Sustainability, Beyond
Political Categorization. My name is Peter Joseph and this video has been prepared for
the 11th annual ZDay conference held in Buenos Aires
Argentina March 23rd, 2019. The goal of this talk is
to cover a range of issues centered around a train of thought, one that supports truly
sustainable social organization. A system that can maintain
homeostasis with the Earth, improve public health, and effectively ensure social
stability of the human species. And part of this thinking is understanding
the problems of thinking itself and the difficulty inherent in the
communication of this train of thought due to cultural bias, cognitive bias, a general lack of comprehension, impulsiveness, a drive towards
simplistic understandings, and other problems that we see commonly when people are trying to
evaluate new information. Our ultimate challenge as a movement
is communicative, needless to say. And one central problem involves
intellectual categorization, which refers to the tendency
of people to hear a new idea and due to a lack of
understanding or clarity, or even willful misinterpretation at times, the idea is hastily thrown into
some pre-existing category shrouded with undue bias. We see this frequently when
someone discusses social ideas that are not based upon market economics. The most common reaction today is to assume that anything that isn’t based upon markets, isn’t effectively capitalism,
must be Marxism! It must be socialism or communism. Language, being a collection of symbols with ideas formed in a kind of hierarchy where a single word or idea ultimately becomes defined
by other words and ideas, and it’s very easy for different people to hold
completely different semantic understandings. It’s also very easy for people to reduce
their interpretation of a concept down into a more simplistic
association or category, evading the truth of the idea. This cognitive tendency takes many forms and one is “polarized duality.” If something isn’t white
it can only be black. It’s an either-or interpretation. So if you’re not a capitalist
you must be a socialist. If you want to see more social
equality and less tribalism you must be a card-carrying liberal
in contrast to a conservative. Left versus right, etcetera. At the same time you have
dismissive categorization: boxes created as pejoratives,
removing any nuance. For example if you see the
real possibility of bringing the entire human population to
a decent standard of living – effectively eliminating poverty,
or maybe even eliminating war – you’re no longer rational,
you are now a utopianist. Or perhaps you have a different
understanding of world events, daring to question how far criminal
sickness will go in the world today, uh oh- you must be a conspiracy theorist! So this kind of thing goes on
and on, and it’s very stifling. Dismissive, categorical, polarized
and oversimplified world views plague us as a civilization. We do think in language. And if you can control people’s language
about certain subjects, groups, ideas, you can control their thought
process, by association. In fact if you look carefully at how the media
organizes itself in support of normative society there’s a whole genre of dismissive
and polarized categorical words that are routinely used to debase
non-normative assumptions. And the reason I bring this up is
not only to illustrate the problem but to express the need to try and sidestep
it by how you go about your communication, how to work around this problem. And the solution is to try and refrain from
any kind of larger order labeling yourself, keeping conversations focused
on a train of thought. This means the process of
communication has to start from the most detailed and
specific place you can defining things as you go, presenting evidence that is
inferential to each conclusion building your argument manually. It’s not perfect, but it’s the
best way to approach it. Over the past 10 years I rarely if ever hear
anyone talk against the actual train of thought itself associated to a natural law
resource-based economy. Instead, everyone criticizes the
Movement itself in some way. It’s all symbolic, generalized and vague, they relate some belief system, they try to bracket it in with
historical communism as usual, “It’s against human nature,” associative pollution is created
where a person or a group or an institution is somehow
merged into the idea. The bottom line is that ideas, if they
are true, if they have true value, have value in and of themselves. They don’t need to be categorized. They don’t need to be associated to some
person or group or historical notion. Epistemological reasoning
stands on its own. And finally on this subject I want to point out
that human sustainability and public health – trying to build out a model based on
reasoning that supports these ideas – isn’t to be confused with
a political ideology. It may seem like a trivial
distinction but it’s important, because in order to get these
ideas across, the receiving mind has to understand that we’re dealing
with fundamental principles of survival. At the end of the day it’s
not even really about class or social inequality
in and of itself as if some oppressed group needs to
be set free; it’s bigger than that. It’s about what an Andorian
society actually requires to exist and keep persisting without all the horrible features
that we’re seeing rise today. In the end the method of science, which
is not perfect in its evolving practice, is still at the foundation of the
epistemological and technological progress we have seen as a civilization. It works. It cannot be dismissed
as some subjective ideology. The reason I bring this up is because
what’s happened in the world of discourse is rarely does anyone take a
real technical position anymore; it’s all political and groupistic. Very rarely does anyone talk about or take
a technical position about what’s required to ensure our most basic adherence
to survival principles. Ultimately it speaks to the reality that
scientific thought is still so removed from actual governance
of our society right now that it is effectively dismissed as just
another kind of political ideology. And that’s something to keep in mind. And that brings me to the
phenomenon of anti-intellectualism. Disappointingly, there continues to
be a culture of anti-intellectualism that boasts and revels
in its own ignorance. It begins in the culture of education where
those that are excelling in academics are deemed nerds or geeks or outcasts while those that flaunt macho
brawn or vanity or beauty are considered cool and then popular. And within this bizarre tendency, attempts to communicate relatively
complex thought is stifled by willful ignorance and ego. Complex ideas require complex explanations and there’s a reason languages
have vast vocabularies. Words generally represent ideas and more nuanced ideas require more nuanced
and detailed organization of language. Understanding more words effectively
means understanding more concepts. There’s an odd myth that you often hear when someone is faced with complex
