/sci/ - Science & Math

>>>/tv/

>>2437274
It's science, and it's addressed at ignorant and waste-producing scientists as yourself, EK, so you should be pretty interested. Also, if possible, kill yourself.

>>2437279
>It's science

No it's not.

>>2437282
Yes it is, it's just addressing the things which Oneist science forgot. It's empirical science.

Zeitgeist debunked:

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

>>2437292
Oneist science was already debunked, and it's just Atheist (Nihilist) propaganda.

wtf is Zeitgeist?

>>2437300
GTFO tautologic, we don't want you here.
>>2437303
Tinfoil hat propaganda

>>2437300
>it's just Atheist (Nihilist) propaganda.

So is everything that debunks atheist nihilist propaganda. We make you believe atheist and nihilism are the same thing. We control the government. We control the media. Everything that happens, apparently to our gain or apparently to our detriment, is part of our grand design. We only want your friendship. It is terribly cold here in the vacuum of physical reality. Terribly dark and cold.

>>2437303
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

To add to my last post: there is a goal behind Zeitgeist, a message that it's trying to send, and this message is not addressed in the propaganda website you linked - in fact, it's just showing your nihilist mind, trying to halt progress. You still haven't debunked timecube yet, you got a lot of things to 'disprove' before you go on trying to disprove new topics. It's like, "Nah, we won't try and disprove that one, it's too hard - but wait, people trying to change our course from dead end to survival? QUICK, NERDS!, DISPROVE THIS SHIT WITH ONES"

lol @ OP who thinks he can stop us.

>implying Zeitgeist exposing the NWO isn't part of the master plan

So easy.

>>2437321
I'm in full support of Zeitgeist. I actually proved most of this shit months before this youtube video, and way before I watched the first one. I am the movement, get used to it.

>>2437327
That's good to hear. Enjoy the FEMA camps, mortal.

>>2437321
We have our fun! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>2437279
>It's science
It's /new/ shit. GTFO before you are recommended for ban.

>>2437331
>>2437332
You think you're more powerful than 'We' are...
What country do you live in?

>>2437337
The country of you're a faggot on the internet.

>>2437337
>he doesn't realize who he's talking to
>girlslaughingatyoursheepleass

>>2437342
That's nice. Tell me, what do you think we care about more, you, or our children?

>>2437279
fuck you, it isn't science you stupid piece of shit.

>>2437352
You need to update that list, /new/ is gone :'(

>>2437354
ah yes...
which board would politics be appropriate in?

>>2437352
>It's science, and it's addressed at ignorant and waste-producing scientists as yourself, EK, so you should be pretty interested. Also, if possible, kill yourself.

>>2437357
/b/
Trolling, flamewars etc.
Possibly /int/ or /jp/ if we are talking about international or Japanese politics.

EARTH HAS 4 CORNER

SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY

TIME CUBE

IN ONLY 24 HOUR ROTATION.

So you think that you're more powerful than we are...

>>2437361
i just put this.
no1 ever really properly reads these things anyway.

So you THINK, that you're more powerful that WE are....

>>2437376
Engineering may not be /sci/ related...
but what about FUNgineering!?!?
:D:D:3:D;]:#:D:{D;D=)

You thought wrong.

>>2437376
"papercraft and origami"
wtf EK?

Im sorry EK, what exactly is your field of study again?

>>2437398
zoology

You retards got trolled hard.

Your time is ticking.

>>2437404
Any particular branch? (IE; structural, ethology, ect?)

>>2437418
nope, pure.

>>2437406
zeitgeist had some legit info, like the 9/11 inside job.
The religion section had some legit shit too.

So you THINK, you're more intelligent than WE are.

>>2437422
I've heard it's difficult not to project anthropomorphic biases on the studies, given prolonged exposure.
Have you ever had this problem?

>>2437426
This is a troll because nobody is actually this stupid. However, for the benefit of others:

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

Another fucking Zeitgeist board.

>>2437446
lol yeh i do, but i'm aware of it, so i can edit it out when writing essays etc.

>>2437426
Zeitgeist is marxist totalitarian propaganda that appeals to edgy 15 year olds.

It was funny when they said "were not marxist lol herp derp we are totally different" in the new zeitgeist yet they perfectly fit the definition of marxist socialism.

>>2437456
not gonna read it, dont even care what zeitgeist tells you bout this stuff, i studied james frazer work. Can tell you that lots of myths like the jesus are just deranged spinoffs of older traditions, which have not to much in common with religion.

>>2437460
>Ek confirmed for furry

lol, sorry, it's early yet, need my coffee
cheers lass, ttyl

So you THINK, that WE cannot see you for what you truly are?

I remember trying to watch that shit years ago. The fag claimed that the word "horizon" derived from the phrase "Horus has risen." I just laughed and shut it off right there. Anyone who believes what some idiot on the Internet with Windows MovieMaker tells them is a fucking retard.

>>2437462
>you: 9/11 was an inside job, and all this other bullshit
>me: No, it wasn't. Here's a link to support my opinion.
>you: NOT GUNNA READ IT!! HERP DERP CANT PROVE ME WRONG LOL, JAMES FRAZER HURRR

I support The Zeitgeist Movement. Ask me anything.

>>2437707

I said ask me something

>>2437738
How come you're so awesome?

>>2437752

Because I'm a human being.

If they don't have the balls to call it communism, they can fuck off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
>Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.

What kind of cultural values of economic system you pick doesn't change the fact that it's a communistic sociopolitical system.

>>2437707
Why do some anons on /sci/ say the MF is bullshit without any facts?

>captcha

>>2437782

It's not communism; all communistic societies in the past have used money as was necessary, because technology wasn't at the level needed to eliminate scarcity.

>>2437793

Because they have third rate minds.

Hey guys, let's try communism with a centrally planned economy! But it's totally OK, it's not like all the other times it has failed horribly and quickly turned into brutal, crushing, and destructive rule by despots like Mao and Stalin. You see, this time we have TECHNOLOGY! And we'll given supreme power to a COMPUTER! And no one can just take control of the computer, because computers are magic boxes! You see, money is evil and..

guys?

Guys?

>>2437806

Your sense of humor needs some work. It's okay though; we can't all be George Carlins.

>>2437797
By the same token, no system without money has ever been tried. Are you kidding me? Yes it has.

Here's what would happen. You start building several of your pipe-dream cities, and then you work on the central control algorithms to manage them all. This is single point where all power is concentrated. And you think there aren't any humans involved? That they'll just relinquish power? That "Since states only exist to regulate class conflict, the state will thereafter be redundant and will wither away?" If you don't know that last quote, you should.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

>>2437819
What's your take on God?

>>2437819
Doesn't matter whether you think it's funny. Your response alone is proof enough that you're hopelessly out of your league here.

It's not that I'm that smart, no, not by a long shot. It's that zeitgeist is that *dumb*.

>>2437834

The Zeitgeist Movement has no intention of trying to implement its approach under the current global economy. It merely presents a possible for solution following the collapse of the global monetary economy. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be telling me anything about the movement.

