Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • I've entitled this "Social Pathology."

  • I decided to use the metaphor of disease

  • to describe the current state of social affairs

  • and the trends it foreshadows and perpetuates.

  • I was first introduced to this idea

  • of relating social state to a cellular state

  • by a man named John McMurtry

  • who wrote a book called "The Cancer Stage of Capitalism."

  • The rationale is pretty simple. Just as human beings

  • have to deal with pathogens invading and harming their life system

  • so too does the social system we all share.

  • Of course, these societal diseases are not generated

  • by ways of physical germs or the like.

  • Rather, they come in the form

  • of presupposed principles of preference

  • cultural "memes" that transfer from one to another based on values

  • and hence, belief systems.

  • These "memes" or patterns of perspective and behavior

  • are what eventually result from or comprise

  • the cultural manifestations around us

  • such as the ideas of democracy

  • Republicans, Democrats, the American Dream, etc.

  • In Chapter One we will examine the symptoms

  • and hence diagnose the current stage of disease we are in.

  • Then in Chapter Two we will establish a prognosis

  • meaning what can we expect from the future

  • as the current pathogenic patterns continue.

  • And finally, in Chapter Three, we will discuss treatment

  • for our current state of sickness

  • and this is where the concept of a Resource-Based Economy

  • will be initially examined.

  • However, as an introduction to this

  • I am first going to describe what I call the "invisible prison".

  • This is the closed, intellectual feedback system

  • that consistently slows or even stops

  • new socially altering concepts from coming to fruition.

  • [It] stops progress. Let me explain.

  • The social order, as we know it, is created out of ideas

  • either directly or as a systemic consequence.

  • In other words, somebody somewhere did something

  • which generated a group interest, which then led to the implementation

  • of a specific social component, either in a physical form

  • philosophical form, or both.

  • Once a given set of ideas are entrusted

  • by a large enough group of people, it becomes an institution.

  • And once that institution is made dominant in some way

  • while existing for a certain period of time

  • that institution can then be considered an establishment.

  • Institutional establishments are simply social traditions

  • given the illusion of permanence.

  • In turn, the more established they become

  • the more cultural influence they tend to have on us

  • including our values, and hence, our identities and perspectives.

  • It is not an exaggeration to say that the established institutions

  • governing a person's environment is no less than a conditioning platform

  • to program that person with a specific set of values

  • required to maintain the establishment.

  • Hence, we're going to call these "established value programs".

  • I have found the analogy of computer programming

  • to be a great way to frame this point.

  • While there is always a debate about genetics

  • and environmental influence which

  • Roxanne Meadows will go into at length later in the program

  • it's very easy to understand in the context of values

  • meaning what you think is important and not important

  • that information influences or conditioning

  • is coming from the world around you.

  • Make no mistake, every intellectual concept

  • which each one of us finds merit with

  • is the result of a cultural information influence

  • one way or another.

  • The environment is a self-perpetuating programming process

  • and just like designing a software program for your computer

  • each human being is, advertently and inadvertently

  • programmed into their world view.

  • To continue the analogy, the human brain is a piece of hardware

  • and the environment around you constitutes the programming team

  • which creates the values and perspective.

  • Every word you know has been taught to you one way or another.

  • Every concept and belief you have

  • is a result of this same influence.

  • Jacque Fresco once asked me

  • "How much of you is you?"

  • The answer is kind of a paradox

  • for either nothing is me, or everything is me

  • when it comes to the information I understand and act upon.

  • Information is a serial process, meaning the only way

  • that a human being can come up with any idea

  • is through taking in dependent information

  • that allows that idea to be realized.

  • We appear to be culturally programmed from the moment

  • we come into this world to the moment we die

  • and I'm not going to drill in it much more than that.

  • However, consequently, the cultural attributes

  • we maintain as important values

  • are most often the ones that are reinforced by the external culture.

  • I'm going to say that again.

  • The most dominant cultural attributes maintained

  • are the ones that are reinforced by your environment.

  • If you are born into a society which rewards competition over collaboration

  • then you most likely will adopt those values in order to survive.

  • The point is, we are essentially bio-chemical machines.

  • While the integrity of our machine-processing power

  • and memory is contingent, in part, on genetics

  • the source of our actions come fundamentally

  • from the ideas and experiences installed

  • on our mental hardware by the world around us.

  • However, our biological computer, the human mind

  • has an evolutionarily-installed operating system

  • with some seemingly difficult tendencies built in

  • which tends to limit our objectivity

  • and, hence, our rational thought process.

  • This comes in the form of emotional inclinations.

  • You know, I'm sure many people here have heard the phrase "Be objective!"

  • No human being can be fully objective.

  • That's one of the important things I learned, actually, from Mr. Fresco.

  • Therefore, there's a very common propensity for us humans

  • to find something that works for our needs

  • given the social structure, and then to hold on to it for dear life

  • regardless of new conflicting information which might rationally expect

  • a logical change to occur.

  • Change tends to be feared, for it upsets our associations.

  • And, by the way, when it comes to maintaining income

  • in the monetary system, you see this propensity in full force

  • which I will talk about a lot more later.

  • Therefore, any time someone dares to present an idea outside of

  • or contrary to the establishment programming

  • the reaction is often a condemning of the idea as blasphemy

  • or undermining, or a conspiracy, or simply erroneous.

  • For example, in the academic world investigation often becomes confined

  • to self-referring circles of discourse:

  • closed feedback loops which assume that the foundational assumptions

  • of their schools of thought are empirical

  • and only these experts, as defined by their established credentials

  • are considered viable authorities

  • therein often dominating influence over the public opinion.

  • This is a doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis

  • and please excuse my lack of Hungarian pronunciation

  • but he was a physician who lived in the mid 1800's

  • who performed childbirths.

  • Through a series of events, he realized a pattern

  • that there was a relationship with the transfer of disease

  • and the fact that the doctors of the times

  • never washed their hands after performing autopsies.

  • The doctors of the time would handle dead bodies

  • in the lower elements of the hospitals and then they would go up

  • and they would perform childbirths without washing their hands.

  • So, this doctor, realizing this pattern

  • he started to tell his colleagues about this.

  • He said "You should wash your hands before doing this

  • before performing any type of surgery or childbirth

  • especially after handling a dead body."

  • He was laughed at. He was laughed at and ignored.

  • He published papers and they were dismissed and ridiculed.

  • And after many years of trying this issue, he was finally committed

  • to a mental institution, where he died.

  • It was many years after his death when Louis Pasteur

  • developed the germ theory of disease

  • that his observations were finally understood

  • and people realized what a horrible mistake had been made.

  • In the words of John McMurtry, professor of philosophy in Canada

  • "In the last dark age, one can search

  • the inquiries of this era's preserved thinkers

  • from Augustine to Ockham and fail to discover

  • a single page of criticism of the established social framework

  • however rationally insupportable feudal bondage, absolute paternalism

  • divine right of kings, and the rest may be."

  • In the current final order, is it so different?

  • Can we see in any media, or even university press

  • a paragraph of clear unmasking

  • of the global regime that condemns

  • a third of all children to malnutrition

  • with more food than enough available?

  • In such an order, thought becomes indistinguishable from propaganda.

  • Only one doctrine is speakable, and a priest caste of its experts

  • prescribe the necessities and obligations to all.

  • Social consciousness is incarcerated

  • within the role of a kind of ceremonial logic

  • operating entirely within the received framework

  • of an exhaustively-prescribed regulatory apparatus

  • protecting the privileges of the privileged.

  • Methodical censorship triumphs in the guise of scholarly rigor

  • and the only room left for searching thought

  • becomes the game of competing rationalizations."

  • People tend not to criticize the social order

  • because they are bound within it.

  • We are running a thought program

  • which has been installed on our mental hardware

  • which inherently controls our frame of reference.

  • To use a different analogy, it's like they're in a game

  • and the idea of questioning the integrity of the game itself rarely occurs.

  • In fact, members of society often become so indoctrinated

  • by their socially acceptable norms, that each person's very meaning

  • is framed by the dominant established value system

  • and the interpretation of new information

  • is consciously, or even sub-consciously, prefiltered

  • to be consistent with their prior biases.

  • Now, this basic idea understood

  • let's hone our focus

  • and briefly consider this mind-lock phenomenon as you could call it

  • in the context of economics

  • specifically, market economics.

  • Actually, a more accurate term at this stage would be 'economic theology'.

  • For, as this presentation will explore

  • the majority of people on this planet

  • not only have no idea how they are being affected negatively

  • by the market economy at large, they actually, on average

  • hold a steadfast commitment to its principles

  • based on nothing more than the traditional indoctrination.

  • I got an email once that said to me

  • "If you're against the free market, you're against freedom."

  • (Laughter)

  • And naturally, I shuddered at this state of mind control

  • that the dominant established orthodoxy has successfully imposed.

  • Of course, this is how power is maintained and has been maintained

  • by the dominant established orthodoxies since the beginning of time.

  • And the trick, again, is to condition people so thoroughly

  • into the established value systems, that any thought of an alternative

  • is inherently ruled out without critical examination.

