$tupid

The seemingly utopian ideal of a world without money has been stewing in my head for quite a long time, perhaps ever since I became familiar with communism as related by someone other than some small-minded Republican who hasn't gotten round to moving on from the dark days of McCarthyism. Just stewing, mind you. It's not like I've managed to formulate some grand plan to free humanity of the shackles of currency and haul us all, kicking and screaming, into the nigh magical post-scarcity future of Iain M Bank's Culture.

With this moneyless ideal in mind, this article from BBC News' website caught my attention. Anybody who's been using the Net long enough will know of the ongoing conflict between those who believe information should be free and the men in suits who would put a price tag and take a commission for every little piece of so-called "intellectual property" produced.

A couple of months ago, I slipped a Youtube video into this blog from this Jap bloke - Hiroshi... something-or-other. Anyway, he pointed out that as this world gets more and more connected, the value of information diminishes, such that information is no longer of any real value, but the wisdom to sort, select and wield information becomes of paramount importance. It wasn't long ago that a human mind was only limited by its imagination. Now, with the Net, a human mind is limited only by the collective imagination of all of humanity. With the Net, the floodgates have opened to a massive leap in the limits of human cognition. Perhaps, in this respect, we've unwittingly stumbled into Vernor Vinge's technological singularity.

I can't escape the feeling that humanity is on the edge of something good. Well, hell, better than good. Something bright and amazing but for some reason continues to elude us because too many people close their eyes to too many uncomfortable truths. For a start, why is it that the richest 10% of adults account for 85% of the world's assets?

It is a sad fact of life that money begets money. To get rich, you *could* win your fortune by your own (or if you're sneaky enough, someone else's) sweat, blood and tears. But hell, that's nothing compared to being born rich, and raised to get richer. We see such tycoons as Branson, Soros, Buffett make it big and are seduced by the glammer. Wealth beyond imagining - isn't that a good thing? Isn't it great to be able to build such a fantastic fortune from the ground up?

I say no. I liken the achievement of these tycoons to that of players of a very skillful, yet fundamentally worthless game. Like tiddlywinks or golf, say, or maybe even Yugi-Oh, Poxnora, or Pokemon or those horribly addictive Facebook games (you know the ones), the acquisition of money is a game. However, it is a less-than-zero sum game that's fueled by the many, many losers who play it under the sad yet seductive delusion that anyone can be a winner. And it is in the blind pursuit of this delusion that we dig for ourselves a deeper and deeper hole. Add to that the effects of inflation and the very idea of eliminating poverty is but a castle in the sky.

As long as money as churned out by a central bank exists, this game of musical chairs will always plague humanity - there MUST be losers. And because of the nature of money, building value out of scarcity, we can never achieve our full potential. Worse yet, in our blind, desperate, groping for more money, we pollute everything we touch. Beautiful music is twisted into catchy jingles, whatever sells. Visual arts intensify into the garish obscenity of modern advertising. Literature degenerates to whatever makes the widest possible market feel good, burying truly valuable words in a tide of glurge, mysticism and motivational rot.

This is not to say that the world of Idiocracy is coming to life. Intellectuals in every age have despaired of the folly of man, few as eloquently as Erasmus, yet somehow, we manage to bumble our way through.

In the past, the scale of the social meltdown caused by the sheer buildup of inequality was held in check by the limits of communication and transportation technology. Then, in the wake of the 2nd World War, a hint of what things may come was seen in long paroxysm of violence that was the Red Revolution and the wave of communism that swept the world. History has shown us that communism is not the problem, but rather the weakness of human nature in executing the communist ideal. Only the most ruthless, unscrupulous, yet charismatic people could stand a chance of leading such revolutions, fueled by the righteous indignation of the oppressed. With such people on top, the social experiment of communism could only fail. The remaining communist regimes have had no option save to become reluctant participants in the capitalist game.

Now, the world is more connected than ever before, and globalisation slowly smudges the borders between nations into nonexistence. With Deng Xiaoping's reforms, China is now set to be the biggest player in human history of the money game, meaning the stakes have now been raised like never before. But, ultimately, this is a game that can only be lost; it's simply a matter of time.

