Twisted Business Model

Twisted Business Model
Thursday — August 19th, 2010

I got into an interesting discussion about the zeitgeist movement with a friend today. He was trying to convince me that this was society 2.0, that it was the answer to all of our current social issues.

Though I personally wish to better the world, once I have gain financial freedom, I am well aware that the world will take more then a few well intentioned people for it to change. People, are the problem, and as such no system that claims to be the better can be better if it contains people. Systems that rely on the kindness and vigilance of everyday man are doomed to fail. I find that people who want to live in an ideal world, often overlook many aspects that we take for granted. Evangelist of the zeitgeist movement claim that we have the technology to solve issues like world hunger. Though the technology may exist on paper or in the lab, the resources, both material and human to bring it to EVERYONE are not available. Who’s to say which project in this zeitgeist movement world has priority over these finite material/human resources? Who will work the fields, mine the minerals, fish the dangerous waters if I would not go hungry otherwise? Robots? Who will make these robots and maintain these robots? Other robots? Why do these maintainer robots give a damn about making other robots? The devil is in the details.

My point is, if you want to make a change in the world, start with yourself. Look deep within, figure out how you can improve yourself, and in that way you will change the world around you. Don’t just follow blindly some concept dreamed up by perfect strangers, which would be no different then believing in a cult.

Danny

2 Comments...

  1. WurmD

    :) Robots today don’t give a damn about anything ^_^, they just do.

    You have it right, “BE the change you want to see in the world”, not do. “BE”. Ask your friend what is he changing in his behavior compared to before he met this thing :)

  2. Joseph Matthew

    Thanks for your thoughts on this. Whether you’re open to new information or not, is not clear. But it’s worth a shot!

    re: “My point is, if you want to make a change in the world, start with yourself.” & “Don’t follow blindly”
    Excellent advice, both are something the movement encourages strongly. It applies to you & me too. The question then becomes: “once we’ve done that, how can we work better together for the benefit of our human family?” That’s where these ideas begin to take shape.

    re: “Though I personally wish to better the world, _once I have gain financial freedom_”
    Unfortunately our current system is designed so that you keep milking that dream; it relies on you becoming a willing servant to better the lives of your superiors. Break your back to earn your pay, and don’t forget to grovel for the privilege. Such, you are a cornerstone to perpetuating the status quo; for as long as you choose to milk that dream.

    re: “People are the problem”
    I understand why someone might say that, but there is another understanding that refutes it. People are largely the result of environment. If the environment encourages them to be violent, then they will.

    Nothing about our current system encourages the things you say you want to see in the world above the “me me me” concept. That is why it is failing.

    Such, when we change the environment, our behavior changes. This is all proven behavioral science. Understanding that is the 1st step towards changing what we have away from generating the things we no longer find acceptable (war, crime, poverty, hunger) towards generating the things that will resolve most of those issues.

    Effectively eliminating resource scarcity though the applied & intentional generation of resource abundance is one of the bigger ways we are doing this.

    re: “find that people who want to live in an ideal world…”
    Your calls to reject idealism are misplaced; no one is being ideal in this case. Rather think you’ve not grasped the simple concept of causality, where others have.

    To say, the change we’re promoting includes the understanding that what we generate is the direct result of our systems of differential advantage. Cause & effect, not idealism.

    Provably, when humans are encouraged to behave a certain way, we tend to do behave that way. It’s not good or evil (though can be used for harm or for harmony), it’s just what we’re good at; adapting to our environment.

    re “the resources, both material and human to bring it to EVERYONE are not available”
    As for “EVERYONE”, I’m sorry to say you are misinformed here or are relying on factors of a system that is no longer relevant to what is proposed. What we have today with “planned obsolescence” (why your DVD player only lasts @1 year), 50 companies competing to make the same thing, disposable everything, forced artificial scarcity (to jack up the price) is just about the most wasteful system we could have.

    Instead of wasting resources competing over everything, we seeking to measure & organize our resources, understand their limits, focus on alternatives as needed, understand what we can create with them and for how many, then generating enough for that number. No one is saying this will happen overnight or is easy.

    re: “Though the technology may exist on paper or in the lab”
    As for your calls that the technology exists only on paper, this is also easy to refute. You simply do not have current information and/or haven’t done any real research into this topic. Here, maybe this is a good introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2nxCp9Hwxs

    Another fun fact: in 1950 cars were made nearly 100% by hand. Today human labor accounts for about 15% in the creation of car manufacture.

    Indeed people are making the technological solutions that will free us from resource scarcities like world hunger. And they’ll do it for the same reasons most of our species most profound changes have been enacted. Believe it: Einstein, Mme Curie, Copernicus, Newton, Jung, all advanced humanity’s fundamental understandings not for profit, but… simply for the betterment of our species. It happens all the time whether you’re aware of it or not (ever hear of Doctors Without Borders?)

    As for the tech that indeed does not yet exist, what makes you certain we couldn’t adapt? We can do just about anything we apply ourselves to; we’re amazingly adaptive creatures like that.

    Perhaps it is worth noting that the leading minds of the early 19th century stated with certainty that man would NEVER fly and such an idea is pure folly… thankfully the Wright Bros. man didn’t listen to those men.

    They were just bicycle mechanics with the goal of realizing human flight. Crazy huh?

    re: “Who’s to say which project in this zeitgeist movement world has priority over these finite material/human resources?”
    Cybernetic systems programmed to weigh pros & cons based on the natural provable causality within human beings. It requires we learn to prioritize as we’re already learning the hard way.

    Adding, such is not something any elected official can offer. How many politicians do you know that can actually solve the high death rate by vehicles? None that I know of. The reason is, “high vehicle accident rate” is not a political problem or a problem that will be fixed with even more laws… it is a TECHNICAL problem and thus calls for a technical solution (such as self-driving cars). It’s not a question of “if” or belief; simply of “when”.

    re: “Why do these maintainer robots give a damn about making other robots? The devil is in the details.”
    Don’t be fatuous. Obviously they don’t, they only care about doing what they’re designed for. This works towards our advantage on many levels (yes, including having machines fix machines).

    Instead of discouraging the earnest interest of others seeking a better world, offer instead you try to step outside of the today to see the possible tomorrow. Who knows, you might make a difference that helps more people than yourself.

Write something, I dare you...