  • And to show how deeply pervasive this phenomenon is

  • you will notice that virtually all the activist organizations

  • in the environmental, social, and political movements of the day

  • always exclude the market system itself

  • as a determinant of harmful effects.

  • It doesn't even occur to them.

  • Instead, they focus on individuals and certain groups

  • or corrupt corporations

  • and while it is needed

  • in a per-case basis to target problematic areas

  • it avoids the mechanism which is essentially creating the problem.

  • This is the fatal flaw of what's happening in the so-called activist community today.

  • And, as will be firmly and clearly established

  • over the course of this presentation

  • the greatest destroyer of ecology;

  • the greatest source of waste and pollution;

  • the greatest purveyor of violence, war, crime

  • inhumanity, poverty, and social distortion;

  • the greatest generator of social and personal neurosis

  • mental disorders, depression, anxiety;

  • and the greatest source of social paralysis

  • stopping us from moving into new methodologies

  • for global sustainability and hence progress on this planet

  • is not some government. It's not some legislation.

  • It's not some rogue corporation or monopoly or cartel.

  • It's not some flaw of human nature.

  • It is, in fact, the economic system itself

  • at its very foundation.

  • The market system, monetary system, free market

  • capitalist structure, whatever you want to call it

  • is not only the source of some of the greatest

  • social problems we face today

  • it is also setting us up

  • for what could be called the terminal stage of this disease

  • where the pathogenic social value cancer

  • has mutated and multiplied to a point

  • where we are now faced with nothing less

  • than the death or collapse of modern civilization as we know it.

  • Now please understand

  • I'm not a doom's day theorist.

  • I'm not here looking for general knee-jerk emotional reactions

  • to say it's the end of the world.

  • It doesn't take a genius to see where the trends are going

  • the trends that the media won't talk about

  • and given the pattern of political, economic

  • and environmental negligence and abuse

  • we are on a collision course, which I will explain as we continue.

  • Are there solutions to these problems? Yes, there are.

  • But they are so far outside of the status quo

  • and a threat to those in power, both politically and economically

  • that they are just outright dismissed as irrational and absurd.

  • The self-appointed guardians of the status quo won't even hear it

  • because it's far outside of their reference and identity.

  • Here's a few examples of some of the things that are currently happening.

  • And there's many more. These are just a few that have popped up

  • in the mainstream media.

  • This is where The Zeitgeist Movement comes in. I'm really sorry to say

  • we can no longer rely on government institutions

  • to steer us in the right direction.

  • Every government on this planet is locked

  • into an economically-oriented social program

  • which is self-serving, unsustainable

  • and destructive to one degree or another.

  • The possibility of a smooth transition

  • into a new enlightened social design

  • which does not have the negative by-products

  • which I'm going to talk about is extremely limited

  • given the options made available in the current order:

  • meaning the legal system, the political system, etc.

  • Likewise, we can no longer endure

  • the profit-driven ethos of the corporate and financial powers

  • which control all of our precious resources on the planet

  • resources we all need for survival.

  • Society today is sick and the illness permeates all life systems within it

  • and I see The Zeitgeist Movement as the immune system

  • of the social world, if you will.

  • [applause]

  • Thank you. Chapter one: Diagnosis.

  • Before I begin this analysis of the social condition

  • we need to first consider the problem of value

  • and cultural relativism.

  • People today tend to think that their ideas are equal to others' ideas

  • regardless of supportive information. This obsession with opinion

  • has created a frame of reference for so many people today

  • which has no physical referent

  • where evidence becomes inconvenient

  • and ultimately, people think that everything is equal.

  • And you get this argument a lot. I'm sure you've all experienced this.

  • It's a very, very specific point.

  • Everyone is not equal in their opinion.

  • It's impossible, as quaint

  • and convenient as such a concept might seem.

  • The ultimate question becomes "What actually deserves belief?"

  • What is important to everyone on this planet

  • and how do we maintain our well-being, both personally

  • and socially, in a sustainable way?

  • What is the indisputable common ground

  • which can all be agreed on in a world of Christians

  • Muslims, Capitalists, Socialists, Atheists, Anarchists

  • Scientologists, Republicans?

  • What can we all agree on?

  • Well, here's one thing that's universal:

  • being healthy versus being sick.

  • Being healthy is a preferred value preference, you could say.

  • Normal versus pathological states

  • hence healthy versus diseased states

  • provide an incontrovertible value basis

  • for all individuals and societies.

  • Virtually all people in all societies prefer to be alive

  • and healthy, last I checked.

  • There is no cultural relativism about whether having good food to eat

  • staying away from cancer, or having unpolluted water to drink

  • is a good value to have.

  • Therefore, our analysis of the health of society

  • is not going to be based on GDP

  • consumer price index, the state of the stock market, economic growth

  • unemployment levels or employment levels, free trade agreements

  • or any other commonly referenced economic attribute

  • used to claim that society is "improving" or "growing".

  • Instead, we will examine things that actually matter

  • such as rates of disease, poverty

  • social capital, trust

  • conflicts, corruption, planetary depletion, pollution

  • murder rates, life expectancy, educational performance

  • imprisonment rates, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, etc.

  • These are things that actually matter.

  • So let's begin.

  • Contrary to popular belief

  • evidence now shows that our early human ancestors

  • which predate the Neolithic Revolution

  • really didn't live in a state of perpetual conflict and extreme scarcity

  • as many anthropologists, early on, had assumed.

  • In fact, Hunter-Gatherer societies were a very unique arrangement

  • immersed in both a restrictive

  • yet self-regulating environmental paradigm.

  • Before the advent of agriculture, there was very little control

  • over what was available: You didn't have agriculture.

  • You couldn't control the environment.

  • So, what happened is a natural balance was in order.

  • And the societies themselves seemed to reflect this balance

  • by having, in fact, non-hierarchical, non-competitive

  • leaderless social structures.

  • In fact, it has been found that their value systems

  • their social values were essentially based

  • on equality, altruism and sharing.

  • And they literally forbid upstart-ism, dominance

  • aggression and egoism.

  • We know this today because of anthropological research done

  • on remaining hunter-gatherer societies around the world

  • such as the Piraha, out of Brazil.

  • Amazingly it appears (and this is an important point

  • for anyone that tells you that the current system is natural)

  • that for well over 90% of the human species' existence

  • on this planet as we know it

  • we were within social organizations that did not use money

  • that did not have hierarchy, and they even had

  • "counter-dominance strategies" where the majority

  • would work together to shut down any individual

  • that was trying to gain power and control.

  • Pretty much the reverse of what we have today.

  • The Neolithic Revolution changed all of that.

  • It provided human beings with an ability to control their environment more intently.

  • The sustenance of life could now be cultivated essentially at will.

  • Now, while this advent would appear as a profound benefit to all

  • it also introduced some pesky social problems

  • as a result of conditioning attributes which we still deal with today.

  • In the view of anthropologist and Professor of Neurology

  • at Stanford University, Dr. Robert Sapolsky

  • "Hunter-Gatherers have thousands of wild sources of food to subsist on.

  • Agriculture changed all of that, generating an overwhelming reliance

  • on a few dozen food sources.

  • Agriculture allowed for the stockpiling of surplus resources

  • and thus, inevitably, the unequal stockpiling of them

  • stratification of society and the invention of classes.

  • Thus, it has allowed for the invention of poverty."

  • Since this dramatic change in the structure of human society

  • the creation of imbalances has continued

  • and social stratification and income inequality

  • are now staples of the modern world, as we all know.

  • In fact, many who are unfamiliar with human history

  • would probably consider these attributes again to be part of some

  • natural human order. It's so pervasive today.

  • We have gone from food cultivation, to commodity bartering

  • to gold exchange, to metal-backed certificate exchange

  • to fiat currency.

  • We went from a system with values reflective

  • of true natural processes

  • to a system of values based on certificates of ownership

  • traded for income on their own, virtually...

  • I would say not even virtually, completely

  • decoupled from physical resources.

  • And we have come from a world based on necessity

  • and social drive for preservation and sustainability

  • to a world based on strategic manipulation

  • pointless materialism

  • and an obsession with property and ownership.

  • In the words of historian, philosopher David Hume

  • "The first man who, after enclosing a piece of ground

  • took it into his head to say "This is mine"

  • and found people simple enough to believe him

  • was the real founder of civil society.

  • How crimes, wars, murders

  • how many misfortunes and horrors would that man have saved the species

  • who pulling up stakes or filling up the ditches

  • should have cried to his fellows "Beware of listening to this impostor.

  • You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the Earth belong to us all

  • and the Earth itself, to nobody."

  • Moreover, scarcity

  • is now a driving force for commerce.

  • In our system, scarcity equals profit.

  • The less there is of something, the more it can be valued in terms of money.

  • In other words, abundance is a negative thing in a profit system.

  • In the words of anthropologist Marshall Sahlins

  • "The market industrial system institutes scarcity

  • in a manner completely unparalleled

  • and to a degree nowhere else approximated

  • where production and distribution are arranged through the behavior of prices

  • and all livelihoods depend on getting and spending.

