This is our official forum for members to discuss projects
and share ideas from across the world and share ideas.
The Media Project Site hosts and links to various
audio/visual/literary expressions of TZM Members. Users donate their work for
posting and it is often used as a resource Toolkit for flyer graphics, video
presentations, logo animations and the like.
ZeitNews is a news style service which contains articles
relating to socially relevant advancements in Science and Technology.
This site becomes active annually to facilitate our
“Zday" Global Event, which occurs in March of each year.
This site becomes active annually to facilitate our
“Zeitgeist Media Festival", which occurs in August of each year.
The Global Redesign Institute is a virtual graphic interface
“Think Tank" project which uses map/data models to express direct
technical changes in line with TZM's train of thought in various regions.
TZM Social is an interlinked website that bridges many
popular online social networks, creating a more central hub for communication
through various mediums.
General Social Networks:
“Neither the great political and financial power structures
of the world, nor the specialization-blinded professionals, nor the population
in general realize that...it is now highly feasible to take care of everybody
on earth at a “higher standard of living than any have ever known”. It no
longer has to be you or me. Selfishness is unnecessary and henceforth
unrationalizable as mandated by survival. War is obsolete.”-R. BuckminsterFuller
About
Founded in 2008, The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) is a
Sustainability Advocacy Group which operates through a network of Regional
Chapters, Project Teams, Public Events, Media Expressions and Charity
Operations.
TZM's activism is explicitly based on non-violent methods of
communication with the core focus on educating the public about the true root
sources of many common personal, social and ecological problems today, coupled
with the vast problem solving and humanity improving potential science and
technology has now enabled - but yet goes unapplied due to barriers inherent in
the current, established social system.
While the term “Activism” is correct by its exact meaning,
TZM's awareness work should not be misconstrued as relating to culturally
common, traditional “activist protest” actions such as we have seen
historically. Rather, TZM expresses itself through targeted, rational
educational projects that work not to impose, dictate or blindly persuade – but
to set in motion a train of thought that is logically self-realizing when the
causal considerations of “sustainability” and “public health” are
referenced from a scientific perspective.
However, TZM's pursuit is still very similar to traditional
Civil Rights Movements of the past in that the observations reveal the truly
unnecessary oppression inherent in our current social order, which structurally
and sociologically restricts human well-being and potential for the vast
majority of the world's population, not to mention stifles broad improvement in
general due to its established methods.
For instance, the current social model, while perpetuating
enormous levels of corrosive economic inefficiency in general, as will be
described in further essays, also intrinsically supports one economic group or
“class” of people over another, perpetuating technically unnecessary imbalance
and relative deprivation. This could be called “economic bigotry” in its effect
and it is no less insidious than discrimination rooted in gender, ethnicity,
religion or creed.
However, this inherent “bigotry” is really only a part of a
larger condition which could be termed “Structural Violence”, illuminating a
broad spectrum of “built in” suffering, inhumanity and deprivation that is
simply accepted as “normality” today by an uninformed majority. This context of
“Violence” stretches much farther and deeper than many consider. The scope of
how our socioeconomic system unnecessarily diminishes our public health and
inhibits our progress today can only be recognized clearly when we take a more
detached “technical” or “scientific” perspective of social affairs, bypassing
our traditional, often blinding familiarities.
The relative nature of our awareness often falls victim to
assumptions of perceived “normality” where, say, the ongoing deprivation and
poverty of over 3 billion people might be seen as a “natural”, inalterable
social state to those who are not aware of the amount of food actually produced
in the world, where it goes, how it is wasted or the technical nature of efficient
& abundant food production possibilities in the modern day.
This unseen “Violence” can be extended to cultural Memes as well where social traditions and their psychology can, without direct
malicious intent, create resulting consequences that are damaging to a human
being. For instance, there are religious cultures in the world that opt out of
any form of common medical treatment. While many might argue the moral or
ethical parameters of what it means for a child in such a culture to die of a common
illness that could have been resolved if modern scientific applications were
allowed, we can at least agree that the death of such a child is really being
caused not by the disease at that point, but by the sociological condition that
disallowed the application of the solution.
As a broader example, a great deal of social study has now
been done on the subject of “Social Inequality” and its effects on public
health. As will be discussed more so in further essays, there is a vast array
of physical and mental health problems that appear to be born out of this
condition, including propensities towards physical violence, heart disease,
depression, educational deficiency and many, many other detriments – detriments
that have a truly social consequence which affect us all.
The bottom line here is that when we step back and consider
newly realized understandings of causality that are clearly having detrimental
effects on the human condition, but go unabated unnecessarily due the
pre-existing traditions established by culture, we inevitably end up in the
context of “Civil Rights” and hence social sustainability.
This new Civil Rights Movement is about the sharing of human
knowledge and our technical ability to not only resolve problems, but to also
facilitate a scientifically derived Social System that actually optimizes our
potential and well-being. Anything less will create imbalance and social
destabilization as the neglect of such issues are simply a hidden form of
oppression.
So, returning to the broad point, TZM works not only to
create awareness of such problems and their true systemic roots; hence logic
for resolution, it also works to express the potential we have, beyond such
direct problem solving, to greatly improve the human condition in general,
solving problems which, in fact, have not yet even been realized.
This is initiated by embracing the very nature of scientific
reasoning where the establishment of a near empirical train of thought takes
precedence over everything else in importance. A train of thought by which
societal organization as a whole can find a more accurate context for
sustainability on a scale never before seen, through an active recognition (and
application) of The Scientific Method.
Focus
TZM's broad actions could be summarized as to Diagnose,
Educate and Create.
Diagnose
Diagnosis is “the identification of the nature and cause of
anything.” To properly diagnose the causal condition of the vast social and
ecological problems we have today is not merely to complain about them or
criticize the actions of people or particular institutions. A true Diagnosis
must seek out the lowest causal denominator possible and work to source at that
level for resolution.
The central problem today is that there is often what could
be called a “truncated frame of reference” where a shortsighted, misdiagnosis
of a given consequence persists. For instance, the traditional, established
solution to the reformation of human behavior for many so-called “criminal acts”
is often punitive incarceration. Yet, this says nothing about the deeper
motivation of the “criminal” and why their psychology led to such acts to begin
with.
At that level, such a resolution becomes more complex and
reliant upon the symbiotic relationship of their physical and cultural
culmination over time. This is no different than when a person dies of
cancer, as it isn't really the cancer that kills them in a literal sense, as
the cancer itself is the product of other forces.
Educate
As an educational movement that operates under the
assumption that knowledge is the most powerful tool/weapon we have to create
lasting, relevant social change in the global community, there is nothing more
critical than the quality of one's personal education and their ability to
communicate such ideas effectively and constructively to others.
TZM is not about following a rigid text of static ideas.
Such confined, narrow associations are typical of Religious and Political
Cults, not the recognition of emergence that underscores the
“anti-establishment” nature of TZM. TZM does not impose in this sense. Rather
it works to make an open ended train of thought become realized by the
individual, hopefully empowering their independent ability to understand its
relevance on their own terms, at their own pace.
Furthermore, education is not only an imperative for those
unfamiliar with the Train of Thought and Application Set related to TZM,
but also for those who already subscribe to it. Just as there is no “utopia”,
there is no final state of understanding.
Create
While certainly related to the need to adjust human values
through education so the world's people understand and see the need for such
social changes, TZM also works to consider how a new social system, based on Optimum
Economic Efficiency, would appear and operate in detail, given our current
state of technical ability.
Programs such as the Global Redesign Institute, which is a
digital think tank that works to express how the core societal infrastructure
could unfold based on our current state of technology, working to combine that
technical capacity with the scientific train of thought so as to calculate the
most efficient technical infrastructure possible for any given region of the
world, is one example.
