Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • [Intro Music]

  • The Empire Files .

  • The Empire Files with Abby Martin

  • [Abby] Peter Joseph is the founder of The Zeitgeist Movement,

  • the grassroots worldwide organization that advocates an alternative economic system

  • based on sustainability, cooperation and human need.

  • His most recent book 'The New Human Rights Movement'

  • delivers a startling expose' about the violent oppression that defines our economic order

  • while issuing an urgent call for global activism to unite to replace it.

  • I sat down with Joseph to talk about the contradictions and crises of capitalism

  • and what he advocates to save the future of the planet from catastrophe.

  • Peter you have a very interesting background

  • having worked both in advertising and equity trading.

  • Let's talk about advertising first.

  • What function does this industry serve in today's society?

  • [Peter] The best way to explain that is to look at the fact that our economy

  • is based on consumption,

  • and advertising is the arm of creating artificial demand.

  • And without that arm - and it's so polluted as you know,

  • I can't even imagine what the world be like without advertising -

  • but without that arm

  • you wouldn't have people aspiring to things that are highly irrational,

  • abused by our social inclusion.

  • When advertising presents something into the community

  • that seems to be something that some people want

  • it spreads like a virus and then everybody wants it

  • because it's an issue of social inclusion which is a part of our biology,

  • because that's how we identify.

  • We identify and define ourselves by how others see us

  • and how we are included in the group.

  • So it manipulates our most primal sense of humanity

  • in order to sell things, and again back to my original point:

  • if you didn't have that arm

  • in our consumption-based society since the Industrial Revolution,

  • the economy would collapse.

  • That's a very unique point to make because

  • when you first start an economy of this nature

  • like in the agrarian society and then in the handicraft industry, you're MEETING demand right?

  • That's the point! and that makes sense.

  • But at some point this kernel seed had to change

  • because when you have such a highly efficient productive society that we have now,

  • at least in the technical sense,

  • (not in a distribution sense because we have poverty and all that)

  • at least in the technical sense of what we can create, the efficiency, abundance,

  • you have to have demand CREATED now.

  • And that's basically the kernel seed of one of the central flaws

  • of market economics, your capitalism,

  • that has come to fruition today.

  • Not only in destroying human psychology

  • but destroying the environment simultaneously

  • because you have an insatiable culture that's been literally generated!

  • And as I detail in my book, in the National Association of Manufacturers

  • in the 20th century, they were actually arguing

  • that consumerism was the best defense against communism and totalitarianism.

  • They had this incredible PR campaign that went on for,

  • well it still goes on really but it's echoes of the original intent

  • to transform society into one that just wants to buy and consume,

  • and then progress of course being defined by what we produce,

  • the more stuff we produce, the more you buy the more you own:

  • that must be progress now!

  • - It's an incredibly disturbing,

  • just realization that this does nothing to benefit society,

  • in fact it's just literally

  • created to keep society afloat, the economy afloat.

  • - Yeah, it's a kind of cultural violence.

  • The more people promote consumeristic values,

  • vain materialistic values, the more they want, more and more

  • this and that, the more they flaunt that kind of phenomenon,

  • the more they create what is termed by Johan Galtung "cultural violence."

  • Because if you create a society that thrives in this type of self-identification

  • you're basically also promoting not only the destruction of the environment

  • but the diminishment of others because you're saying that

  • "I can afford this, I have the status, and I'm better for that,

  • and this person can't."

  • And we see that phenomenally amplified today in the modern world

  • with the "winning" community and our lovely president and his rhetoric.

  • It also carries over into misogyny and everything else as I'm sure you know.

  • Fairly recently he said

  • "We want to have rich people in charge of the economy

  • because clearly they must be good at it!"

  • So we have a complete absence of "where's the sympathy?"

  • Where is the actual binding

  • purpose of an economy which is to provide for everyone ideally?

  • No. So the sickness has become increasingly more palpable.

  • I often wonder what a world would be like without advertising,

  • which would be a world without marketing and markets.

  • And I can tell you it would be a whole lot different

  • and far more peaceful and sustainable and

  • amiable, and just humane than what we see today.

  • - From an insider's perspective how exactly does the stock market work?

  • The stock market is a proxy system that was developed-...

  • It was contrived out of the original foundation which

  • were a board of directors for a company, so a bunch of people,

  • each have a million dollars, they get together, they invest say 10 of them,

  • $10 million into a company and then they get dividends, right?

  • That made basic sense, you know, years ago.

  • But someone said "You know what? I want to sell this stock

  • and this guy's gonna buy it from me for a little bit more and I make money off of that."

  • And then suddenly the exchange system began.

  • And slowly but surely, the idea of selling artificial shares of nothing effectively,

  • became a means of making money.

  • I call it drone warfare economics.

  • It's just like people that drive drones.

  • They don't see any kind of humanity as they drop bombs across the world.

  • The people that trade the stock market have no idea what they're doing

  • when they're shorting say the currency of some small country,

  • effectively contributing to that country's decline.

  • But back to your question, it started off as an innocuous kind of investment strategy

  • and then it moved into this thing where you have

  • people artificially trading things for no other purpose.

  • 83% of all stocks are owned by 1% of the population.

  • It is one giant money-making machine for the elite.

  • And the financialization of it all because financial services had become so large,

  • and the money! Only 5% of the US population is in financial services yet

  • 30% of all GDP is taken by that,

  • and that doesn't even count for all the growth over the years

  • that is attributed that we know to the upper 1%, upper 10%.