  • Insufficiency of material means

  • becomes the explicit, calculable

  • starting point of all economic activity."

  • Likewise, I would like to point out, as a simple aside

  • that the money supply in America, at all times

  • has less in value than the outstanding transactions required.

  • In other words, there isn't and never will be

  • in the American money supply or most other money supplies on the planet

  • enough money in existence at any one time

  • to cover the outstanding transactions within the economy.

  • Money is created out of debt, through loans.

  • And interest is charged for those loans

  • whether it is government bonds or a personal home equity loan.

  • If every single debt was called in right now in our economy

  • there would be an enormous amount of money

  • that is literally impossible to pay back in domestic currency.

  • This is a central reason why stratification and inequality

  • is literally built into our system:

  • the inherent scarcity of the money supply itself.

  • Imagine that.

  • In this system, bankruptcy isn't some irregular by-product

  • that negligent people just happen to stumble into

  • it is an inevitable built-in attribute.

  • It's a game of musical chairs. I hope that's clear.

  • In the words of economist Bernard Lietaer

  • a great quote

  • "Greed and competition are not the result

  • of immutable human temperament.

  • Greed and fear of scarcity are in fact being continuously created

  • and amplified as a direct result of the kind of money we are using.

  • We can produce more than enough food to feed everybody

  • but there is clearly not enough money to pay for it all.

  • The scarcity is in our national currencies.

  • In fact, the job of the central banks

  • is to create and maintain that scarcity.

  • The direct consequence is that we have to fight with each other in order to survive."

  • That last sentence really defines so much.

  • "The direct consequence is that we have to fight with each other in order to survive."

  • The consequence of these mechanisms is, again, extreme social imbalance

  • and hence, social stratification.

  • With this understood, let's now consider

  • the state of income inequality within the world.

  • In 2005 the jolly folks at Citigroup

  • put out a memo to its wealthiest clients

  • in regard to the state of what they called the "Plutonomy"

  • and the opening summary on this is very, very clear.

  • "The world is divided into two blocks: the Plutonomy and the rest.

  • The US, the UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies

  • economies powered by the wealthy."

  • A Plutonomy is defined as a society where the majority of the wealth

  • is, of course, controlled by an ever-shrinking minority.

  • And as such, the economic growth of that society

  • becomes dependent on the fortunes

  • of the wealthy minority and not the rest of the people.

  • Keep that in mind.

  • They then go and ask the question "What are the drivers of Plutonomy?"

  • They state "Disruptive technology

  • driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation

  • capitalist-friendly cooperative governments

  • an international dimension of immigrants

  • and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation

  • *cough* SLAVE LABOR *cough* [Laughter]

  • the rule of law and patenting inventions.

  • Often these wealth waves involve great complexity

  • exploited best by the rich and educated of the time."

  • The basic point of this document is the understanding

  • that the average consumer is essentially meaningless to the equity markets.

  • For the super-wealthy, trading amongst themselves

  • account for the state of the economy overall.

  • They state "In a Plutonomy there's no such animal as 'the US consumer'

  • or 'the UK consumer' or, indeed, 'the Russian consumer'.

  • There are rich consumers, few in number, but disportionate

  • in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.

  • There are the rest, the 'non-rich', the multitudinous many

  • but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie."

  • They continue "This is why, for example

  • we worry less about the impact of high oil prices on aggregate consumption.

  • Clearly high oil prices are a burden for most parts of our communities.

  • However, without making any moral judgment

  • income inequality, being what it is

  • just makes this group less relevant to the aggregate data.

  • The conclusion? We should worry less about the average consumer

  • say the 50th percentile, what they're doing

  • when that consumer is (we think) less relevant to the aggregate data

  • than how the wealthy feel and what they are doing.

  • This is simply a case of mathematics, not morality."

  • You've got to hand it to them for being honest.

  • Now, before I go any further, let me clarify a bit.

  • Plutonomy, as the Citigroup documents describe

  • and these are very long-winded documents

  • is of course the state of extreme imbalance, so extreme in certain countries

  • that the investment community has little regard

  • for the average person's consumption habits.

  • In other words, the preference mutation

  • has occurred as a result of the financial incentive system

  • where the consumption patterns of the general population

  • become nearly obsolete in the interest of the wealthy

  • where they, the wealthy elite, the Plutonomy, can now just trade

  • amongst themselves and forget about the lower classes.

  • In other words, so much money is being moved around between the rich

  • that the public consumption patterns are nearly irrelevant.

  • This, of course, makes sense when you think about

  • the methods used to gauge health of the economy

  • which are supposed to be relating to everyone.

  • GDP is basically calculated

  • by how much money people spend or make

  • on a given good or service.

  • So, using the example of net worth

  • if you have the top 1% controlling

  • 35% of the financial wealth in America

  • with the next 19% controlling 50%

  • leaving the bottom 80% with 15%

  • you have 20% of the American population controlling 85% of the money.

  • And this is what Citigroup figured out.

  • This very small section of the population is what actually powers everything.

  • What this means is that the financial system has little incentive, inherently

  • to care about the actions or well-being of 80% of the public.

  • And since we all know that the financial system

  • is the most powerful influence on most governments in the world

  • especially the US government, you begin to see that the only concern

  • the ruling class has with regard to the majority of the population

  • is merely to keep us complacent enough so a backlash does not occur.

  • And I'm not projecting this. Citigroup

  • makes us very aware of this, explicitly, when they state

  • "We see the biggest threat to Plutonomy as coming from a rise

  • in political demands to reduce income inequality

  • spread the wealth more evenly and challenge forces such as globalization

  • which have benefited profit and wealth growth."

  • But, don't worry, they are not too concerned.

  • "Our conclusion? The 3 levers governments and societies

  • could pull on to end Plutonomy are benign.

  • Property rights are generally still intact

  • taxation policies neutral to favorable

  • and globalization is keeping the supply of labor in surplus

  • acting as a brake on wage inflation."

  • They summarize:

  • "The heart of our Plutonomy thesis: that the rich

  • are the dominant source of income, wealth and demand in plutonomy countries

  • such as the UK, US, Canada and Australia

  • countries that have an economically liberal approach to wealth creation.

  • We believe the actions of the rich and the proportion of rich people

  • in an economy helps explain many of the nasty conundrums

  • and fears that have vexed our equity clients recently

  • such as global imbalances or why high oil prices

  • haven't destroyed demand.

  • Plutonomy, we think, explains these problems away

  • and tells us not to worry about them.

  • Secondly, we believe the rich are going to keep getting richer in coming years.

  • As capitalists (the rich) get an even bigger share of GDP

  • as a result, principally, of globalization.

  • We expect the global pool of labor in developing economies

  • to keep wage inflation in check and profit margins rising

  • good for the wealth of capitalists

  • relatively bad for developed market unskilled/outsource-able labor.

  • This bodes well for companies selling to or servicing the rich."

  • Sorry to pull you through all of that long-winded text

  • but I hope it settles in what people at the top

  • are really thinking about behind the financial system.

  • And they are likely right. The rich are going to get richer.

  • The current economic decline that we are in now

  • really doesn't mean anything to the top 20%.

  • It's the 80% that continue to suffer.

  • But hey, who cares? Evidently the top 20% power the economy anyway

  • and I'm not even going to go into what this means in regard to

  • our naive assumptions of democracy in the modern world.

  • In fact, in the words of former Supreme Court Justice

  • Louis D. Brandeis (I believe is how you pronunciate it)

  • "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth

  • concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both."

  • Now, I bring all of this up as an introduction

  • to what we are going to talk about in regards to social health.

  • Coupled with this, however, I think a few stats should be digested.

  • In 2007, chief executives of the largest 365 US companies

  • received well over 500 times the pay of the average employee.

  • In many of these top companies the chief executive is paid more in one day

  • than the average worker makes in a year.

  • The Wal-Mart family, which is about 6 people, the Waltons

  • has a combined fortune estimated at about 90 billion dollars

  • in 2009, according to Forbes.

  • The combined wealth of the lower 40% of the US population

  • is only $95 billion.

  • Also, the highest paid jobs on the planet

  • are in fields of trading and investment, occupations which

  • have no meaning whatsoever.

  • [They] create nothing.

  • They are pointless to the state of society in the natural world.

  • In 2005, the average annual "take home" pay

  • for managers of the top 26 hedge funds, aka gambling casinos

  • was $363 million each!

  • Compare that to the average medical doctor which makes about a $150,000 a year

  • and the biological research scientists, which are looking for cures

  • and treatments for diseases which makes only about $68,000 a year.

  • You get the point. Income inequality is here.

  • It is growing, and it appears to be unstoppable

  • when you look at the mechanisms of the financial markets

  • and the culturally accepted reality of tremendous wage differentials

  • among different fields.

  • So now, we present the question.

  • What does this mean to our health, to our well-being?

