work! I would argue that many, perhaps even a majority of two-income families could make it on one income. They might sacrifice some glitter, some stuff, might have to buy more off-brands, etc., but the gains in parental presence would usually outweigh that. No judgment upon working mothers, but it's often a choice, not a necessity. Also, do you indeed have statistics to show that low income people divorce more often, face more family dysfunction etc. than higher income ones? I'm doubtful it's so.

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.

For all the idealism and theorizing in the West, MOST of the world remains in object poverty where death by violence and disease is the norm rather then the exception.

The notion of "equality" is a Christian concept. The notions of charity, brotherly kindness, sharing and concerns fo the fellow man are ALL Christian constructs. Appropriating such values while "surgically" excising the religious root is just plain silly. It would be like discussing fine furniture and avoiding the word wood or tree during the conversation. We may mimic and even aspire to model cetain behavior (charity, for example) but without God at the center it is just another tool to feed our ego and gorge on the adulation of the droid populace.

Without God at the center, no system of government designed by man will ever be successful in addressing the realities of life across the whole world.

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.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Aesa

[DigitalShadow]

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.

Yes, the current system is failing, whether it fails enough to make people entirely re-evaluate how they look at almost everything though, we have yet to see. Also, there is no consensus on why the current system is failing and everyone is trying to blame it on whatever would further their own cause.

My personal thoughts are that the current monetary system is holding humanity back, but most people are not really ready to accept anything else. The economy will get a bit worse until through a massive amount of band-aids and duct tape it will get propped back up and things will go back to normal because too many people have too much invested in the current way of doing things to let it all come crashing down.

Frankly, I have always disliked the emphasis in society on accumulating more and more wealth and possessions far beyond what anyone would need, just for the sake of having them and having more than the next guy. Unfortunately, if this system comes crashing down, at this time, the only alternative would be anarchy. Perhaps a better society would rise from the ashes, but I wouldn't count on it so I'm hoping that doesn't happen.

[richlittell]

some excerpts from the recommended pdf

Traditional indoctrination, such as nationalistic or religious beliefs, can become pillars of a person’s identity and are difficult to overcome emotionally. ...

Most of our traditional values were actually set in motion a long time ago. For instance, the Bible says “ You shall earn your living by the sweat of your brow”. What if society didn’t need you to work for money? How could that value hold true? The fact is, values become utdated, just like knowledge and everything else. With respect to the current findings of science, most of the values of society seem to be out of date by thousands of years.

Sounds like a man-made religion trying to replace all others-- sounds like bad mojo, Jojo.

We know from the book of Mormon that it is not just poverty that brings crime into the world, when even a whole society of the righteous have become wealthy, they forget God and turn to all sorts of wickedness. A perfect scientific-based monetary system or a perfect world economy or even exact equality and distribution of wealth , even if achievable, would not alleviate the world of all it's troubles.

Of course, we should look for ways to to better things in this world, but Utopia is not achievable without the Savior and a world full of pure hearts.

Besides, I like work, all sorts, even the mundane.

[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.

You really have a different opinion from me about things.

First there are two kinds of incentives. There are positive and negative incentives. Sometimes we think of these as rewards and punishments. The problem is that too often we punish what should be rewarded and reward what should be punished. This is the single reason that systems fail.

Second is the basis for success in the first place. That is the individual -- not the system. There is a saying – given a man a fish and you feed him for a day teach him how to fish and you feed him for a life time. I do not like the idea of buying into systems to solve the problems of individuals.

Personally I oppose programs that teach a person not to fish but to rely on others to provide a daily fish for them. I also oppose programs that shackle a person to a notion that they need to be reliant on someone or something else for their most basic of needs without realizing what they must “give” up. Any exchange that is not value for value has at its core a deception. Even in religion I do not believe in a unilateral salvation gift.

No one appreciates reaching a place that requires little or no effort. If we expect something to happen and be appreciated enough to last there must be some incentive to stimulate the effort that will provide directly the reward. Most chickens will die if it is made too easy for them to break out of their egg shell. In nature the shell is so difficult that some will die trying to break it. The sad truth about life is that if made to easy it becomes meaningless. This is why so many children of the rich that have every opportunity so easily available end up failures, living utter useless lives.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

Aesa attempted to explain Hitler's science:

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.

Actually it wasn't pseudo-science. It was very much real science. It just wasn't ethical science. The Nazis were the first to build jet engines; the first to build long range guided missiles; and were close to developing an atomic bomb when we beat them.

And I find it sad that this organization thinks that religion is out-dated and needs to be replaced by science, when it is exactly science and technology that allowed Hitler to dominate and almost totally rule Europe and the world.

[Dravin]

I'd like to point out that Dr. Mengele was a scientist*. Scientists are not any more immune to being horrible people then anyone else. Also, being religious and being a scientist are not mutually exclusive. To say one must be one or the other is a false dichotomy.