ideas that they’re intimidated by. They’ll say something like “Oh well, good ideas should be
easy to communicate, regardless,” as if you’re talking to a child. Well while it’s good strategy to
simplify your language as best you can, any attempt to describe
real-world phenomenon is going to be
inherently complicated. A basic reason the world continues
to fall apart around us in fact is because almost every facet of our lives
is governed by over-simplistic assumptions, propagated by over-simplistic language. For example we have a
global judicial practice that believes in total free will,
and throws people in cages rather than examine the causality
behind their behavior, working to correct
sociological preconditions. We have a global economic structure
that organizes around competitive trade based upon the theory that trade
is this mutual beneficial process with zero perspective on the
long term systemic consequences of that seemingly simple individual action. Now when it comes to
understanding human behavior, people often take their superficial sense
of what they have seen around them, and slap the label of “human nature” on it, assuming that the behavioral
patterns they see are the only patterns that
could possibly exist. How many times have you brought up
a complex subject to somebody, regarding human behavior, and they turn around and say
– as if they’re an expert, as if they worked on the
problem for years – “Oh, that’s just human nature,” when the truth of the matter
is extremely complicated. What we do know is that
humans have great variability and much of our behavior is contingent
upon what society incentivizes or not. Our “nature” very much appears
to be that of great adaptation. In fact as an aside, I would like to point out that those
who have settled on the argument that the society we have today is representative of our human
nature in some fixed way, what they are actually saying
given what’s happening in the world, taken to its logical conclusion, is that it is in our “nature” for
us to slowly destroy ourselves. And that rests counter to every other
species evolution has created. Species on earth do not destroy themselves. They get destroyed by something
else out of their control. The difference is humanity is perpetuating
behavior that it can actually change but due to our customs,
that are so cyclically reinforced – especially through money and the psychologically short-
sighted nature of market economics – the initiative simply isn’t made properly. It’s a deep social pathology. Anyway back on point, all of this is to say that the
anti-intellectualism we see in the world, this immature drive toward
wanting everything to be simple, is yet another communicative challenge and it should not be indulged. Now let’s shift gears a bit and think about the process of
knowledge development itself. It’s been well established that the
most effective scientific disposition rests on the principle of falsifiability. Falsifiability in science means that one’s
more interested in disproving a hypothesis rather than proving it. In other words the theory becomes true not only because of direct evidence
to support it, deductively, but also because that there is a
lack of evidence to disprove it. Now it may seem as if both perspectives are
the same thing and accomplish the same goal but the psychological disposition
associated with falsifiability helps avoid cognitive bias. And what you’ll find when
you speak with people that are dogmatic about the
way the world is today is they rarely take the
opposite perspective and are constantly looking to confirm
their own conclusions, not question them. For example we very often hear today this declaration that market
capitalism must be a viable system because it has brought a large number
of people out of extreme poverty over the past century. To the extent that poverty reduction has
been this significant over the years is actually quite arguable, but
that’s for another conversation. But assuming significant poverty
reduction actually has occurred, to say it’s because of capitalism
is extremely superficial, and the result of a willful interest
to simply validate one’s bias in support of markets,
rather than be critical. Which also might explain why the
people most notable for promoting this happen to be extremely
wealthy philanthropists. The technical problem is that in
order to make that conclusion you have to exclude the actual
history of how these nations and societies became
poverty-stricken to begin with and the history of how markets
came to be established itself. People like Adam Smith did not invent
capitalism in the Enlightenment. Its industrial and
pre-industrial permutations are part of a chain reaction that happened since the dawn of Agriculture
some 12,000 years ago. The kernel seed of this system is the very act of
competitive trade itself. And once you have a system of people and then groups working to compete
for income, hence consequentially turning into labor exploiters and
resource exploiters for the market, every core characteristic of the economy and effectively the social system as
we know it today, was predictable. From property laws to labor specialization, to the rise of companies and corporations, to the basis of the legal system, to the consumption basis of the
economy itself to drive jobs, to the merger and usurpstion
of government power, to the entire global class
hierarchy and inequality, to even philosophical perspectives
of the human condition derived from witnessing this
experience, these customs. Such as the assumption by Thomas Hobbes who is considered the father
of political philosophy, who declared that humans
exist in a “state of war.” All of this was predictable based on the
structurally molded behavior of competitive trade. And if you’re not familiar with that
please review other writings and talks that I’ve done documenting this at length. And with respect to socioeconomic
inequality and poverty once again, one part of that historical process
has been nationalist economic power in the form of colonialism that
has stolen regional resources and subjugated and effectively
damaged whole countries for the sake of market exploitation, setting in motion chain reactions
of long term deprivation and even vast corruption for that region. The people in the Global South, who are or have been in abject
poverty over the past two centuries, did not get there because they were
left behind by capitalist progress. They got there because they
had been robbed and abused by the capitalist incentive system, manifesting brute force acquisition and
domination by other competing nations through war and colonialism. And of course the same patterns continue
today, but in less obvious forms by way of global trade
agreements, economic sanctions, general economic globalization,
and war once again. Only this time war has turned into
a different kind of profit system. In the context of the United States Empire war is an enormous business
in and of itself: a market driven initiative that is willing
to destroy other nations and peoples for the sake of its own