It is worth briefly noting that TZM's advocated “governance”
approach, which has little semblance to the current manner of governance known
today or historically, originates out of a multi-disciplinary bridging of
various proven methods for maximum optimization, unified through a
counter-balancing “Systems” approach that is designed to be as “adaptive” as
possible to new, emerging improvements over time.
As will be discussed later, the only possible reference that
could be considered “most complete” at a given time is one that takes into
account the largest interacting observation (System) tangibly relevant. This is
the nature of the cause and effect synergy that underscores the technical basis
for a truly sustainable economy.
Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy
Today, various terms exists to express the general logical
basis for a more scientifically oriented Social System in different circles,
including the titles “Resource-Based Economy” or “Natural Law Economy.” While
these titles are historically referential and somewhat arbitrary overall, the
title “Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy” (NLRBE) will be utilized here as the
concept descriptor since it has the most concrete semantic basis.
A Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy is to be defined as:
“An adaptive socio-economic system actively derived from direct physical
reference to the governing scientific laws of nature.”
Overall, the observation is that through the use of socially
targeted research and tested understandings in Science and Technology, we are
now able to logically arrive at societal approaches which could be profoundly
more effective in meeting the needs of the human population. We are now able to
dramatically increase public health, better preserve the habitat, while also
strategically reduce or eliminate many common social problems present today
which are sadly considered inalterable by many due to their cultural
persistence.
Train of Thought
Likewise, many such figures or groups have also worked to
create temporally advanced technological applications, working to apply current
possibilities to this train of thought in order to enable new efficiencies and
problem solving, such as Jacque Fresco's “
City Systems” or R. Buckminster
Fuller's
Dymaxion House.
Yet, as obviously important as this applied engineering is,
it is still critical to remember that all specific technological applications
can only be transient when the evolution of scientific knowledge and its
emerging technological applications are taken into account. This makes all
current applications of technology obsolete over time.
Therefore, what is left can only be a train of thought with
respect to the underlying causal scientific principles. TZM is hence loyal to
this train of thought, not figures, institutions or temporal technological
advancements. Rather than follow a person or design, TZM follows this
self-generating premise of understanding and it hence operates in a
non-centralized, holographic manner, with this train of thought as the origin
of influence for action.
Superstition to Science
A notable pattern worth mentioning is how the evolution of
mankind's understanding of itself and it's habitat also continues to expand
away from older ideas and perspectives which are no longer supported due to the
constant introduction of new, schema altering information.
A worthy keyword to denote here is superstition, which, in
many circumstances, can be viewed as a category of belief that once appeared to
be adequately supported by experience/perception but can no longer be held as
viable due to new, conflicting data.
For example, while traditional religious thought might seem
increasingly implausible to more people today than ever in the West, due to the
rapid growth in information and general literacy, the roots of religious
thought can be traced to periods where humans could justify the validity and
accuracy of such beliefs given the limited understanding they had of their
environment in those early times.
This pattern is apparent in all areas of understanding,
including modern “academia”. Even so-called “scientific” conclusions which,
again, with the advent of new information and updated tests, often cannot be
held as valid anymore, are still commonly defended due to their mere inclusion
in the current cultural tradition.
Such “Established Institutions”, as they could be called,
often wish to maintain permanence due to reasons of ego, power, market income
or general psychological comfort. This problem is, in many ways, at the core of
our social paralysis. So, it is important to recognize this pattern of
transition and realize how critical being vulnerable really is when it comes to
belief systems, not to mention coming to terms with the very dangerous
phenomenon of “Established Institutions” which are culturally programmed to
seek self-preservation rather than evolve and change.
Tradition to Emergence
The perceptual clash between our cultural traditions and our
ever growing database of emergent knowledge is at the core of what defines the
“zeitgeist” as we know it and a longterm review of history shows a slow grind
out of superstitious cultural traditions and assumptions of reality as they
heed to our newly realized benchmark of emergent, scientific causality.
This is what The Zeitgeist Movement represents in its
broadest philosophical context: A movement of the cultural zeitgeist itself
into new, verifiable and more optimized understandings and applications.
Hence, while we certainly have witnessed vast and
accelerating changes in different areas of human awareness and practice, such
as with our vast material technology, it appears our Social System is still
long behind. Political Persuasion, Market Economics, Labor for Income,
Perpetual Inequality, Nation States, Legal Assumptions and many other staples
of our current social order continue to be largely accepted as normality by the
current culture, with little more than their persistence through time as
evidence of their value and empirical permanence.
It is in this context that TZM finds its most broad
imperative: Changing the Social System. Again, there are many problem solving
technical possibilities for personal and social progress today that continue to
go unnoticed or misunderstood. The ending of war, the resolution of poverty,
the creation of a material abundance unseen in history to meet human needs, the
removal of most crime as we know it, the empowerment of true personal freedom
through the removal of pointless-monotonous labor, and the resolution of many
environmental threats, including diseases, are a few of the calculated
possibilities we have when we take our technical reality into account.
However, again, these possibilities are not only largely
unrecognized, they are also literally restricted by the current social order
for the implementation of such problem-solving efficiency and prosperity stands
in direct opposition to the very mechanics of how our social system is operating
at the core level.
Therefore, until the social system tradition and its
resulting social values are challenged and updated to present day
understandings; until the majority of the human population understands the
basic, underlying train of thought technically needed to support human
sustainability and good public health, as derived from the rigor of objective
scientific investigation and validation; until much of the baggage of prior
false assumptions, superstition, divisive loyalties and other socially
unsustainable, conflict generating, cultural hindrances are overcome - all the
life improving and problem resolving possibilities we now have at hand will
remain largely dormant.
The real revolution is the revolution of values. Human
society appears centuries behind in the way it operates and hence what it
values. If we wish to progress and solve the mounting problems at hand and, in
effect, reverse what is an accelerating decline of our civilization in many ways,
we need to change the way we think about ourselves and hence the world we
inhabit.
The Zeitgeist Movement’s central task is to work to bring
this value shift to light, unifying the human family with the basic perspective
that we all share this small planet and we are all bound by the same natural
order laws, as realized by the method of science.
This common ground understanding extends much farther than
many have understood in the past. The symbiosis of the human species and the
synergistic relationship of our place in the physical world confirms that we
are not separate entities in any respect and that the new societal awakening
must show a working social model that is arrived at from this inherent logic if
we expect to survive and prosper in the long term. We can align or we can
suffer. It is up to us.
“Almost every major
systematic error which has deluded men for thousands of years relied on
practical experience. Horoscopes, incantations, oracles, magic, witchcraft, the
cures of witch doctors and of medical practitioners before the advent of modern
medicine, were all firmly established through the centuries in the eyes of the
public by their supposed practical successes. The scientific method was devised
precisely for the purpose of elucidating the nature of things under more
carefully controlled conditions and by more rigorous criteria than are present
in the situations created by practical problems.” –Michael Polanyi
Generally speaking, the evolution of human understanding can
be seen as a move from surface observations, processed by our limited five
physical senses, “intuitively” filtered through the educational framework &
value characteristics of that period of time - to a method of objective
measuring and self-advancing methods of analysis which work to arrive at (or
calculate) conclusions through testing and retesting proofs, seeking validation
through the benchmark of scientific causality – a causality that appears to
comprise the physical characteristics of what we call “Nature” itself.
The “Natural Laws” of our world exist whether we choose to
recognize them or not. These inherent rules of our universe were around long
before human beings evolved a comprehension to recognize them and while we can
debate as to exactly how accurate our interpretation of these laws really is at
this stage of our intellectual evolution, there is enough reinforcing evidence
to show that we are, indeed, bound by static forces that have an inherent,
measurable, determining logic.
The vast developments and predictive integrity found in
mathematics, physics, biology and other scientific disciplines proves that we
as a species are slowly understanding the processes of nature and our growing
inventive capacity to emulate, accentuate or repress such natural processes
confirms our progress in understanding it. The world around us today,
overflowing with material technology and life-altering inventions, is a
testament as to the integrity of the Scientific Process and what it is capable
of.