* An unethical scientist but one nonetheless.

[Aesa]

some excerpts from the recommended pdf

Sounds like a man-made religion trying to replace all others-- sounds like bad mojo, Jojo.

We know from the book of Mormon that it is not just poverty that brings crime into the world, when even a whole society of the righteous have become wealthy, they forget God and turn to all sorts of wickedness. A perfect scientific-based monetary system or a perfect world economy or even exact equality and distribution of wealth , even if achievable, would not alleviate the world of all it's troubles.

Of course, we should look for ways to to better things in this world, but Utopia is not achievable without the Savior and a world full of pure hearts.

Besides, I like work, all sorts, even the mundane.

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.

oppose programs that teach a person not to fish but to rely on others to provide a daily fish for them.

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.

This is why so many children of the rich that have every opportunity so easily available end up failures, living utter useless lives.

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?

Actually it wasn't pseudo-science. It was very much real science. It just wasn't ethical science. The Nazis were the first to build jet engines; the first to build long range guided missiles; and were close to developing an atomic bomb when we beat them.

And I find it sad that this organization thinks that religion is out-dated and needs to be replaced by science, when it is exactly science and technology that allowed Hitler to dominate and almost totally rule Europe and the world.

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.

I'd like to point out that Dr. Mengele was a scientist*. Scientists are not any more immune to being horrible people then anyone else. Also, being religious and being a scientist are not mutually exclusive. To say one must be one or the other is a false dichotomy. :)

* An unethical scientist but one nonetheless.

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. :)

[Traveler]

......

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?

.....

You are having a major problem with understanding incentive. I asked for you thought concerning incentive for people to be useful under such programs you want us to support.

Our monetary system attempts to provide value for value in all exchanges of goods and services. Those with sufficient supply have no incentive to add value which requires their effort unless they can exceed their need which would bring us back to the point where shortages somewhere would result – which is the current situation.

The Traveler

[Aesa]

You are having a major problem with understanding incentive. I asked for you thought concerning incentive for people to be useful under such programs you want us to support.

Our monetary system attempts to provide value for value in all exchanges of goods and services. Those with sufficient supply have no incentive to add value which requires their effort unless they can exceed their need which would bring us back to the point where shortages somewhere would result – which is the current situation.

The Traveler

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.

[Islander]

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.

I appreciate the sentiment. The intent is good, the means naive and the outcome unsustainable.

The US contributes 5 billion dollars to FAO every year and most of the food ends up in the black market in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. We are the single largest donor of retro-viral medication for the treatment of HIV/AIDS to the tune of 1 billion a year, the largest UN contributor to agricultural development and small enterprise and micro-credits for business development in the third world. In sum, more of the US GDP ends up in the third world than is alocated for adult literacy programs in the US, for example. And, in the large scheme of things, it does very little good. Although CNN and CNBC do not report this, 40-60,000 people a day die in high conflict regions, another 20,000 will die of starvation before sundown and weapons fetch a better price per ounce of weight than weat.

We can not export or teach our values and philosophical (government methodologies) world view to the poor of the world. It has not worked and it will never work. We have tried for a century. Without the Judeo-Christian foundation that led to a constitutional bedrock and frame of our nation; without the rule of law and the intrinsic awareness of it, and respect for it, without reasons and purpose that transcend mere purported man-made altruism; there is no system of governmen that will heal and save the world from its crude and base element; the natural man.

[Aesa]

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.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Aesa

[Maxel]

A question, Aesa:

If I wanted to live in the community being raised by the Venus Project, where would I go to church? Could I petition to have a religious center built for me and other Mormons?

Also, what's your take on religion?

[Aesa]

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.

[Maxel]

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.

So the entire system might forego preparation for the building of religious centers because minorities might be offended? In other words, it would ignore the needs of the majority in favor of the minority's hurt feelings?

I consider that the world unification that would occur in a resource-based global economy to be the utmost of spirituality.

Ah... In other words, God would become a nebulously good feeling and religion does more to divide than to unite. The philosophy of the devil if I ever heard it.

This Venus Project and Zeitgeist movement is nothing more than the old evils veiled by glamorous new verbiage: namely, returning to a resource-based economy and world unification (i.e., New World Order). Unfortunately, my sister is coming to pick me up and I don't have time to copy/paste the quotes from the OP's linked PDF file that support that outrageous claim, but if anyone wants me to back that up I'll do so at a later time.

One thought from the mind of Maxel. Money isn't the root of all evil; the love of money is the root of all evil. In other words- pride. This new system of society will do nothing to alleviate the problem of pride in the human psyche, which is the real source of all of humanity's failings.

[rameumptom]

This program is based upon the humanist/Star Trek concept that if everyone has sufficient food and other stuff (their own replicator, for instance), then avarice, pride and greed will go away.