  • Ground-breaking research by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Picket of the UK

  • in the area of social inequalities in health

  • and the social detriments of health has given us some profound realizations

  • about what it means to have a society based and driven by inequality.

  • To summarize this ground-breaking research, the common view

  • that social problems are caused directly by singular material conditions

  • such as bad housing, poor diets or lack of educational opportunities

  • is being overturned.

  • The idea that more wealthy societies do better than poorer societies

  • in regard to health in general, is not the case.

  • The social problems abundant in rich, highly-stratified countries

  • are largely caused by the scale of material differences

  • between people within society itself.

  • The problem is not absolute income, but rather the problem of relative income.

  • If you compare groups of people with the same income in different countries

  • you'll find that those in more unequal countries

  • do much worse than those in more equal countries

  • with the same income.

  • It appears to be a psycho-social phenomenon.

  • Inequality seems to make countries socially dysfunctional.

  • And as based on measures of societal health, crime rates, and well-being

  • it is safe to say, as you will see me point out

  • that really our current structure is nothing more than a social failure.

  • Life expectancy.

  • On this chart we see a specific set of wealthy countries.

  • I apologize for those that can't read this in the back.

  • I'll do my best to point out what is going on here.

  • Basically, the Y-axis you see is life expectancy

  • and the X-axis is income inequality going from left to right, low to high.

  • Life expectancy bottom to top of course, low to high.

  • As you can see in this, Japan has the lowest amount of income inequality

  • but with a staggeringly high life expectancy.

  • While Singapore, trumping only the United States in this particular set

  • of countries analyzed, which are mostly wealthy countries

  • has the greatest income inequality

  • and the regression line in the middle shows clearly

  • how the patterns moving from lower inequality to greater inequality

  • reduces the life expectancy of all of these countries.

  • Drug use. We see the United States

  • as having the highest level of inequality based on the sample set

  • while also being within the top 4 of countries

  • with the most illegal drug use: US, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK.

  • While in the lower echelon you have Japan, Sweden and Finland

  • which have the least amount of inequality and the least drug use.

  • Greece is in there too. It's the trends that are important here.

  • You can see the clear regression line.

  • I want to expand on this particular one. The reasoning for this:

  • There was a study done in 2002 with macaque monkeys.

  • In the study, 20 monkeys were observed and analyzed

  • in regard to social hierarchies that developed in different circumstances

  • noting which animals were dominant and which were subordinate.

  • The result was that the monkeys that had become dominant

  • had more dopamine activity in their brain than they had exhibited

  • before they became dominant, while the monkeys that became subordinate

  • showed very little changes in their brain chemistry.

  • In turn, after teaching the monkeys how to administer cocaine to themselves

  • through levers, it was found that the subordinate monkeys

  • took in much more cocaine than the dominant monkeys.

  • In other words, it's a form of self-medication.

  • Let's continue onto mental illness.

  • Mental illness is much more common in more unequal countries.

  • Once again we have the US at the peak of mental illness.

  • We have Japan at the lowest echelon.

  • As you can see from this chart, mental illness and inequality

  • are very much correlated.

  • A quick glance at SSRI antidepressant drug visits

  • to doctors' offices among adults 18 years of age or older

  • in the United States from 1995 to 2002

  • shows a clear trend of growing dependencies on antidepressants.

  • The most common type of disorders of course are anxiety and depression.

  • A psychologist by the name of Jean Twenge did an interesting study

  • which proved that Americans are much more anxious than they used to be.

  • A survey of college students from 1952 to 1993

  • across 52,000 students

  • found that students today were more anxious

  • than 85% of the population at the beginning of the study, meaning 1952.

  • By the late 1980s, the average American child was more anxious

  • than the child psychiatric patients of the 1950's.

  • As far as depression, a study called

  • "Time trends in adolescent mental health" found that in Britain

  • depression among people in their mid 20's was found to be twice as common

  • in a study of 10,000 or so people born in 1970:

  • 10,000 people study, twice as common in 1970 as it was in 1958.

  • It also found that in general, psycho-social disorders

  • affecting young people have risen substantially over the past 50 years.

  • In Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain

  • 1 in 10 are deemed "mentally ill" in a year.

  • In the UK it's 1 in 5, and in the US it's 1 in 4.

  • Across entire populations, rates of mental illness are 5 times greater

  • in the most unequal countries compared to the least equal.

  • Now, of course, I know what you're saying "What about genetics?"

  • I think Richard Wilkinson summed it up very well.

  • "Although mental illness can be affected by changes

  • in the levels of certain chemicals in the brain

  • nobody has shown that these are actually causes of depression

  • rather than changes caused by depression.

  • Although some genetic vulnerability may underlie some mental illness

  • this cannot by itself explain the huge rise

  • in illness in recent decades.

  • Our genes cannot change that fast."

  • And let's move on to the idea of trust.

  • Another word for this is social capital.

  • Social capital is defined as an attitude, spirit

  • or willingness of people to engage in collective civic activities

  • hence, there's a strong trust-relationship.

  • As you can see in the chart, those that feel they can trust one another

  • are much more common, naturally

  • in societies that have less inequality.

  • This of course is beyond obvious, as I'm sure many would agree.

  • Naturally, with greater inequality, people are less caring of one another.

  • In fact, mistrust and inequality, I think, reinforce each other.

  • Now, this point is probably enough for a one-hour lecture in and of itself:

  • What is a society if people cannot trust each other?

  • It's important to realize that the idea of friendship

  • and the notions that couple in with friendship

  • which is ultimately a quality of trust

  • is a characteristic completely opposed

  • to the competition mentality

  • and the economic theories of self-interest we see today.

  • Empathy, reciprocation, and cooperation equates to good health

  • while suspicion, fight, competition

  • always equates to high levels of stress and hence destruction.

  • As we'll talk about in a second, stress

  • is one of the deadliest killers that we know of. It's a secret killer.

  • And living in a society where you have to look over your shoulder

  • and where you have to fight for everything that you have;

  • where you have to question virtually every transaction

  • given the initial assumption that the person

  • might be trying to pull one over on you for their own betterment;

  • the fact of the matter is, we thrive socially on trust and cooperation

  • provably by health standards.

  • And social structures which create relationships based on inequality

  • inferiority, and social exclusion

  • are inflicted with the greatest deal of social pain and neuroses.

  • Let's move on to educational scores.

  • This one's very interesting. Not only do more unequal countries

  • have worse educational attainment

  • kids are more likely to drop out of school, as well.

  • Interestingly, class distinctions and their effect

  • have become very obvious in this regard.

  • For example, a study was done in 2004

  • where they took 321 high-caste Indian boys

  • and put them with 321 low-caste Indian boys

  • and they were given a task of solving a certain problem.

  • The first time they did this, the caste relationship

  • the social status, was not announced to these children.

  • They had no idea who was around them. And you can see

  • the caste unannounced (low caste) actually beat the high caste.

  • The second time they did it, the results were dramatically skewed

  • as the lower caste did much worse than before

  • while the higher caste did better. This is psychological.

  • It's a psycho-social inferiority-superiority relationship

  • that has been repeated many times in many cases through other studies

  • which has the exact same consequence.

  • People are greatly affected by their perceived status in society.

  • When we expect to be viewed as inferior, very often we perform as such.

  • Homicide Rates

  • As you can see, the United States blows everything out of the water

  • when it comes to homicide rates.

  • And obviously, if you look at the regression trend

  • homicide rates are naturally more common in unequal societies.

  • In fact, violence itself

  • is probably the most established attribute of social inequality

  • over any of the things that we're talking about in these examples.

  • James Gilligan, who was a prison psychiatrist for 25 years

  • and he is currently director for the Center for Study of Violence

  • at Harvard University, had this to say about his experience

  • dealing with violent criminals to the extensive length that he has:

  • "The prison inmates I work with have told me repeatedly

  • when I asked them why they have assaulted someone

  • that it was because 'he disrespected me'.

  • The word disrespect is central in the vocabulary, moral value system

  • and psycho-dynamics of these chronically violent men.

  • I have yet to see a serious act of violence that was not provoked

  • by the experience of feeling shamed and humiliated

  • disrespected and ridiculed and did not represent

  • an attempt to prevent or undo this 'loss of face'

  • no matter how severe the punishment.

  • For we misunderstand these men at our peril

  • if we do not realize they mean it literally

  • when they say they would rather kill or mutilate others, be killed

  • than live without pride, dignity, and self-respect.

  • They literally prefer death to dishonor."

  • It's really easy to see how class relationships

  • and hence income inequality, can translate into feelings of humiliation

  • loss of control, disrespect, and ridicule.

  • When someone loses their job, it's often demoralizing.

  • They say "Oh, my husband's unemployed."

  • And that's a demoralizing thing "Oh, he's... unemployed..."

  • After all, the very nature of class is hierarchical.

  • In other words, the upper class really looks down

  • upon the lower class, historically speaking.

  • And to be looked down upon is essentially humiliating.

  • Therefore, it should be no surprise why the US has the largest number

  • of homicides in the world, given its extreme income inequality.

  • And this leads us to rates of imprisonment.