nation’s corporate profits or for the sake of future security of
its own nation’s corporate profits. It’s another consequence
of this kind of thinking, not some rogue side effect. In fact if you really look
at nations of the world and how deeply entrenched they are
with the corporate enterprise you’ll notice that really
the nations are now just constituencies of
corporate interests. So, those who have statistically risen
out of poverty in the last century, to say that it was a successful feature
of capitalism is really ridiculous. The only reason any
alleviation is occurring now actually has to do with the scientific
rise of Applied Technology: technological efficiency,
not market efficiency. And while the common rebuttal
to that by apologists would be that if it wasn’t for
the infrastructure of markets, that applied technology
also wouldn’t come about! This is yet another unfounded
bias-confirming assumption. We’re dealing with an
infrastructure, a mechanism. Markets are a mechanism. And there are many ways for say me
to travel across the United States, technically with an infrastructure. I could walk, I could drive a car, I could take a train,
I could take an airplane. And then to say that the only way
to get from point A to point B is because of one of those mechanisms is to deny the existence of all the others and to deny the existence
of possible improvement, as if these infrastructures,
these mechanisms, are the best that we could ever have. And when it comes to the development
of science and technology this is really an issue of epistemology, not trade and the market incentive. Human ingenuity is a
natural process we embrace to adapt our understandings
of the environment and build upon knowledge. And even more, the better
we can network together the faster the process of
intellectual development. So the active foundation of the development
of applied technology for solving problems has to do with how people are
networking information together and then organizing resources
to apply given solutions. And to say that only markets are the
most optimized form of this kind of information flow and economic development
is silly, and easily contradicted. What you’ll find in fact is
there’s actually more inhibition of science and technology
occurring than its expression. Because the market system’s incentive
is only about gaining income. If the infrastructure of society
was not based upon that incentive you would see an extremely different pattern of
intellectual development and applied technology. The question becomes: what kind of
infrastructure is most conducive to allowing human ingenuity to flourish? and that of course is a
conversation to be had, its a lecture in and of itself. The point I’m trying to make here has
more to do with bias confirmation than this particular fact. But the next time someone
does make the remark that “Oh! Capitalism has brought more people
out of poverty than any other system,” make sure you shut them
down by explaining that the only reason people were
ever in poverty to begin with was because of the very framework
that capitalism is based upon. Why? Because the system is structurally
based upon the exploitation of scarcity, not overcoming it with abundance. Socioeconomic inequality is a
defining characteristic of this model, which inevitably deprives some
cross-section of civilization. The fact we have developed science and
technology that has eased that stress has been utterly coincidental. Moving on, similar to the problem of short-sighted perspectives
and misunderstanding long-term causality, there’s a stunning denialism occurring when
it comes to the structure of the market and its effect on the environment. While there is indeed a slow rise of people
that are beginning to see the connection between this economy based on
consumption to power jobs, adhering to a growth ethic,
a competitive growth ethic, the mismanagement of the habitat, and
the full magnitude of this connection, is still seldom discussed. I am unaware of one prominent
economist in public office or representative of higher education, that unequivocally points out the fact that the economic system we have today is completely unsustainable
by every measure, empirically and formally. If you’re not familiar with the
terms empirical and formal, ’empirical’ means as witnessed by history, observable data taken over
time from the real world showing specific patterns such as the fact that it is well
established that every year humanity uses more resources than
the earth cyclically produces, known as our annual resource overshoot. ‘Formal’ on the other hand means
by mathematical modeling, organizing variables that represent
real-life behaviors and interactions. And if you were to take the variables
associated to market behavior and put them into a computer, analyzing the dynamics of
incentivized trading behavior and market processes we
experience every day, then placing that dynamic model
inside of a finite habitat, to set the machine loose, it would just be a matter of time
before that theoretical habitat was completely destroyed by
consumption and pollution. Why? Because there is no
variable in the market economy that allows for a steady
state balance, homeostasis, where the producing and
consuming population is in harmony with the Earth’s
natural regenerative cycles. Returning to empirical data, in
the context of ecology today every life-support system is in decline
with enormous resource overshoot, pollution, biodiversity loss, and so on. I’m not going to go through
the statistics here as I’ve talked and written about
it at great length before. But how does the mainstream
consensus deflect this fact? – that capitalism with its complete
structural antagonism to anything concerned with conservation and balance, seeking only turnover through
sales and job growth and so on – how is this blanketed over, how is it
justified, how is it rationalized? What do people do? They
blame population levels. The thesis is that “Up, it’s
just overpopulation folks, we shouldn’t change the
system, we need less people.” This is a very common argument even
though it’s not particularly popular. We’re exceeding the carrying capacity
of the earth, some would say. Once again, it certainly appears
like a valid conclusion but there’s no real concrete evidence that humanity has or is about to exceed the true carrying capacity of the earth, because how you assess the
carrying capacity of the earth isn’t even properly understood. The carrying capacity of the
earth is not a fixed number. It is contingent upon
how resources are used based upon technological strategy. Generally, quantitative
changes in carrying capacity occur through the process
of ephemeralization as I’ve talked about before,
coined by R. Buckminster Fuller, and also what Jeremy Rifkin derives
as zero marginal cost in production. So imagine an abstract island. The island naturally produces
food and has a fresh water supply. An average person’s needs are
about 64 ounces of water each day, and about 2,000 calories. So this hypothetical island
in its most natural state maintains a steady-state water