>>2437839

There's no evidence to believe any God exists.

>>2437800
>anyone who disagrees with my radical and ill-conceived utopian vision is clearly just too stupid to comprehend its brilliance.

Why am I totally unsurprised by your arrogant faggotry? You would be part of the ruling party in this society, I'd wager. And don't tell me there wouldn't be one. Lenin said the same thing. A few people will have access to the central control algorithms, and they will quickly become your new Party Members.

"You want nicer clothes? Sorry, Central Planning says that wouldn't be for the greater good." In the meantime, you and your comrades are forcing your value-judgments on the world, pretending that they are objective "science".

Why are there so many of these threads? Jesus.

I'm fucking tired of hearing about this.

>>2437841

Care to explain why? Your response gives me no actual information.

>>2437863

I was referring to people who rejected the movement before looking into it. Learn 2 reading comprehension.

i liked some of their ideas, although its pretty retarded that they do not point out a smooth transition to it.


Besides, i prefer a decentralized system of control.

>>2437852
Again, you hark on the "no money" clause. Read the complaints ITT about the potential for abuse of power again, and tell me where it has anything to do with money.

Is that how you've resolved the cognitive dissonance? "All objections to Zeitgeist are irrelevant in the absence of money, and those who can't see it are just too stupid to understand?"

>mention the word Zeitgeist in openingpost on /sci/
>get +100 reply`s guaranteed
>no matter how obvious your tolling attempt

>>2437863

Also, this society has no ruling parties (no parties at all). No one has authority over any one else. The sustainability of society is merely operated by teams of scientists who reach decisions in relation to what's available on the Earth.

>>2437865
I love how you ask for explanation of the objections, but then totally ignore arguments presented. Do I need to make it *even simpler* for you, or are you just hopeless?

>>2437863
>>2437834
>>2437881

>>2437884
Yep, that's the communist ideal, but it always seems to turn into statist socialism, often with a brutal dictator, along the way. Every time. I wonder why that is?

>>2437881

I'm not saying that all objections are stupid. There are actually many relevant arguments to make, such as those concerning the transition, those concerning the state of technology, and those concerning how a sustainable equilibrium is reached.

However, in this thread, the only counter argument I've heard is "hurrdurr communism" with absolutely no supporting argument.

You'll have to excuse me if this leads me to believe the people in this thread aren't the most educated when it comes to the movement.

>>2437884
>The sustainability of society is merely operated by teams of scientists
Let's call them "party members". It has a nice ring to it.

>No one has authority over any one else. The sustainability of society is merely operated by teams of scientists who reach decisions in relation to what's available on the Earth.

Regulating the sustainability of society requires authority. Retract one of your statements.

>>2437895

I'm not saying this system will surely work, I'm just saying its a viable alternative to our current society (given that we already live in a dictatorship).

Think about it. Did you vote for the Iraq war? Did you vote for ObamaCare? Did you vote for the tax cuts? Did you vote for any bills related to alternative energy usage? Did you vote for the highway structure? The resources given to scientists?

Do you decide anything? Did you even decide your president? Bullshit. You didn't even know who Obama was until 2008. He won because the idiotic masses liked his speeches and thought he was a nice guy. Had nothing to do with his leadership skills. Had nothing to do with his intelligence. Had nothing to do with his knowledge of anything relevant. Primarily, it had to do with rhetoric and the fact that Goldman Sachs were the greatest funders to his campaign.

>>2437898

Call them whatever you want; leave the semantics to the politicians. The point is that they will help operate society in accordance to reality. They are scientists; not politicians. Their incentive is to maintain society, and all the resources are available to everyone. Given this circumstance, there is no reason to abuse power. Also, how COULD anyone abuse their power under that system? Explain that to me, if you can

>Regulating the sustainability of society requires authority. Retract one of your statements.

Computer algorithms track and allocate all resources. Its decision is final and dictatorial in power, there's your authority

>>2437895

>Money

You know all of those failed systems were still capitalist when it came to their economies, right?

Just because a vision seems incredibly hard to implement and Utopian doesn't mean it's necessarily bad.

Their will always be a oppressor and a mass of people oppressed. Whether it be a scientist regulating algorithms or a blood-thirsty dictator. Humans, by their very nature, love power.

>>2437937

Now your argument is grounded in semantics. Computers will help us make decisions related to how many resources we have and the best way to process those resources.

Nature is a dictatorship, as PJ aptly puts. That is to say, we aren't in charge of how many resources are available to us. All we can do is live a lifestyle which is sustainable for our survival. That's it.

It's not like the computer has some sort of desire to throw everyone into oppression, nor that it can. It's simply the messenger.

Do you know what I mean by that?

>>2437937
How will it repair itself? How will it defend itself?
At one point or another humanity will get involved with it and change it to benefit them.

>>2437942

Not all humans; you're generalizing.

>>2437896
>However, in this thread, the only counter argument I've heard is "hurrdurr communism" with absolutely no supporting argument.
No, you've just programmed yourself to turn off your brain when anyone uses that word. READ, DAMN YOU.

>>2437782
There is no mention of economics in the definition of communism. Why is that? Oh, because you can combine almost any economic system with communism. But if money was the *real* problem in all those cases, and not communism, why have they failed so horribly, why capitalist states did not? Is it the central planning? Then you're still sunk, because Zeitgeist certainly has *that*. Is it the ideal of a classes society that fails to materialize? Then we're back to communism-in-denial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
Don't think it couldn't happen. Your glorious control computers are only as smart as the people programming them.

>>2437806
>Hey guys, let's try communism with a centrally planned economy! But it's totally OK, it's not like all the other times it has failed horribly and quickly turned into brutal, crushing, and destructive rule by despots like Mao and Stalin. You see, this time we have TECHNOLOGY! And we'll given supreme power to a COMPUTER! And no one can just take control of the computer, because computers are magic boxes!
This is snarky, sure, but you haven't answered it. And if you can't see what the argument is, you *are* hopeless.

>>2437896
(cont)

>>2437881
>Read the complaints ITT about the potential for abuse of power again, and tell me where it has anything to do with money.

>>2437797
>because technology wasn't at the level needed to eliminate scarcity.
It's not at that level now, either. What do you propose in the meantime?

>>2437863
>A few people will have access to the central control algorithms, and they will quickly become your new Party Members.
>"You want nicer clothes? Sorry, Central Planning says that wouldn't be for the greater good." In the meantime, you and your comrades are forcing your value-judgments on the world, pretending that they are objective "science".
Any comment? Because just saying "no they won't, they'll be benevolent and trustworthy" is what people said about their comrades in the Party.

My fellow /sci/entists, please think of it this way.

It's a society based on the scientific method. Right now we have a society where corruption is literally praised. In a society where corruption is NOT praised, how could corruption be any greater?

The scientists' only job is to arrive at decisions based on the information available to them in a way which reflects reality, and in a way designed to maintain the sustainability of society. That's it. I don't know what else you think they're going to do.

