It is very common for someone who has first seen Zeitgeist Addendum and/or Zeitgeist Moving Forward to respond with the conclusion that the solution provided is utopian. It is another one of those prima facie judgments that Peter Joseph has spoken about in regards to communism, marxism, socialism...etc.
What is the cause of this association? Why does the resource-based economy seem utopian, when it certainly isn't stated to be that? The crime rates are estimated to drop by about 90-95% because most crimes are related to money. But that doesn't mean they will drop to zero. It doesn't say that a person's codependent emotional state will disappear. It doesn't say that illnesses will be completely vanquished. And it doesn't say that resources are so abundant that we get to have and do everything our heart fancies. It doesn't say that miscommunication will never happen and we will be in a perpetual state of bliss.
It does say that our hearts will likely change what they fancy, and that we will have to have an understanding of collective responsibility. That will take education. And that takes effort. (The Danes seem to have a better understanding of this already). It does say that resources will be managed responsibly and efficiently, which will maximize our potential for survival and reduce social unrest (this has not been done because of competing economic interests and national divisions). It does say that people will contribute what they are skilled and passionate about because they have the time, energy, and lack of worry about how to meet their basic needs (we can see this kind of volunteering in current times for those who can "afford" it).
It just sounds too good to be true? Are you sure of that? How can you be sure of that? Have we ever given it a try? Are we just afraid of losing what we are used to? Are we battered spouses too fearful to leave the situation?
I think some time and reflection are warranted to uncover the reasons for resisting. The very fact that a resource-based economy is called "utopian" demonstrates that the qualities of that society are appealing. People don't say, "that is an ugly, brutal society." They call it "utopian." It looks good, sounds good, feels good.
So, it is pretty clear that the society we have is essentially dangerous. Your access to the basics is continually under threat, not by mother nature (although that may be more common the more the planet's ecosystem changes) but by our human society. We are now seeing famines created not by lack of food, but lack of affordability. People are starving....TO DEATH! People suffer in sweatshops. People are unemployed and feeling hopeless; they are competing with each other for all kinds of jobs just to survive, no matter how pointless or demeaning. The economic interests of different businesses are in direct conflict with eco-conscious technologies, so we pollute more and more. The resource-based economy does not promise technologies with no ecological impact; instead it promotes the use of those that are the cleanest and safest based on contemporary research.
Why is it then that people refuse to even try to change it? Let's just assume that the resource-based economy doesn't work out, for some pretend reason. Are we really going to be worse off than we are now? What does it take--for your own child to die from starvation to get motivated? Given an option, why continue with the old when we know how detrimental it is to ourselves?
We can call the new economy anything you want, but can we not agree to work together to remove those things that get in the way of a healthier way of living? Even the richest of the rich must one day die and pass along their wealth to a child or grandchild. And that person will live and spend that wealth in this society. If that society is full of disease, unrest, pollution, and ugliness, then that person with vast wealth has failed his/her family. It is in their interests to work towards a clean, rich planet with healthy and sane people. It's where we live.
The important distinction isn't between dystopia and utopia; that's a false dichotomy. Societies, even today, could be placed on a scale of well-being, from least well to most well. Societies in the future could have a longer scale, with more variety, or it could be reduced, with less variety. In any case, we must be reminded that just because society won't be perfect in a resource-based economy (RBE), it doesn't mean we should make no effort to improve society. Not being perfect does not mean it is no better. A RBE seems to be a lot better, which is why people call it a utopia, but they are wrong to conceive of it as "perfect."