  • The trend is very acute as well.

  • Obviously as we can see imprisonment rates are much higher in unequal countries.

  • The more unequal the country, the more people in prison.

  • However, what is interesting about this reality

  • is that it doesn't just relate to rates of crime, which of course

  • is more prevalent in unequal societies

  • but it also has to do with the punitive attitudes

  • toward the so called "criminal elements of society".

  • In other words, the more unequal the society

  • the harsher the punishments are for a given offense.

  • And hence, more people are put into prison for longer periods of time

  • than they are in more equal countries.

  • Since 1984 the state of California has built

  • one new school and 20 new prisons.

  • As an aside, for those out there who think

  • the prison system might serve some therapeutic rehabilitation role

  • in the modification of human beings and human behavior

  • I would like to refer back once again to our prison psychiatrist

  • James Gilligan for his perspective.

  • He states "The most effective way to turn a nonviolent person

  • into a violent one is to send him to prison.

  • The criminal justice and penal systems have been operating

  • under a huge mistake; namely, the belief that punishment

  • will deter, prevent or inhibit violence

  • when in fact it is the most powerful stimulant of violence

  • we have yet discovered."

  • Now, here's a very interesting one: Social Mobility.

  • Social Mobility has to do with

  • the class relationship that you have upon your birth

  • and how easy it is for you to move up out of that class

  • or lower than that class during your life.

  • In other words, if you're born into poverty, how much of a possibility

  • do you have to become wealthy?

  • As you can see by this chart, the United States

  • home of the "American Dream"

  • has the lowest mobility rate of all the countries in the sample set.

  • There are very high odds that if you are born into poverty, you will stay in poverty.

  • Likewise, if you are born into great wealth

  • you will stay wealthy most likely for the rest of your life.

  • And if you think about it, it's really a form of class segregation.

  • This reality can be blamed, in part

  • on the very mechanisms of our financial system

  • which keeps the lower classes poor

  • and the upper classes rich, deliberately.

  • As a quick example of this, which I've stated before

  • but I think it's a very important example

  • if you have one million dollars and you put it into a C.D. at a bank

  • at 5% interest, you are going to generate $50,000 a year

  • simply for that deposit.

  • You are making money off of money itself, paper made on paper

  • nothing more, no invention, no contribution to society, nothing.

  • That being denoted, if you are a lower to middle class person

  • who is limited in funds, which must get an interest-based loan

  • like most people, to buy their home or use credit cards

  • then you are paying interest to the bank

  • which the bank is then using, in theory

  • to pay the person's return with the 5% C.D.

  • Not only is this equation outrageously offensive, due to the use

  • of interest to steal from the poor and give to the rich

  • but it also perpetuates class stratification by its very design

  • keeping the lower classes poor, under the constant burden of debt

  • while keeping the upper classes rich with the means to turn excess money

  • magically into more money with zero labor or social contribution.

  • This is only one mechanism, by the way, which is used

  • to make sure these class attributes

  • or class segregation, is maintained.

  • Infant Mortality

  • Very simply, more high in unequal countries

  • than less unequal countries.

  • Obesity [is] naturally higher in more unequal countries.

  • Teenage birth rates [are] higher in more unequal countries.

  • Innovation: I love this one because it's a total slap in the face

  • to all those party-line-toting market-enthusiasts who seem to think

  • that the competitive-based incentive system of seeking profit

  • translates into new innovations for the common good.

  • I'm sorry to say, that isn't the case whatsoever.

  • Using the measure of patents per million, Finland, Sweden

  • and Ireland trump the United States when it comes to invention.

  • And finally, let's take a look at an aggregate summation

  • that was compiled of the many points we have just examined.

  • This chart shows Life Expectancy, Math Literacy, Infant Mortality

  • Homicides, Imprisonment, Teenage Births, Trust, Obesity

  • Mental illness (drugs/alcohol use), and Social Mobility.

  • As you can see, in the United States

  • with the highest level of stratification, we are the absolute worst.

  • And just to make sure you understand this analysis clearly

  • here is a chart showing absolute income of the same thing you just saw.

  • As you can tell, there is no pattern. There's no trend regression line.

  • Here they are, side by side, so you can see how viable this information really is.

  • The trend is very clear about the ramifications of inequality

  • in a given country or social environment.

  • As a final point on this topic of inequality and its consequences

  • I want to bring up a study called "The Whitehall Study"

  • which was in 2 rounds stretching over I believe about 60 or 70 years.

  • Professor Michael Marmot of the Department of Epidemiology

  • and Public Health at University College of London

  • was the director of these studies.

  • He used the British Civil Service System as the subject group

  • and they found that there is a gradient of health quality

  • in industrialized societies which is not simply

  • a matter of poor health for the disadvantaged

  • and good health for everyone else. Something else was happening.

  • Remember, this is the UK, which has socialized health care.

  • So everyone, essentially, has equal access

  • to the same amount of health care.

  • They found, regardless of this, that there was a social distribution of disease

  • as you went from the top of the socio-economic ladder to the bottom.

  • And the types of diseases that people would get would change on average.

  • For example, the lowest rungs of the hierarchy

  • had a 4-fold increase of heart disease-based mortality

  • compared to the highest rungs.

  • And this pattern was to a certain degree irrespective of access to health care.

  • This is just one example, by the way.

  • There is a gradient of health problems that emerge

  • that cannot be explained by absolute income.

  • And it, in fact, goes back to the stress response

  • if you go into it and research these points.

  • Even in a country with universal health care

  • the worse a person's financial status and position in the hierarchy

  • the worse their health is going to be on average.

  • In other words, people in higher socio-economic positions

  • those higher in the pyramid, live longer, enjoy better health

  • and suffer less from disability

  • while those of lower socio-economic status

  • die younger and suffer the greater burden of disability and disease.

  • This comes in the form again of a gradient meaning that

  • from the higher upper class, straight down to the bottom class

  • each successive step down, or up, the socio-economic ladder

  • constitutes a respective quality change

  • in a person's health.

  • The bottom line is that there is a great deal of statistical data that screams

  • that living in a more equal society is more healthy and productive

  • for about 99.9% of the population.

  • It is only those at the very tip of the pyramid

  • that could be considered unaffected by the disease

  • known as social inequality.

  • Equality benefits everyone, in other words.

  • Now, given this reality

  • it begs the question: What is the actual

  • psycho-social cause of these issues?

  • What are the most dominant mechanisms in place

  • that continually support class division

  • and the neuroses and sickness it generates?

  • We really don't have to look very far for a viable possibility.

  • The cultural programming wing of the market system is the advertising industry

  • which serves to perpetuate the consumption values that you see around you.

  • However, it goes much deeper than that.

  • It goes much deeper than just getting people to buy things

  • for a specific company's profit.

  • The fact is, the values of materialism and consumption

  • are of dire importance to the operation of the world economy.

  • Without those values

  • the system would falter and let me explain why.

  • At the core of the economy as we know it

  • lies the unalterable requirement for constant

  • perpetual, cyclical consumption.

  • In other words, the entire basis of what we refer to as "economic growth"

  • which in turn is translated into things such as Gross Domestic Product

  • which are supposed to be measures of social progress and the like

  • is nothing more than human beings constantly and perpetually buying and selling

  • over and over and over again.

  • If human beings do not buy things

  • companies and stores cannot afford to pay their employees.

  • If an employee cannot be paid, then that employee which is also the consumer

  • cannot go out and spend the money they receive from employment

  • back into the system to perpetuate the cycle.

  • If people do not constantly spend their money

  • the entire economic structure, including the entire labor system

  • would completely collapse.

  • Given this reality, the highest priority of any corporation

  • or, in fact, any government that cares about its economy

  • is to make sure the public has an immediate interest

  • to constantly consume.

  • It is interesting to point out that America was originally founded

  • on a certain degree of a Protestant work ethic

  • a Protestant world view, where thrift and savings

  • were actually dominant values back then.

  • Since that time, advertising agencies had to switch their arguments

  • from utility-oriented angles

  • to those engaged in for emotional appeal

  • and status enhancement.

  • Americans now consume twice as much

  • as they did before the end of World War II.

  • As an historical note

  • one of the leading figures in this American value "hijacking"

  • is a man named Edward Bernays.

  • Bernays is most famous for his book called "Propaganda"

  • which was bought by many people, including Joseph Goebbels.

  • He was hired by all the major corporations many decades ago

  • to help influence the public into buying things

  • very simply, that they did not need.

  • A new world of neurotic associations such as materialism

  • and "conspicious consumption" to quote Thorstein Veblen

  • was unleashed during this time and has grown and mutated dramatically.

  • Today, human needs have become utterly perverted

  • by the imposed, suggested wants generated

  • by the consumption-provoking mechanism of marketing and advertising.

  • The more dissatisfied and unhappy a population is

  • the better it is for advertising agencies and corporations.

  • Consumerism feeds on a form of inferiority and self-consciousness.

  • And that translates, very literally, into identity and social status.

