Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

[DobbyDevotchka]

I just want to stress more than anything that this is one of those extremely connotated documantaries.
Not by any means meant to watch if you feel like chillin and enjoying a relaxing evening.



I find this video compelling.
Beware, its lengthy! I suggest watching it in fragments, or skipping the long interludes. 
ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011

[Jude]

12 minutes in and I've already heard a fair amount of pseudo-scientific babble.  Gabor Mate in particular is completely insane.

EDIT: I encourage anyone who watches this to google the name of each and every speaker, listen very carefully to their words, and pay attention to the flow of their logic.  This documentary is full of fallacies, garbage, and experts speaking about things that they aren't actually experts on.

EDIT2:  And it gets worse, an hour in and I've hit my limit for craziness, and I regularly listen to Republican Talk Radio because I find it fascinating.  The idea that we haven't cured cancer because of the profit move is completely insane.

[Ramster]

Thank you, Jude. That's what I've been trying to tell my friends ever since they've seen it, but they won't listen because excessive consumption of marijuana can lead to paranoia and the automatic assumption that everything the government says is a lie and everything on AboveTopSecret.com has a kernel of truth.

[Oniya]

My neighbors actually have 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward' as a bumper sticker.  I'm now curious about whether it's related to this documentary, and at the same time, not wanting to ask lest I get into a debate on logical fallacies.

[DobbyDevotchka]

  I've been through post secondary schooling, and they taught us well that you're expected to source your information, to make sure that it's all legit shit being written/said by a legit author or professional.  I know how to take most everything I hear with a grain of salt, but i'll never shut my mind off completely to the ideas that someone with some sense of what they're talking about says.   Everyone has a right to express an opinion, it is up to the reader/watcher to make what they want to make of it. 
  The thing that carries my attention throughout this film is that they're addressing current issues, while trying to scientifically rationalize the reason for why it is that way.   I don't think it's paranoia fueled, I think its trying to be humanitarian,  there's no easy way to talk about these kinds of things without someone feeling its a reason to stir some shit and create false problems. 

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things in this movie that makes me kinda roll my eyes, but i still like the way I approach these matters from a new angle I never looked at before.  There's a lot of shit happening in this world, and I feel a weird sense of comfort knowing that someone is trying to provoke thought regarding these issues...........

[mystictiger]

I couldn't get past the introduction :(

Is society decaying? If so, how and on what scale?
What is the social function of art? Why must it show the world as changeable? And why is art the medium through which the world must be changed?

Urgh!

Overly pretentious arts students who have too much time on their hands and too little desire / skill / gumption / stones to go out and, in Mr Ghandi's words, be the change they want to see in the world.

[DobbyDevotchka]

I couldn't get past the introduction :(

Is society decaying? If so, how and on what scale?
What is the social function of art? Why must it show the world as changeable? And why is art the medium through which the world must be changed?

Urgh!

Overly pretentious arts students who have too much time on their hands and too little desire / skill / gumption / stones to go out and, in Mr Ghandi's words, be the change they want to see in the world.

Sometimes because art can transcend language. Like music for example.

[mystictiger]

I don't know what the opposite of transcend is, but that's what this did for me. It made me angry that there are people in the world that require images of suffering to be MTVified to be moved by them, that people are so closed off to the world around the that they didn't know how lucky we are / unlucky they are. I found this approach, this artifying the plight of different groups, to be a horrible experience. There is scant dignity in suffering, and this approach lessons it even further.

You are of course welcome to your own take on it. The world would be very boring if everyone agreed with me. And of course, there are different things that move and convince me. The babble, the pretentiousness, and the pretty-pretty clever-clever visuals turned me right off.

[DobbyDevotchka]

  The only thing that comes to mind response to that, is that it's been proven that people absorb things through different filters.  I'm sure you've heard of the Audio/Kinetic/Visual filters.   There are those of us who retain information by hearing it, some things hit home more clearly when you see it visually, and others need to just do it to know it.  I think a lot of us are a combination of these three things.  We can associate images to feelings or words that we've read. 

[mystictiger]

Oh, absolutely! The audience should always determine the message - different people are convinced by different things.

[DarklingAlice]

(A) This is crap. Even sharing a number of the sentiments presented, I find this video repellent. It's narmy, fallacious, and intentionally misleading. It fails as a documentary, and dips into paranoia and conspiracy theory, and clearly has no idea about the difference between correlation and causation. This is an attempt to take genuine crises and issues and skew them to a particular agenda, and it does a disservice to people actually trying to deal with these problems.

(B) For once, I am actually in agreement with mystictiger, and that in itself is disturbing :P

(C) Could someone please kick this over to P&R where it belongs? It's not academics, and pseudo-scientific at best.

[DobbyDevotchka]

I cant help but kind of laugh at how much negativity this video has stirred up! 


What part makes you think of conspiracy theory exactly?   There's a lot of material that i can understand as such, but im just curious.

I don't get what's so repellent about trying to assess the fact that we have a certain amount of resources on this planet, and that it's logical to try and use them as efficiently and ecologically as possible, so that when the time comes when we need it, we're not sitting around thinking "Oh geeeeeee, we should have thought about this the first time around."  The way this Peter Joseph proposes how we'd approach the globe, knowing everything we know up to this point, and how we'd inhabit the planet differently than how we do now. 

What is so unfathomable about looking at nurture vs nature regarding violence and what drives people toward committing crimes?  If it's thought that we were a non-violent species when equality is upheld,  I don't think it's completely unrealistic to entertain the reasons they think we act the way we do.   
 

[Jude]

Dobby, let me start by saying I think you seem like a very intelligent person.  You seem very rational and interested in learning about the way the world works.  This is information I'm interested in too.  I love alternate explanations for complicated problems, I love hearing everyone out and judging them on the quality of their evidence, I am totally into considering different perspectives and trying to come up with a more truthful way to view the universe.  And I think you are too.

For starters, here's a little review on Peter Jackson and his first Zeitgeist:  http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4196

As for ideas of his in this particular film that I thought were bad, I'll address what I feel I am qualified to (that is stuff I know I am well-educated, read, and versed on to the point that I can accurately critique it).

- He held this point of view before working on this documentary.  Therefore in filming it he was clearly looking for evidence that backs up that idea; that's a great way to put on blinders to any information that contradicts with your point of view.

- The idea that money is evil or unnatural to human beings is absolutely silly.  It's a pretty obvious evolution of the barter system, which is why we find it so often when we analyze ancient cultures.  Money being the root of all evil seems unlikely to me;  without it why not stockpile precious metals, rare resources, et cetera.

- The system of the earth may infact be finite, but being finite is different than being closed.  The earth is not a closed system.  If it was, we'd be dead already.  All life on this planet thrives through utilizing the resources that continue to bombard us in the form of light from the sun.  Eventually we'll be mining asteroids too, so I'm not worried about precious metals either.  I find his characterization of the earth as "finite" with limited resources to be lacking in foresight.

- He acts like we haven't made any progress since the free market was born.  Now, I don't think a purely free market is a good thing (I believe in firm government oversight and some intervention), but you have to admit, the last 100 years were pretty kind to our species (in terms of comfort, entertainment, convenience, and life-span).  His insistence on ousting the current model seems based on an over-dramatic interpretation of current problems.  Things really aren't so bad.

[DarklingAlice]

I cant help but kind of laugh at how much negativity this video has stirred up! 


What part makes you think of conspiracy theory exactly?   There's a lot of material that i can understand as such, but im just curious.

I don't get what's so repellent about trying to assess the fact that we have a certain amount of resources on this planet, and that it's logical to try and use them as efficiently and ecologically as possible, so that when the time comes when we need it, we're not sitting around thinking "Oh geeeeeee, we should have thought about this the first time around."  The way this Peter Joseph proposes how we'd approach the globe, knowing everything we know up to this point, and how we'd inhabit the planet differently than how we do now. 

What is so unfathomable about looking at nurture vs nature regarding violence and what drives people toward committing crimes?  If it's thought that we were a non-violent species when equality is upheld,  I don't think it's completely unrealistic to entertain the reasons they think we act the way we do.   

Having neither the desire nor time to do the riff on the whole of this two hour hunk of junk, I am going to do my best to boil it down to salient features that I think render this production worthless:
1) It twists towards its premise, presents selective evidence (where it bothers to present evidence at all) and generally just tries to tell you: 'this is the way the world is because we say so, take our word for it'.
2) It outright lies (or is really that clueless) and pretends that modern economic theory is identical to Locke and Smith.
3) It oversimplifies real problems and spreads misinformation. E.g. the whopper about lack of money being the sole reason AIDS isn't cured and treated in Africa (not only ignoring the crisis of HIV in wealthy nations, but also vastly understating the problems afforded by the behaviour of individual people following localised rules to form a staggeringly, dauntingly complex system). Moreover it tries to (absurdly) tie all problems to one source.
4) It solely presents solutions palatable to its political bent while excluding alternatives that remain valid even under its schema. e.g. eugenics, nuclear power, population limits, etc. Thus presenting you with the concept of 'our way' or 'the evil system'. Thus using the very concept of false dichotomy that it explicitly calls a tool of manipulation.
5) It engages in a patronising tone and relies on dismissal and mockery rather than argument. Yet another thing that it itself points out as a fallacy and a tool of manipulation.
6) It provides little to no actual evidence for any of its claims, and warns against trusting the establishment and experts (cause they are after all, controlled by the system). It purports to have stumbled upon things that experts 'don't know' or 'don't realise' or are 'afraid to admit'. Also the idea that we academics are in it for the glitz and the money is one of the most hilarious pieces of garbage I have ever heard <_<
7) It serves as a soapbox for people complaining that the establishment has marginalised them for their radical ideas, instead of admitting that they just don't know what they are talking about.

In short, it follows the exact same deplorable techniques used by anti-vaxers and 'intelligent design' advocates. While it looks at many genuine problems it tries to claim an oversimplification of these problems and an exclusivity on (a single) solution. A solution that is conveniently completely untenable, but exists to serve as a rallying cry for self-pity, victim think, and wishes that the world were different. A solution that conveniently requires that people who want it don't have to actually go and try to make the world a better place, but instead get to just feel like victims of the big boogie man of 'the system'.

It trivialises real problems, advocates fantasy solutions, pushes bad science, and belittles those of us who actually try to work to make the world a better place. As a result I feel that its goal is to actually discourage people from taking any kind of action other than giving vocal support to its political view. It is a feel good puff piece for people who are depressed about the world, but are too lazy/incapable/unwilling to take real steps. I would put it on the same level as Fox news and do not think it suitable for any kind of serious consideration.

[mystictiger]

EDIT: Jude & Darkling put my objections in a more eloquent fashion. I will therefore unrant.

[DobbyDevotchka]

  Thank you Jude(for the kind insight... I like to think I'm as smart as i can be!  ;D), and Darkling for underlying what exactly puts you off about this film.  I too totally understand where you're both coming from in regards to how hypocritical it is to denounce 'the system' as a one answer system, when in turn he throws one answer at the viewer regarding how we should go on from here. 

  I don't think I ever bought in to the idea of creating this utopian resource based economy.  I believe strongly that there's a valid reason we have developed the systems and governments that we currently live in, that progress is made based on trial and error and we move ahead with those discoveries.