It's clearer to me now, more than ever, that a new system is needed. I can't rightly say that I have one, and, crazy as it sounds, I think Jacque Fresco is looking in the right direction. But, as Bertrand Russell rightly pointed out, the very idea of humanity spontaneously adopting an system guaranteeing equality and justice for all is laughable. There are simply too many people with too many vested interests in inquality and injustice and, of course, they're holding all the cards. True human progress, a world in which war and poverty are eradicated and every human has an equal oppurtunity to reach their full potential, demands the system be overturned, but it won't be pretty.

I don't think I've ever quite hoped so much that time will prove me wrong.

On Zeitgeist: Addendum

As I mentioned a couple of posts ago, Zeitgeist: Addendum mostly centers around the 3rd point of the first Zeitgeist, i.e. that the banks are out to own everything, and will stop at nothing to have the whole world under their well-polished leather heels with the power of debt and interest. It waxes overly dramatic at times, drifting into the realm of painfully cheesy for a bit just before the end credits. A lot of the evidence presented is anecdotal, which is a crippling blow to its credibility, though, given the nature of the information being presented, anecdotal is quite likely going to be as good as it can possibly get.

All that having been said, Zeitgeist: Addendum strikes a chord with me. There, I said it. For a very long time now, I've been living with a certain suspicion. Looking at the world around us, people will cheat, steal and kill for little bits of paper. Why is this? Why does it seem that there's never enough of the stuff to go round? Why is it that some people can live lives of obscene decadence while nations starve and die? And what I've been wondering is: Surely it doesn't have to be this way?

And that's basically what Zeitgeist: Addendum is about. Aside from the massive deluge of information regarding the diabolical agendas of powerful banking families, it also puts forward some striking thoughts from a certain visionary/nutter, Jacque Fresco. Visionary because what he proposes is a piece of social restructuring so radically ahead of its time it defies belief. Nutter for pretty much the same reason.

The long and short of what Fresco puts forward in the Venus Project is that money is unnecessary, and that without money, humanity can achieve the supremely pure communism captured in the sentence: "Communism is the complete abolition of private property."

One of the major justifications of the free market economy is the argument that, ideally, competition results in the best goods being produced for the lowest prices, hurrah for the consumer. Now, in case I haven't mentioned this enough times, I live in Malaysia, a nation intellectually crippled by an inferior education system* and the mass delusion that is theism**. This basically leaves us with a large segment of the population being fairly gullible, shallow-minded wage zombies. I'm sure some of you know the feeling. And in the land of the suckers, the marketing executive is king. Add to that the legendary Malaysian work ethic (or lack thereof) and the free market ideal degenerates into selling the most cheaply produced goods for the highest prices possible.

Of course, we see more twisted forms of the free market economy manifesting itself. Destruction of goods to create scarcity to raise prices. Outsourcing to foreign nations, creating a cycle of impossible competition a la Walmart. Planned obsolescence, keeping tech junkies always holding their breath for the next, better gadget, or spending money fixing the junk they'd already bought. Withholding of alternative energy technologies, because a handful of exceedingly rich people still haven't quite squeezed enough out of hydrocarbons And of course, instigating and perpetuating expensive wars against hapless nations who didn't actually do anything other than look like they were going to achieve a measure of economic independence. Always generate demand, always generate scarcity, because that is what keeps prices up.

And that's pretty much the central thesis of Zeitgeist: That the problem is money. In generating money, the banks perpetuate a game which ends in them owning everything. In trying to obtain enough money for ourselves, we are driven to evils, big and small.

What Fresco proposes is that, with money out of the equation, humanity's problems are now simply reduced to resources, and he believes that we DO have the resources AND the technology to keep everybody happy. And in the words of Mr Mulder: I want to believe. I really do.

It is a massive leap, no question about it. Without money, what are your motivations? Why live? Why work? To constantly scrabble for money is such a central part of so many lives, what would happen without it? Bankers and accountants would be out of a job, for a start. So would marketing executives (and good riddance). But then again, in a world without money, what's the use of jobs? Without money, the wage zombie, the salaryman, the white collar warrior is obsolete!

Fresco believes that with money out of the way, new, purer motivations would arise. That people would explore intellectual realms and pursue their passions, not merely to secure a high-paying job, but for the love of knowledge and human endeavour. Not only that, but a purer form of reciprocal altruism would arise, that is, people will do favours for each other, not because they wish to secure a favour in return, but simply because it contributes to the happiness of society as a whole. I think you can see now why I say visionary/nutter.