  • So this is one of the most powerful political centers now simultaneously.

  • And it's truly despotic that you have

  • effectively the most powerful and profitable system on the planet now,

  • one that creates nothing!

  • It's there to simply make money out of money.

  • So it's a cancerous disease.

  • It's what happens in financially mature nations that have

  • pretty much run out of the angling required to keep

  • as maximizing profits in a given industry,

  • so instead they move to financialization

  • and then it moves into all sorts of other despotic things like

  • dead peasants insurance.

  • These are companies like Walmart that would take out insurance on their employees

  • and get paid when they die!

  • Things like that. So it's just this commodification of everything,

  • put a dollar sign on it, no relationship to anything any more,

  • abstraction become reality once again.

  • - And high-frequency trading is almost just done with computers-...

  • - Oh yeah. When I was in trading

  • it was the start of artificial intelligence and the traders around me were like

  • "Oh man this is, it's over!"

  • Once Goldman Sachs gets their supercomputers together-...

  • Most of these companies when they trade -

  • it's just a little detail some will find interesting -

  • the amount of time they're in a trade is pretty much seconds

  • because they're fronting other orders,

  • because that's what these companies can do; in other words

  • they're trading tiny little spreads of pennies

  • but with heavy amounts of shares in front of other orders.

  • And then they use computers to do this.

  • And then they can generate literally millions of dollars off of fractions of time

  • spent in and out of the market on a

  • giant micro processing level.

  • Anyone that thinks today especially that

  • Wall Street isn't rigged needs to wake up because

  • there's no way artificial intelligence isn't dominating.

  • It's pretty much all the big investment banks with their artificial intelligence

  • versus other people's artificial intelligence at this point.

  • There's no there's no rhyme or reason to it when it comes to human perception.

  • So in effect you have this giant money-making machine

  • that the public has been roped into

  • such as their retirement

  • and all the things, the IRAs that for some reason are now connected to the market.

  • The market is inflationary-driven which gives it its artificial sense of progress,

  • meaning the more money that we pump into our society

  • the more it goes into the market, the more it keeps rising.

  • So yeah, if you put in your retirement into the stock market

  • it will probably rise.

  • It'll crash periodically and then people will make a fortune off of that too.

  • So anyway the whole society has been coerced into this nonsensical participation

  • that effectively holds up the most giant and powerful political subclass,

  • the financial sector,

  • and if anyone wanted to see another level of sanity emerge on this planet

  • in a step-by-step process rather than complete structural change,

  • I suggest the abolishment of Wall Street.

  • There's nothing positive about what this institution does.

  • And those that say that it's there to help investment,

  • you can invest in anything with direct money

  • without the need to go IPO.

  • The $700 billion float of Apple has nothing to do

  • with what it actually produces, at all.

  • It's just what the people are trading and buying and moving the stock around;

  • it's just a game,

  • and it's too bad that people are so ignorant about that.

  • It's a siphoning machine that is taking basically money from the lower class

  • and bringing it to the upper class through different mechanisms.

  • - And a lot of people who are middle class/lower class don't invest in Wall Street

  • because it's just completely too abstract for them.

  • But everyone participates in debt-based currency

  • and the way that the currency operates.

  • How does it make sense that there is more debt than there is currency?

  • - That's a good question. Mainly because of the interest that's charged.

  • In capitalism every product has to have something, that makes a profit,

  • and then in the sale of money, which is what banks do,

  • they create and sell money effectively.

  • When they lower and raise interest rates

  • they're changing the price of what it's going to cost you to get money in a loan.

  • And then they produce interest obviously and that interest doesn't exist in the money supply.

  • So you have today about $200 trillion in debt in the world and about

  • $80 trillion in currency. So what does that mean?

  • It means that those that are holding the bag in the lower class

  • are the ones that get screwed when you have economic declines.

  • There are always going to be bankruptcies and things like that, that happen

  • in a kind of classism, this structural classism that I call it,

  • that effectively hurts the lower class.

  • And the fact that people don't see that either- I mean that goes back 5,000 years.

  • It has been in lockstep of something else that we're familiar with called slavery!

  • So debt peonage, slavery, convict leasing.

  • Even today in certain areas of Asia

  • they have debt that's passed through generations,

  • from farmer to child,

  • and that child has to continue working off its father's debt

  • and effectively a kind of post-neofuedalism.

  • So this phenomenon is there,

  • and it's unfortunate that more people don't see the actual

  • intrinsic problem of debt.

  • And the solution to that,

  • you can argue that you could get rid of a debt-based currency and so on,

  • and I've had many conversations with people about that

  • but the question is: why hasn't it happened?

  • Because it's intrinsic to the function of capitalism.

  • And it's not even that they act insidiously,

  • it's just what their job is.

  • Their job is to make money on nothing and sell it to people

  • and then when the people can't pay it they take their property.

  • And that property goes- it's just another funneling system.

  • Here's another thing I'll mention.

  • All the money that's made in the world

  • comes from the lower class taking loans.

  • So, right now less than 63% of Americans have a thousand dollars in savings.

  • Yet the lower class, that same subclass

  • is what takes on all the major loans:

  • home loans, car loans. That money comes in,

  • the people buy all this stuff,

  • and then that money that's spent goes basically right back

  • up to the upper class again.

