Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Akroma]

I just saw the zeitgeist movie a few days ago


sure enough I agree with the first part
the minimal reserve system is flawed to no end, and the world would probably be better off with a system that is more thought out


however I do not agree with the venus project
they thing that just because there is no money anymore there is suddenly no more crime ?
how can ANYONE look at humanity and be THAT optimistic ?

there are more than enough crimes that have no monetary reasons behind them

take murder for example
or rape


also the idea that the few jobs that are not done by maschines will be done by voluntaries just because they like to do that is too optimistic for me as well



however the major flaw in this comes from the thought that everyone will be happy in a society that is ruled by a group of people that organizes resources
if, like he said, everyone could have everything they want, then even the enormous amounts of resources we do have won't do

imagine if everyone wants to live on a palace on an island

having everyone have whatever they want is just not feasible, and the regulators will have to controle that

that results in dissastisfaction, and soon the system is just as corrupt




the venus project simply adds highly developed technology to communism, calls it entirely new idea and calls it utopia


hey, communism sounded pretty good as well, when it was still just an idea in the heads of a few people


in practise, this will be no venus project, but a pluto project
because a true utopia is surely not found anywhere on a planet

[Gunner-Chan]

the venus project simply adds highly developed technology to communism, calls it entirely new idea and calls it utopia

Most socialist ideology's are far more realistic than this nowadays... This "Venus project" is just retarded nonsense. Pure and simple. Does anyone honestly think this makes sense or can ever work?

[beorn080]

Most of these idea's work on small scales. Within a family, for example, you probably don't need to worry about money. However, interacting with the outside world still requires money.

[Keiseth]

Most of these idea's work on small scales. Within a family, for example, you probably don't need to worry about money. However, interacting with the outside world still requires money.

You're probably right. It's probably a decent system as long as everyone involved is within the same "monkey sphere"*.

*http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html - warning, light language.

But I can't see how anyone could think it would be feasible across a country. Or a world.

[Rezan]

Socialism works. Just look at Sweden. Certainly it's partially capitalistic, but damn, they have great systems for having so few valuable resources.

The Venus Project is, as people have said before, unrealistic bullshit. It doesn't work, and it probably never will. The only way any "optimistic" system will work is if human beings stop being retarded. We won't for a long, long time.

Edit:

@Guy Montag:

You brought no reliable links for your outrageous claims (that the Antarctic has more snow now than ever. If you don't show any reliable evidence, you're just manipulating people's opinions with fancy claims. I'm aware it works, but that doesn't make you right.

You can't claim it's "climate change" when what, 85% of all scientists in the field say it's global warming. The scientific community don't agree with your claims as far as I know.

Whereas I don't know much about the interior of Antarctica at this point, I do know something about the exterior. That article also puts to the test your claim that temperatures are colder rather than warmer. If you're going to argue "in some places" then I don't believe you're entirely aware of what does and does not matter. Averages matter. A single spike does not indicate that it has become colder. That one area is "colder than it has been before" does not indicate that there is no such thing as global warming.

There is a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere. That doesn't change the fact that if you alter the percentages by what, 3% in either direction, most people on Earth will start to die out. Why do you think we breathe out 16% of our oxygen? Because we're not able to take in more. If we had less, we would take in less. The higher up in the atmosphere people live, the more dangerous a decrease would be. The lower in the atmosphere people live, the more dangerous an increase would be (for one, oxygen is toxic in overly concentrated doses, but I'm sure you knew that). Then we could get into how it affects aerobic respiration in organisms such as plants (in turn affecting photosynthesis), and on other animals.

Uhm. An HDMI cable is a high definition multimedia interface, not an internet meme.

Battery technology is undoubtedly going to improve. For instance there are attempts with viruses to more effectively store energy.