I've been atheist a long time, and I've seen my fair share of reactions to being told that one's entire belief system, upon which one has based an entire life, is a lie. But money? Destroying the childish myths of the Abrahamic religions was easy by comparison, but this new god, that is, Money, is a different prospect entirely.

If what the Zeitgeist movies say is true, humanity has created for itself a slow, self-destructive spiral of pure avarice. The way out is a revolution unlike anything this world has ever seen: the abolition of money. This doesn't seem to me like something that will happen gradually, like the erosion of the Catholic Church's credibility, but will require a sharp paroxysm of spiritual (and quite likely physical) violence. Like giving society at large a Heimlich maneuver. Sound crazy? I thought so. But keep an open mind. Watch the movie. Think.

*Go ahead. Ask any Malaysian what wonderfully useful things they learnt at school. Besides maths.

** Don't get me started on this one.

Uh-oh...

Was browsing the RDF forums today, and my eye stopped on the subject 'POLL: Do you support gay marriage?' What worries me is that the very first thing that popped into my head was:

No. BUT I don't support marriage in any form whatsoever either. I am fair in my disdain for the institution of marriage, am I not?

This is it, innit? I've become a bitter husk of humanity with NO hope of ever getting into any sort of meaningful relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Or indeed any sex. And I even count a cat among my best friends:


*sigh*...

The Spirit of the Times

I just watched Zeitgeist and it's sequel over the weekend, and I have to say, it's more than a bit unsettling. I like a good controversy every so often, but I can't make up my mind about Zeitgeist. I'm thinking that perhaps there was a bit too much to swallow too quickly. Can't say for sure, but here's the gist of the first Zeitgeist movie. Its divided into three major sections:

1. Debunking Christianity - This section mostly dissects the Bible as a massive collection of allegory and plagiarism. I've read quite a few dissections of the Bible before, and seen the odd compilation of contradictory statements that punctuate it, reducing it to a text of pretty much no intellectual value whatsoever in terms of moral guidance. Zeitgeist dealt with it quite differently, claiming that Jesus Christ never actually existed and his story is in fact allegorical, based largely on ancient astronomical observations of the Sun, mixed in with the catchy bits of whatever myths happened to be popular at the time. Of course, Mithra makes an appearance.

Personally, I wasn't particularly fussed by this section. I've done quite enough digging on my own in the past, and the matter has already been dealt with at great length by any number of intellectuals in defense of reason. The conclusion I've drawn for myself remains clear: The Abrahamic religions are nothing but a lot of catchy words to control inferior minds. Still, I suppose it was interesting to see a bit more information on the origins of the most infuriatingly persistent silly myths of our times.

2. 9/11 - This section examines the kamikaze hijiackings of Sep 11, 2001. I've no idea where in blazes those videos are from, but assuming they're not photoshopped or some such, they're very, very interesting indeed. The theory being put forward in Zeitgeist is that the Sep 11 attacks were in fact staged, i.e. a False Flag attack, in order to persuade the US public to start a war with Afghanistan and Iraq. Oh, and to justify a perpetual war against "Terror", which, as we all know these days, is a catch-all phrase for anyone who doesn't agree with US foreign policy.

What struck me as particularly interesting about this section was footage of the collapse of WTC 7, which very promptly collapsed on itself in a way that could only be described as too neat. It didn't get hit by a plane, but it had a little trouble with fire and I hear it got whacked by a chunk of debris from one of the two major towers. Neither the fire nor the debris seem like they could feasibly topple WTC 7 in the manner that it did. Well, I'm no engineer, but seriously, do look up the fall of WTC 7. It really, really doesn't look right.

There was another thing about the 9/11 attacks that was a bit odd: The other two planes. EVERYBODY saw the strikes on the WTC. Fair enough, perhaps, that no-one saw the one that hit the Pentagon. And obviously no-one saw the Shanksville crash. But what about the wrecks? If what turned up in Zeitgeist is true, there wasn't enough to build even a fraction of a plane in Shanksville. Or even at the Pentagon, for that matter.

I suppose that the possibility that 9/11 was a False Flag attack is painfully ugly to contemplate. That having been said, were I not already familiar with a bit of what Chomsky has to say on US foreign policy, I'd say such a conspiracy theory is too ugly to contemplate. But, horribly enough, it makes sense, in an unconscionably cold and Macchiavellian way. How does one push through an imperialist agenda while maintaining the facade of a democracy? Nothing unites a people faster than a common enemy. Haven't got one? Make one! Preferably one that can't put up much resistance. No point picking fights you can't win, eh? Anyway, moving on...