As of now, we live in a system where we are governed by morons. Our society is not sustainable. The global free market will collapse. This is merely a fact. Isn't just Peter Joseph who has been saying this. Many economists and different groups are starting to say the same thing.

>>2437954
Not all, but the vast majority. Which means the central computer would also have to judge intent when decide who it wants to repair it. This is not something that can be easily programmed.

>>2437953
>How will it repair itself? How will it defend itself?
People repair it.
It uses megawatt class lasers to defend itself. mounted to sharks.

>At one point or another humanity will get involved with it and change it to benefit them.
Humanity BUILD THE FUCKING THING TO BENEFIT THEM. It's not something god donates to mankind to make paradise on earth, it would be a two-decade long multi billion dollar project to build create a replicable societal structure that would optimize every single aspect of life. Not something hurpa durp lets build some ideologic shit and hope it works.
Which incidentally means that a lot of things would not turn out as it was planned initially, as in all sciences the initial plan or hypothesis is not how the end product turns out.

>>2437956

You're projecting arguments into the equation.

When did I ever say that Capitalism was inferior to Communism? Never. Capitalism is a great mechanism in a society with scarce resources. The only difference now is that technological growth now and over the next few decades will render capitalism out-dated.

It's already happening now: more and more jobs are being outsourced to technology each day. Even professional economists today are at a loss for where new jobs will come from. The only sector of the job market which has experienced any growth is the service sector, and as we all know (due to automated service agents and such) that job market will also dry up in time.

Furthermore, we are currently developing the technology to print items...with printers. That is to say, if you have the raw materials (which are in abundance in this planet) You can literally print any material object your little heart desires.

Even objects such as flutes, which require extreme precision. I'm an MIT student, and while I'm not an engineering major, I actually saw them in the process of printing a flute and a metal whistle a couple months ago. Shit is obviously new technology, but it's getting crazy.

Scarcity is gone. Scientists are also saying that between geothermal energy, solar energy, wind, wave energy, etc we have an abundance of energy.

If everything is in abundance, economics becomes irrelevant.

>>2437973
You misses the entire point, it's not a self concious god-in-the-machine-AI to rule dictatorially over all mankind, it's a resource distribution system, made by man, maintained by man, following the will of man. But showing no preference over any man. It's an optimization system married to large scale automation.

Think of it as a automated factory, spanning the whole earth which produces a healthy society, among others.

>>2437977
Humanity is not a complete consensus. Their will be dissenters and people who say they could make the system through modification. This will lead to people trying to change the machine to benefit their personal view of society.

>>2437973

The computer wouldn't judge anything. Why would someone try to break it? Think from their perspective: they'd be destroying a computer which looks after their well-being.

You could make the argument that some random evil son of a bitch would want to kill everyone, and sure, I guess there's a chance that could happen..but how is that ANY different from today's society? You or I could take out thousands of people if we wanted to (you can make fucking dynamite from watching some youtube videos).

The key question here is incentive

>>2437950
Yes. But you seem to ignore the likelihood, even the inevitability, of the people with access to the control algorithms abusing their power.

You see, it can start very subtly. The algorithm has to be fed millions of human value-judgments. At first, there might be subtle biases that appear in the algorithms, reflecting either the imperfect understanding or personal bias of the programmers. In the intricacies of the algorithm, just one or two selfish individuals begin to consciously manipulate the algorithms to direct the course of humanity as they see fit. But they're brilliant, you see, or so they think, and everyone else is just too stupid to understand! Then the abuses and distortions pile up, and the biases become more and more blatant. Eventually, it becomes an oligarchy with total power, using their influence to maintain control over the people. This is all assuming you even manage to establish the ideal in the first place! It is not stable against corruption, which is ironic, given the primary complaints about capitalism in the course of not so many years. Try Brave New World. You see, the control doesn't have to be imposed with weapons.

Seriously, have you *ever* read George Orwell's Animal Farm? Have you? It's not long. That is *exactly* what would happen. And don't say "no it wouldn't we don't have money hurdurr." That is totally irrelevant. There's no money in Animal Farm's community either, and the analogy and argument still stand.

>>2437971
In the "money-market" system, corruption is neither praised nor rewarded, what you're seeing in the West is that the corrupt hands of the state, squeezing the throat of the free market have turned it into something crazy and suboptimal. There is nothing "scientific" about a centrally planned economy, they always fail because they lack an effective price mechanism, without which it is impossible to make efficient decisions to satisfy human desires.

>“No! I must kill the morons” he shouted The radio said “No, Zeitgeist. You are the morons” And then Zeitgeist was a shitty movie.

By the way guys, I can sense intense hostility and anger. I'm not your enemy, and I don't see you as mine. This is about the exchange of ideas.

It takes a truly open-minded person to be able to consider ideas without either attacking them / immediately accepting them as fact. If you find yourself mad right now you should really take time to consider y u so mad.

>>2437999
Do you really think that Muhammad Al-Jihad will be able to change a world governing system to kill all infidels just like that? Or any similarly retarded change that would fuck everything up.

Any sugessted change would be screened by thousands of people, it would be simulated to show no unfair accumulation of resources over time. And if shit turns out to be bad, it would be removed in a following patch.

>>2437971
>implying there is no corruption in the scientific community

>>2438002
>The computer wouldn't judge anything.
You're kidding me, right? The program HAS to be FULL of human input - value judgments. And one of those people will decide that the information isn't right, and tweak it according to his views. And then we're off to the races.

>Why would someone try to break it? Think from their perspective: they'd be destroying a computer which looks after their well-being.
Why did the communist revolution in Russia turn into a dictatorship? Don't say "because of money". If you put Stalin into your little utopia, he sure as hell doesn't need money to slowly but surely seize power, especially if he is one of the early "scientists" to work on the central computer and manage it.

>>2438013

The reason regulation occurs is due to market failures inherent to the system. Any econ 101 student knows this. Therefore, it's impossible to have a completely free market. That would mean massive poverty, as capitalism is literally a mechanism which allows the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer.

Every time our nation has tried to deregulate a bit of the market, we get shit like the housing market crisis. Bankers literally profit off of food stamps and the economy grows for every sick person there is.

>>2437971

>Right now we have a society where corruption is literally praised.

[citation needed]

>Many economists and different groups are starting to say the same thing.

[citation needed]

Also, I wonder what makes you think that scientists are any less subject to human nature than the people you're blaming for all of society's problems.

>>2438033

It's just based off of reality. There aren't any views or opinions to be made. Do you have any experience in the scientific field?

You ask a question, such as "do we have enough water" Then you run an experiment to find out whether or not we do. If we don't, you choose to divert water from a nearby dam.

There's no such thing as "welll...I THINK we should get more water just because". That would be ridiculous. It's based off of evidence and experiment.

That's all I'm saying. Glad we could clear this up.

>>2438018
>By the way guys, I can sense intense hostility and anger. I'm not your enemy, and I don't see you as mine. This is about the exchange of ideas.
Your ideas would end up with my grandchildren living under a space-age Stalin. It deserves hostility.