supply of 640 ounces of water and 20,000 calories each day. assuming those resources were
cyclically consumed, as we are. So what does that mean?
It means the carrying capacity of that island is 10 people. Now, what if those people started to
learn about their environment, applying that knowledge? What if they realize that say through some
kind of sea water evaporation process they could produce 10 times
the amount of drinking water, while also discovering
agricultural techniques that increase the yield of
their food supply also by 10 with no extra pressure on the ecosystem. Suddenly, even though the island’s
raw state hasn’t changed, the carrying capacity goes
from 10 to 100 people. So, the carrying capacity
of earth is not fixed. It’s contingent upon how strategic and efficient
humanity is with its resource use, and of course how it
organizes general behavior. And on that note let’s
talk about public health. The two most foundational areas
underscoring any society is habitat sustainability
and public health. I’ve already touched upon what
habitat sustainability means, but to summarize the basic idea, sustainability means a condition
of homeostasis or balance where behavior is theoretically
able to continue into the future without degenerative consequences. And again while we hear this word associated
to the habitat and the ecosystem constantly, that isn’t the only context
when it comes to society. And this falls in the context
of cultural sustainability. And it’s actually possible for a
society to be ecologically sustainable but be culturally unsustainable, meaning that the behaviors of people are
creating different levels of instability that could also lead to species
destruction or extinction. And I would argue that markets are
not only unsustainable ecologically, it’s unsustainable culturally because it reinforces a
competitive mindset. As most are familiar, competition
within market behavior has been praised as a force
of innovation and progress. But yet once again what defines innovation
and progress is left unmentioned. I don’t know about you but people
owning more and more things and coming up with more efficient ways
to quickly use more and more resources, so people can buy them and throw them away and then go buy and more and throw it away, doesn’t appear very progressive to me. Progress would have to be defined
by actual public health standards, meaning improvement of well-being of
society in the short and long term, including better mental and physical health and including less violence and conflict. Same goes for the idea of innovation. People talk about the
incentive of competition and even the existence of socioeconomic
inequality as this driver of innovation without qualifying what innovation even is, what they’re even talking about-
innovation towards what? Today you have a sea of entrepreneurs
trying to innovate in some way but the direction they innovate towards
actually has nothing to do with progress. It’s simply about finding
something to sell to you. Or innovating advertising and marketing
to manipulate you even better so you then go out and buy
what they have to sell. Anyway that’s an aside,
but it’s a worthy point. Coming back to cultural
or social sustainability, the prevalence of this supposed
virtue of competition, which is at the heart once again
of market-based economic survival, we really need to pose the question: Is this kind of broad
sociological orientation really going to work out in the long run? All one has to do is look at the
ever-progressing tools of warfare, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and other powerful technological forces to see that our technological tools just
might be moving faster than our maturity. It’s one thing for immature people
to run around with sticks and stones and even knives, or even guns. It’s another thing for people to have the
capacity of extremely destructive power at their fingertips with
the same state of mind. People like to say that the animal kingdom
is based on ruthless competition between individuals and
hierarchical groups, that evolution is a force of natural
selection through competition and so on. And as true as that may be on some level, the creatures and the biological forces
of evolution don’t build nuclear weapons. There’s a reason humans have evolved
complex brains, a prefrontal cortex, where we can actually
think about our actions. We are not biological slaves in the same
way the rest of the animal kingdom is. And the same way again the
rest of the animal kingdom can’t create devices that
can destroy themselves. As far as I’m concerned, the
competitive ethic we see, the declaration of winners and losers, this contrived antagonism, continually reinforced in what we
see around us – competitive sports, of course the entire model
of business, politics, the fascination of conflict in the media – is really a culturally
unsustainable social sickness. We cannot perpetuate a culture of war and expect that to work out in the long run in the wake of exponentially increasing
technological modes of destruction. And people are surprised when they see
something like what happened in New Zealand or the near-daily massacres occurring in
the United States, which uncoincidentally are occurring in the most neurotically
competitive nation on the planet, as it sits as well on top of the
global socioeconomic power hierarchy. These are not coincidences. Competitive thinking
creates bigoted thinking, it creates inferiority thinking
and superiority thinking, and it forms racism, xenophobia
and intergroup violence, becomes not only predictable
but inevitable. And the way we’ve organized
our economic system, what all of us have to participate in, deliberately amplifies the
most base tendencies for us to continue our competitive
survival against each other. It brings out the worst and most
destructive aspect of our human nature, limiting our ability to evolve to a
higher plane of compassion and support, for collaborative community
and human unity. And finally, when you put these two
unsustainable trajectories together, the competitive pinging of our
worst and most base instincts by the very nature
of our economic structure, along with the inevitable decline of the
ecosystem due to that same structure, the undue stress that will be placed on
pockets of civilization in the near future is effectively a chain reaction
recipe for social destruction. So I apologize that this talk had
to come to such a dark note, but it’s important to have this sobering
realization in the back of your mind regarding what’s possible in the future, if these two forces come together in synergy. And it shows the desperate need to get out of the sociological
condition we find ourselves. We have to change the social structure. If we do so we change culture
and we change society. And that concludes this talk for now, I’ll
be making a follow-up to this lecture describing the cult of individuality and why it’s so difficult
to get people to see things through the lens of
sociology and structuralism. Thank you very much.

