Zday 2011 Orange County Long Beach

With about 20 people in attendance at the comfortable and tranquil Avia Hotel in Long Beach, we had plenty of delicious snacks and great discussion.  Thanks go to Mico for securing the venue for us.  I was so pleased that the group felt welcome to participate and share their perspectives.

Originally, I had extracted 25 minutes (in 1 to 3 minute segments) of video from ZMF to use as discussion points.  There are so many research findings shared in the film, but while watching, one doesn't have the time to explore them in more depth.  This was the occasion for that exploration.  In fact, we only made it through 13 minutes of film in nearly three hours!

We took a few moments at the end of the evening to share what we would all do if we weren't forced into wage slavery, and it was great to hear how each person would share his/her individual talents to contribute to society. 

With a nascent movement like this, it is not difficult to find yourself feeling alone in wanting to create the change that is called for in a resource-based economy.  To discuss these topics in more detail with people who already feel compelled to create that change makes for a friendly environment of peers.

Thanks to all those who attended and helped make this event a great one!

Another Example of Profit Totalitarianism

If only we had enough "incentive" to harness renewable energy sources!  This radio program discusses technologies that have been around for some time, but the lack of incentive has stifled their use.  It's too bad that the incentive of having cleaner air and reduced global C2 emissions aren't enough.  Not in a profit model.  Ho-hum, we humans can be so dumb.

Instead of seeing the nature of the profit machine and how it obstructs innovation and adoption of technologies--across all sectors--that have the potential to improve our well-being, we put teams together to come up with clever ways of creating a profit incentive from these technologies.  Even those at the top of economic food chain still have to breathe dirty air and they cannot escape climate change.

http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/03/08/harnessing-elusive-energy-oceans-to-autos/

Defending Against Shame

I think it's useful to research criticisms of a Resource-Based Economy (RBE). However, I think it's important not to lose focus on the larger picture of dealing with the source of the innumerable ways that suffering is manifested in our current socio-economic system.  People focus so much on the content of particular arguments (will I have my violent video games?) that they lose sight of motive and the reasons for that motive. 


Consciously or unconsciously we refuse to see the essentiality of being passively aware because we do not really want to let go of our problems; for what would we be without them? We would rather cling to something we know, however painful, than risk the pursuit of something that may lead who knows where. With the problems, at least, we are familiar; but the thought of pursuing the maker of them, not knowing where it may lead, creates in us fear and dullness. --J.K.


The monetary-market system is so pervasive--worldwide--that we can barely tolerate questioning it.  After all, how is it possible that this system could be wrong if it is so pervasive?  We see the same kind of thinking in terms of religion.  If it's a belief-system with many followers, it is called religion.  Few followers? A cult.  The deference we pay to religion while we vilify cults makes clear the way we subjugate our thinking by perceived authority.  The subtle, perhaps unconscious, implication is that what I've believed for so long was an untruth.  How could I (so clever and wise) have been so easily mislead?  To put it bluntly, "are you calling me an idiot for having fallen into this system hook, line, and sinker?"  Ohhhh, the self-shame.


We must be aware of this tendency when talking about the merits of a RBE.  Are the questions and criticisms sincere in their interest to find out how things could function for our collective benefit in a new system, whether you call it a RBE or not?  Do we have the interest in even giving it a try or do we prefer the old system with its familiar patterns of destruction?  At what point do we get so fed up with these recurring problems that we say "enough is enough! let's try something else!"  


If we had a new society to design and I proposed a system in which 30% of the world's people would go hungry, even more would have no access to medical care, and nearly all would be abused endlessly (with little recourse) in their work, do you think that would be a system we would hastily implement? It would be torn to shreds and thrown off the table as a suggestion. Yet, that's the system we have now. It meets only some of our needs. It offers abundance for just some people, and if we are so narrow-minded that we only include them in our calculation then we can come up with millions of reasons to support it. Inequality is not a concept, it is reality.  The system we have today encourages this stratification and conflict.  It engenders competition, not cooperation.