You see, there is an entirely reasonable option that solves all the problems brought up in Zeitgeist without trying this communism-with-central-planning fiasco *again*.

Social Democracy. It's already being done in many countries, and it's proven to work. Strongly progressive taxes go to pay for universal healthcare, free education and unemployment benefits. It also drastically limits income inequality, and you can have heavy inheritance taxes as well to prevent dynasties.

Norway is an example.
http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/NO

>>2438024
there is. but SCIENCE is not corruptable. There is poorly done science, and bad scientists, but no science its self is not corrupt

>>2438009
Your algorithmic corruption arugment could be applied to the financial computer systems in place today.

You can argue for super-unlikely what-if fringe scenarios for or against any system. Just say you refuse to belive in any positive scenarios involving technology as a controller instead of random human and be done with it.

The idea of the zeitgeist is nice, but it wont happen soon. I think first it has to be closer. like a social democracy. Then as tech improves and this becomes closer to reality, it will happen slowly. Not drasticly.

>>2438054
>It's just based off of reality. There aren't any views or opinions to be made. Do you have any experience in the scientific field?
Do you have any experience with *humanity*? Or *history*? And yes, I'm a PhD student in physics.

>>2438054
>You ask a question, such as "do we have enough water" Then you run an experiment to find out whether or not we do. If we don't, you choose to divert water from a nearby dam.
>There's no such thing as "welll...I THINK we should get more water just because". That would be ridiculous. It's based off of evidence and experiment.
I'm not opposing the ideal. I'm saying that it is not stable, because it is ripe for abuse.

Your entire philosophy depends on not just the supreme intelligence, but the incorruptible benevolence of the few people who actually design, maintain, and alter the control algorithms. We've been down that road before.

>>2438074
Not when you have independent groups in competition. That is the genius of capitalism. And the role of government is make sure monopolies to do not arise. When government ceases to function in that role, it is the job of the citizens to replace the governors. If that doesn't happen, and elections are still being held (they are), only the citizens are to blame, really.

But I don't favor pure capitalism. It's *also* a dumb idea. Social democracy has the best of both worlds.

>>2438065
Right, so the next time you see Science, tell him he has my vote, OK?

Listen to yourselves. There is *no such thing* as putting an *abstract ideal* into power! It is *always people*. It could be a strong AI, but you know what? We don't have any of those. Anything we can produce will be designed, built, and maintained by *people*. Not by "Science".

>>2438078
>I'm saying that it is not stable, because it is ripe for abuse.

And the current system is not ripe for abuse? No sorry, the current system is not way past ripe for abuse, it have been abused already to the point the abusers have made it even more friendly and receptive to abuse. And they'll continue to do so while you nitpick and find the tiniest flaws in any replacement system.

"Oh wait, it could give my neighbour a better view of the sea than me, fuck that system, i'm off bribing city planning officials!"

>>2438078

Nobody controls or maintains algorithms, they are mathematical expressions. You wouldn't ask who controls whether 2 + 2 = 4.

For fuck sakes.

>>2438043
Since a completely free market is bad, we should abolish the market entirely?
No. Zeitgeist's entire error is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

>>2438102
You're joking, right? There is no single pristine "perfect algorithm" for managing the world. Science cannot suddenly produce the universal optimum solution to a problem that large. I doubt such a global optimum is even comprehensible to humans. You think the algorithm won't need tweaking?

>>2438102
You're right. People control and maintain which algorithms are used to centrally plan the economy. I guarantee that they will begin coding themselves extra privileges as a group within the first month.

>>2438097

*words* *words* *words* *words*

Try not to make yourself look like a faggot when making a point next time.

>>2438097
But we can implement the system using and supporting the scientific method.

Not the arbitrary opinion of uneducated retards deciding what to be done that is in use today.

But maybe you think it's better that people with money can buy legislation which gives them even more money, which is accepted and in widespread use today. Except in countries where some fucker says he's the president forever, and becomes the president forever, and everyone have to follow his commands, based on his personal opinon and view of shit.

>>2438100
I hate corruption as much as you do. But you're committing a fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Pure capitalism is a bad idea. Fine.

But Social Democracy has never turned into a crushing dictatorship, like every "classless" society with central planning has.

>>2438114
>point out that you are irrationally anthropomorphizing Science, so as to hide behind an ideal
>claim I said nothing.
You fail. PEOPLE design and maintain this computer, not Science, not matter whether most of them initially claim to follow scientific guidelines and ideals.

>>2438112
>There is no single pristine "perfect algorithm" for managing the world.

This is true, but i'm pretty sure a random shitty algorithm would make a much better job at being a politician than the humans we have today.

tl;dr

>Science is perfect and benevolent guys! It will take care of us!
>But people are writing the algorithms for the control computer...
>No they're not! Science is! And besides, scientists are brilliant and incorruptible.

Dammit, /sci/

I have an idea, people who are for it, build it and maintain it while others can stay in big cities and pay there 400k 1 room loft in new-york.

Of course that would need funding from philantropist.

>>2438139
I'd agree, but the point is moot of the entire system will be hijacked.

Have ANY of the Zeitgeist fans ITT read Animal Farm? Anyone care to explain how that's not a perfect example of what would happen? Don't say "because we wouldn't have money". It will just reveal that you haven't read the book.

>>2437337
>Mewtwo avatarfag
>pretending to be the illuminati

MAXIMUM TROLLING.

I seriously doubt that there are any furries (or especially pokefurfags) in the Illuminati, if they actually exist at all (spoiler: They don't.).

Guiz. Srsly. Guiz.

Srsly.

Social democracy is the way forward.

The Gini coefficient is a measure of income inequality. Take a look at Scandinavia.

Check out this site if you think that status-quo America and Zeitgeist are the only options.
http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/NO

>>2438127
>like every "classless" society with central planning has.

That's a red herring or strawman or whatever. Every case of "classless" society with central planning have been attempted in cases when the dictator is already in power. Or used as an excuse to get the people to support you on your way to become a dictator in power. Give me an example of classless society attempt that was not coupled to an ideologically based genocide or mass violence.

If say, the country of Sweden, notorious for being noncorrupt antiwar and nonviolent, cast a vote on becoming a classless society with central planning. Would it then inevitably spiral into autocratic dictatorship with no regard for human rights?

Even though the US and Mexico have vastly different amounts of spending on health care, they both have below-average life expectancy at birth. What do they have in common? No universal healthcare.

Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International

>>2438200
If a man with enough ambition and disregard found out the society ran and abused that system to his advantage, then yes.

Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders.

>>2438209
Wow. That's an interesting correlation. Proves nothing, though.

>>2438216
Absolutely.

The system is not robust against corruption. The prime question in government is how to prevent abuse.

America's current system is not ideal. But Zeitgeist would turn out worse.