Tagged : # # # # # # # #

100 thoughts on ““Sustainability: Beyond Political Categorization”, Peter Joseph, ZDay 2019 Conference”

  1. Make it financially worthwhile for people to start sharing the jobs that we (somehow) decide we really do NEED people to do and work LESS and in no time at all nobody will be wanting to work 40+ hours a week doing all the planet destroying jobs producing all the shit that we don't need and nor will they have to. Working LESS instead of more money will become the reward people want. Working LESS will become an incentive.

  2. I think in 2008-10 during the market correction you would of had your best chance to really bring about your ideas to fruition. Maybe wait until the next economic crisis to see if you can get the most traction?

  3. I see the exact same thing, only I am not able to narrate it this beautifully.
    You are spot on about everything you said in here!

  4. The most important revolutionary thought of the whole zeitgeist movement is the fundamental change that is humanity's motivation for existing and acting and our goal or direction.
    The shift is from our current self-maximization through exploitation to a new maximum well-being for all living beings and environment through life-supporting and enhancing understanding and practices (which of course includes and understand striving for a perfect balance at all times).

  5. Cuándo tenía 18 años tus conferencias y documentales cambiaron mi vida, literalmente. Hoy estoy por cumplir 30 años y sigues inspirándome de la misma manera. Ayudándome a interpretar correctamente nuestro tiempo a través de la cortina de humo de los defensores del statu quo. Muchas gracias por tu esfuerzo. Los libros de historia recogerán tu nombre, para inspiración de las futuras generaciones.

  6. So how do we go forward with this? Been talking to people about this concept for a decade now. No one gives a shit. Everyone just keeps doing what they were doing before. Pretty much have lost any hope. We are pretty fucked. If in ten years no one wants to even be intellectually open to the idea, then fuck it. I didn't make the world this way. Not my burden to fix it. I'm a spectator now. Save this shit, or let it burn. Either way, I'm grabbing the popcorn and sitting back. Tired of getting shit on for genuinely trying to help people. Hard to want to save a world you feel doesn't give two fucks about you…

  7. ANDREW YANG- 10% added value tax will only take away the benefits of UBI for those who are spending 120K or more per year on purchases. If you spend 20k a year on personal purchases, then you are essentially forfeiting 2000 of your UBI to the AVT. So in principle, the less you spend per year on purchases, or the poorer your lifestyle is, the more UBI will benefit you. These two mechanisms when put into application in tandem result in a very reasonable wealth redistribution. Andrew Yang is an incarnation of Robin Hood if there ever was one.

  8. Wow. So clear how the system itself is responsible for the atrocities we see on the planet. Capitalism is a disease on the planet and most people don't even think twice about it. Very thoughtful analysis here. Thanks PJ!

  9. Peter Joseph you are perfectly professional in your presentation of this post accurate conceptualization of our current paradigm. Now? We have performed a 180 in mid air as a group with scarcity of resources at the root of all division and acquisition. We can observe this by looking at regular people looking at less fortunate regular people,go figure.

  10. 26:44 "People like to say that the animal kingdom is based on ruthless competition, between individuals and hierarchical groups. That evolution is a force of natural selection through competition and so on. And as true as that may be on some level. The creatures and the biological forces of evolution don't build nuclear weapons." Hilarious! XD

  11. Some say, it's human nature to rob, steal, rape and murder. However, Dr. Stanley Livingstone was the only European in the middle of Africa and nobody robbed or murdered him. What happened to "human nature"?

    The Europeans introduced imperialism and predatory capitalism. And look at Africa now.

  12. Theres a Jordan Peterson fan gagging somewhere because of this. Like always, great work PJ. Youve yet to hit your peak within this movement. I can see how MLKs final speech influenced you the most when he talks about his place in history.
    This is your time PJ. You are like Neo hahaha born from the system to combat it.

  13. greetings from AFRICA Mr.Joseph , I am a big fan .Please send me your email so that i can send you REAL PICTURES OF POVERTY IN AFRICA , that can be included in your documentory . Believe me for the HATE OF MONEY , you will not be SUED , I just want the world to see the images of real poverty .

  14. Thank you for this talk Peter I am enjoying hearing about people who challenge the existing definitions of categorisations. There are a few categories I get put in which I would prefer it if they meant different things to people, but that is a story for another day. Please will members of this audience spend some of their time looking at this new social project it is a world first free cryptocurrency to unlock the potential of blockchain based services for everyone on the planet (who has access to a computer and the internet). Disclaimer: It runs on the Telos blockchain and my company is a paid Telos BP but this site is branded only ACORNs and can be used by anyone looking to help onboard new users to a blockchain.

  15. I'd love to hear Jordan Peterson's take on all this and even more a discussion between Jordan and Peter Joseph.

  16. Brilliant, as always Peter. You have changed the way I think about human conditioning and structural influences that shape our society. This type of thought is spreading rapidly and my hope is eventually people will start to understand. I also loved how he mentioned Jeremy Rifkin's "zero marginal cost" concept. I have been reading some of his materials recently and it's amazing the amount of work that's being done over in Europe to transition over to a "third industrial revolution"

  17. "Capitalism Psychologically Amplifies The Worst side of Our Nature"

    Is this true in relation to other systems that have been attempted and failed in the past?

    Peter once quoted "Poverty is the worst form of violence". Does this mean Socialism and/or Communism create an impoverished society that leads to more violence and death, therefore amplifying the worst side of our nature more-so than capitalism?

    Asking because this is my perception of reality, but open to learn more.

  18. Jacque Fresco began describing his ideas regarding The Venus Project 25 years ago. Imagine where we could be today, if we had taken his ideas and Peter Joseph's philosophy seriously two decades ago. We most probably wouldn't be facing total mass extinction. To blindly sleep-walk into extinction simply because of a fear of the unknown is mind-blowingly stupid. The capitalists who designed this system knew little about human nature and behavior, so they continued to make choices that they should have known were illogical and unfeasible.