Guess what? Even in the Star Trek movies, there are still bad people doing bad things for the purpose of pride and greed. While you may not have people starving to death, others would just find new ways to seek power and wield that power.

Only a mighty change of heart, with all people repenting and coming to Christ and loving Christian principles will ever bring about the Millennium. And guess what? Even the scriptures tell us that the wicked aren't going to do that, and so will have to be destroyed before the lion will lay down with the lamb, and people beat their swords into plows.

[Aesa]

In other words, it would ignore the needs of the majority in favor of the minority's hurt feelings?

No, but as demand for a religious center existed it would be constructed.

Money isn't the root of all evil; the love of money is the root of all evil.

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.

God would become a nebulously good feeling and religion does more to divide than to unite. The philosophy of the devil if I ever heard it.

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.

This program is based upon the humanist/Star Trek concept that if everyone has sufficient food and other stuff (their own replicator, for instance), then avarice, pride and greed will go away.

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).

there are still bad people doing bad things for the purpose of pride and greed.

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.

returning to a resource-based economy and world unification (i.e., New World Order).

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."

[Islander]

The West is notorious for producing highly idealistic philosophical social constructs. They keep ignoring the human element and the very tangible and overwhelming reality that 80% of the world population DOES NOT live in the West and that all this theoretical societies might as well be science fiction to them.

For 100 years we have tried to export Western values like non-violent conflict resolution, social civility, religious tolerance, gender equality, charity, democratic expressions, tolerance for ideological diversity. It has not worked and it will never worked. Social philosophies without real foundation are just fads to be swept away by the next wave of thinking. They are by definition not sustainable since it requires the kind of uniformity of thought that is unheard of in human existence. The last 10,000 years prove that man-made social systems are ALL flawed.

Since non-violent mind control/cloning is still in the works, I expect this Venus Project and Zeitgeist movement to be just another waste of print paper and a dot in the internet traffic. I am not holding my breath.

[Aesa]

They are by definition not sustainable since it requires the kind of uniformity of thought that is unheard of in human existence. The last 10,000 years prove that man-made social systems are ALL flawed.

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.

The last 10,000 years prove that man-made social systems are ALL flawed.

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.

For 100 years we have tried to export Western values like non-violent conflict resolution, social civility, religious tolerance, gender equality, charity, democratic expressions, tolerance for ideological diversity.

Oh yeah? And how have we done that? Economic manipulation, domination of resources and indigenous land, indoctrination, ... Edited April 13, 2009 by Aesa

[rameumptom]

This is really a naive view of the world. As long as there are wicked and greedy people, you cannot achieve a Utopian society based upon science. There will always be someone who will use that science to develop a bigger bomb, and threaten the rest of society.

We have offered food and technology to North Korea and other nations over the years, in exchange for them moderating their political actions. As we've just seen, NoKo just tested a long range missile (disguised as a satellite).

How is science and a resource-based society going to save us? Who gets what resources? How will we work this in light of real needs around the world? Resources are limited in this world. Does your goal only mean everyone gets 3 decent meals a day? Or does it mean being able to get and use whatever resources each person wants/needs?

If we suddenly think we can lift everyone with science, just how do we provide energy for everyone? Do we burn more oil and coal, making the earth more polluted? Do we build hundreds of new nuclear power plants worldwide, and hope that terrorists do not use them for their nefarious ways? And where do you put all of the waste?

How about cars? Does everyone get their own car? When we're building automobiles for all 6.5 billion people on earth, just how do we manage not using up all the resources? How do you supply the energy for all of these autos? Do we build more polluting energy sources? Do we run power lines through the middle of every pristine forest, so that indigenous peoples in Brazil and the Congo may have easier lives?

How do you propose we use science to reel in all of the terrorists and crazy people out there? Do we threaten Kim-Il Jung, Osama Bin Laden, and Robert Mugabe with nuclear strikes to keep them in line, and following the expectations of the global government this would require?

One thing the Soviet Union was able to do, was ensure the people worked decently one with another. However, the only way they could ensure this was 1) encourage everyone to spy for the government against their own families and friends, 2) have the societal disruptors "disappear" into Gulags, and 3) have a strong military police capability visible on every street corner.

I just don't want to turn ourselves into a fascist state. I much prefer my freedom, and encouraging to export it to the rest of the world, as it is ready to receive it.

[Aesa]

As long as there are wicked and greedy people

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.

There will always be someone who will use that science to develop a bigger bomb, and threaten the rest of society.

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.

How is science and a resource-based society going to save us? Who gets what resources? How will we work this in light of real needs around the world? Resources are limited in this world.

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).

just how do we provide energy for everyone?

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.

How do you propose we use science to reel in all of the terrorists and crazy people out there?

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.

following the expectations of the global government this would require?

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.

I just don't want to turn ourselves into a fascist state. I much prefer my freedom, and encouraging to export it to the rest of the world, as it is ready to receive it.

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.