  • Because as we know from the growth of the past ten years

  • all of the major income has gone to the upper ten,

  • 5 to 10 percent.

  • So it's even worse now, so you see my point?

  • The people take on all the loans of the entire collective money in society

  • and then that money is extracted through them through various forms of structural classism

  • and goes right back up to the upper 1%

  • and people should be enraged by that.

  • But they don't see it because it's a structural phenomenon.

  • It's something that's happening under the surface that isn't readily apparent

  • and that's why, due to ignorance, no one really reacts on it.

  • - It seems like no matter who's in the White House -

  • Obama, Hillary, or Trump -

  • Goldman Sachs turns out to be the winner,

  • and even Trump based his whole campaign saying

  • "I am not a Goldman Sachs shill" and look what his cabinet is stacked with.

  • How powerful is Wall Street in terms of controlling the political spectrum?

  • - It's very covert but it's definitely an enormous power

  • because the financial sector is like the polluting

  • force that underlies everything.

  • And it's very difficult for people to understand that

  • the major corporations have to be in bed with these major banks

  • and due to financialization they ultimately bleed over into investment banks.

  • So much money is made by major corporations

  • that people don't even know about it, has nothing to do with goods and services.

  • They have to do with this recycling and financialization

  • and reinvesting and this and that.

  • There's a whole subclass of all major corporations that reinvest everything that they've done

  • and they employ Wall Street to do so.

  • Wall Street, as people have talked about since the American Revolution,

  • the banking the system has been given this privilege.

  • I'll say it this way: There's a privilege that banks,

  • investment banks, commercial banks and effectively the financialization has had,

  • and it's been unquestioned and that's basically the control

  • of money and artifacts that relate to money but have no intrinsic value.

  • Again what's why I advocate the abolition of Wall Street and the entire thing,

  • these derivatives upon derivatives.

  • And so we create this housing bubble, right?

  • So the housing market, abusing the people that are in need

  • and basically triggering the systemic crisis that

  • these people at the top made a fortune off of,

  • but then contributed to public health outcomes such as 500,000 people

  • that died of cancer because they couldn't get treatment.

  • And that's just the tip of the iceberg of the financial relationship to public health.

  • - Let's talk about Empire.

  • Of course we see US military presence

  • in over 70% of all the nations on earth.

  • When you look at military personnel it's almost every single country.

  • But beyond military hegemony there's the hegemony of US capital of course,

  • this is more hidden. But how does this financialization underpin the Empire?

  • - Since the fall of the Soviet Union

  • and the development of the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, NATO,

  • underlying all of these higher structure institutions is

  • neoliberal globalization and financialization.

  • Those three words have to kind of go together because it's one synergy.

  • And since the attempt at a different type of social order has been officially squashed-...

  • The World Bank and the IMF have gone out of its way to make sure neoliberal policy

  • is employed everywhere and any country that doesn't have an interest,

  • such as Iran, such as Iraq, such as Syria,

  • such a long list of countries, there's Libya,

  • that have tried to do something different or have been on the outs for whatever reason,

  • that usually have economic roots that go back in history to some degree.

  • And any country that tries to step out of the way

  • gets hit with the idea that they are violating human rights

  • because in this world, at least in the perception of democracy that we have,

  • neoliberalism is supposed to be right next to it, the idea of free markets.

  • Of course it's not really free at all.

  • That's the thing about, it's not really neoliberalism,

  • because that would mean everything would be open.

  • That's the TRUE idea of neoliberalism,

  • that when the people that came up with this word decades ago, they said

  • "Well, we need some kind of philosophy to counter communism,

  • we want to promote open free markets across all borders"

  • and of course no one actually did that.

  • So it's that war of neoliberal thought

  • but it's really just a function of

  • the wealthy class gets the socialist support as usual

  • and the lower class countries or individuals are the ones that have to suffer through

  • neoliberal free-market outcomes; they're the ones that get to fight and lose.

  • But the upper-class states like the United States and Empire,

  • the United States Empire, it's not susceptible to any of this

  • because it's just the bully in the room.

  • It's the big Empire and it has its vassal states that help,

  • and it has its arm of NATO and it has all its World Bank/IMF institutions

  • to support its economic worldview, which eventually leads to its territorial

  • and geopolitical control of other nations,

  • because that force won't tolerate anything else.

  • So it's really insidious, so we have now an empire that's built

  • really on economic coercion more than anything else.

  • And the military bases are still powerful, they're there and they're clearly functional.

  • But the economic power yielded in the ideology of neoliberalism

  • has been the true driving force of control.

  • But I would definitely argue that their fear of communism

  • and their fear of losing American Western and effectively capitalist hegemony

  • brought in this idea of neoliberalism and the idea that

  • if we don't employ and force this old Adam Smith invisible hand idea across the world then

  • we're going to lose our seat of control ultimately.

  • - Expand more on the notion that all wars are class wars.

  • - You can look at society as a stratified structure

  • both in the domestic, in any domestic society such as the United States,

  • where of course you have the rich and the poor and the dwindling middle class,

  • then you can apply that exact same macro view

  • to the states, the nation states of the world,

  • and it's amazing to see how close in resemblance they are.

  • After World War 2 any country that simply wanted to do something different

  • outside of again the neoliberal order, had to suffer the same fate.

  • So the World Bank, what do they do? they impose austerity.

  • They keep those countries poor, and destroyed!

  • And that's a great way.