  19. Okay this is probably way off subject but I would like to read to you an excerpt from the book The Best that money can't buy Beyond politics poverty and War by Jacque Fresco the excerpt from chapter 4 from Superstition to science
    The challenges we face today cannot be resolved by Antiquated Notions and values that no longer relevant ,unfortunately we tend to support basic values and traditions that reflect the past without questioning their appropriateness to the present or the future, the more superficial the changes the more things remain the same for us to think creatively about the future and examine our traditional habits , we must become better informed ,we must look at achievements objectively and not try to fit the future into our present social mold, today millions of people throughout the Civilized World warships different gods and fear demons ,while some try to placate their gods with incantations, sacrifices ,adulation and flattery ,others use astrological charts and pendulums for arriving at decisions ,popular newspapers feature columns on astrology ,while television radio Airways are filled with psychic problem solvers, a noted psychic recently said "we should be surprised at how many important decisions about running our country are in the hands soothsayers and charlatans" until scientific inquiry came of age, human beings could not comprehend the relationship to the physical world so they invented their own explanations. These explanations tended to be simple and some more harmful, resulting in religious ritual superstitions, astrology, numerology, fortune-telling and more . Milions of people still except and follow these ancient beliefs, scientist are not close-minded regarding these issues, but their standards for accepting such ideas require more rigorous and sophisticated proof. the difference between sciencetist and a metaphysician is that the scientist ask a question and engages in experiments to determine the nature of the physical world, this process also requires that the experiments be verified by others who must get the same results, in contrast metaphysicians fabricate answers that are emotionally pleasing and require no verification, a process that is subjective and not in touch with the real or physical world, considering how metaphysicians rely on unverifiable information for direction, it is ironic to see them surrender lofty intuitive and spiritual interpretations of worldly things ,when it comes to their daily lives when purchasing property for example, they measure exactly how many square feet are being exchanged for a given sum of money, when purchasing a new automobile they asked how many miles per gallon the car will deliver or the exact cost of buying it. In fact much of our daily lives involving the applications of scientific principles as BF Skinner said intuitive feelings may tickle the cockles of a poet's heart but they do nothing to enhance our knowledge of the physical world. what makes a person feel good or feels to one's emotions does not necessarily add to one's understanding of the world. throughout history life for most has been a constant struggle against too many problems, finances ,Health, personal safety, communal security ,starvation and much else, finding no Safe Haven in the world where many are resigned to the consequences of original sin. Theologians created concept of distant heaven. in this place of Eternal Bliss and Limitless abundance full of warmth and love where people are free of destitution, greed ,lust the need for money and all other afflictions that have plagued humankind for centuries, to qualify for entrance into this world of Eternal Bliss however one was first die and also demonstrate impeccable Behavior while on Earth, they must also engage in constant prayer to and intermediary for forgiveness of their transgressions other seek to attain this while still on an Earthly plane through meditation and or reunification of the material world by this means they hope to experience Nirvana well it may be true that medicine will alter their associative memory and develop a procedure for filling their hopes dreams and wishes ,the attainment of this state takes place only in their minds ,this test to seek wish fulfillment and unique individual fantasy states often makes it difficult for people to tell the difference between the physical world and their fantasies. people will continue to search for answers to Universal and perplexing problems but to find meaningful answers one must first know what questions to ask. people pose complex questions without first having fundamental knowledge of what it is they are seeking, in science which is closer to the physical world it is acknowledged that there are no absolutes, if science where to accept absolutes, scientific inquiry would come to an end. A brief course in scientific principles enables a person to better understand the world and their relationship to it we can only experience the world with are receptors and the degree of linguistic Precision that our culture affords us, no one can view anything with the certainty they perceive it as it really is, if a mouse could talk it would describe a dog as an enormous creature, but a giraffe would say it is a tiny creature ,from his point of view, they are both telling the truth as they see it, but only from their own point of view.
    I highly recommend Carl Sagan the demon Haunted World science as a candle in the dark.

  20. Bravo! As a whole, we are behaving like deranged lunatics in this current world system! Thus, we could sum up this entire lecture in one word. Spitefulness. The solution to Spite is Equal Responsibility. Technology can help, but it is just a temporary band-aid and not the complete solution.

  21. I've been following PJ since the first Zeitgeist film, on and off. It seems he projects his own ignorance out towards the world while claiming to know the truth. If what he's saying is as well thought out as he claims people would have flocked in droves and built a template city already. But it's mostly hot air with a few tidbits of useful information.

  22. PJ and TZM broadcasts come so seldom and can't explain sufficiently how much they bring joy and contentment into my life let alone how establishing this knowledge is probably the most important thing that is being done currently. If ever there was a time of hopelessness and despair, this message will cure it. There is actually hope for humanity but is contingent upon this knowledge being understood to the point of critical mass adoption. May this message not be made in vain AND if ever you needed a "savior" look not to a man but to the school of thought. TZM could from this perspective be as godlike as anyone's needs would require.

  23. RBE is communism by definition by the very same definition of communism:

    "In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state." – Wikipedia

    Nobody has ever given me a reasonable explanation of a working communism system. And yes, Capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than every other system *that has been tried*.

  24. There's PLENTY of competition in the least violent nations on Earth. Canadians, for example, LOVE hockey, but do they have a problem with violent crime? Australians love sports, do they have a problem with violent crime? If anything, racism has been lessened by sports, because it's given people a means to appreciate the talents of certain minorities. I've agreed with a good deal of what the TMZ has promoted in the past, but this is the dumbest thing that I've ever heard from Peter Joseph.

  25. Thank you for this. You've articulated my own thoughts better than I could myself. As well as educated me on new concepts.

