Where Are We Going?

This is actually the second part in a two-part series. The first one was done in London, called Where Are We Now? which dealt with the financial system and other attributes you might be familiar with if you follow the work that I do with The Zeitgeist Movement which is the activist and communication arm of another organization called The Venus Project. More on these organizations as we go along.

Evolutionary Baggage Roughly 10,000 years ago the human species stumbled into a new social paradigm which is now referred to as the Neolithic Revolution.

During this time, it appears we began a transition from predominantly egalitarian societies consisting of hunters and gatherers to an agricultural revolution where deliberate cultivation of food replaced the more passive finding of food sources hence allowing for much more control over production. At the same time, there also seems to be a major push in the advancement of what we call technology today.

Talks and Lectures You Might Also Like

Proofiness: The Dark Arts of ...

My Escape from North Korea

21st Century Enlightenment

Steve Jobs’ Stanford Co...

wald0
I completely agree when he outlines the failures of the current system and, for the most part I agree with their approach at a solution but- he bases his arguement on a point I am not sure I agree with completely- that all problems faced by society are soley technical in nature. I feel that ethical and moral considerations also have a role to play in society’s decision making process and I wonder how computers could ever manage this. The most efficient thing to do is not always the moral or ethical thing to do. If we try to set up some kind of moral parameters to consider when making decisions how do we agree on what is considered moral and ethical in the first place? We could try to develope social sciences to the point that they could advance some kind of objective moral outline based on what parameters produce the most human well being- but then we have to all agree on what constitutes human well being, which is also something we have never been able to agree on as a species. Its like they want to gloss over all these inherently subjective obstacles to creating such a determinstic objective society- to gloss over the very subjective nature of the human experience in fact and reduce everything to pure logic, devoid of any moral or ethical concerns, any petty human ideals of beauty, loyalty, honesty, etc. I’m sorry but I do not think human creatures will ever live this way, nor am I sure I would want them to.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Ruben-Myrhagen/1489470570 Ruben Myrhagen
equal life quality and equal sharing would eliminate this i belive. but as we humans have come to love is gathering fortunes and making only his or his family’s life easier. the eu or un are based on the flow of money and trading (wich makes peace treaties and relationships secondary) also the growing matter of global warmin. i dont know if this is real but they can only gain more themselves than helping the life of others. bettering it.
why not rather give everything people need in exchange for themselves doing their jobs ( i dont mean if a person is sick he will loose anything) i mean if they have everything they need and also have entertainment to give us what people need for a good life they would want to work better and have no worries in their life. wich also betters the life quality itself.
why not establish a new un or eu. wich believes in these values and will gather the human race to survive the future. if everyone have what they need. there would not be any wars.. ( it may be hard for some people to accept. im thinking here of people who allways want more. or some religion extremeist.)
there is so much to say and im not the best to explain. but if everyone pitch in on trying to make life better. people would have less to argue about.