  • If there's no infrastructure in these countries to start to develop new ideas or new patterns

  • then there's no threat so ...

  • And of course there's "The Grudge."

  • There's always going to be an element

  • that is an echo of our economic dominance, US economic dominance,

  • or just this pattern of economic dominance

  • that builds in other forms of bias.

  • And I have no doubt, that Western society with its increasingly jingoistic views and

  • this reversion back into the xenophobic presence whether it's

  • claiming that Mexicans are stealing their jobs

  • or that the Arab communities and Muslim communities are now the hub of

  • this terrorist ideology and so on,

  • these things foment AFTER the fact

  • and create long-term patterns of bias and bigotry.

  • - I like that you brought up the macro and micro in terms of the

  • classism in America and also the global classism,

  • because people talk about the developed world and the underdeveloped world

  • as if that's just the way it is, instead of the underdeveloped world

  • actually giving way to why we have a developed, Western world today.

  • - Colonization as you know very well,

  • is effectively a sprawling class antagonism.

  • It's a subjugation.

  • The poor of the world are not poor because they've been left behind in market capitalism.

  • They're poor because of these

  • years of colonization that have destroyed Africa and areas of Latin America.

  • - You call your new book "a logical train of thought"

  • from a social psychology perspective.

  • And let's start with the notion that poverty is violence, right?

  • Go over some of the casualties that arise from the structural violence

  • that exist today in this system.

  • - The big word I use is socioeconomic inequality,

  • which poverty falls under the umbrella of.

  • Socioeconomic inequality - basically class stratification -

  • has been held up as some kind of innovator force,

  • some force of innovation.

  • That's about the only defense of it that you'll hear.

  • They'll say "Well, you got to have poor people that aspire to be rich people,

  • and that will create the engine of innovation" -

  • more nonsense that's produced by industry.

  • That's effectively the only defense I've ever heard, of stratification

  • other than people claiming it's a biological reality

  • and there's no other choice than for us to be these primitive primates that stratify

  • and therefore the bottom rungs will suffer.

  • It's not just poverty that's the worst form of violence as Gandhi stated.

  • To be IN a stratified system is against well-being and public health.

  • That's been proven by a lot of different theorists in epidemiology

  • where they measured all of these artifacts such as the level of violence.

  • In fact Dr. James Gilligan which I know you've interviewed,

  • he's the former head of the study of violence at Harvard,

  • extremely brilliant man who studied this as a prison psychologist

  • and his core statement:

  • "You want to reduce violence in society, reduce inequality."

  • There's also the psychosocial stress that we are killing each other

  • through plaques in our arteries from the release of certain stress hormones

  • that are directly attributed to socioeconomic inequality as well.

  • In other words the more you're involved in a class-based society, the more you witness

  • the haves and the have-nots, the more it messes you up.

  • And there's- it's biologically associated.

  • So this is an unnatural state.

  • So poverty and socioeconomic inequality kill about 18 million a year

  • based on one estimate.

  • So that is, a couple holocausts in one year.

  • They say the Soviet Union killed 100 million people in one century of its existence.

  • We're killing in capitalist inequality, capitalist generated inequality, that many in 6 years.

  • So the defense of a class-stratified society

  • is no longer existent in the public health research.

  • - Under capitalism "there's always going to be people who are poor," right?

  • Why is this notion that

  • this is just a constant inevitability that we have to accept:

  • poverty, unemployment in this system, booms and busts.

  • This is the most odd thing to me about capitalism

  • is the acceptance that these things are natural.

  • - First of all they're massive vehicles of class war.

  • Every time there's a bust, it doesn't affect- the wealthy can endure that.

  • So they can find ways to work around it but that creates cheap labor,

  • boom, better for the owners of the country and the owners of big business and finance.

  • They take foreclosures,

  • the financial services sector effectively booms during this

  • because they're the ones to get to grab up

  • everything the lower class can't pay for anymore.

  • And then when the boom starts happening again,

  • the QE [Quantum Easing] or all the things that the central banks do

  • invariably go into the powerful corporate and financial sectors

  • because we still have that philosophy of trickle-down.

  • We still have the idea that you have to pump money into big business

  • and effectively the stock market in order to generate more activity that will

  • "float down" to the lower class.

  • So yeah, it's really transparent, and no it doesn't have to exist.

  • - Let's talk about the inefficiencies of the capitalist model

  • versus the possibilities that exist today with modern technology.

  • Paint a picture juxtaposing this crazy comparison from food to energy.

  • - Well the greatest inefficiency would be the fact that

  • we have poverty at all!

  • So we talk about this advancement of society and this great productivity.

  • The most powerful force, the most positive force we do have

  • of the whole of human civilization is, since the Industrial Revolution

  • we're able to do more and more and more with less and less and less.

  • And that is the driving force that can create equitable distribution

  • and peace on this planet.

  • So the fact that you have five people now with more wealth

  • than the bottom half of the world

  • and you have close to a billion people not getting nutrition met,

  • and you have what, by Peter Edward of Newcastle University put out

  • what he called the ethical poverty line,

  • which is based on lifespan, not the metrics put out by the UN.

  • And when you use this ethical poverty line you find that 60%

  • of the world is actually in poverty.

  • That is lunacy from an efficiency standpoint.

  • No one can sit there and claim that this is an efficient system

  • when that's the outcome on the social level.