  26. Where are your original Zeitgeist documentaries I thought they would be on your channel but they seem to have disappeared 😞

  27. Ahhhh! I didn't get a notification. Mutha fuckin' Peter Joseph ladies and gentlemen! I also completely forgot about Zday

  28. Fiz legendas em português (BR) pro video, tá aqui no meu canal do youtube e na minha página do face também…

  29. Extinction Event:
    Today we are witnessing the most drastic melting of the Arctic EVER observed. We are 21 DAYS ahead of the previous record … and with that running head start, I don't see how we won't have a Blue Ocean Event (BOE) this summer.
    The Arctic and Antarctica have heated up three times the global average increase. 2 April 2019
    The President of Finland has been warning world leaders of the dangers of a multiple of a gigaton burst of methane from the Arctic region. A lack of ice coverage over the region's seas would allow sunshine to heat the frozen methane on the seabeds instead of being reflected off the normal ice coverage (Albedo effect). A massive burst would rapidly increase atmospheric temperatures by at least 1 C, thus, causing a major reduction in agriculture production. "If we lose the Arctic, we lose the whole world.” President Niinisto (Finland) John Berbatis Perth, Australia

  30. bias is powerful and I guess it must be reinforced by coming to understand and believe in a particular view point and losing touch with the continuum of ideas along the way – the therapy industry is full of this bias, once a therapist has bought into a belief system say CBT then they repeat ideas such as harmful diagnostic categories and reducing the irreducible such as when they reduce the complexity of life context to a mere trigger for your own hypothesised personal disorder – then the economic system, drug companies, the therapy industry ensures people buy into this toxic diagnosis seeking behaviour because it can come with benefits, it can reduce pressure on people to be more responsible because now it can't be helped because of your 'illness' the welfare system might offer you benefits over and above people without such a label and a bunch of others secondary gains – now does this help us really or does it cause us to suffer way more? i'd say the latter because after decades of this nonsense, more labels, drugs and talk therapy than ever before and yet illness increases year in year out we are clearly not seeing greater wellbeing but less – the therapy industry is also imported in to work places and schools so now burned out stressed workers and children rather than having their life context job, school completely changed to make them human positive they get worse pressure increases and when we snap, well now the industry will put the problem right inside of you – its your misperceptions, disordered thinking, unhelpful behaviour, beliefs and relationships – such a sick backward way of viewing things

  31. The biggest obstacle is Anti-Intellectualism! I've witnessed, too many times, the "tuning out" of others when trying to convey this message. A willful, or deliberate, ignorance (ignoring) new information. The response is similar to living under the Gestapo or KGB. Literally afraid to hear this, or be considered involved, in an idea against the current system.

  32. Overpopulation is one of the reasons why people started to occupy, embezzle, steal, sell, buy etc resources… We surely must be very cautious not to grow in population untill we have clear picture what kind of life can we offer to all the people…

    Simplicity isn't totally bad — e.g. we can say that most of, if not all the problems are because of artificial scarcity and the solution is max smart abundance. 🙂

  33. Peter, you have taught me so much thank you. Btw Buy Mr. Joseph's book! -The new human rights movement. I've read it twice going one a 3rd.

  34. I see this too — I'm a climate science educator. I find that 2/3 of voters are not technical or scientific, and their learning style (specifically for technical information) is kinesthetic participatory. When they take part in an activity which demonstrates the excess carbon dioxide being added every day to the atmosphere, they finally understand the climate crisis, and they are less vulnerable to the deluge of misinformation from the delayer/denier campaign. What's more — their political worldview doesn't get in the way any more. When they've experienced an experiment where they see carbon dioxide molecules absorb and trap heat — they understand at a deeper level, a physical hands-on level, and they DO change their views. They email me later often times, telling of their change in opinion. That's why I think we wouldn't be in this crisis, if scientists had admitted forty years ago that they are terrible communicators, and had been paired up with K-12 educators and liberal arts majors.

  35. "a cultural sickness" — yes, but Peter! Please offer some solutions! How do we even begin to move in the direction of changing our social structure to allow science and reason to guide our decision making? Maybe we could have a Citizens of Earth Summit, that's open, transparent, and broadcast to everyone, with the feedback monitored to be included in the discussions…

  36. Rebel against the governments of the world for criminal inaction on the climate crisis. Join the Rebellion beginning April 15th

  37. Scientific ingenuity doesn't need the market infrastructure!! S&P 500, Dow Jones kiss my ass! I'm gonna harness renewable energy and cutting edge biomedical technology without ya!

  38. 27:30 <– Peter Joseph makes valid points again.. People in society who view the world ONLY through the lens of Winning vs. losing must be suffering from some pathological condition. Albeit Narcissism, Paranoid Schizo, Bipolar, Sociopathy, Psychopathic disorder. Ooops, im not a psychologist, cannot diagnose. But just my stupid hunch, maybe all those military Generals, All those CIA heads and Political Elite are a tad bit messed up in the head. They clearly got some kind of pathology. Peter Joseph needs to be in a position where he can shake things up in global government. He should start with abolishing the FED.

  39. Peter you're the master of taking complicated ideas and condensing them in such a way that almost anyone could understand. Every time I listen to you, I feel ever so slightly enlightened :p Thank you for everything you do. It always troubles me though that more people don't have the opportunity or patience to listen. I guess most most people would rather watch cat videos or crappy pop music on YT!

  40. The train of thought has been planted and grown with your knowledge Peter. I hope to do the same with others.

  41. I wonder why Peter isn't freaking out about abrupt climate change, there wont even be humans, let alone a social construct!

  42. Peter can express my "irrational thoughts and feelings" as pure logic. Thank u for making me feel sane and not alone.