Unlike historical traditions, where a certain stasis exists
with what people believe, as is still common in religious type dogma today,
this recognition of “Natural Law” includes characteristics which deeply
challenge the assumed stability of beliefs which many hold sacred. As will be
expanded upon later in this essay in the context of “Emergence”, the fact is,
there simply cannot exist a singular or static intellectual conclusion with
respect to our perception and knowledge except, paradoxically, with regard to
that very underlying pattern of uncertainty regarding such change and
adaptation itself.
This is part of what could be called a scientific worldview.
It is one thing to isolate the techniques of scientific evaluation for select
interests, such as the logic we might use in assessing and testing the
structural integrity of a house design we might build, and another when the
universal integrity of such physically rooted, causal reasoning and validation
methods are applied to all aspects of our lives.
Albert Einstein once said
“The further the spiritual
evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to
genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of
death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge”.
While cynics of Science often work to reduce its integrity
to yet another form of “religious faith”, demean its accuracy as “cold” or
“without spirituality” or even highlight consequences of applied technology for
the worst, such as with the creation of the Atomic Bomb (which, in actuality,
is an indication of a distortion of human values rather than engineering),
there is no ignoring the incredible power this approach to understanding and
harnessing reality has afforded the human race. No other “ideology” can come
close in matching the predictive and utilitarian benefits this method of
reasoning has provided.
However, that is not to say active cultural denial of this
relevance is not still widespread in the world today. For example, when it
comes to Theistic Belief, there is often a divisive tendency that wishes to
elevate the human being above such “mere mechanics” of the physical reality.
The implied assumption here is usually that we humans are more “special” for
some reason and perhaps there are forces, such as an intervening “God”, that
can override such Natural Laws at will, making them less important than, say,
ongoing obedience to God's wishes, etc.
Sadly, there still exists a great human conceit in the
culture which assumes, with no verifiable evidence, that humans are separate
from all other phenomena and to consider ourselves connected or even a product
of natural, scientific forces is to demean human life.
Concurrently, there is also a tendency for what some call
“Metamagical” thinking which could be considered a schizotypal kind of
personality disorder where fantasy and mild delusion helps reinforce false
assumptions of causality on the world, never harnessing the full rigor of The
Scientific Method. Science requires testing and repeat replication of a result
for it to be validated and many beliefs of seemingly “normal” people today
exist far outside this requirement. Apart from traditional religions, the
concept of “New Age” is also commonly associated with this type of
superstitious thought. While it is extremely important that we as a society are
aware of the uncertainty of our conclusions in general and hence must keep a
creative, open mind to all postulations, the validation of those postulations
can only come through measurable consistency, not wishful thinking or esoteric
fascination.
Such unvalidated ideas and assumptions pose a frame of
reference that is often secured by “Faith”not Reason, and it is difficult to
argue the merit of Faith with anyone since the rules of Faith inherently refuse
argument itself. This is part of the quandary within which human society exists
in today:
Do we simply believe what we have been traditionally taught by our
culture or do we question and test those beliefs against the physical reality
around us to see if they hold true?
Science is clearly concerned with the latter and holds
nothing sacred, always ready to correct prior false conclusions when new
information arises. To take such an inherently uncertain – yet still extremely
viable and productive approach to one's day to day view of the world – requires
a very different sensitivity – one that embodies vulnerability, not certainty.
“It
is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved.
There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will
conflict with a long-standing theory.”
Emergence
At the heart of The Scientific Method is skepticism and
vulnerability. Science is interested in the closest approximation to the truth
it can find and if there is anything Science recognizes explicitly, it is that
virtually everything we know will be revised over time as new information
arises.
Likewise, what might seem far-fetched, impossible or even
“superstitious” upon its first culmination, might prove to be a useful, viable
understanding in the future once validated for integrity. The implication of
this constitutes an Emergence of Thought – an Emergence of “Truth”, if you
will. A cursory examination of History shows an ever-changing range of
behaviors and practices based upon ever updating knowledge and this humbling
recognition is critical for human progress.
Symbiosis
A 2nd point deeply characteristic of the Scientific
Worldview worth bringing up in this regard has to do with the Symbiotic nature
of things as we know them. Largely dismissed as “common sense” today by many,
this understanding holds profound revelations for the way we think about ourselves,
our beliefs and our conduct.
The term “Symbiotic” is typically used in the context of
interdependent relationships between biological species.However our context of
the word is more broad, relating to the interdependent relationship of everything.
While early, intuitive views of natural phenomena might have looked upon, say,
the manifestation of a Tree as an independent entity, seemingly self-contained
in its illusion of separation, the truth of the matter is that the Tree's life
is entirely dependent on seemingly “external” “input” forces for its very
culmination and existence.
The water, sunlight, nutrients and other needed interactive
“external” attributes to facilitate the development of a “Tree” is an example
of a symbiotic relationship. However, the scope of this symbiosis has become
much more revealing than we have ever known in the past and it appears the more
we learn about the dynamics of our universe, the more immutable its
interdependence.
The best concept to embody this notion is that of a
“System”. The term “Tree” is really a reference to a perceived System. The
“Root”, “Trunk”, “Branches”, “Leaves” and other such attributes of that Tree
could be called “Sub-Systems”. Yet, the “Tree” itself is also a sub-system, it
could be said, of, perhaps, a “Forest”, which itself is a sub-system of other
larger, encompassing phenomena such as an “Ecosystem”. Such a distinction might
seem trivial to many but the fact is, a great failure of human culture has been
not to fully respect the scope of the “Earth System” and how each sub-system
plays a relevant role.
The term “Categorical Systems” could be used here to
describe all systems, seemingly small or large, because such language
distinctions are ultimately arbitrary. These perceived systems and the words
used to reference them are simply human conveniences for communication. The
fact is, there appears to be only one possible system, as organized by Natural
Law, which can be legitimately referenced since all the systems we perceive and
categorize today can only be sub-systems. We simply cannot find a truly closed
system anywhere. Even the “Earth System”, which intuitively appears autonomous,
with the Earth floating about the void of space, is entirely reliant on the
Sun, the Moon and likely many, many other symbiotic factors we have yet to even
understand for its defining characteristics.
In other words, when we consider the interactions that link
these perceived “Categorical Systems” together, we find a connection of
everything and, on a societal level, this system interaction understanding is
at the foundation of likely the most viable perspective for true human
sustainability. The human being, like the tree or the earth, again intuitively
appears self-contained. Yet, without, for example, oxygen to breathe, we will
not survive. This means the human system requires interaction with an atmospheric
system and hence a system of oxygen production and since the process of
photosynthesis accounts for the majority of the atmospheric oxygen we breathe,
it is to our advantage to be aware of what affects this particular system, and
work to harmonize our social practices with it.
When we witness, say, pollution of the oceans or the rapid
deforestation of the Earth, we often forget how important such phenomena really
are to the integrity of the human system. In fact, there are so many examples
of environmental disturbances perpetuated by our species today due to a
truncated awareness of this symbiotic cause and effect that links all known
categorical systems, volumes could be dedicated to the crisis. The failure to
recognize this “Symbiosis” is a fundamental problem and once this Principle of
Interacting Systems is fully understood, many of our most common practices
today will likely appear grossly ignorant and dangerous in future hindsight.
Sustainable Beliefs
This brings us to the level of Thought and Understanding
itself. As noted prior, the very language system we use isolates and organizes
elements of our world for general comprehension. Language itself is a system
based upon categorial distinctions which we associate to our perceived reality.
However, as needed as such a mode of identification and organization is to the
human mind, it also inherently implies a false division.
Given that foundation, it is easy to speculate as to how we
have grown so accustomed to thinking and acting in inherently divisive ways and
why the history of human society has been a history of imbalance and conflict.
It is on this level that such Physical Systems we have discussed come into
relevance with Belief/Thought Systems.