  • Now we can talk about the efficiency of a factory and

  • all the great fruits of technology that people will claim are associated with capitalism

  • which is nonsense too.

  • It's our ability to design and

  • our ingenuity through science and technology that's created this,

  • not some weird mechanism that's attributed to capitalism.

  • - And what about food and waste?

  • - The waste is absolutely insane, you have

  • 40% of all food being wasted because of inefficiencies in the distribution pipeline,

  • which is staggering. We have globalization moving food all around.

  • The average American food plate moves about 1400 miles.

  • There's no reason for any of that, especially now.

  • If you go down the line of what's possible, you remove

  • the chaos of human society and its strange beliefs and everything else

  • and you actually look at what we can do,

  • then there's no reason for anyone to be hungry obviously.

  • There could be an incredible state of efficiency and abundance across

  • food and energy and production.

  • So when we talk about abundance it so confuses people because they like -

  • I get attacked all day long with "The world is finite, you can't make an abundance!"

  • Obviously it's a relative notion!

  • The Sun will eventually burn out.

  • It's abundant to us in the long term of time.

  • So it's not about, suddenly there's a magical amount of everything,

  • it's about using the efficiency and of course focusing

  • the economy on the interest to HAVE an abundance

  • because in our current society, it's the antithesis of what's rewarded:

  • we reward scarcity.

  • We want things to be generally scarce; the corporate construct does.

  • Business doesn't want there to be abundance of anything.

  • So the pollution of the water supply, that's great!

  • ...for the water bottling companies.

  • So we're rewarding the exact opposite.

  • So you can't have sustainability, preservation, efficiency, in a society that rewards the opposite.

  • And therein lies the great contradiction of the capitalist system.

  • - And in terms of energy, what is possible right now? I remember reading that

  • just such a small area in like Africa can power the entire continent

  • plus part of Europe.

  • - I do an analysis in the book that just looks at,

  • it looks at all the basic renewables and each one of them has the capacity

  • to create a global abundance and meet the current needs.

  • And you put them all together in a synergy,

  • then make basic, what's called mixed-use systems.

  • It's a little bit technical but we don't have

  • any kind of systemic incorporation in our cities, not like they should be.

  • Every single house today should have solar panels that not only

  • power the home as much as possible,

  • but they run the energy back out into a central grid.

  • Suddenly everything becomes an attribute of energy development; it's shared.

  • And you do that, if someone created a society that-

  • there's a few smaller cities in Europe that are doing that

  • with outrageous efficiency potential!

  • So when you put all that together, it's absurd, it's absurd.

  • Everyone in small pockets and these entrepreneurs are doing their best,

  • even like Elon Musk and the battery technology,

  • and they're trying to do something but there's no concentrated focus.

  • There needs to be basically a Manhattan Project

  • to figure out what the best solution is globally

  • to unify the synergies of all of our renewables

  • and to make them all work! And if we did that,

  • if we actually got the minds to say all the universities together right now,

  • a university project across the entire world and said

  • "We're going to focus on this problem right now!"

  • What is the combination of renewables? How do we distribute it across the world?

  • And how do we make it, create an abundance at zero cost effectively?

  • I guarantee if you did that, it would happen probably in 6 months.

  • The intent of the business class isn't that they willfully want to repress

  • sustainable abundant resources and products.

  • It's that they know deep down

  • just like everyone knows about a lot of things in their subconscious,

  • that if they did that they'd make themselves obsolete.

  • And no business on this planet is trying to make itself obsolete,

  • no matter how green it claims to be.

  • But that's what it leads to. If anyone really wants

  • to improve the ecological state, specifically the type of transformations required

  • would effectively, [dramatically], would cut

  • energy industry back by half at a minimum.

  • There would not be that many people employed, money would not be made anymore,

  • because we have that ability in technology now

  • to create things that last, that will work,

  • that will be modular, updatable, without that need of the servicing and constant

  • turnover that we see in the current energy industry sector.

  • - Really quickly let's go back to just what's possible.

  • Can you explain the notion of vertical farming?

  • because I don't think a lot of people realize what that is and the potentiality.

  • - So I did an extrapolation in the book regarding vertical farming

  • based on a study out of Columbia University,

  • and what I've calculated crudely -

  • and I did this deliberately to show the extremity of it -

  • if you apply vertical farms to the existing agricultural land,

  • just in theory and it goes to 15-story,

  • you would produce enough food for 34 trillion people.

  • Now people say "Well, obviously you have different regional things"

  • and irrigation so on, but it makes it moot

  • when you look at that type of number of potential.

  • And the reduction of- basically vertical farms allow for

  • extreme reduction in any fertilizer, the need for light and energy,

  • and the need for water.

  • And the study, the examples of this that exists in different places-

  • granted, you're obviously not producing meat.

  • In truth, human society has to get away from animal agriculture anyway

  • if it expects to be sustainable.

  • You have an incredible potential for abundance

  • and you put these in localized areas.

  • In New York they've been converting some warehouses to start doing this.

  • Very small amounts of investment is slowly being put into this but it needs to be

  • amplified rapidly because with the loss of topsoil,

  • with 70% of our fresh water going to agriculture?!

  • In the midst of what is effectively a water crisis?

  • By 2030 I think the stat was

  • 60% of the world would be in a water-stressed area.

  • There's nothing positive in those trends at all.

  • So that's one great potential way to not only feed local populations well,

  • but also to remove the incredible ecological footprint that agriculture is doing today.