  • Amazingly, the indoctrination is so powerful that consumerism is regarded

  • by most of society as reflecting some kind of basic human interest

  • as though it's a reflection of human nature.

  • This of course is baseless. In fact, our neurotic need to shop and consume

  • is actually a reflection of how deeply social we are

  • and how influenced we are by the social programming

  • and status orientation of possessions and appearances

  • and everything else that's been pushed upon us.

  • On this note, I'm now going to begin a transition

  • to the next section of this presentation

  • and to bridge that I want to make a point that

  • not only does the status-generated consumption patterns

  • of most of the public, especially in America

  • cause a great deal of social stress

  • leading in part to many of the problems we have just analyzed;

  • [but] the propensity for constant cyclical consumption

  • which, again, is required for the entire world economy to function

  • is also outlining trends which show a clear path

  • to severe environmental problems

  • and the continual breakdown of civilization as we know it

  • as we destroy all of our natural resources through this

  • idiotic act of conspicious consumption to fuel GDP.

  • Part Two: Prognosis

  • The prior points made about the well-being and quality of life issues

  • associated with social imbalance is a big issue.

  • However, to be fair, just because there's a propensity

  • for an overweight, violent, diseased, mentally-disturbed

  • selfish, untrusting, illiterate population

  • does not necessarily translate

  • into the consequence of social collapse, as we are beginning to see.

  • We are going to move on, putting the basic well-being of humanity

  • aside for a moment, and focus on the mechanisms

  • of the social system itself

  • and the larger order problems that are being generated.

  • Okay, here's the deal.

  • One of the most critical things to understand

  • which without a shadow of doubt proves

  • the unsustainable nature of our current social system

  • and how it is on a collision course with nature, is this:

  • Due to the way money, and hence the market system functions

  • we are locked into an incompatible paradigm

  • where two mutually exclusive operating principles

  • one, the need for constant consumption or infinite growth

  • collides with an unyielding, finite planet

  • and hence, the physical laws of nature.

  • You simply cannot have an infinite growth of commerce

  • and hence consumption, in a closed system

  • such as the planet Earth.

  • For all those that don't fully understand this, let me explain more.

  • The planet Earth is basically a closed system when it comes to its resources.

  • All the minerals and energy deposits that we currently use

  • have rates of cultivation that dramatically exceed

  • the lifespan of the human being.

  • For example, oil and fossil fuels in general

  • took over a 100 million years, easy, for them to come about.

  • The same goes for our mineral resources.

  • The 4,400 mineral species out there today

  • took outrageous amounts of time to be created.

  • The diamonds that we find today

  • took over 3 billion years to be created.

  • Given this environmental reality, it would seem painfully obvious

  • that the most important aspect of any Earthly society

  • would be the preservation of the Earth's resources, right?

  • It would seem, in fact, that the entire basis of any economic structure

  • would have, as the number one priority

  • the preservation of the resources of the planet.

  • Why? Because once it's gone, it's gone.

  • For example, even at this stage of scientific inquiry

  • we cannot take a tire, which contains probably 6 or 7 gallons of oil

  • and convert it back into combustible fuel.

  • So instead of having a logical system of resource-management

  • where we actually monitor the Earth's resources and try, as the human species

  • to strategically orient our use of these precious finite elements

  • we came up with something much more interesting.

  • And it's called the Infinite Growth Economic Paradigm.

  • In our current system we grab as many resources as we can.

  • We throw them into anything that we think someone will buy

  • and we try to manipulate each other into buying these things from us for profit.

  • In fact, the entire basis of the free market ideology

  • is using and exchanging as many resources as possible

  • as fast as possible, to generate as much money as possible

  • which in turn is used to exploit more resources over and over again.

  • We've created a global money and profit-driven structure

  • which consists of a circular exchange protocol

  • where money must move from the consumer to the employer

  • to the employee, which is the consumer again; and the only way

  • that could sustain this pattern to keep people employed

  • the only way to keep people eating, to keep GDP up or the stock market up

  • is through the mandate that goods and services

  • comprised again of our finite resources and energy

  • are constantly and perpetually used and sold ad infinitum

  • regardless of purpose, utility or respect for what we actually have.

  • I couldn't possibly come up with a more destructive manner

  • for organizing society.

  • And the sad thing is, people don't see this whatsoever.

  • They have been conditioned into ideologies.

  • Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, well, guess what?

  • Any social ideology, specifically economic, which does not directly relate

  • to the resources of the planet in its doctrines explicitly

  • meaning the attributes of our environment which actually sustain our lives

  • is an inapplicable and thus irrelevant social ideology.

  • Case in point [is] oil and fossil fuels.

  • We live in a hydrocarbon economy, as I'm sure you all know.

  • Our entire economic structure, meaning production, distribution

  • food cultivation, transportation, etc.

  • is entirely based on energy from fossil fuels.

  • There are 10 calories of hydrocarbon energy

  • in every calorie of food currently consumed in the industrialized world.

  • This is M. King Hubbert, a geologist

  • and interestingly enough, a technocrat.

  • M. King Hubbert predicted in the late 1940's

  • that the United States would peak in its oil production in 1970.

  • Of course, he was ridiculed, laughed at, and scorned

  • by the scientific establishment.

  • And unfortunately, he was right

  • the US did peak in the 1970's.

  • In fact, some studies now show that global oil discoveries

  • have likely peaked around the same time.

  • The exact date is debatable, but it doesn't change anything.

  • Before I go any further, I know some of you out there are saying

  • "How do we know that these statistics are accurate?

  • How do we know that the research institutions are unaware

  • of existing oil supplies that go undiscovered?

  • And how do we know if the oil corporations themselves

  • which contain the data, are not lying to simply boost their profits?"

  • These are good questions, but there is no question

  • about the decline in the United States. We do import

  • over 70% of our oil now.

  • And as far as the global peak, all you really have to do

  • is look at the drilling patterns of the major corporations

  • to see that almost every major oil company

  • is desperate to find new oil reserves

  • and they have gone almost everywhere legally possible to do so.

  • The oil on this planet, which took 100 million years to generate

  • regardless of what you believe about depletion rates

  • is going to run out, one way or another.

  • It is an unsustainable practice.

  • And I won't even go into the obvious dangers associated with burning fossil fuels

  • in regards to its environmental effects

  • which we're all hearing about today.

  • As an aside, it is not at all irrational

  • or hasty to consider that the peak oil issue

  • just might have something to do with the fact that the United States

  • which consumes 25% of the world's energy

  • while having only 5% of the population

  • has the largest permanent military bases in history

  • situated in the Middle East with no evidence

  • whatsoever of ever leaving this region.

  • Obama has already stated that he is going to leave 50,000 troops

  • in the Middle East, indefinitely.

  • This is the guy that got the Nobel Peace prize

  • as we continue in the Middle East to probe and agitate countries

  • which contain, guess what, the majority of the remaining recoverable oil

  • on this planet, such as Iran. Give it some thought.

  • And if you take a moment to consider that peak oil and its relationship

  • with the economic system and geopolitics

  • might be relevant to the US involvement in the Middle East

  • you'll tend to find the world starts to make a lot more sense.

  • In the words of M. King Hubbert

  • "We are in a crisis in the evolution of human society.

  • It's unique to both human and geological history.

  • It has never happened before and it can't possibly happen again.

  • You can only use oil once.

  • Soon all the oil is going to be burned and all the metals mined and scattered.

  • This is obviously a scenario of catastrophe

  • but we have the technology.

  • All we have to do is completely overhaul our culture

  • and find an alternative to money.

  • We are not starting from zero. We have an enormous amount

  • of existing technical knowledge.

  • [It's] just a matter of putting it all together.

  • A non-catastrophic solution is impossible

  • unless the society is made stable.

  • This means abandoning two axioms of our culture:

  • the current work ethic and the idea that growth is a normal state of life."

  • [Applause]

  • He continues in a paper he wrote in 1981, called

  • "Two Intellectual Systems: Matter-energy and the Monetary Culture".

  • Hubbert writes "The world's present industrial civilization

  • is handicapped by the coexistence of two universal

  • overlapping and incompatible intellectual systems:

  • the accumulated knowledge of the last four centuries

  • of the properties and interrelationships of matter and energy

  • and the associated monetary culture

  • which has evolved from folkways of prehistoric origin."

  • You simply cannot have a society operate based on this necessity

  • for constant growth to maintain, ironically, stability.

  • We have at our disposal a tremendous number of alternative energies

  • and infrastructure possibilities and sophisticated manners of implementation

  • which could reduce our reliance on fossil fuels dramatically

  • paving the way to a world that would have zero reliance

  • on hydrocarbon energies at all.

  • Unfortunately, you are not going to see this anytime soon

  • for the economic paradigm we live in

  • sets up another serious problem that we need to address

  • and I simply call this "Establishment Paralysis".

  • Given our tremendous reliance

  • on hydrocarbon energy at this stage of human evolution

  • people, when hearing about the obvious problem of depletion

  • naively brush it off under the assumption that the establishment

  • is actually preparing for a transition out of

  • our dependency on hydrocarbons.