While the idea of “sustainability” might be typically
associated with technical processes, eco-theory and engineering today, we often
forget that our values and ideas precede all such ideas and applications.
Therefore, true sustainability starts with our values and beliefs – we need our
cultural orientation to be sustainable – we need sustainable values and beliefs
and that awareness can only come from a valid recognition of the laws of nature
to which we are bound.
Can we measure the integrity of a Belief System? Yes. We can
measure it by how well its principles align with Scientific Causality, based
upon the feedback resulting. If we were to compare outcomes of differing belief
systems seeking a common end, how well those perspectives accomplish this end
can be measured and hence these systems can then be qualified and ranked
against each other.
As will be explored in detail later in this text, the
central belief system comparison in this text is between the “Monetary-Market
Economy” and the aforementioned “Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy.” At the
core of these systems is essentially a conflicting belief about causality and
possibility and the reader is challenged here to make objective judgments about
how well each perspective actually accomplishes common end human goals.
That noted and in the context of this essay, specifically
the points about Emergence & Symbiosis, it could be generalized that any
Belief System that
(a) does not have built into it the allowance for that
entire belief system itself to be altered or even made completely obsolete due
to new information, is an unsustainable belief system; and
(b) any belief
system that supports isolation and division, supporting the integrity of one
segment or group over another is an unsustainable belief system.
Sociologically, having a Scientific World View means being
willing and able to adapt both as an individual and a civilization when new
awarenesses and approaches emerge that can better solve problems and further
prosperity. This worldview likely marks the greatest shift in human
comprehension in history. Every modern convenience we take for granted is a
result of this method whether recognized or not as the inherent,
self-generating, mechanistic logic is found to be universally applicable to all
known phenomena.
While many in the world still attribute causality to gods,
demons, spirits and other non-measurable “faith” based views, a new period of
reason appears to be on the horizon where the emerging scientific understanding
of ourselves and our habitat is challenging the traditional, established
framework we have inherited from our less informed ancestors.
No longer is the “technical” orientation of science demeaned
to mere gadgets and tools – the true message of this Worldview is about the
very philosophy by which we are to orient our lives, values and social
institutions.
As will be argued in other essays associated with this text,
the Social System, its Economic Premise along its Legal & Political
structure has become largely a condition of “faith” in the manner it is now
perpetuated. The Monetary System of economy, for example, is argued to be based
on little more than a set of now outdated, increasingly inefficient
assumptions, no different than how early humans falsely assumed the world was
flat, demons caused sickness, or that the constellations in the sky were fixed,
static, two-dimensional, tapestry-like constructs. There are enormous parallels
to be found with traditional religious faith and the established, cultural
institutions we assume to be valid and “normal” today.
Just as The Church in the Middle Ages held absolute power in
Europe, promoting loyalties and rituals which most would find absurd or even
insane today, those a number of generations from now will likely look back at
the established practices of our current time and think the exact same thing.
“A new type of
thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels.”–
Albert Einstein
A central consideration inherent to TZM's perspective on
societal change for the better regards understanding “Progress” itself. There
appear to be two basic angles to consider when it comes to personal or social
progress: Manifesting Potential and Problem Resolution.
Potential & Resolution
Manifesting Potential is simply the improvement of a
condition which was not considered prior to be in a problematic state. An
example would be the ability to improve human athletic performance in a
particular field through targeted strengthening, diet and refining techniques
and other means which were simply not known before.
Problem Resolution, on the other hand, is the overcoming of
an issue that has currently recognized detrimental consequences and/or limitations
to a given affair. A general example would be the discovery of a medical cure
for an existing, debilitating disease so that said disease no longer poses
harm.
However, taken in the broad view, there is a distinct
overlap with these two notions when the nature of knowledge development is
taken into account. For example, an “improvement” to a given condition, a
practice that then becomes normalized and common in the culture, can also
potentially be part of a “problem” in the same context, which requires
resolution in the event that new information as to its inefficiency is found or
new advancements make it obsolete in comparison.
For example, human air transportation, which is fairly new
in society, expanded transport efficiency greatly upon its application.
However, at what point will modern air transport be seen more as a “problem”
due to its inherent inefficiency in comparison to another method. So,
efficiency is relative in this sense as only when there is an expansion of
knowledge that what was once considered the “best” approach becomes “inferior”.
This seemingly abstract point is brought up to communicate
the simple fact that every single practice we consider normal today has built
into it an inevitable inefficiency which, upon new developments in science and
technology, will likely produce a “problem” at some point in the future when
compared to newer, emerging potentials. This is the nature of change and if the
scientific patterns of history reflect anything, it is that knowledge and its applications
continue to evolve and improve, generally speaking.
So, back to the seemingly separate issues of Manifesting
Potential & Problem Resolution, it can hence be deduced that all problem
resolutions are also acts of manifesting potential and vice versa.
This also means that the actual tools used by society for a
given purpose are always transient. Whether it is the medium of transportation,
medical practices, energy production, the social system – etc.These practices
are all manifest/resolutions with respect to human necessity and efficiency,
based upon the transient state of understanding we have/had at the time of
their creation/evolution.
Root Purpose & Root Cause
Therefore, when it comes to thinking about any act of
invention or problem solving, we must get as close to the Root Purpose
(Manifest) or the Root Cause (Problem) as possible, respectively, to make the
most accurate assessment for action. Just as tools and techniques for potential
are only as viable as the understanding of their foundational purpose, actions
toward problem resolution are only as good as the understanding of the root
cause. This might seem obvious, but this concept is devoid in many areas of
thought in the world today, especially when it comes to society. Rather than
pursuing such a focus, most social decisions are based around traditional
customs that have inherent limits.
A simple example of this is the current method of human
incarceration for so called “criminal behavior”. For many, the solution to
“offensive” forms of human behavior is to simply remove the individual from
society and “punish” them. This is based on a series of assumptions that
stretch back millennia.
Yet, the science behind human behavior has changed
tremendously over time with respect to understanding causality. It is now
common knowledge in the social sciences that most acts of “crime” would likely
not occur if certain basic, supportive environmental conditions where set for
the human being. Putting people in prisons is not actually resolving anything
with respect to the causal problem. It is actually a mere “patch”, if you will,
which only temporarily stifles some effects of the larger problem.
Another example, while seemingly different than the prior
but equally as “technical”, is the manner by which most think about solutions
to common domestic problems, such as traffic accidents. What is the solution to
a situation where a driver makes a mistake and haphazardly changes lanes, only
to impact the vehicle next to it, causing an accident? Should there be a huge
wall between them? Should there be better training? Should the person simply
have his or her drivers license revoked so they cannot drive again? It is here,
again, where the notion of “root cause” is often lost in the narrow frames of
reference commonly understood by culture as solutions.
The root cause of the accident can only partially be the
question of integrity of the driver with the more important issue the lack of
integrity of the technology/infrastructure being used. Why? – because human
fallibility is historically acknowledged and immutable. So, just as early
vehicles did not have driver/passenger “Airbags” common today, which now reduce
a large amount of injuries that existed in the past, the same logic should be
applied to the system of vehicle interaction itself, taking into account new
technical possibilities for increased safety, to compensate for inevitable
human error.
Just as the Airbag was developed years ago as the evolution
of knowledge unfolded, today there is technology that enables automated,
driverless vehicles which can not only detect every necessary element of the
street needed to operate with accuracy, the vehicles themselves can detect each
other, making collision almost impossible. This is the current state of such a
“solution” when we consider the root cause and root purpose, overall.
Yet, as advanced as that solution may seem, especially given
the roughly 1.2 million people who unnecessarily die in automobile accidents
each year, this thought exercise may still be incomplete if we continue to
extend the context with respect to the goals.
Perhaps there are other inefficiencies which relate to the
transport infrastructure and beyond that need to be taken into account and
overcome. Perhaps, for example, the use of individual automobiles, regardless
of their safety, have other inherent problems which can only be logically
resolved by the removal of the automobile application itself. Perhaps in a
city, with an expanding mobile population, such independent vehicle transport
becomes unnecessarily cumbersome, slow and generally inefficient.