  • - Automation is also used constantly as a talking point

  • against the rise in labor standards, right? against wage increases

  • because it will take away these skilled jobs. We saw this in the 80's

  • with car manufacturers. We see it today with restaurants, fast food industry,

  • stores, right? CVS, etc.

  • You encourage automation because you say that it will liberate people.

  • How?

  • - Well there's a few levels do it, first -

  • what has been the greatest source of oppression on this planet

  • since recorded history? - Labor - Yeah!

  • So, not only

  • is it irresponsible for us not to apply automation because it's more efficient,

  • it's safer, we can create more of an abundance, with less resources.

  • It's also a dramatic shift in the way human relations has been!

  • So if we can finally remove that ownership/labor,

  • that old classist duality,

  • with the use of automation, that would be profound!

  • just on that level.

  • People say silly things too like "Well if you increase the abundance,

  • we'll just have overpopulation, people will keep reproducing."

  • It's actually the opposite.

  • That was the case at the end of the Malthusian trap,

  • a huge burst of population when we found

  • hydrocarbons and then the technology boomed.

  • But when you look at stats now in countries that have overpopulation, they're poor countries.

  • And when you have countries that actually have decent affluency,

  • they're NOT reproducing rapidly anymore.

  • So if you want to stop what people perceive as apparent overpopulation,

  • which is a dubious word because it's not quantifiably viable-...

  • There's only overpopulation in our society because our society is so inefficient.

  • It's not overpopulation because

  • suddenly we're outdoing the resources of the planet.

  • But if you create an equitable playing field and you meet people's needs

  • the population issue will not be an issue.

  • It would completely create a-...

  • I can't even emphasize enough what it would do to the psychology of people

  • to be free of that drudgery and that sense of exploitation of each other.

  • - How does intellectual property prove to be one of the biggest flaws of this system?

  • - The main reason is that intellectual property restricts the open flow naturally

  • and it restricts people's contribution to given ideas.

  • So intellectual property-...

  • The whole of industry is pushed by sharing, one way or another.

  • So some cellphone company makes something,

  • they invent some kind of proprietary something or another.

  • They release it under the auspice of all secrecy and then

  • finally another cellphone company experiences that,

  • it imitates it, and suddenly a little competitive war that people call innovation continues;

  • extremely wasteful and completely unnecessary.

  • So why not just open source all intellectual property across the entire sector

  • if not in cross-business in general?

  • You would see exponential increase in efficiency.

  • If I could sit back and design my own camera

  • along with millions of others in an open-source community, a collaborative Commons,

  • you would see the efficiency of that given technology

  • far transcend what any given boardroom or any even small group of technicians

  • could ever come up with.

  • That's the wisdom of crowds.

  • And that's happening,

  • like that's what drives our industry in the long run.

  • But it does it in such a slow way because we're not sharing it directly.

  • So [if] you want to see a dramatic innovation in this world,

  • then drop capitalism, because it's inhibiting innovation more than it is anything else,

  • especially now.

  • - Yeah, completely inhibiting the medical field as well

  • just all these patents on medicine, it's disgusting.

  • - Think about the people that wanted to make generics.

  • I document this in the book as well.

  • There are people suffering from tuberculosis and HIV-related diseases

  • and they were looking to make their own generics.

  • And the Western pharmaceutical industry including all the way up to the White House said "Nope!"

  • "Intellectual property restricts you from

  • producing this, you have to buy it from us."

  • And finally they gave them like a, a little bit of a discount.

  • - Only hundreds of dollars, not thousands per pill!

  • ...per cancer pill.

  • - You bring up a good point: the medical industry

  • is the best example of artificial scarcity.

  • The idea that these pills cost-...

  • I have a family member that had cancer

  • and they gave her this little thing and stuck it on her arm

  • and it was $17,000 for this little piece of plastic

  • that simply injected the fluid into her.

  • $17,000!

  • There's no way!

  • - You're paying for yachts, you're not paying for plastic.

  • - This is made by a machine in some pharmaceutical company

  • in about five minutes

  • with chemicals that are being mixed that are far from rare or scarce.

  • It'd be different if they had to go all the way to the Amazon and find something and ...

  • Yeah, it's the biggest fraud industry out there.

  • - I think another fraudulent

  • fundamental basis of the whole system is competition, because

  • we're all ingrained with the notion that all these technological advancements come from

  • competition incentivizing of course, the development of these ideas.

  • You discuss the need to move from competitive to collaborative.

  • Why is competition not all it's made out to be?

  • - The first problem with competition in a market system

  • where everyone's competing for market share, meaning money,

  • the competition becomes, the innovation that's produced, is artificial.

  • They're not trying to improve on something to meet a human need

  • they're trying to improve on something to sell.

  • A healthy industrial system

  • isn't trying to artificially create demand once again!

  • It's there to MEET demand.

  • In fact you don't want to artificially create demand

  • because that means you're going to be reducing your sustainability.

  • You WANT a minimalistic culture.

  • You don't want what advertising is driving now.

  • So that's an aside of what you're asking but I think it's a very important point

  • that people miss when they talk about innovation

  • through competition especially.

  • So competition has been proven in many academic journals

  • to be hideously hindering and neuroses producing.

  • There's little evidence to say that the competitive industry of capitalism

  • actually innovates in a way that's somehow superior to a collaborative system,

  • especially if people have the same intent.