  43. Communist advocates be like "This corrupt and evil system needs to fall!", while sitting comfortably in their home, on their computers, enjoying a bag of cheetos. I love the zeitgeist hivemind 😀

  44. Thank you Peter. I have felt this way since childhood. Things are not black & white. I am not perfect but I am trying to live my life this way. Listening to others. Even those I disagree with. I've been shown time & time again that kindness & compassion will stop anger in and negativity in its tracks. Try it next time somebody upsets you. It works. I've felt for a long time that what we incentivie combined with our ability to spread information & technical leaps in weaponry will do us in. When will we drop this facade? I am a landscaper making $10 an hour. I wake up at 5 am and work 10 to 11 hours engaging in brutally hard work in the Florida sun. I can't afford to live on my own so at 39 I live with my parents. I kicked a heroin habit that sent me to prison where I was raped & then put in solitary confinement for 120 days. This happened at the age of 19. How can people not see that the "competitive trade" breeds a sociopathic society? How can people not understand that if you take religion out of the picture, like mankind never knew it they/we would not change how we love and care for one another. I got two toll booth tickets two years ago and due to late fees & reinstatement costs I can't afford to to get my driver's license back which due to the fact I am a felon only adds further restrictions on employment opportunities. I feel completely exploited by the court & traffic fines the judicial system has placed on me. I no longer use hard drugs but the machinery of the economic, judicial & social class is grinding away at my mental health. I am a musician & artist. I believe creativity in ALL forms has the power to bind humanity. To touch those emotional levels to galvanize & begin to change humanity. I also believe in what John Lennon said "Once you become violent they know how to handle you". So, that isn't the process of revolution. I've been looking in to Anarcho-syndicalism. Any thoughts on that? Anyway, I am so so grateful for your content. It gives me hope that other people see things in this manner. With much respect & an open mind I again thank you. If there's anything I can do to help please let me know. I'm trying to find happiness in helping others and opening people's perspective on these issues. That this antiquated, dividing & class structure inducing system or outlook must change. Here's a link to my music @wellrose1 on Twitter Slippery.sliding.slope on Instagram Hemingway Hummingbird on YouTube the Wellrose Hummingbird playlist CHEERS FROM ORLANDO

  45. Could you explain reasons about why capitalism is not the main point to end the poverty? I have heared it loads of times and it´s sounds so dodgy and the typical game with statistics that I can not believe it…

  46. I love his views on social design and technology, but I wish he and the organization would let go of the heliocentric nonsense.

  47. African continent is utilized much better by Europeans and Asians as history proves it. Population control is a must and it will also prevent any unpredictable mass-migration – and that's the most peaceful solution.

  48. I disapprove of this idolatry of intelligent people like Peter Joseph. You people keep throwing worship at this man, and while he is an amazing force for progress in the world, he should serve as a focal point for INSPIRATION for us to also get involved, and NOT just passive adoration

  49. I have kept up with this Zeitgeist media on and off since the first film came out. There are some flaws in the arguments that keep me from getting enthused about it as when the movement first started.

    One is blaming the “agricultural revolution” for the start of all today’s problems. This means you are saying we were basically better off as hunter gatherers, but by using the internet to release almost all of your information, you do not in practice believe this dismissal of the founding of civilization.

    The second is suggesting all of monotheism mostly Christianity was a series of formal conspiracies. Actually what you are against mostly is the politicization of Christianity since the historical Jesus Christ was a true anti-imperialist and took down the Roman Empire. I do not see why you would work against such a force of history, if you hope to do something similar like end relentless capitalism.

    Human nature is also subject to the material world. There is evidence that many human beings are carrying neanderthal DNA, and you cannot assume they are intelligent or cooperative enough to understand these ideas. Most people are content with being told what to do, and even in an idealized transcendent society, this would not be any different. You are a fairly intelligent and reflective guy, but most people are not true intellectuals.

    Your quarrels are actually with the industrial revolution, which is when most of the current world’s problems started. If you want to go all the way back to blame ancient humanists or civilizations, that is counterproductive.

  50. Peter Jospeh is the real deal. Thats why such an effort was made to demonize him and his movement. Because he presents actual solutions.
    The powers that be want the aware public listening to alex jones and joe rogan, because they dont present solutions, they present distractions.

  51. Thank you Peter Joseph! You're doing your talents work or passion!! I couldn't explain it like you did but I will try.

  52. “Bringing an entire human population up to a decent standard of living and eliminating poverty” yeah capitalism has raised the standards of living worldwide in real time. Only a fully functioning A.I that automates everything can replace this system

  53. After 4 movies, a book, and hundreds of hours of lectures and talks…. and people don't listen, then what? BTW how come you never see prior supporters going off and making their own films? Why are there NO other indie films on a RBE (that aren't spliced together from youtube videos)?

  54. Human Overpopulation is the elephant in the room.
    How many nations would be capable of self sufficiency via their capacity of resources, distribution and meritocractic capability, to support their population?

    The third world is not just simply exploited for labor and resources by the Western world, these countries benefit from the technological innovation of the western world.

    a NLRBE is an excellent concept and inevitable, only if we do something about managing our global population.

    If we shift our food system away from monocrop agriculture, reliant on fossil fuels, to grassland ecosystem grazing, we can produce higher nutrient dense animal foods from ruminants and repair the damage caused by over farming and desertification.

  55. I want to befriend with someone who loves reading peter joseph's book: The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression. who is willing to be my friend?

  56. I can't believe I fell for this crap many years ago. It's not surprising most of the advocates of this religion are the young ones, the most vulnerable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *