Hope destroys intellect.
Maybe in the U.S. the for-profit medical industry would suppress a cure for AIDS and cancer. Maybe. But what about the rest of the industrialized world, where healthcare is provided by the state? What government wouldn’t want to save billions of dollars?
Or are only Americans capable of curing AIDS and cancer?
In the movie version, yes.
Here’s the thing: energy already is cheap. The refining of oil and the internal combustion engine let’s us meet the demand of 100 years ago for devices powered by water, wind, and horses with the equivalent of a 5 HP engine per-household. But when energy got cheaper we just found new ways to us it: ubiquitous lighting, central heat and air conditioning, cars, planes, TVs, computers, etc. Make it even cheaper and we will start doing stuff like heating the outside in winter or cooling beach sand.
Yeah, good luck with that one.
How many Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots have been lost due to the shortcomings of society?
It’s very malleable. But here’s the thing: in our society, almost everything enables and encourages a certain nature. How would you propose a transition to a radically different nature?
Yes, but here’s the thing: nobody has ever managed to propose a system that would, realistically, perform better. Nobody.
Money is simply a tool used for allocating resources. If you get rid of that tool, why do you think resources would get allocated any better?
Zeitgeist is bullsheist. It’s that low level of logic that says things like “You know, if everyone just took their foot off the brake and put it on the accelerator at the same time, we wouldn’t have this traffic jam”. Superficial it makes sense until you realize that things don’t happen in this magical bubble and there are other factors that need to be considered.
The same thing happened with polio, right? So many people were making money off of polio victims that nobody bothered coming up with a cure or a vaccine.
See here’s the thing. In my view this capitalist experiment is doomed to fail. It already has for a vast majority of the world. Things are just getting worse. Inequality grows, resources are wasted and the environment is being destroyed. But this is only natural in a system that rewards competition.
So why are you defending this system that truly does not serve you?
Because other systems, both political and economic, have been tried (authoritarianism, oligarchy, socialism, communism, totalitarianism) and been found wanting. Our current understanding, both theoretical and in practice, is that a government founded on the consent of the governed with democratically elected leaders in a primarily capitalist economic system with a socialized safety net provides the best results for the most individuals.
Basically your (and most utopian’s) flaw is in that one small line you added a few posts up. “The world is what we make it”. No, it’s not. The world is what it is. Human nature is what it is. We can work to improve it in our communities, and even in the world at large. But you can’t just override it with power or persuasion.
If you say big Pharma next…
Yeah, I’m tempted to say (in the spirit of E. M. Forster) “Two cheers for capitalism.” Capitalism has its flaws, especially in its purest and most unregulated form, but one great advantage it has is that it actually uses human self-interest to humankind’s advantage (Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”), rather than denying human nature.
Yeah, I’m on the bandwagon. After all, there is blood in the water. 
Ok. The fundamental problem is…how do you allocate those resources without something like money? Do you barter 100 tons of steel for 500 tons of coal? A chicken sandwich for a stack of paper? How do you pay your workers for their labor? In products that they would have to barter with someone else to get products of their labor and end up with what they need? You need to have something to substitute for money, which is a universal proxy. What is it?
It’s total horseshit. Fundamentally, it’s all about resource allocation. How will they allocate resources in this Zeitgeist brave new world?
We HAVE focused on clean energy. We (and the rest of the world) have built solar, wind, tidal/wave, geothermal and nuclear (which you didn’t mention). The trouble with them is that most of the ones you mentioned (the exception being the one you didn’t) don’t scale to meet our needs.
You also seem to have a rather limited idea of the understanding of value or cost. Solar, wind, tidal/wave and geothermal all COST a lot to implement…and a large cost to maintain. That isn’t going to magically change if you do away with money. A lot of those things take rare earth metals, or other multistage products (aluminum, steel, carbon fiber, etc). How will you get those materials without paying for them? Once they are in, how will you maintain them without paying your workers? Will you pay them in energy that they can then trade to someone else for a steak dinner? None of these systems is a magic energy machine that you set up and the sit back and get power out of it. If you COULD do that then someone WOULD DO IT TODAY, because it would be worth billions or 10’s of billions to the people who figure it out.
Zeitgeist, if this is representative of their thinking (I seem to recall a bunch of threads on this in the past where it was destroyed on this board btw) shows a fundamental flaw in their understanding of what capitalism is, of how money works, of what it actually entails to build some of these things, and even in how and why companies make a profit on things. My advice to them is don’t try and fix something you obviously are clueless about how it works. My advice to you is to jump off the ‘bandwagon’ (you are probably mostly alone on that) and start doing some research on some of these various subjects to see for yourself why these folks are clueless.
ETA: Haven’t read any other responses yet, but here is a link to a debunking site for this stuff.
The thing is, you don’t appear to have any idea about what you are talking about:
You say “people in society should forego the use of money and instead focus on the resources that are available to them”. What resource are available to you that you don’t have to trade something else for them, be it other resources or your time and labor?
We only have “abundance, efficiency, and sustainability” because we live in a highly industrialized capitalist society with access to lots of natural resources. Do you think iPads just materialize out of thin air?
We don’t “focus on clean energy” (which is to say, all our energy is not 100% from “clean” sources) because at this point in time, it costs more to produce 1 MWt of solar or wind energy than it does 1 MWt of petroleum or coal. There are also technical challenges you conveniently handwave away. There are only certain places where you can put geothermal plants, hydroelectric dams, tidal energy plants or wind farms.
Your comments on the medical industry not researching cures are absurd and incorrect.
“Planned obsolescence” does not mean “products are designed to break”. It means that because it is too expensive to manufacture products out of diamonds and unobtainium alloy, most stuff is designed to last as long as is practical.
“Money” is just a medium of exchange. It is not a thing in itself. You cannot eliminate money and ‘focus on resources’. You have to have some relative valuation to determine how to exchange them fairly, as XT explains.
If you eliminated all money and then tried to work out a system of exchange, what you’d end up with would be… money.
You’ve got to have some method of exchange to ensure that workers will be able to apply technology to resources. If you don’t give them some means to trade their labor for food, shelter, and other necessities, they’ll have to spend all of their time engaged in agrarian subsistence. How would that work in your zeitgeist world?
Tough crowd…
Basically the idea is to create abundance of all the things we need. The sun produces enough energy in one hour to power the world for a year. (or something like that). The same can be said for the other clean, renewable energy resources. We just don’t have the technical capability to do it yet. But eventually it would come around.
Unfortunately, money seems to be an inhibiting factor in our quest for this because these energy sources cannot compete.
So the point is to create enough abundance that exchange is not necessary. As for people’s labor, well this would be a system that would directly benefit them so there should be plenty of volunteers.
Furthermore, capitalism is a system based on scarcity and infinite growth. The pursuit of profit always comes before social well being. How do you reconcile this with the needs of human beings on a finite planet?
"We have to declare war on everything. We have the war on crime, the war on poverty, the war on litter, the war on cancer, the war on drugs.
But did you ever notice, we got no war on homelessness? You know why? There’s no money in that problem! No money to be made off of the homeless. If you could find a solution to homelessness where the corporate swine and the politicians could steal a couple of million dollars each, you’d see the streets of America begin to clear up pretty goddamned quick, I’ll guarantee you that!" - George Carlin
And I also love how everyone is outright dismissing it as just stupid conspiracy bullshit when there are plenty of good points.
I think most of the things you mention related to The Zeitgeist Movement are basically true to some extent. But, I think most of these truths are basic to human nature. People are naturally interested in themselves and their families, not generally in the overarching needs of society. That’s the flaw in my opinion. It’s a nice dream, it’s just not reflective of reality.