The more viable solution in this circumstance might become
the need for a unified, integrated mass transit system that can increase speed,
reduce energy use, resource use, pollution and many other related issues to the
effect that using automobiles in such a condition then becomes part of the
emerging “problem”.
If the goal of a society is to do the “correct” and hence
sustainable thing, reducing threats to humans and the habitat, ever increasing
efficiency – a dynamic, self-generating logic unfolds with respect to our
technical possibility and design approaches.
Our Technical Reality
Of course, the application of this type of problem solving
is far from limited to such physical examples. Is “politics” the answer to our
social woes? Does it address root causes by its very design? Is money and the
market system the most optimized method for sustainable progress, problem
resolution and the manifesting of economic potential? What does our modern
state of science and technology have to contribute in the realm of
understanding cause and purpose on the societal level?
As further essays will denote later in great detail, these
understandings create a natural, clear train of thought with respect to how
much better our world could be if we simply follow the logic created via The
Scientific Method of thought to fulfill our common goal of human
sustainability. The 1 billion people starving on this planet are not doing so
because of some immutable natural consequence of our physical reality. There is
plenty of food to go around. It is the social system, which has its own
outdated, contrived logic, that perpetuates this social atrocity, along with
countless others.
It is important to point out that TZM is not concerned with
promoting “patches” as its ultimate goal, which, sad to say, is what the vast
majority of activist institutions on the planet are currently doing. We want to
promote the largest order, highest efficiency set of solutions available at a
given time, aligned with natural processes, to improve the lives of all, while
securing the integrity of our habitat. We want everyone to understand this
“train of thought” clearly and develop a value identification with it.
There is no single solution – only the near empirical
Natural Law reasoning that arrives at solutions and purpose.
“We do not act
rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because
we have acted rightly.” –Aristotle
A powerful yet often overlooked consequence of our
environmental vulnerability to adapt to the existing culture is that our very
identity and personality is often linked to the institutions, practices, trends
and hence values we are born into and exist in. This psychological adaptation
and inevitable familiarity creates a comfort zone which, over time, can be
painful to disrupt, regardless of how well reasoned the data standing to the
contrary of what we believe may be.
In fact, the vast majority of objections currently found
against The Zeitgeist Movement, specifically the points made with respect to
solutions and hence change, appear to be driven by narrow frames of reference
and emotional bias more than intellectual assessment. Common reactions of this
kind are often singular propositions which, rather than critically addressing
the actual premises articulated by an argument, serve to dismiss them outright
via haphazard associations.
The most common classification of such arguments are
“projections” and it becomes clear very often that such opponents are actually
more concerned with defending their psychological identity rather than
objectively considering a new perspective.
Mind Lock
“The weight of evidence is not itself a temporal event, but
a relation of implication between certain classes or types of propositions...Of
course, thought is necessary to apprehend such implications...however [that]
does not make physics a branch of psychology. The realization that logic cannot
be restricted to psychological phenomenon will help us to discriminate between
our science and rhetoric - conceiving the latter as the art of persuasion or of
arguing so as to produce the feeling of certainty. Our emotional dispositions
make it very difficult for us to accept certain propositions, no matter how
strong the evidence in their favor. And since all proof depends upon the
acceptance of certain propositions as true, no proposition can be proved to be
true to one who is sufficiently determined not to believe it.”
The term “Mind Lock” has been coined by some philosophers
with respect to this phenomenon, defined as 'the condition where one's
perspective becomes self-referring, in a closed loop of reasoning'. Seemingly
empirical presuppositions frame and secure one's worldview and anything contradictory
coming from the outside can be “blocked”, often even subconsciously. This
reaction could be likened to the common physical reflex to protect oneself from
a foreign object moving towards your person – only in this circumstance the
“reflex” is to defend one's beliefs, not body.
While such phrases as “thinking outside the box” might be
common rhetoric today in the activist community, seldom are the foundations of
our way of thinking and the integrity of our most established institutions
challenged. They are, more often than not, considered to be “givens” and
assumed inalterable.
For example, in the so-called democracies of the world, a
“President”, or the equivalent, is a common point of focus with respect to the
quality of a country's governance. A large amount of attention is spent toward
such a figure, his perspectives and actions. Yet, seldom does one step back and
ask:
“Why do we have a President to begin with?”
“How is his power as an
institutional figure justified as an optimized manner of social governance?”
“Is it not a contradiction of terms to claim a democratic society when the
public has no real say with respect to the actions of the President once he or
she is elected?”
Such questions are seldom considered as people tend, again,
to adapt to their culture without objection, assuming it is “just the way it
is”. Such static orientations are almost universally a result of cultural
tradition and, as Cohen and Nagel point out, it is very difficult to
communicate a new, challenging idea to those who are “sufficiently determined
not to believe it”.
Such traditional presuppositions, held as empirical, are
likely a root source of personal and social retardation in the world today.
This phenomenon, coupled with an educational system that constantly reinforces
such established notions through its institutions of “academia”, further seals
this cultural inhibition and compounds the hindrance to relevant change.
While the scope of this tendency is wide with respect to
debate, there are two common argumentative fallacies worth noting here as they
constantly come up with respect to the Application-Set and Train of Thought
promoted by TZM. Put in colorful terms, these tactics comprise what could be
called a “Value War” which is waged, consciously or not, by those who have
vested emotional/material interest in keeping things the same, opposing change.
The “Prima Facie” Fallacy
The first is the “Prima Facie” association. This simply
means “upon first appearance”; “before investigation”. This is by far the most
common type of objection.
A classical case study is the common claim that the
observations and solutions presented by TZM are simply rehashed “Marxist Communism”.
Let's briefly explore this as an example. Referencing “
The Communist Manifesto”
Marx and
Engels present various observations with respect
to the evolution of society, specifically the “
class war”, inherent structural
relationships regarding “
capital”, along with a general logic as to how the
social order will transition through “
revolution” to a stateless, classless
system, in part, while also noting a series of direct social changes, such as
the “
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of
the State”, “
Equal liability of all to labour.” and other specifics. Marx
creates players in the schema he suggests like the ongoing battle between the
“
Bourgeoisie and Proletarians”, expressing contempt for the inherent exploitation,
which he says is essentially rooted in the idea of “
private property”. In the
end, the accumulated goal in general is in seeking a “
stateless and classless
society”.
On the surface, reformations proposed in TZM's promoted
solutions might appear to mirror attributes of “Marxism” if one was to
completely ignore the underlying reasoning. The idea of a society “without
classes”, “without universal property”, and the complete redefinition of what
comprises the “State” might, on the surface, show confluence by the mere
gestures themselves, especially since Western Academia commonly promotes a
“duality” between “Communism” and “Capitalism” with the aforementioned
character points noted as the core differences. However, the actual Train of
Thought to support these seemingly similar conclusions is quite different.
TZM's advocated benchmark for decision making is not a Moral
Philosophy, which, when examined at its root, is essentially what Marxist
philosophy was a manifestation of.
TZM is not interested in the poetic, subjective &
arbitrary notions of “a fair society”,”guaranteed freedom”, “world peace”, or
“making a better world” simply because it sounds “right”, “humane” or “good”.
Without a Technical Framework that has a direct physical referent to such
terms, such moral relativism serves little to no long term purpose.
Rather, TZM is interested in Scientific Application, as
applied to societal sustainability, both physical and cultural.
As will be expressed in greater detail in further essays, the
Method of Science is not restricted in its application within the “physical
world” and hence the social system, infrastructure, educational relevance and
even understanding human behavior itself, all exist within the confines of
scientific causality. In turn, there is a natural feedback system built into
physical reality which will express itself very clearly in the context of what
“works” and what doesn't over time, guiding our conscious adaptation.