  • Or better yet, that the establishment can actually afford

  • to create a transition.

  • In order to understand the difficulty of moving out

  • of our current established energy paradigm

  • we must first realize that from a financial standpoint

  • there is very little motivation to move into a new system.

  • This is the very nature of an established institution

  • in the monetary system.

  • The fact of the matter is an exorbitant amount of money

  • (I know this will sound strange to many of you) an exorbitant amount of money

  • is going to be made on the scarcity of energy

  • and in fact, the collapse of society itself.

  • Our economic system is predicated on making money on the way up

  • and making money on the way down. Those in power

  • referencing back to that Citigroup document I talked about

  • have a propensity to care more about the short term

  • short-sighted financial benefits of running out of energy

  • than they care about the pivotal life-supporting attributes

  • that it provides.

  • If you look back at history, you see that the concern

  • over depleting fossil fuels has been talked about for a long time.

  • And many scientists in the 1960's and 70's felt that by the year 2000

  • we would have an entirely different energy infrastructure.

  • Why didn't that happen? Why is it that the Reagan administration ripped off

  • the solar panels from the White House that Jimmy Carter had installed?

  • Why is it that the US government sided with big oil

  • so the electric car would be squashed in the United States?

  • The answer of course is that our profit-based system

  • sets up a natural defensive propensity to stop anything

  • if those changes find the prior establishment to be obsolete.

  • This is likely the most caustic attribute of our current situation.

  • The knee-jerk propensity to stop productive change

  • for the sake of preserving market share and profit for select groups.

  • Think about it.

  • If you start a company, you hire employees

  • you generate income. What have you done?

  • You've created an institution which yourself and your co-workers rely on

  • for their income and hence survival. Therefore,

  • you will do what you need to to protect yourself

  • and your life-sustaining company.

  • It is providing for your standard of living. In other words

  • there is a built-in short sightedness.

  • And this survival element, which is only operational

  • in our current profit-oriented system

  • is what is stopping needed change from coming to pass.

  • I could probably ramble off many examples of new advents

  • that have been pushed to the side because they are either too efficient

  • or too sustainable for the market system to absorb

  • or simply money can't be made continually off of them.

  • It can't perpetuate the system or it puts an industry out of work.

  • It puts people out of work. There is a human element to this.

  • So there's a natural attribute

  • where people say "This is probably better for society

  • but I need to make money now. I can't think about the transition

  • let's just push this aside for now." That's what's happening over and over again.

  • It's not that they are "bad" people.

  • This is what this system has created.

  • Simultaneously, let's remember that

  • the market system requires constant problems.

  • In order for the public interest and consumption to be maintained

  • problems in cultural influence is required.

  • The more problems there are, the better the economy, generally speaking.

  • In this system it is inherently "good"

  • for cars to break down. It is "good"

  • for people to get cancer.

  • It is "good" for computers to become quickly obsolete.

  • Why? More money. To put it into a sentence:

  • Change, abundance, sustainability and efficiency

  • are the enemies of the profit structure.

  • Progressive advancements in science and technology

  • which can resolve problems of inefficiency and scarcity once and for all

  • are in effect making the prior establishment's servicing

  • of those problems obsolete.

  • Therefore, in a monetary system, corporations

  • are not just in competition with other corporations

  • they are actually in competition with progress itself.

  • [Applause]

  • Thank you.

  • And again, this is why it's so difficult

  • to have any form of change in a monetary system.

  • You simply cannot have a social convention

  • where money is made off of inefficiency, scarcity and misery

  • and expect a quick incorporation of new advents

  • that can relieve these problems.

  • With that understood, let's get back to the energy problem.

  • The final issue I'd like to point out is this:

  • Apart from the fact that there's a great deal of money

  • to be made by the select few, as the majority suffers;

  • apart from the fact that the established energy institutions have little motivation

  • to forgo their profitability to alter society's energy mediums

  • is the very harsh reality

  • that due to the outstanding debts, globally right now

  • the Earth is essentially bankrupt

  • as hilarious as that is.

  • There is likely not going to be enough money to change anything.

  • I want everyone to think about this very critically.

  • As exciting as the potentials are for renewable energy

  • in the fields of solar, geothermal, tidal, and wave

  • (potentials that have been documented thoroughly that will far exceed

  • the global energy consumption by thousands of percent)

  • we still have the serious problem in our current structure

  • of financing the infrastructure to make this transition.

  • How do we transition into a new infrastructure where every single government

  • on this planet, every country, owes money to someone else

  • where they're seeing a systemic breakdown of bankruptcy

  • starting to occur in Europe? In the US, it's just a matter of time.

  • Given the current state of affairs and the urgency of renovation

  • especially with peak oil, how could we possibly afford

  • to make a transition to these renewable energies

  • before the scarcity of oil begins to shut down

  • due to excessive oil prices because of supply and demand?

  • One study by a leading expert in Sweden predicts by 2030

  • the world will be using 10 barrels of oil

  • for every new barrel discovered or extracted.

  • That's really not that far away.

  • How can we expect the United States

  • with over $12 trillion worth of debt, barely able to cover

  • its interest payments to other governments with state bankruptcies occurring

  • near depression level unemployment, cutting social programs

  • (we're already selling off infrastructure to foreign countries)

  • how can we expect to afford to move into a new infrastructure?

  • I'm using energy as just a singular example.

  • There's many other problems we have to deal with.

  • In 2008 the executive director of the International Energy Agency stated

  • that it would take $22 trillion in investment

  • to update the global energy supply and infrastructure by 2030.

  • 22 trillion dollars! Where's that money going to come from?

  • Do you really think that we're going to get away with just randomly printing

  • more and more money in the central banks

  • and expect no inflationary repercussions or debt collapse repercussions?

  • Remember, all money comes into existence from loans.

  • There has to be an initiator. Every single dollar

  • in all of your wallets is owed to somebody by somebody.

  • And this again leads us into the heart of the disease:

  • The economic monetary-based system or "The Game"

  • as I like to call it (because that's all it is

  • that's all it ever was) a game

  • and we can change the game anytime we want.

  • We just need to convince those who are winning the game

  • to put down their pieces for a moment and ask themselves

  • if the game they are playing is really going to reward them in the long run.

  • In a report coming out of the AFP, there's growing evidence

  • that the current rate of our resource exploitation

  • indeed has a time frame. The report states:

  • "As it is, humanity each year uses resources equivalent

  • to nearly one-and-a-half Earths to meet its needs."

  • Says the Global Footprint Network, an international think tank:

  • "We are demanding nature's services

  • using resources and creating CO2 emissions at a rate 44% faster

  • than what nature can regenerate and reabsorb.

  • This means that it takes the Earth just under 18 months to produce

  • the ecological services humanity needs in 1 year.

  • And if humankind continues to use natural resources

  • and produce waste at its current rates

  • we will require the resources of 2 planets

  • to meet our needs by the early 2030's

  • a gluttonous level of ecological spending

  • that may cause major ecosystem collapse," the report said.

  • I want to point out that

  • people hear that and they have a Malthusian notion.

  • They think that our consumption patterns are somehow inherent

  • and they are not going to change.

  • I read a statistic recently, and for my new film I'm going to

  • do a huge section on waste attributes of certain industries.

  • And what I've come to find is that of all the production that is done

  • on average 75% is waste.

  • 75% is waste.

  • Of all the materials that are created, put into circulation and taken out

  • 90% of those end up in landfills

  • I believe within 6 months.

  • This isn't about some natural human thing that we are doing.

  • This is about the social system's obsession with constantly consuming

  • for the sake of economic growth.

  • In an analysis done by the IRRC, by 2025

  • it's predicted that 2/3 of the world will experience water scarcity.

  • Two thirds of the world, by 2025.

  • Many seemingly wealthy countries are already turning to desalinization processes.

  • In turn, over 1 billion people are starving on this planet.

  • Do you, with everything that we have discussed

  • think that any of these things are going to get better

  • given our current financial crisis?

  • And again, in case you haven't figured it out, the problems of water scarcity

  • and food scarcity is indeed 100% economic.

  • There are many types of desalinization processes

  • which could take salt water and convert it into clean water

  • in all of these poor countries. But guess what?

  • No one has any money to implement these types of solutions

  • in poor countries. The same goes for food.

  • We've gotten to a point with scientific invention that

  • we don't even need arable land anymore

  • which, by the way, is eroding at a rate of about one inch a year

  • due to the abusive agricultural methods that are being utilized.

  • And please note, it takes about 500 years for fresh topsoil to emerge.

  • Hydroponics and aeroponics, alone, if applied correctly, could provide

  • for all the world's people, without the wasted water resources

  • and the excessive need for nitrogen-based fertilizers.

  • In fact, you could build these facilites

  • on the land that is depleted in stories.

  • You could have sky-scrapers of organic

  • food production on an industrial level.

  • But once again, who has the money to do that?

  • And on an extremely enraging and sad note

  • the more we experience social breakdown

  • the more human exploitation, crime and abuse will occur.