Some may argue that human society as a whole has no meaning in a cosmic sense and that a sort of "kill or be killed" model seems to be the natural order of things. That's a nice abstract argument, and it's true. It lacks authenticity though. It lacks any compassion. We no longer live in a society of "kill or be killed" and we wouldn't really embrace that change. If we truly wanted to organize society by these principles then might would be right.  If I wanted your stuff, I could kill you to have it.  Why not use "the visible fist" to regulate our economy?  Supply and demand would be determined by how much we could conquer another to make what we needed.  The doctor would have to mend my broken arm if she didn't want me to shoot her.  Then again, she could give me some "medicine" which got rid of the threat.  Oh that's right, we had a system somewhat resembling this in history.  People learned of the benefits of cooperation in creating a society that met many people's needs simultaneously.  Now, it's time to make another jump in cooperation.  That jump could lead us to a RBE.  Two hundred years ago, slave owners would have been outraged to think of an economy that didn't operate on forced labor.  Today, such a slave economy would be considered indefensible.  And someday, wage slavery will carry the same feeling of disgust.


When I witness people vehemently attacking the Zeitgeist Movement or resource-based economy, it becomes clear to me that there is a deep sense of fear, and generally, a desensitization to the current suffering.  Instead of arguing about the understandings of the ZM, it would be more fruitful to attend to the emotional issues that are obstructing sincere inquiry.  We all fall victim to conditioning.  The shame isn't in having been conditioned, but in insisting on preserving it.

Tahrir Triage

The protesters in Egypt had their demands met and Mubarak left office.  What did the protesters do?  They came back to Tahrir Square brandishing brooms.  Why? To clean up the mess that had been strewn about after the weeks of demonstrations.  The need was obvious--the place was littered with rubbish--and the people came together to clean it up.  Simple.

How did they ever do this without money?  Doesn't it take a team of janitors, HR personnel to hire and train them, CEOs to manage the revenues and profits to pay for those jobs, and a bunch of politicians to make rules about how to clean up the place?  I guess not.

It's amazing what can be done when people are in touch with the need and have the means to do something about it.

Common Reactions: Utopia

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."

Challenging the Business of Science--Let's Rehabilitate It!

During my drive yesterday, I listened to a radio program that considered the effects of the NASA Challenger disaster on the nation's psyche.  I remembered seeing the news about that when I was 9; it had that sense of loss felt across the nation that was similar to what people felt as the Twin Towers came crashing down.  (Before all the feelings of vengeance became a national obsession.)  We run so quickly from the pain of loss.  We fill our minds with other things, and many of those things can cause greater destruction.  Sometimes, the damage is felt so far into the future that we don't even notice the flow of causality.

The guest on the radio show was pointing out how the Challenger shock led to a shattering of confidence in science.  Instead of placing the focus on the factors that caused the NASA crew to be neglectful, the public learned to distrust science as a whole.  This got me thinking about the field of science and what has happened to that trust in science.

Not only have we compartmentalized science into "questions it can answer" (technology) and "questions that are off-limits," (morality, spirituality, social systems) but the public has also grown weary from the number of conflicting findings, particularly in medical science.  Carbs are bad, then they're good.  Herbal supplements will prevent cancer, but they also do nothing significant!  Anti-depressants will improve your mood, but maybe they are no better than exercise, or they have the unfortunate consequence of making you diabetic.  Doctors are informed by sexy sales reps at lavish dinners, and that's the prescription you get.

I abandoned my graduate studies in part because of the "business of science."  In the same way that businesses have usurped power from government lawmakers by making them slaves to the funding sources, scientific research is, likewise, guided by funding sources.  If I want to study project X, but it has no pot of gold at the end, the research will not move forward.  By contrast, a research project that has a lot of "grant potential" will be pursued.  Researchers have to make a living too, and they don't want to just scrape by.  In one of my courses, the professor often canceled classes because he had to attend meetings with companies like Merck.  This practice became routine, and it was unsettling because how was I going to get the education I needed if the professors were too busy chasing after grants?