3. Central banks - This section more than any other worried me, and I've been wondering if I read into it wrongly from the outset. In addition to masses of supposed evidence highlighting the diabolical agendas of banks to dominate the world, this section points out an aspect of the central banking system which absolutely ensures civilization is locked into an inexorable less-than-zero-sum game. So, I'm going to lay out my understanding of it here and hope someone can pass useful comment if I'm drastically wrong.

Simply put, a central bank, specifically the Fed, does 2 things - control interest rates and churn out money, thus regulating the value of said money. Easy enough. But what is stated in Zeitgeist is that every dollar printed is a loan, with interest, from the central bank to the government of whatever country houses it. But if some amount X is lent out from the central bank, requiring payment of (X + x), where is x supposed to come from? So the central bank prints more money. To lend to the government. At interest, of course. And this is the very foundation of the rat race - a perpetual cycle of debt to the central bank. A game that can't be won, and the bank is holding all the cards. A glorified pyramid scheme, basically.

And while everyone else is left scrabbling for whatever money they can lay their hands on, for whatever petty reasons they may have, the banks sit pretty, barely having to lift a finger because they're the ones who ultimately control the money. Now, if a nation were a closed system, this state of affairs would quickly burn out the country. Hence, the need to prey on other nations, to strip them of their resources, to cripple them with debt and, should they be so unsporting as to be unwilling to play this fool's game, to wage war on them. Waging war is apparently lots of fun for a central bank, because it means the nation has to find funds for the war effort - more debt!

If this view of the central bank system is true, then a large part of modern civilization is essentially built on slavery to little bits of paper that aren't actually worth anything.

In fact, the 2nd movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, focuses mainly on the horrors perpetrated by the Fed, linking it to US involvement in WWI, WWII and the Vietnam War. It's like seeing a bad conspiracy theory magazine come to life. I honestly don't know what to make of it. Seriously, I do try very hard to examine closely every aspect of my life and the world around me and I try even harder not to fall into the trap of assuming something to be morally correct because it's a social norm*. But what the Zeitgeist movies have pointed out... it beggars belief. Whatever the truth may be, do watch it. I for one think it's worth thinking about.

Tune in next time, and we'll see if I remember to talk about Zeitgeist: Addendum, and discuss the suggestions put forward on how to escape the clutches of the banks.

* Partly because I'm in Malaysia, and what passes for a social norm here can be pretty disgusting.

The Price of Freedom...

Is incredible stupidity. The URL says it all:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/comedy-goldmine/more-failures-humanity.php

Kikoemasuka?

I eavesdrop a lot. Hell, I eavesdrop constantly, in restaurants or cafes, waiting in queues, on the bus or on the train, walking through crowds or wherever. Not sure why, but it’s something of a habit now, and I find it useful for gauging which way the wind blows in society. But let me say, what I hear is fucking depressing. Let me tell you why.

I mentioned before I’m a secular humanist (of transhumanist leanings). As such, my priorities in life are pretty much in line with the Humanist Manifesto 2. I want to believe in a brighter future for humanity. I want to believe that there is an intellectual solution to the human condition, one that results in a stable, sustainable world where everybody can enjoy a reasonable degree of well-being and job satisfaction. But the thing is, everything I see and hear is pointing towards a completely different direction. If anything, there appears to be more than a grain of truth in the words of Agent Elrond; that humanity a virus on this Earth, selfishly consuming without thought for the future. And like a plague too virulent for its own good, we’re burning out our resources faster than is safe.

Look for a moment beyond your own lives. Think for a moment about the direction of human history. There was once a time when we, like every other creature on this planet, had to fight tooth and nail for our survival. Now suddenly, in a very short time, we appear to have gotten too good at it. We’re on top of the food chain, with no natural enemies save other humans. We spread across the planet like a virus, consuming and consuming, impacting the environment in ways ridiculously out of proportion with our relatively meagre biomass.