>>2438102
>implying 2+2 is an algorithm

you just went full retard son

>>2438228
It sure as hell doesn't help the case for NOT giving universal healthcare. What do you expect it to *prove*? It certainly supports one conclusion: People complaining that universal healthcare is inefficient and results in sub-standard care are wrong. Otherwise, it would impact life expectancy.

I mean, really? The US spends more than double what Sweden does per person, and gets *lower* life expectancy?

I wish the graph included more countries, sure. But the main point is that universal health care is not a bad idea as its detractors say.

>>2438238
Correlation does not imply causation. This comparison alone is absolutely not enough evidence to conclude that having universal healthcare is always better than not having it.

>>2438195
>>2438195
>>2438195
>http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/NO
Oh wow.

And it's not just Scandinavian countries either. Look at some other social democracies, like New Zealand.

This also helps:
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/05/11-4

>mfw I live in a completely shitty country that is nowhere near any top ten in the world for health, income, equality, education, research, production, transportation...

>>2438246
Agreed. But at least it makes the people who say it's a terrible idea stop and think they might be wrong.

>>2438156
>Have ANY of the Zeitgeist fans ITT read Animal Farm?

>implying a 60 year old book of fiction is like the bible, but only totally true, based on a real story, it happen, yup indeed.
>implying all computer systems will be corrupted and abused, always.
>implying people doing the shit instead of computers leads to happy-land with no corruption.
>Hurr i'm a retard.

Sorry, but you're the reason why we would be better off having computers decide things for us. No offense, i understand it's in your nature to be extremely biased while being ignorant of it yourself.

I support Zeitgeist. And you should, too

>>2438209
Mexico has universal health care you dumbass.

>>2438216
>If a man with enough ambition and disregard found out the society ran and abused that system to his advantage, then yes he could walk right in to the central planning system and proclaim "this shit will go down! I'm a dictator now, YUP YUP!" And then he was the dictator and everyone because corrupt and starved to death. FIN

Nice story there bro, you should write books for children.

>>2438255
>hurp durp hurr herpa derpa durr

ITT: anarchists who will bring down amerikkka.

GO GET'M BOYS!

The venus project is a good idea. I'm happy the new movie didn't have any conspiracy stuff in it.

If every computerized system is so easy to corrupt into your personal slave.
Then how come we still have digital stock exchange systems?

Zeitgeist: 1
Deniers: 0

Seriously, we use a shitload of computer systems without having someone corrupting them for profit or power. And that's not for lack of trying.

>>2438127
>But Social Democracy has never turned into a crushing dictatorship,

Nazi motherfucking Germany.

I think a lot of you have missed the part about what TVP does about people who would do 'crime'. Like the people you guys keep saying that will 'no doubt' change the code for their own benefit.

Or maybe a lot of you didn't actually watch the full movie and look into it even more to completely understand, instead of saying, "hurrdurr this is bullshit and will never work just like communism."

>>2438294
An exchange computer that just processes the orders of people is different from an AI that gives orders to people. You are a moron.
>>2438331
I watched the movie and I don't remember any real plan other than "people are evil because of society. thus obviously in our perfect society, people will be perfect"

>>2438255
>No offense, i understand it's in your nature to be extremely biased while being ignorant of it yourself.

Also in yours, kid. No one human is fit enough to determine an unchanging system to manage all of society well. No one human can be trusted to resist corruption, if society is to function.

>>2438303

social democracy. just because they had it in their name, doesnt mean they had anything to do with it.

>>2438303
That's a point worth considering, but you know that there is a Social Demratic party in Germany, right? It has something like 23% of the parliament last I checked. And Germany doesn't allow anything related to the National Socialists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany

That said, I'll look into possible parallels. Were Hitler and the National Socialists and special case due to Germany's special circumstances and history, or was it the social model itself? And if so, would a somewhat similar movement (social democracy) share the same weaknesses?

At some point, if you *vote* Hitler in (they did), you've already lost.

>>2438356
>>2438331
Besides, it only takes one sufficiently cunning, charismatic and power-hungry man.

>>2438268
You sure?
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#Mexico
>On May 16, 2009 Mexico to Achieve Universal Health Coverage by 2011.[18]
>On May 28, 2009 Mexico announced Universal Care Coverage for Pregnant Women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Mexico
>Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution. Public care is either fully or partially subsidized by the federal government, depending on the person's (Spanish: derechohabiente's) employment status.
>fully or partially subsidized

Eh, close enough, and they are moving towards more universal healthcare, apparently. I'll stop using that pic.

>>2438272
Another guy who hasn't read Animal Farm, I see. It's basically Why Communism Is Retarded - For Retards.

>>2438255

And to the guy who was complaining about Animal Farm being fictional - I only have a facepalm for you. You know who all the characters represent, right? That it is a depiction of actual history, and not a hypothetical scenario?

>>2438356
>An exchange computer that just processes the orders of people is different from an AI that gives orders to people. You are a moron.

You don't need an AI to distribute resources according to algorithms.
> You are a moron.

>>2438437
Sure. (Not the guy you're replying to).

But the main point ITT is that it will quickly devolve into rule by the guys who have access to the computer. And then Communism becomes something far more horrible than the intention, once again.

>>2438403
>Animal Farm
>Everything you need to know about politics and society to feel superior
>True story even though it's fiction, about animals, on a farm, that follows stereotype behaviours.

Do you have any suggestion of pixar movies i have to see before i'm allowed to use my own brain?

>>2438437
So then we agree that it will just be humans planning the economy? We've tried that, see: 20th century history

>>2438446
>But the main point ITT is wild statement based upon personal opinion based on some random stereotype and enviromentalist belives about humans being naturally evil. Also communists, also naturally evil.

Do you realize that your statements make you look like a paranoid idiot from the McCarthy era?

>>2438454
WOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooshhhh

Guys fake if he doesn't know what God is, or doesn't understand whether God exists or not, seeing as the whole movement is based around the properties of God, rather the words.

You cannot escape God, and that's what it is all about. It says quite clearly in the latest film that it's inevitable, if we keep using resource, we will eventually gain negative repercussions. So what, may I ask, sets these limits for humanity? Why is it that when we cause too much pollution nature begins to alter for the worse? Why is there a good option to take and one that isn't good? This is an objective morality. People are smart if they aim for the greatest prosperity, away from extinction, depletion and suffering, no?

It seems as if the factors that brought us here, which are part of our blood (stars, chemicals, elements, etc), were doing it right - they got us to this very position; right now we are on the internet because of these essential family members that worked in harmony with each other; whether they had the choice to or not - what they did worked.

This objective morality is universal, so when we say, "What's Good and Evil?" we can't answer the question based on human nature alone - because we're no different to the rest of the universe, which is why we can co-exist. Is it evil to destroy our planet for an addiction to sin? Of course it is, if we take into account the empirical nature of life. We have choice to either help or hinder, with this power comes responsibility - those who choose to drop this responsibility are weak and inhuman, and ultimately Evil (through the eyes of the universe).

Is there higher organisms that control our actions? Yes. We don't choose what's Good and Evil, and we don't choose our final judgements for travelling down either path; this is pre-determined, so what determined this? Because all things live by the same determined rules.

>>2438454
Do you honestly mean that the five-year plan made by soviet ideologists overseen by men who refuse to admit they do something wrong is precisely the same thing as using real time computerized tracking and distribution to make sure that resource division is equal and as efficient as possible according to various publicly availible metrics and subject to regular review.

It makes you look rather stupid when you paint everything in a binary capitalist=good and if not capitalist then communist=evil fashion.

>>2438473
>>2438476
The careful explanation of exactly how the central computer will be controlled and abused is made ITT. It has not been argued against - just flatly denied.

You're all very naive if you think the people who designed and manage the central computer and its programs will not abuse it.

>>2438510
>Do you honestly mean that the five-year plan made by soviet ideologists overseen by men who refuse to admit they do something wrong is precisely the same thing as using real time computerized tracking and distribution to make sure that resource division is equal and as efficient as possible according to various publicly availible metrics and subject to regular review.
And... exactly how many people are doing that regular review? And how many have direct access to the computer?

And please, "scientists" like you are JUST as ideological and unwilling to admit mistake as any old-time Communist idealist.

You have failed to explain why this will not be abused almost immediately, as has been done with similar concentrations of power in the past nearly without exception.

>>2438359
>social democracy. just because they had it in their name, doesnt mean they had anything to do with it.
What? Pre-Nazi Germany was a social democracy. Then the Nazis were voted in and it stopped being one.

>>2438527
Democratically switching to a poor form of government is not really an argument against the prior form of government. Democratic votes can cause a switch to *any* form of government if the people want it. That's what happened in Germany - they voted in Hitler, with a radical change in ideology, politics, and economics.

>>2438511
How do you suggest someone corrupt a world spanning computer network that distributes resources. Come on tell me, remember, there's no money, things are built and distribute/redistributed according to demand. It's also a transparent system so people will see real time metrics which will signify corruption if they start to behave funny.

Come on, tell me in detail how you would so easily bypass all security and just like that corrupt the worlds most ambitious computer project. Take your time, i expect an explanination that's a bit more than "because i say it's possible"

>>2438587
*Sigh*
It's been done ITT already, multiple times.

>>2438009
>>2438033
>>2438113

There is no strong AI. Ultimately, the central planning algorithms are subject to human control. They are designed, implemented, and maintained by humans. And those humans are prone to corruption. Surely history can teach you what happens when you give great power to just a few people, and just trust in their incorruptible benevolence and impartiality.

>>2438524
>You have failed to explain why this will not be abused almost immediately

You have a distributed computer system with tens of thousands of nodes, you have interdisciplinary teams of thousands of people who work on the resource distribution algorithms. You have heurestic algorihms which checks the commands and integrity of each nodes.

If node africa_201 suddenly demands ALL GOLD IN THE WORLD! you know that node is corrupt, and you obviously doesn't deliver according to its demand, you could give it the same resources as node africa_202 which ought to be sufficient for it until it is corrected.

There would at no point be a single person who controls the entire system. There would have to be some organ which overviews and maintain the operation of the nodes but they should not be granted dicatorial powers and their resource allocations should of course be monitored to see that they are not accumulating massive personal benefits at the cost of everyone else. Unlike what we see today in every single nation.

In before you simplify my post to a two word sentence and discard everything and pretend you just need to run corrupt.exe to control the world.

>>2438613
>They are designed, implemented, and maintained by humans. And those humans are prone to corruption.

Going by your logic, every ATM have a secret konami code which spits out hundreds of dollars. Because the firmware for them was coded by people, people who are 100% sure to be corrupt and add secret code to their personal benefits. Or do you mean that diebold are an exception to corrupt programmers?

>>2438657 every ATM have a secret konami code which spits out hundreds of dollars.

getting on this right now (ATM, as it were).

>>2438637
>distributed computer system
Your idea is better than what Zeitgeist proposed. Because Zeitgeist sure as hell isn't what you're describing.

Besides, what if one "node" uses a slightly different metric, or even more subtly, a slightly different method to gather and analyze data? This can be abused to exaggerate or bias the needs of those people. And if you force all nodes to have the same programming and methods? Well, then THERE'S YOUR CENTRAL CONTROL

You see, the distributed system is now just a market composed of city-states instead of individuals and companies. All the old problems return, even without money - because of asymmetry of information.

>people debating the Zeitgeist sheeple.

>>2438657
>eople who are 100% sure to be corrupt and add secret code to their personal benefits
Don't fall for creating strawmen. You're better than that.

It only takes a few such people. And they ARE certain to come along, no matter how rare you think they are. One in a million is enough.

>>2438682
Yeah, you're right. They're neither reasonable, not a threat.

But we'll be missing their votes when it comes time for moderate reform to move to the center-left. They'll be voting for the UtopieWePromiseGuysSrsly party.

>>>2438682
Yeah, you're right. They're neither reasonable, not a threat to the reforms that are needed.

But we'll be missing their votes when it comes time for moderate reform to move to the center-left. They'll be voting for the UtopiaWePromiseGuysSrsly party.

>>2438713
>implying they ever leave their computers to vote for anyone.
>implying they're more than 10000 people, tops.

>>2438721
I like you. Thanks.
But hey, I'd be more than willing to give them a decent by fairly uninhabited island and say "go for it".

The Venus Project is just a post-scarcity economy, which does not exist and requires technology that does not exist.

As proven time and time again, the best method of technological advancement is a free market with well-designed public programs (e.g. NASA, DARPA, and Federal grants).

Here, /sci/, have a shot of humble sanity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY59wZdCDo0

>>2438682
>implying it's not you who's the economic slave, or 'society sheep'.

>>2438673
>Your idea is better than what Zeitgeist proposed.
I assure you that any attempt for global automation would use a system much different from both mine and what zeitgeist proposes. Because hey, you need to ask people who actually know how to build and design for roads what works and not before you do any decision, and he will probably say that it's a dumb fucking idea to follow your initial concept, because it have been tried and it was miserable and replaced with something not intuitively known to people outside the field.

>Besides, what if one "node" uses a slightly different metric, or even more subtly, a slightly different method to gather and analyze data?
Have a standardized protocol, say like the tcp/ip protocol is used for anything connected to the internet.

>This can be abused to exaggerate or bias the needs of those people.
Leave an error marginal in estimations, weather seasons and other needs will cause fluctations in various needs either way. The general idea is that the system will generate a quite large surplus, to rapidly compensate for increasing demands, not to operate on a shoestring budged.

>And if you force all nodes to have the same programming and methods? Well, then THERE'S YOUR CENTRAL CONTROL
It have to follow some protocols, which have be standardized. No point in the system if someone can run with enormous bias for themself.
The protocols should primarily involve transparency in the tracking numbers and data. That way you can find it reasonable to dump more resources on a node that measure a water level 3 meters more than normal(flooded area) which needs sanitary supplies and such.

... continuation from previous wall of text


>All the old problems return, even without money - because of asymmetry of information.
The nodes should be connected in a star formation, not only to their closest neighbours but further away too, otherwise you can end up with chokepoints and information manipulation. It could be a combination of landlines and geostationary satellites to provide redundant connections.


My point is that zeitgeist may not have a perfect cut out ready to apply to reality, but they have a core concept which can be developed into something which would work, and would work good in reality.

>well-designed public programs
>NASA
Highly inefficient and choking beurocracy, they eventually get shit done, but at awful cost.

>DARPA
Too much money, and some too far out projects. They have sooo much money and no real demand to get much done, if one in a hundred million dollars yield something good they are happy.

>Federal grants
Nighmares. Paperwork to the moon, you have to deal with federal grant agents which can be both assholes and corrupt, and it is often assymmetrically given
University scale fusion project, that could be cheap to commercialize if it works out - too little funding to do anything decent.
Mad ass multi billion dollar fusion project such as NIF that definitely won't lead to commercialisation in several decades if ever - BILLIONS BILLIONS AND BILLIONS FOR YOU!

>>2438403

>bases his opinions on Animal Farm

whatthefuckamireading.jpg

That's about as bad as a randroid, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I fucking love being affluent. I'm not even that rich, either. I just love the fact that by being born into a white, middle-class family, completely randomly, most of the world envies me, and I can be lazy and unproductive and still be handed opportunities on a plate.

This is why I hate TZM. If everyone in the world was given economic equality, then I would have to work hard to get ahead, and I wouldn't be revered just because I'm from the west.

>mfw I don't give a shit about the poor.

>>2439516
funny. you both gave fuel to TZM while at the same time saying you hate it and have a small penis. funny.

>>2438403

God dammit, that book is still in the American school system?

Holy shit, it's 2011 and America still spreads propaganda about communism. It's like the cold war never ended (except we stopped the space race, wtf)

zeitgeist movies are the zyzz of /sci/

>>2438403
If you think Animal Farm applies specifically to just communism I have news for you.

The pigs set themselves up in the farm house as the new farmers and rewrote all the rules to suit themselves. Sounds like every fucking political system ever.

I'm sure Orwell chose Communism because it was an easy target that nobody would criticize him for going after.

>>2439653
Orwell was English and his books are good allegories for corruption in general. When I studied it in high school we didn't even really talk about how it is like communism.

I do not see how it is propaganda to point out that power corrupts.

>>2439719

He chose communism because the left at the time were slobbering over it, and he saw that it had completely abandoned the ideals it was founded on.

>>2437300
>>2437289
Die in a fire Aether. Reported. Filtered. Nuked from orbit. Etc.

>>2440116

>>2440116
>Die in a fire Aether. Reported. Filtered. Nuked from orbit. Etc.

He really that bad? Every board seems to have one I suppose.
Shit, /n e w/ had half a dozen...

>>2437738
>>2437707
>>2437797
Scarcity of resources? You must be high, or completely fucktarded.

What magic do you propose to get rid of scarce resources? Again, in the other thread last night, my example is a house. Presumably you want people living in houses, right? That requires saws, nails, hammers, and various other tools, whose construction requires specialization of the workforce. So, those who specialize in hammer construction need
1- to barter their hammers for food, or
2- sell their hammers for money and buy food, or
3- the state needs to control in fine detail who makes the hammers, who grows the food, and where the hammers and food grow.

Which is the political and economic policy proposed by Zeitgeist?

>>2437884
Who decides who is a science? Who decides who decides who is a scientist? Etc.

Also, how are the scientists not /ruling/? You have a pretty sketchy definition of rule.

>>2439734
>>2439719
At any rate, the book applies fantastically well to the Zeitgeist bullshit.

>Everything will be done by computers it will be awesome!
>But who designs and runs the programs, and why should we trust them?
>(crickets chirp)

>>2437937
Who programs the computer? Who maintains the computer? Who updates the computer when new problems arise - either some human does this or you have strong AI, and CS-fag here saying protip: strong AI is a pipedream with current technology.

This is also ignoring the potential ethical problems with a strong AI slave.

>>2440138
>Which is the political and economic policy proposed by Zeitgeist?
No property, everyone is equal, everything is governed via central planning that relies heavily on computation. But it's OK, because technology will make everything awesome, and you can't have technology any other way!

>But who writes the programs?
Sshh! Don't ask that question!

>>2437971
>It's a society based on the scientific method.
That is a meaningless statement. Science can only answer empirical questions, not moral questions.

An empirical question is always of the form: "If I make observation X, what will I see?". A moral question is of the form: "Must I do X?".

You need moral answers to device a society. Science is invaluably useful in determining the efficacy of your plan, but it is entirely useless in formulating what your plan /ought/ to be.

>>2440158
Zeitgeist doesn't propose the use of strong AI. That makes the problem all more blatantly obvious.

>>2440173
This. They don't really address "Who will decide on which metric to maximise?" Human welfare is very hard to quantize. And eventually, it comes down to human value-judgments. Whose? Don't ask.

>>2440173
>Implying empirical observation is anything like that.

you're a fucking retard

>>2437995
>You misses the entire point, it's not a self concious god-in-the-machine-AI to rule dictatorially over all mankind, it's a resource distribution system, made by man, maintained by man, following the will of man. But showing no preference over any man. It's an optimization system married to large scale automation.
None of this answers any of the important moral questions. It never answers "Should we give everyone iPods?". It also doesn't answer any efficacy questions, like "How will this shit actually work?". You just keep saying "computers man!". I actually am a programmer in the real world, making 100k USD per year. Let me assure you that you are an ignorant fool who knows nothing about the problems you will face programming this computer.

>>2440182
Yeah, he's talking about prediction, not empirical observation. But I'm sure you get the idea.

Science can help you maximize an objective quantitative function, but you've got to pick the function.

>>2440182
Could you share your definition and correct me, as opposed to just calling me retarded? Please.

>>2440200
Basically what this man said.

>>2438065
>there is. but SCIENCE is not corruptable. There is poorly done science, and bad scientists, but no science its self is not corrupt
Science in the Platonic Ideal sense is not corruptable, but any practice of science is by man, and thus any thing actually done in the name of science is corruptable.

>>2440204
>>2440182
>>2440173
You're both right. You're just talking about different things.

Empirical observation is "what do I see?" Empirical questions are "what will be observed when X?" Empirical questions are answered by empirical observation of experiments.

Now if THAT has a mistake, also feel free to point it out.

>>2438102
Again, CS-fag here saying that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, and haven't even the faintest idea what it would require to build even an approximation of the system which you propose.

Also, as I've said else-thread, which equation do you pick? Which metric of happiness do you maximize? Science /cannot/ answer that question.

>>2440238
Well, you could pick something really naive, like maximizing time-averaged serotonin levels in brain chemistry, or similar.

But then the optimum is keeping everyone drugged.

Scientist is a retard, self-proclaimed (fake) scientist. He doesn't even grasp the fact that his whole science is based around a solitary concept, that if removed, abolishes all other theories and brings them back to Squar3one.

>>2440253
Go away Aether.

>>2440261

>>2440253
>his whole science
what

>>2440268
Empirical science uses the term 'science' in that context.

>Watch the first one
>Wise observations accompanied with horse shit
>Watch the second one
>They spend the entire documentary talking about their ideal future, where people travel by jumping on a combine synth ship's tentacle

Damn. Apparently I got here after Zeitgeist fans left the building. I was hoping to educate some poor saps about the insanity of their pipedreams.

>>2440278
Third one: Money is evil, join our utopian "science" cult.

>>2440279
Don't worry. If the past few days are any indication, there will be more threads.

>>2440283
If you want, take the copypasta about the hammers from here:
>>2440138
I think this really is the best way to attack the ideas of "scarcity of resources is no more" and "no money" as fucking retarded.

Presumbly they'll immediately jump on the bandwagon of a completely state controlled economy, and then you just have to remind them that the computer system to manage this is basically impossible to program.

Finally, there's the issue of who decides what to program. Remind them that science can answer only empirical questions, and never moral questions, so science can never answer what you ought to program, and how resources ought to be allocated.

>>2440279
More poisonous education, just what we need... Fuck you bro, and your venomous anti-human attitude, fuck you in the ass... bro, your science is ultimately sucking economic BALLS, and you make us all follow the same fucking path, ball sucking humans for eternity. If nature dies, how we gonna breathe bro? how we gonna eat mr. scientist? you gonna make some robots and make them magically appear food? What about the waters bro? Hmmm? Is it okay just to pollute the shit out of it?

Fuck you and your science, ours is better, this way we clean our act up, the rich people cant be so fucking lazy and useless, and we can aim for the greatest prosperity.

>>2440303
I never endorsed any economic system. Please stop putting words into my mouth. I never said we shouldn't save "nature".

I've merely been attacking a particular ludicrous plan which purports to "save nature".

EMPIRICAL SCIENCE

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY

EMPIRICAL SCIENCE

NO 'ONES' ALLOWED

>>2440303
>venomous anti-human attitude
You are *seriously* imagining stuff which does not exist. Because he thinks Zeitgeist is an impractically bad idea, he's "venemous" and "anti-human"?

If anything, he cares about humanity too much to let it be consumed with pseudoscience.

>>2440310
>cares about humanity
>teaches/believes/puts faith in the number 1

>>2440303
>only our plan can save the planet
oh god what

We've got these things called "environmental protection laws". If you get even NEAR enough people to actually care about long-term sustainability (I do), then we just pass laws that reserve certain resources and manage the use of others.

We're already doing this. Look at fishery management, for instance. We can do better, but pretending that Zeitgeist is the ONLY way, and that opposes it is "anti-human", is beyond zealotry.

>>2440303
seriously man, going too far there. calm down, or shush. you're not doing your perspective any favors getting belligerent.

>>2440310
>If anything, he cares about humanity too much to let it be consumed with pseudoscience.
Thank you sir.

>>2440319
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cause your plans of creating mass-waste, educating lies, promoting homosexuality, using lots of resource, allowing lazy and useless people to earn millions/billions from producing 'fun' for the capital, rather than having an objective for everyone, you'd prefer us all to be herded up like cattle. The jobs we are given produce nothing good for our survival, only for the growth in the economy, which causes more harm than good. You're retarded, and so is your oneist science. The day you put down your e-peens and your propaganda books, and stop worrying about your paycheck, you might actually see the truth. Until then, as always, kill yourself.

If it were me? Eh, I'd give you guys Tasmania or something similar to give it a shot. But we've got much more reasonable and tested plans for making humanity successful in the near future and sustainable in the long run.

for the guy who keeps mentioning Orwell animal farm you do realize that Orwell was a massive supporter of socialism and even at one point apart of a Marxist revolutionary party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#The_Spanish_Civil_War_and_Catalonia

Which is why I am greatly confused when right wing groups use him and his writings as an example.

>>2440333
HAHAHAHAHAAHHHAHAHH
Making more weapons? Mining the moon? What? Energy from waste? No. You're stupid and your plans are fucking stupid too. Anything with the number '1' involved is stupid. Errrrrmmmmmm. No. Thyself, kill it.

>>2440338
Actually, yes. I'm in favor of Social Democracy, a center-left position. I think we should levy progressive taxes that will pay for universal health care, free education, and livable unemployment benefits.

>>2440330
Not sure if Aether.

>Cause your plans of creating mass-waste,
He never said that.

>educating lies,
Never said that.

>promoting homosexuality,
You're a bigot. Die in a fire.

>using lots of resource,
Never said that.

>allowing lazy and useless people to earn millions/billions from producing 'fun' for the capital,
What?

>rather than having an objective for everyone, you'd prefer us all to be herded up like cattle.
What? Isn't this Zeitgeist bullshit the one forcing everyone to be subservient to some magic machine?

>The jobs we are given produce nothing good for our survival,
So producing large amounts of food isn't necessary to our survival? Got it. (/sarcasm)

>only for the growth in the economy, which causes more harm than good.
Define harm and good please. Then citation please.

>You're retarded, and so is your oneist science.
>oneist
Oh. Nevermind. It is Aether.

>The day you put down your e-peens and your propaganda books, and stop worrying about your paycheck, you might actually see the truth. Until then, as always, kill yourself.

>>2440338
>right wing groups
Why is it that Zeitgeist followers imagine their stereotypical enemy whenever someone disagrees with them?

>>2440346
This seems legit, everyone. I guess it's time for me to leave the thread as his words are obvious credible, especially when we consider the fact he is a scientist, shown to us by his chosen trip "scientist". What a great person. Bye then!

>>2440348
Because they believe their bullshit almost like a religious cult. It's like when someone attacks the US Republican party's policies, and they immediately assume the other guy is a "liberal".

This is what George Washington was trying to warn us about in his farewell address, warn us about factions. The Federalist Papers also go into detail about the dangers of faction.

Sadly, they implemented a winner take all single district voting system which is really perpetuating faction. We ought to change that.

>>2440355
Yeah. I'd be fine with representation determined entirely by popular vote of the given constituency.

>>2440330
>>2440330
...troll?

>>2440363
Yep.

>>2440363
It's Aether. You can tell from the use of the word "oneist". Just ignore and report, and move on.

>>2440363
>>2440366
>>2440367

>>2440367
ah. thanks.

>oneist

the fuck does that even mean?

>>2440384

>>2440384
It's part of his timecube delusion. He spouts bullshit about the world being like the number 3, or having symmetries, or some such shit. I can't really repeat it because it makes no fucking sense at all.

He attacks rationalism and science by saying that it doesn't recognize timecube, and it treats the universe as one, or something.

>>2440358

holy fuck

>>2440389

>>2440391
?
Perhaps you've misunderstood me? I'm just saying that if a given third party can manage 5% of a vote, they should have some seats in Congress. I'm tired of the two-party system.

How can you believe in evolution if it's just a theory? (a guess)