Academic journals do not make it any easier.  They want to publish stories that are exciting.  In other words, they want publicity; they need headlines!  Let's say you research the benefit of standing on your head and you find it is helpful to stave off Alzheimer's.  I am skeptical, so I want to duplicate your research to confirm your findings.  First, I have to overcome the grant problem (who's going to fund this project since it's already been done?) and then I have to find a journal who will publish essentially the same research (that's old news to them, and won't help with readership or subscriptions).  So, the public is spending thousands of hours on their heads believing it will help them, but it may not.  We don't know because we didn't provide the money to find out.  And this is a mild example.  There are many more extreme cases, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, where deleterious effects are not fairly represented or understood, and the cost of the medications is extremely high (big profit$ for the pharma companies).

People are justified in their distrust of the business of science because, like all business, the goal is to maximize profit, not further humanity's well being.  But, the business of science needs to be differentiated from the true process of science, the scientific method.

I once told my professor that science is the pursuit of truth, and he countered rather smugly, "No, it's about convincing people what the truth is."  That was my personal Challenger disaster moment, and it broke my heart.  I wanted to be a researcher because I wanted to learn about the world, not as it "should be" to conform to someone's ego or someone's financial interests.  I just wanted to learn.

Since the profit motive has infiltrated our culture so pervasively, leading to unremitting distrust, we are all called upon to be "activists" to correct this error.   Trust is an edifice upon which we can build a healthy society.  Lies lead to degradation, not only of society at large, but of our interpersonal relationships (the problem with so many "pyramid scheme" businesses), and make us less healthy and happy.  Let's start with trust and then we can get back to science to help us all create a better world.

Danish Happiness and American Hypocrisy

I received a book over the holidays, which explores the themes relevant to human happiness or well being in different societies.  The first culture is Denmark:

The high taxes that I had initially been skeptical about apparently serve to nudge Danes away from pursuing material wealth to an excessive degree, while providing them with the kind of long-term satisfaction that comes from education, health care, and an economic safety net.  The folk school tradition [(which emphasizes the question "who are you?" instead of "what can you do?")], meanwhile imbued Danes with an appreciation of the arts, a populist sense of democracy, and a habit of joining clubs that keeps these Scandinavians from becoming socially isolated.  Danish happiness, it seems, is also strongly linked to the trust that ordinary citizens feel for one another and to their sense that their feelings and opinions are adequately heard. pp. 49-50   Dan Buettner,  Thrive


This information will not surprise many of those involved in the Zeitgeist Movement, but it surprises many Americans because we are indoctrinated from youth that money is the real measure of success and achievement, that taxes are as terrible as death itself, and that to be educated is to develop a skill to make us employable.  These values differ so dramatically from what's described in the study about Danes.  Another main finding was that an important factor in happiness is living in a place where everyone is of equal status.   This was a very prominent point made in the recent Zeitgeist Moving Forward film:  the socioeconomic disparity itself causes a stress that reduces health and longevity, when controlling for other factors like access to health services.

America talks a lot about "equality" but we all know that our everyday lives do not manifest this characteristic of equal access.  An old colleague from Australia used to joke, "I thought America was a classless society, but the first thing I was asked before getting my ticket to the US was, "First class, Business class, or Coach?"  In considering the 300 million dollar bonuses that some Wall St Executives get, it's remarkable to think that a huge swath of society is only worth minimum wage, $7.25/hr., while these Execs get approximately $144,000/hr.  When money is essentially the only means to make a living, does this disparity not speak to the way that some people are disvalued while others are astronomically overvalued?

If money were only a means to buy artwork, it may be different, but since it is used to buy food, shelter, health care, water, transportation, and every form of recreation, it makes sense that this inequality of socioeconomic circumstances contributes to a pervasive stress.  There is a chronic acknowledgement that some food, housing, and the like are unattainable for those not rich enough.  Always less than.