We are programmed by genetic prerogative and culture to treasure our lives beyond all else, and each of us strives ever onward to better our own well-being before all else. Perhaps that was for the best, centuries ago, when human life was shorter and more brutal. But there’s over 6 billion of us now. If you’re a fan of Gaia Theory or perhaps more comfortable thinking in terms of geological time, then perhaps you could be forgiven for considering the threat humans pose to the planet as relatively small. Admittedly, I am inclined to agree. A meteor impact could quite easily erase humans from this planet just as easily as it did the dinosaurs. Sea levels could rise and drown the planet, leaving the fishies to inherit the very wet Earth. At the end of the day, life on Earth would go on, with or without humans.

But the thing is, I’m human and have an interest in the survival of my species. Apparently fundies, marketing executives and junior auditors are, too. I have to keep reminding myself of the fact.

The market economy has been the most powerful engine of human endeavour in the history of man. Driven by profit, we have explored every inch of this planet, advanced the sciences and reaches new heights of art and culture. Perhaps there are those who believe that human progress was driven by more noble intentions. Perhaps they would point out to me the poets and writers and explorers and other luminaries who died penniless, whose legacies would not blossom until long after they died, testaments to their selflessness in the name of endeavour. I will not dispute their intentions, nor will I dishonour their memory speculating on their motivations. However, what one has to bear in mind when speaking of humans as a race and their relation to the market economy is that it has been a great driver in achieving new levels of efficiency in food production. With greater efficiency, a small proportion of a population can feed ever larger populations. This frees the population not engaged in food production to engage in other professions, without which we’d never have developed the societies in which the great luminaries of human discovery sprang forth.

For the longest time, the human race was no more than scattered tribes in a big, big world. We reaped the bounties of sea and earth, not for a moment pausing in our quest to gain more and more for ourselves, ignoring the fates of fallen empires even though we now find ourselves on the same road.

In our world, money begets more money and money is the ultimate power. This isn’t cynicism. This is the harsh reality, beyond naive illusions of good and evil, this is the reality that we have made for ourselves. Because of this, the fate of the human race lies in the hands of so very, very few people indeed. The paradigm by and large remains the same; get more money. And here we are, after 13,000 years of modern man, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The limits of the world’s natural resources are making themselves known. Modern economic theory still has yet to take into account environmental impact. The human race is growing and consuming in a manner that can only lead to inevitable scarcity of resources, and after that, conflict, death and misery on an unprecedented scale.

In the long run, perhaps a few hundred years after what appears to be a highly probable World War, maybe humans can take a lesson from this state of affairs and manage themselves better. Maybe, if not for one crucial factor: Nuclear weapons.
We’ve all heard the stories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We’ve seen the photos of these two cities reduced to ash and men turned to vapour, leaving nothing more than silhouettes on a wall. Now consider the fact that between the US and former Soviet Union alone, there are over 30,000 warheads each with the explosive power of at least 25 Hiroshima-strength bombs. Quite sufficient to wipe the Earth clean of all life, except maybe for cockroaches.

That is the threat of future war. Mutually assured destruction. But this is not where the problem lies. The threat of nuclear fire is not something that we’ll see in our lifetimes. Judging by US military spending alone, there are many more imaginative ways to wreak large-scale havoc. The point is, it’s not a future we have to face. What it all comes down to is consumption. Consumption and the hearts and minds of Joe Average all around the world.

The flesh and blood of the market economy is the consumer. More consumption pumps more money around the system, and for that reason, the market economy flourishes in a society filled with shallow-minded consumers. This is what Joe Average wants: More children, more money. And not a moment spent thinking about what it means if everybody on the planet thought the same way. Those who have less desire more, but by the cruel reality of the market economy, it is those who have more than they need that are in a position to acquire even more. And so it is that so very few people control so very much of the world’s wealth. And to perpetuate this state of affairs (something those in power are very keen on indeed), Joe Average must be kept wanting more. Joe Average must be kept stupid, so he has no idea what the consequences of non-sustainable consumption will inevitably lead to.

Now, I know I’m not the only person who reads the works of Jared Diamond, so I’ve no doubt that a great many intellectually inclined people are out there, doing what they can to stave off the coming apocalypse. But how many are there? Thousands? Consumerism, like religion, is a meme virus. And like any decent meme virus, it lodges itself deep in the minds of its victims, clouding their thoughts, leaving them as the diminished consumerist zombies they are today.

I want to believe that those who would protect the future are making a difference, that their exhortations for moderation and environmental awareness are being heard. So I eavesdrop. And I listen to see if maybe, just maybe I can figure out which way the wind blows.