Marxism is not based on this “calculated” worldview at all,
even though there might be some scientifically based characteristics inherent.
For example, the Marxist notion of a “classless society” was to overcome the
capitalist originating “inhumanity” imposed on the working class or
“proletariat”.
TZM's advocated train of thought, on the other hand, sources
advancements in human studies. It finds, for example, that social
stratification, which is inherent to the capitalist/market model, to actually
be a form of indirect violence against the vast majority as a result of the
evolutionary psychology we humans naturally posses. It generates an unnecessary
form of human suffering on many levels which is destabilizing and, by
implication, technically unsustainable.
Another example is TZM's interest in removing Universal
Property and setting up a system of “Shared Access”. This is often quickly
condemned to the Marxist idea of “Abolishing Private Property”. However,
generally speaking, the Marxist logic relates the existence of private property
to the perpetuation of the “bourgeois” and their ongoing exploitation of the
“proletariat”. He states in the Manifesto
“The distinguishing feature of
Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of
bourgeois property.”
TZM's advocated logic, on the other hand, relates the fact
that the practice of universal, individual ownership of goods is
environmentally inefficient, wasteful and ultimately unsustainable as a
universal practice. This supports a restrictive system behavior and a great
deal of unnecessary deprivation, and hence crime is common in societies with an
unequal distribution of resources.
At any rate, such “prima facie” allegations are very common
and many more could be expressed. However, it is not the scope of this section
to discusses all alleged connections between Marxism and TZM's advocated Train
of Thought.
The “Straw-Man” Fallacy
The second argumentative fallacy has to do with the
misrepresentation of a position, deliberate or projected, commonly referred to
as a “Straw-Man”. When it comes to TZM, this usually has to do with imposed
interpretations which are without legitimate evidence to be considered relevant
to the point in question.
For example, when discussing the organization of a new
social system, people often project their current values and concerns into the
new model without further considering the vast change of context inherent which
would likely nullify such concerns immediately.
A common straw-man projection in this context would be that
in a society where material production were based upon technological
application directly and not an exchange system requiring paid human labor,
people would have no monetary incentive to do anything and therefore the model
would fail as nothing would get done.
This kind of argument is without testable validity with
respect to the human sciences and is really an intuitive assumption originating
from the current cultural climate where the economic system coerces all humans
into labor roles for survival (income/profit), often regardless of personal
interest or social utility, generating a psychological distortion with respect
to what creates motivation.
In the words of Margaret Mead:
”If you look closely you will
see that almost anything that really matters to us, anything that embodies our
deepest commitment to the way human life should be lived and cared for, depends
on some form of volunteerism.”
In a 1992 Gallup Poll, more than 50% of American adults (94
million Americans) volunteered time for social causes, at an average of 4.2
hours a week, for a total of 20.5 billion hours a year.
It has also been found in studies that repetitive, mundane
jobs lend themselves more to traditional rewards such as money, whereas money
doesn't seem to motivate innovation and creativity. In later essays, the idea
of Mechanization applied to mundane labor to free the human being will be
discussed, expressing how the labor for income system is outdated and
restrictive of not only industrial potential and efficiency, but also human
potential overall.
Another common, contextual example of a “Straw-Man” is the
claim that if the transition to a new Social System was acted upon, the
property of others must be forcefully confiscated by a “ruling power” and
violence would be the result. This, once again, is a value projection/fear,
imposed upon TZM's advocated logic without validation.
TZM sees the materialization of a new socio-economic model
happening with the needed consensus of the population. Its very understanding
along with the “bio-social pressures” occurring as the current system worsens,
is the basis of influence. The logic does not support a “dictatorial”
disposition because that approach, apart from being inhumane, wouldn't work. In
order for such a system to work, it needs to be accepted without active State
coercion. Therefore, it is an issue of investigation, education, and broad personal
acceptance in the community. In fact, the very specifics of social interaction
and lifestyle actually demand a vast majority acceptance of the system's
mechanics and values.
Similarly, and final example here of the “Straw-man”, is the
confusion about how a transition to a new system could happen at all. In fact,
many tend to dismiss TZM's proposals on that basis alone, simply because they
don't understand how it can happen. This argument, in principle, is the same
reasoning as the example of a sick man who is seeking treatment for his illness
but does not know where he can get such treatment, when it would be available,
or what the treatment is. Does his lack of knowing how and when stop his need
to seek? No - not if he wants to be healthy. Given the dire state of affairs on
this planet, humanity must also keep seeking and a path will inevitably come
clear.
“Prima Facie” and “Straw-man” arguments are the bedrock of
the vast majority of objections found towards TZM and in Appendix D - “Common
Objections" – more examples can be found for reference.
In the end, it is worth reiterating that the battle between
Logic and Psychology is really a central conflict in the arena of societal
change. There is no context more personal and sensitive than the way we
organize our lives in society and an important objective of TZM, in many ways,
is to find techniques that can educate the public as to the merit of this
mechanistic, logical train of thought, overcoming the baggage of outdated
psychological comforts which serve no progressive, viable value role in the
modern world.
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do
good.” –Thomas Paine
A critical conclusion present in the logic that defines
TZM's advocation is that human society needs to unify its economic operations
and work to align with the natural dynamics of the physical world as a single
species sharing one habitat if we intend to resolve problems, increase safety,
increase efficiency and further prosperity. The world economic divisions we see
today are not only a clear source of conflict, destabilization and
exploitation, the very manner of conduct and interaction itself is also grossly
inefficient in a pure economic sense, severely limiting our societal potential.
While the nation-state, competition based structure is easy
to justify as a natural outgrowth of our cultural evolution given the resource
scarcity inherent historically and the long history of warfare in general, it
is also natural to consider that human society could very well find purpose in
moving away from these modes of operation if we were to realize that it is
truly to our advantage as a whole group.
As will be argued here, the detriments and inefficiencies of
the current model – when compared to the benefits and solutions possible – are
simply unacceptable and the efficiency and abundance possibilities,
extrapolated within TZM's advocation for a new socioeconomic system, rest, in
part, on a concerted effort by the human population to work together and share
resources intelligently, not restrict and fight as we do today by design.
Beyond that, the social pressures and risks now emerging
today around technological warfare, pollution, environmental destabilization
and other problems show not only a logical gravitation for true global
organization – they show a rational necessity – and the xenophobic and
mafia-like mentality indigenous to the nation-state today, often in the form of
“patriotism”, is a source of severe destabilization and inhumanity in general,
not to mention, again, the substantial loss of technical efficiency.
False Divisions
As noted in prior essays, the core basis of our survival and
quality of life as individuals and as a species on the planet earth revolves
around our understanding of Natural Law and how it relates to our method of
economy. This premise is a simple referential understanding where the physical
laws of nature are considered in the context of economic efficiency, both on
the human and habitat levels.
It is only logical that any species present in and reliant
on the habitat in which it exists should conform all conduct to align with the
natural orders inherent to that habitat, as best they can be understood at the
time. Any other orientation is irrational by definition and can only lead to
problems.
Understanding that the planet earth is a
symbiotic/synergistic “System” with resources existing without nationalistic
bias in all areas, coupled with the provably inherent, underlying causal
scientific order that exists in many ways as a logical “guide” for the human
species to align with for the greatest societal efficacy, we find that our
larger context as a global society transcends virtually all notions of
traditional/cultural division, including no loyalty to a country, corporation
or even “political” tradition.
If an “economy” is about increasing efficiency in meeting
the needs of the human population while working to further sustainability and
prosperity, then our economic operations must take this into account and align
with the largest natural relevant “system” that we can understand. From this
perspective, the nation-state entities are clearly false, arbitrary divisions,
perpetuated by cultural tradition, not logical, technical efficiency.
Values
The broad organization of society today is based on
multi-level human competition: nation-states compete against each other for
economic/physical resources; corporate market entities compete for
profit/market-share; and average workers compete for wage providing occupations
and hence personal survival itself.
Under the surface of this competitive social ethic is a
basic psychological disregard for the well- being of others and the habitat.
The very nature of competition is about having advantage over others for
personal gain and hence, needless to say, division & exploitation (of both
human and environment) are fundamental attributes of the current social order.
Virtually all so-called “corruptions” which we define as “crime” in the world
today are based upon the very same mentality assumed to guide “progress” in the
world through the competitive value.
It is no wonder, in fact, given this framework and ongoing
shortsightedness, that various other detrimental superficial social divisions
are still pervasive – such as race, religion, creed, class or xenophobic bias.
This divisive baggage from early, fear-oriented stages of our cultural
evolution simply has no working basis in the physical reality and serves now
only to hinder progress, safety and sustainability.
Today, as will be described in later essays, the possible
efficiency and abundance-producing methods that could remove most human
deprivation, increase the average standard of living greatly and perfect public
health and ecological sustainability greatly – are left unacknowledged due to
the older social traditions in place, including the nation-state concept. The
fact is, there is technically only one race – he Human Race; there is only one
basic habitat - Earth; and there is only one working manner of operational
thought – Scientific.
Origins and Influence
Let's quickly consider the root origins of the
competitive/divisive model. Without going into too much detail, it is clear
that the evolution of human society has included a history of conflict,
scarcity and imbalance. While there is debate as to the nature of society
during the period of time preceding the Neolithic Revolution, the earth since
that time has been a battlefield where countless lives have been taken for the
sake of competition, whether material or ideological.
This recognized pattern is so pervasive in fact that many
today attribute the propensity for conflict and domination to an irreconcilable
characteristic of our human nature with the conclusion that the human being is
simply unable to operate in a social system that is not based upon this
competitive framework and any such attempt will create vulnerability that will
be exploited by one power over another, expressing this apparent competitive/dominance
trait.
While the subject of human nature itself is not the direct
focus of this essay, let it be contextually stated that the “empirical power
abuse” assumption has been a large part of the defense of the
competitive/divisive model, using a general broad view of history as its basis
for validity. However, the specifics of the conditions in those periods,
coupled with the known flexibility of the human being are often disregarded in
these assessments.
The historical patterns of conflict throughout history
cannot be taken into account in isolation. Detailed reference to the conditions
and circumstances are needed. In fact, it's likely accurate to say that the
dominance/conflict propensity which is clearly a possible reaction for nearly
all humans in our need for preservation and survival in general is being
provoked by social influence more than being the source of such a reaction.
When we wonder how the massive Nazi Army where able to morally justify their
actions in World War II, we often forget the enormous propaganda campaign put
out by that regime which worked to exploit this essentially biological
vulnerability.
True ”Self-Interest”
The notion of “self-interest” is clearly inherent to the
human being's common urge to survive. This is obvious enough and it is easy to
see historically how the raw necessity of personal survival, often extending to
family and then the “tribe” (local community), set the stage for the complex,
divisive paradigm we exist in today. It should have been expected from the
standpoint of history that vast economic theories would be based upon the
notion of competition and inequality, such as in the work of Adam Smith.
Considered the father of the free market, he made popular the assumption that
if everyone had the ethic to look out for themselves only, the world would
progress as a community.
This “Invisible Hand” notion of human progress arising from
narrow personal self-interest alone might have been a workable philosophy many
years ago when the simplicity of the society itself was based on everyone being
a producer. However, the nature of society has changed greatly over time with
population increases, entirely different role structures and exponentially
advancing technology. The risks associated with this manner of thought are now
proving to be more dangerous than beneficial, and the definition of
“self-interest” is taking a larger context than ever before.
Is it not in your self-interest to protect and nourish the
habitat that supports you? Is it not in your self-interest to take care of
society as a whole, providing for its members, so that the consequences of
deprivation, such as “crime” are reduced as much as possible to ensure your
safety? Is it not self-interest to consider the consequences of imperialist
wars that can breed fierce jingoistic hatred on one side of the planet, only to
have, say, a suitcase bomb explode behind you at a restaurant as a desperate
“blow-back” act of abstract retribution?
Is it not self-interest to assure all of societies' children – not just yours – have the best upbringing and education so that your future
and the future of your children can exist in a responsible, educated, and
increasingly productive world? Is it not in your self-interest to make sure
industry is as organized, optimized and scientifically accurate as possible, so
that we do not produce shoddy, cheap technology that might perhaps cause a
social problem in the future if it fails?
The bottom line is that things have changed in the world
today and your “self-interest” is now only as good as your “societal interest”.
Being competitive and going out for yourself, “beating” others only has a
negative consequence in the longterm, for it is denying awareness of the whole
system we are bound within. A cheaply made nuclear power plant in Japan might
not mean much to people in America. However, if that plant was to have a large
scale technical failure, the fallout and pollution might make its way over to
American homes, proving that you are never safe in the long run unless you have
a global consciousness.
In the end, only an earth-humankind conscious view can
assure a persons true “self-interest” in the modern world today and hence, in
many ways, assure our social “evolutionary fitness” when such
considerations are taken into account. The very idea of wishing to support
“your country” and ignoring or even enjoying the failure of others, is a
destabilizing state of affairs.
Warfare
The days of practical warfare are long over. New technology
on the horizon has the ability to create weapons that will make the Atom Bomb
look like a roman catapult in its destructive power.Centuries ago, warfare
could at least be minimized to the waring parties overall. Today, the entire
world is threatened. There are over 23,000 Nuclear Weapons today which could
wipe out the human population many times over.
In many ways, our very social maturity is being questioned
at this time. Sticks and stones as weaponry could tolerate a great deal of
human distortion and malicious intent. However, in a world of nano-tech weapons
that could be constructed in a small lab with enormous destructive power, our
human “self-interest” needs to take hold and the institution of war needs to be
systematically shutdown. In order to do this, nations must technically unify
and share their resources and ideas, not hoard them for competitive
self-betterment, which is the norm today.
Institutions like the United Nations have become complete
failures in this regard because they naturally become tools of empire building
due to the underlying nature of country divisions and the socioeconomic
dominance of the property/monetary/competition based system. It is not enough
to simply gather global “leaders” at a table to discuss their problems – the
structure itself needs to change to support a different type of interaction
between these regional “groups” where the perpetual “threat” inherent between
nation-states is removed.
In the end, there is no empirical ownership of resources or
ideas. Just as all ideas are serially developed across culture through the
“group mind”, the resources of the planet are equally as transient in their
function and scientifically defined as to their possible purposes. The earth is
a single system, along with the laws of nature that govern it. Either human
society recognizes and begins to act on this logic inherent, or we suffer in
the long run.
“Man acquires at birth,
through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and
unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human
species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution
which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types
of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of
time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the
relationship between the individual and society.”-A. Einstein
The “Train of Thought” and “Application-Set” presented in
TZM's materials are technical by nature, expressing the interest of applying
the method and merit of Scientific Causality to the social system as a whole.
The benefits of this approach are not only to be taken on
their own merit but should also be considered in contrast to today's
established, traditional methods and their consequences. It will likely then be
noticed that our current societal methods are not only grossly outdated and
inefficient by comparison – they are increasingly dangerous and inhumane – with
the necessity for large scale social change becoming ever more important. This
isn't about “Utopia” - it is about truly practical improvements.
The overall basis of the Monetary-Market
(Capitalist/Free-Market) concept has to do fundamentally with assumptions
related to human behavior, traditional values and an intuitive view of history
- not emergent reasoning, actual public health measures, technical capacity or
ecological responsibility. It is a non-technical, philosophical approach which
merely assumes that human decisions made through its internal logic and
incentive system will produce a responsible, sustainable and humane outcome,
driven by the illusive notion of “freedom of choice” which, on the scale of
societal functionality, appears tantamount to organizational anarchy.
This is why the monetary-market model of economics is often
considered religious by nature in TZM materials as the causal mechanism is
really based on virtually superstitious assumptions of the human condition with
little linkage to emerging scientific understandings about ourselves and the
rigid symbiotic/synergistic relationship of our habitat and its governing Natural
Laws.
When presenting TZM's solution-oriented Train of Thought to
those unfamiliar, it is usually just a matter of time before, at a minimum, the
basic scientific premise is understood and accepted in abstraction. For
example, the isolated technical reality that we have the resources and
industrial methods to easily feed everyone on the planet earth, so no one has to
starve, rarely finds argument in and of itself. If you were to ask an average
person today if they would like to see an end to the 1+ billion people in chronic
starvation on the planet, they would most likely agree from the standpoint of
“morality”.
However, it is when the logic runs its course and starts to
depict the type of large scale social and economic reformations needed to facilitate
true system support for those 1+ billion people that many find contempt and
rejection. Apart from stubborn, temporal “value” associations - where people
essentially refuse to change anything they have become used to in their lives,
even if that change clearly supports a better outcome in the long term – there
is one argument so common that it warrants a preliminary discussion in and of
itself.
That is the argument of “Human Nature”. This argument might
also be said to be the only real objection left, if you think about it,
outside, again, of the near arbitrary cultural lifestyle practices people are
afraid to change due to their identity associations and conditioned comforts.
Are humans compatible with a truly sustainable, scientific
socio-economic system or are we doomed to the world we have now due to our
genetics?
Everything is Technical
The case for a new social system based directly on a
scientific view for understanding & maximizing sustainability and
prosperity, technically, really cannot be contradicted by another approach, as
bold as such a statement may seem. Why? Because there simply isn't one when the
unifying, natural law logic of The Scientific Method is accepted as the root
mechanism of physical causality and interrelationship.
For example, great surface variation (ornament) might exist
with the design of an airplane, but the mechanics which enable flight are bound
by physical laws and hence so must the overall physical design of the airplane
in order to align with such laws and function.
Constructing such a machine to perform a job with the goal
of optimized performance, safety and efficiency is not a matter of opinion,
just as no matter how many ornaments we may place around our homes, the
physical structure of the building must adhere to the rigid laws of physics and
natural dynamics of the habitat for safety and endurance and hence can have
little respective variation in a technical sense.
The organization of human society can be no different if the
intention is integrity and optimization. To think of the functional nature of a
working society is to think about a mechanistic schematic, if you will. Just as
we would design an airplane to work in the best way possible, technically, so
should our approach be to the social system, which is equally as technical in
its operation.
Unfortunately, this general perspective has never been given
a real chance in history and today our world is still run in an incongruous
manner where the principal incentive is more about detached, immediate, shortsighted
personal gain and differential advantage than it is about proper, strategic
industrial methods, ecological alignment, social stability, public health
considerations and generational sustainability.
This is all pointed out, again, because the Human Nature
argument against such an approach is really the only seemingly technical
argument that can possibly defend the old system we have today; it is really
the only argument left when people who wish to uphold this system realize that
nothing else they logically argue can possibly be viable given the
irrationality inherent to every other claim against a natural law based social
system.
Irrationally Bound?
Boiling it down, this challenge can be considered in one
question:
“Is the Human Species able to adapt and thrive in a technically
organized planned system, where our values and practices align with the known
laws of nature in practice, or are we confined by our genes, biology and
evolutionary psychology to operate in only the way we know today?”
While many today argue the specifics of the Nature vs
Nurture debate – from “Blank Slate” Behaviorism to Genetic Determinism – it has become clear, at a minimum, that our
biology, our psychology and our sociological condition are inexorably linked to
the environment we inhabit, both from the standpoint of generational
evolutionary adaptation (Biological Evolution), to short-term biases and values
we absorb from our environment (Cultural Evolution).
So, before we go into detail on this issue, it is well worth
noting that our very definition as a human being in the long and short term
view is based upon a process of adaptation to existing conditions, including
the genes themselves.This is not to discount the per-case genetic relevance
itself but to highlight the process to which we are a part, for the
gene-environment relationship can only be considered as an ongoing interaction,
with the outcomes largely a result of the environmental conditions in the long
and short term in general. If this wasn't the case, there is little doubt the
human species would have likely perished long ago due to a failure to adapt.
Moreover, while it is clear we humans still appear to
maintain 'hardwired', predictable reactions for raw, personal survival, we have
also proven the ability to evolve our behaviors through thought, awareness and
education, allowing us to, in fact, control/overcome those impulsive, primitive
reactions, if the conditions for such are supported and reinforced. This is an
extremely important distinction and is what separates the variance of human
beings from their lesser evolved primate family in many ways.
A quick glance at the diversity in historical human conduct
we see throughout time, contrasted with the relatively slow pace of larger
structural changes of our brains & DNA over the past couple of thousand years, shows
that our adaptive capacity (via thought/education) is enormous on the cultural
level.
It appears that we are capable of many possible behaviors
and that a fixed “human nature”, as an unalterable, universal set of behavioral
traits/reactions shared by all humans without exception, cannot be held as
valid. Rather, there appears to be a spectrum of possible behaviors and
predictable reactions, all more or less contingent upon the type of
development, education, stimuli & conditions we experience.
The social imperative in this respect cannot be emphasized
enough for environmental influence is a massive factor that grooms not only our
decision-making preferences in both the long and short term, but the overall
environmental interaction with our biology in general also has powerful effects
on personal well-being and hence broad public health in many specific ways.
It has been found that environmental conditions, including
factors such as nutritional input, emotional security, social association and all forms of stress in general can
influence the human being in many more ways than previously thought. This
process begins In Utero, through the sensitive post-natal and childhood
“planned learning” adaption periods, and carries on throughout life on all
physiological and psychological levels.
For example, while there is evidence that depression as a
psychological disorder can have a genetic predisposition, it is the environment
that really triggers it or not. Again, this is not to downplay the influence of
biology on our personalities but to show the critical importance of
understanding these realities and adapting our social system and macro
influences to support the most positive outcome we can.
Changing The Condition
The idea of changing society's influences/pressures to bring
out the best of the human condition rather than the worst is at the core of the
social imperative of TZM and this idea is sadly lost in the culture's social
considerations today. Enormous evidence exists to support how the influence of
our environment is what essentially creates our values and biases and while
genetic/physiological influences can set propensities and accentuations for
certain behaviors, the most active influence regarding our variability is the
life experience and condition of the human being, hence the manner of
interaction between the “internal”(physiological) and “external”
(environmental).
In the end, the most relevant issue is stress. Our genes,
biology and evolutionary psychology might have some hangups, but they are
nothing compared to the environmental disorder we have created in our culture.
The enormity of now unnecessary stress in the world today – debt, jobs
insecurity, increasing health risks, both mental and physiological – and many
other issues have created a climate of unease that has been increasingly making
people sick and upset.
However, the scope of this view isn't just about various
temporal pressures that can trigger this or that propensity in a narrow sense – it is more about the broad educational, religious/philosophical, political and
social values and ideas they perpetuate and reinforce. If we were faced with an
option to adapt our society in a way that can provably better public health,
would we not just do it? To think human beings as a society are simply
incompatible with methods that can increase their standard of living and health
is extremely unlikely.
In conclusion to this section, let it be stated that the
subject of “Human Nature” is one of the most complex subjects there is when it
comes to specifics. However, the broad and viable awareness with respect to
basic public health improvement via reducing stress, increasing quality
nutrition and stabilizing society by working toward abundance and ease rather
than strife and complexity – is not susceptible to much debate.
We now have some refined truths about the human condition
that give enough evidence to see that we are not only generating poor reactions
and habits due to the influence of the current socio-economic order, we are
also greatly disrespecting the habitat as well, creating not only a lack of
sustainability in an ecological sense, but, again, in a cultural sense as well.
To think humans are simply incompatible with these resolutions, even if it
means changing our world greatly, defies the long history of adaptation we have
proven to be capable of.