  • So you can imagine,

  • anyone can sit and imagine the building of something -

  • once again and like an open-source collaborative Commons -

  • and they know what they want,

  • they can infer what the next stage would be.

  • It doesn't take this sort of imposition built on

  • competitive coercion effectively, to impose the demand upon them.

  • So if we know what we want and we can infer the next stage of things,

  • why do we need companies competing against each other?

  • Now we have the technology to work together.

  • And again it would be that much more innovative if we did that.

  • - Yeah, I mean when you look at just even your childhood development,

  • in school people are incentivized to cheat to get ahead.

  • And there's always going to be way more losers

  • and what does that do to the psychology of humanity?

  • - The general competitive neuroses and fetish,

  • it reinforces once again the in-group/out-group underlying

  • hierarchy-enhancing tendency.

  • Because if you have a society that believes in this type of competitive ethic,

  • you have a society that,

  • that says winners and losers are a part of this system and I want to be a winner,

  • then suddenly you can justify walking over homeless people in the street.

  • You can justify the bombing of this or that country.

  • You can justify just about anything that hurts another human being

  • under the guise that it's just the competitive nature of our world.

  • - Our whole system today is based on the idea of scarcity

  • but the opposite of course is true; we have an overabundance

  • as you're explaining so clearly.

  • Talk about how the development and stages of market capitalism

  • got us to where we are today.

  • - There's a geographical determinism that isn't talked about enough.

  • When people talk about markets of capitalism they tend to

  • go back to Adam Smith and say "Well, some

  • theorists got together and realized that we should have specialized labor" and so on.

  • That's not how it happened at all.

  • You go back to the agrarian revolution 10, 12 thousand years ago,

  • and once people decided it was more efficient for themselves to start to settle

  • and create farms and the slight scientific advancement that happened with tools,

  • suddenly you had all the prerequisites for things like property, and protection,

  • labor specialization and trade.

  • And within trade, trade strategizing dominance.

  • And that's the core characteristic: in the book I refer to it as

  • the root socioeconomic orientation of our society

  • which again is based on that scarcity and it's also based on competition,

  • and it's based on trade strategizing dominance which leads to

  • oppression and deprivation and so on as a competitive outcome.

  • So the Neolithic Revolution happened and suddenly

  • society started to build in these structures with all of those things into it.

  • So, there hasn't been much of a shift.

  • There have been pockets of people that have lived differently:

  • aboriginal cultures, Native American cultures.

  • So the geographical determinism has to be taken into account,

  • and you see the force of this dominant kind of desert-based culture

  • and then the stratified societies taking hold

  • and slowly eradicating all the other groups trying to live a little bit differently.

  • And suddenly it's manifested as we have today,

  • with trade strategizing dominance as the virtue of our existence,

  • the need to compete and win,

  • and of course the development of countries, borders, and empires.

  • Empires ...

  • If it wasn't the United States in this type of climate it would have been someone else,

  • because it's simply the most efficient state for any group dominance,

  • to maintain as much total global dominance as they can.

  • You have to break it, and the only way to break it is to start

  • with root changes in what STARTED all this

  • which is effectively the economic perception,

  • the perception of your survival in your group.

  • And if you change that

  • then you'll be able to slowly morph society back into

  • what was really a pre-Neolithic kind of worldview,

  • which was all based on community, gift-giving.

  • 99% of human society existed without money and markets;

  • a lot of people forget that too.

  • So this isn't some inevitability, the way we live.

  • What is the Silver Bullet

  • that can possibly transform this negative trajectory that we're on?

  • And that is structural change of the economy.

  • Morality's not going to do it, our free will's not going to do it.

  • Our rational sense is not going to do it in and of itself

  • because we are so inhibited and dominated

  • by the structural psychology generated from our social system.

  • - And reforms aren't going to do it either, which is

  • one of the main points of your book is that 21st century activism

  • has been far too localized.

  • - Yeah. I don't like to be one to criticize all the well-meaning people

  • in the activist community but I think it's a constructive conversation to say:

  • If we don't, if we don't focus on the root

  • and we keep sparsely drawing attention and this or that protest,

  • or this or that activist initiative,

  • to certain pockets of effectively problems,

  • it just ends up running in place.

  • The activist initiatives that are required now have to grasp that,

  • and realize that now

  • it's time for galvanization towards removing the foundation of our social system,

  • and that's the market.

  • We have to start to move away from market economics

  • as rapidly as we possibly can to save our ecology

  • and to save the stability of our society in terms of group relationships.

  • The antagonism that's created with our class system

  • builds into all the other antagonisms we see

  • whether it's gender, whether it's race, whether it's nationalistic.

  • So, it's like that central kernel that keeps amplifying the worst

  • of our group or anti-group associations.

  • - How do we socialize and localize the enterprise

  • and who is standing in the way of this being done?

  • - Obviously the forefront of it are the ownership classes,

  • historically called.

  • The power structure is defined by the ownership class.

  • I mean going back to the state, the state has always been comprised

  • of the heavy business interests of any given society

  • the heavy economic interests,

  • even before business was a thing so to speak.

  • And ...

  • what incentive do they have to want to alter their position?

  • That's why it's going to take a galvanized force of activists

  • as the world probably has never seen

  • in order to overcome this hurdle.

  • And I'm not promoting any kind of violence or anything

  • but there has to be something that stops this thing in its tracks

  • before the ecological ...

  • The ecological crisis, if it is allowed to materialize in the way the trajectories show,

  • between climate change, between the water scarcity,

  • between all the other levels of pollution

  • that are coming to fruition, the incredible amount of waste,

  • more plastic in the ocean by 2050, more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050.

  • - Good god!

  • - The general destruction of the oceans overall because of

  • various factors that are happening.

  • If this is allowed to materialize, and this is what I argue at the end of the book,

  • it will just create that much more class antagonism

  • and make it that much more difficult for us to pull out of this horrible

  • in-group/out-group phenomenon and the oppression that we see.

  • So there's a time limit ticking down

  • because if things start getting literally scarce-...

  • Remember the first and second world war were dominance wars.

  • They weren't based on scarcity.

  • The kind of wars in the future if scarcity hits like it's going to

  • if we don't change, it's going to be cataclysmic.

  • The human society hasn't seen that yet,

  • hasn't seen an actual resource war, not a real one.

  • Not when water is now limited and people are going to go to war over it.

  • And it's ridiculous to even think that would happen,

  • frankly because we have all the technology to resolve it.

  • But the arrogance of the people that are in power and

  • the myopic view of the business community is such that again,

  • they blinker these things out in favor of the general structure

  • and they're willing to forego the well-being of others, euphemistically

  • in order to preserve their positions so ...

  • No more respect needs to be placed on the billionaires of this world or the political establishment.

  • I'm not saying that people should be just arbitrarily ridiculed

  • but we have to break the cultural violence, this need,

  • this incessant impulsive thing that's happened in society where we worship

  • class and status and billionaires! and it hasn't gotten better!

  • It hasn't, it's gotten much worse,

  • as again I think the Trump selection signifies.

  • And we can't, we should loathe people:

  • anyone that's a billionaire that doesn't say

  • "I'm sorry I'm a billionaire but I'm gonna do my best,"

  • that's someone you would respect.

  • Anyone that doesn't question the fact that,

  • that doesn't raise the issue that it's wrong for it even to be possible

  • that a billionaire can exist in this planet,

  • it's just as it's wrong that someone should be sleeping on the street in their life.

  • If that isn't pointed out

  • then the neuroses will continue.

  • - It certainly is not going to last, and your book

  • is incredible, again everyone check it out: The New Human Rights Movement.

  • The end vision for this book

  • is a beautifully democratized symbiotic ecosystem almost

  • where people are collaboratively growing society. ( - Yeah.)

  • Talk about how you lay that vision out.

  • - Well, in terms of transition there are

  • five steps, so I try to be

  • as direct as I can because it's very easy to just bring up a theory.

  • So the five steps are (1) the application of automation that we've talked about,

  • (2) the access of things as opposed to property,

  • which doesn't necessarily mean that suddenly no property exists,

  • it means that the society is incentivized to share what it has.

  • Then there's (3) open source which builds into the access phenomenon;

  • open source is what will create the innovation.

  • Then there's (4) the localization phenomenon,

  • that's where we finally realize, we keep a global sense,

  • but we realize we don't need to have all of this industry spread all over the world

  • in order to satisfy the community on the other side of the world.

  • That one and then the other one is this more

  • difficult thing to bring up called (5) digitized networked feedback,

  • which all that really means [is]

  • you track all the transactions that are happening, economic transactions,

  • and it can be within a monetary system or without.

  • And you have all the feedback that you need

  • to know what's happening in an industry.

  • So you put all these together

  • and you end up with a system that incentivizes people working together,

  • incentivize people sharing,

  • all those Kindergarten things that we're taught, remember?

  • all those things that we're supposed to have in our values that are

  • completely robbed of us as we grow older and we realize that

  • all the things we were taught as children that are ideal values were apparently wrong

  • because no one ascribed to them anymore,

  • And you have a non-competitive society obviously,

  • and you have a society that's actually sustainability-focused

  • because we're understanding what we're doing.

  • So, it creates peaceful coexistence,

  • more peaceful coexistence,

  • and peaceful coexistence with nature

  • meaning we're not over-exploiting.

  • And the only caveat to that and I want to bring this back up,

  • because this isn't a totally deterministic mechanistic view,

  • is that we have to have a mature culture that doesn't thrive

  • on this over-consuming, materialistic,

  • vain idealism.

  • That's the great argument I hear from people.

  • But I envision a world where people are actually able

  • to get what they need and it becomes a social reality as opposed

  • to a material and vindictive and status-based reality.

  • It doesn't mean that hierarchy doesn't exist

  • in the future or in an idealized society

  • because there are other things that we do.

  • I'm not a visual artist, you're a visual artist. I'm a musician.

  • There are natural hierarchies that happen

  • and we respect those hierarchies because we appreciate the talents of people,

  • not because they're,

  • they had more money than you, therefore you're supposed to glamorize them

  • and look up to them as though they're better than you.

  • That is a complete contrivance.

  • So there's always going to be a natural hierarchy which is good,

  • because that proves our group mind, it proves our collaborative sense that

  • you can do things that I can't do, and so on and so forth,

  • that's what motivates the collaborative sense and the power

  • of our society as a civilization.

  • And if we can bring that formula together

  • we could get everything back on track.

  • The Empire Files

  • Produced by teleSUR

  • Directed & Written by Abby Martin

  • Produced & Written by Mike Prysner

  • teleSUR (c) 2017

[Intro Music]

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it