  • While here in America we think that slavery was abolished many decades ago

  • the fact is there are now more slaves

  • in the world than any time in human history

  • given the definition of slavery.

  • However, this time it doesn't come from owning people

  • it is simply the globalization attribute

  • of exploitation for cheap labor.

  • I'm going to stop here

  • as far as talking about the negative attributes inherent in our system

  • along with the ongoing social collapse

  • which I personally can't see an end to for a very long time

  • if at all, frankly, until we move into something more sustainable.

  • The personal and private debts, for example, are so high right now

  • that it's going to take another number of bubbles to burst

  • before any type of so called stability is going to occur.

  • Anyway, before I go on to the final section of this talk

  • which is essentially an introduction to the Venus Project

  • and a resource-based economy, let me summarize by saying

  • that the monetary paradigm economic structure is

  • the basic, systemic source of the majority

  • of the world's problems we have around us.

  • In this system, if this cancer is allowed to grow unabated

  • spreading its malignant propensities across the globe, utterly decoupling

  • from the natural world and the carrying capacity of the Earth

  • destroying the finite resources we all share

  • we are on pace with nothing less than

  • something that no one can even consider, of a collapse.

  • And I'm not talking about waking up one day and there's nothing anywhere.

  • It's not like that. It's where slowly it erodes to a point where

  • the values and the culture and the awareness becomes so distraught

  • and so confused that the levels of quality of life become justified.

  • When you start to accept less and less.

  • It's going to slow everything down to a crawl.

  • And invariably there will be some dramatic accents

  • of severe problems, especially when it comes

  • to the energy crisis that is looming.

  • Something radical has to be done. We are approaching a terminal stage.

  • Part 3: Treatment

  • There are two angles to consider when attempting to resolve these problems.

  • The first is the mentality of the culture, as we discussed before

  • the cultural programs.

  • And the second is the actual structure of social operation.

  • As noted earlier in our discussion, these two attributes are deeply interlinked.

  • However, regarding the first issue of cultural conditioning

  • as a movement we need to employ what I call

  • "Social Therapy".

  • Social Therapy refers to adjusting a society's values

  • changing the value programs.

  • We must have sustainable values in order to have sustainable practices.

  • I would suggest that the first program that needs to be uninstalled

  • from our mental hardware is the social distortion

  • that generates conspicious consumption pushed forward

  • by the corporately-aligned advertising agencies.

  • The value orientation of having more and more stuff

  • regardless of their utility or function, is an unsustainable ideology

  • inherently, on a finite planet.

  • Consumerism and materialism again are sicknesses

  • culturally created to perpetuate the cyclical consumption

  • needed to fuel the market and labor system.

  • This is precisely what The Zeitgeist Movement is trying to do.

  • We can't do anything until people understand the need for this direction

  • which is why we are here, right now;

  • which is why this is being webcast;

  • which is why those involved in the movement are diligently working

  • not to create infrastructure yet, but to try to get these values out there.

  • We'll address the movement's directives in the second half of the program.

  • Beyond that, as far as the actual structure of society

  • I'm afraid we require nothing less than a complete and total revision.

  • And this is where The Venus Project again comes in.

  • I'm going to run down 5 of what I consider to be the central attributes

  • required to move into a resource-based economy.

  • 1. We must move from a growth economy to a steady-state economy.

  • The cancerous consequences of the infinite growth paradigm

  • must be stopped before it's too late.

  • In the final analysis, given our technological ingenuity at this stage

  • we propose the absolute elimination of the monetary system itself.

  • There's no reform possible to stop what this system is doing.

  • The scarcity and waste we see around us is created by us

  • not some intrinsic process of nature

  • or some Malthusian, inherent tendency.

  • The need of money is no longer relevant

  • and is extremely detrimental, in fact.

  • Second, we must move from a primitive, competitive

  • invention-oriented system, work system, to a collaborative system.

  • Not only are all goods produced in our current society inherently inferior

  • due to the need to maintain a competitive cost-basis in the market place

  • but the competitive system also generates massive amounts of corruption.

  • Yes, I agree, the incentive to compete

  • does produce some improved goods and services

  • to a certain degree, but that positive is utterly overshadowed

  • by the planned obsolescence, the inherent planned obsolescence

  • and the general environmental indifference generated

  • by the necessity to stay ahead of someone else.

  • As an aside, imagine for a moment if the top engineers

  • of the major car companies, rather than competing

  • got together and decided to collaborate

  • on making the best car possible at a given point in time.

  • Imagine if we established an incentive system

  • that pulls people together to create the best

  • rather than compete and produce inherent inferiority.

  • Think about that. An open-source world

  • where all lines come together and produce goods

  • so everyone can benefit.

  • Think about that. The progress would just be unbelievable

  • not to mention it would save tremendous amounts of resources.

  • For there would be no longer a need to duplicate perpetually.

  • You don't have 2 companies making the same thing anymore.

  • It's a form of preservation if they work together.

  • Third, we have to move from our piecemealed, dispersed, industrial methods

  • to a central, planned system of streamlined functionality.

  • Is it me or is it absolutely insane that we import strawberries from Brazil

  • or bananas from Ecuador or water from Fiji

  • when all of these things could be produced locally?

  • As Jacque Fresco would describe in regard to his city systems

  • everything is as self-contained as possible.

  • As another example, consider the general routes of production.

  • From mining the materials, to creating the preliminary components

  • to assembling the components, to distribution.

  • And there's a constant move of transportation

  • to go from one place to another

  • wasting tremendous amounts of energy.

  • Give that some thought for a moment. Think about if you streamline

  • all of the actions of society. Think about how fluid things could be

  • and what that actually means.

  • Now, to extend this point, in a talk I did called "Where are we going?"

  • I described a ground-up global approach

  • to a network organization

  • which is, in fact, a resource-based economy.

  • And I described why the parameters are what they are.

  • I don't have time to go through all of it, but let me give just a quick run down

  • of the reasoning for those that have never even considered

  • any other social system outside of what we know today.

  • Very simply, the Earth is a system and must be treated as such.

  • There are resources all over the Earth, and therefore

  • you must have a system that can monitor these global resources

  • within a global technological infrastructure.

  • Therefore, we have to have a feedback system which has to be global in nature

  • coming from the carrying capacity of the Earth

  • which is the starting point of all industrial decisions.

  • The first step in this: We do a full survey of the Earth's natural resources.

  • You can't make intelligent decisions if you don't know

  • what comprises the attributes of those decisions.

  • We must first understand the full range and capacity

  • of the Earthly components in order to derive inference

  • as to our capabilities.

  • There are many natural resources to consider on the planet

  • but for now I want to focus on energy again.

  • Since energy is essentially the fuel of society

  • this is a good focal point.

  • So what do we do? We scan the Earth, holistically.

  • Yes, we scan the entire planet

  • listing all relevant energy locations and potentials.

  • The potentials of course, to clarify, are based in part

  • on the state of technology. I don't want to go into all the techno-attributes

  • of harnessing and things like that.

  • For example, solar technology has dramatic potential at this stage

  • due to the advent of nanotechnology.

  • We are seeing a possible exponential increase in this potential

  • where really small solar panels could have up to 97-98% efficiency

  • in the radiation that they pull in.

  • Moving on. So, we have this raw data. What do we do?

  • We just rate each resource, based on its renewability, pollution

  • and all the factors that have to do with

  • the act of extraction and everything that goes along with it.

  • It becomes self-defining, based explicitly

  • on the goal of sustainability and maximum efficiency.

  • Those resources that have the most negative retro-actions

  • are given the least priority in utilization.

  • For example, fossil fuels are no longer needed.

  • They are not renewable. They pollute the environment.

  • Given the tremendous power of geothermal, wind, wave, and solar combined

  • there is, again, no reason to burn fossils fuels at all.

  • Once we realize this, we move to our third point: distribution and monitoring.

  • Energy distribution and infrastructure projects would logically be formulated

  • based on technological possibility

  • and, naturally, proximity to sources.

  • In other words, if you have wind energy being utilized in Asia

  • it's not likely going to be delivered to Latin America.

  • The distribution parameters would be self-evident

  • based upon the technology and proximity practicality.

  • Likewise, again, active resource monitoring done through Earth sensors

  • would allow a constant awareness of our rates of use

  • the rates of depletion, the rates of renewal

  • or any other parameter relevant to know.

  • This is pivotal for us to maintain what we consider

  • a balanced-load economy.

  • If the scarcity of any resource is going to occur

  • we will see it far in advance, and we can forecast it

  • and we can make proper actions to adjust accordingly

  • before it becomes a very large problem.

  • This idea, of course, is nothing new. You see this in your ink-jet printer.

  • Your printer has an ink level, comes up to tell you what you have.

  • And just to show you that this isn't some

  • bizarre idea that's impossible

  • Hewlett-Packard just recently came out with what

  • amazingly, they called "A Central Nervous System for Earth".

  • The first time I heard that sentence was actually out of the mouth

  • of Jacque Fresco, and that's exactly what

  • they are attempting to do, in a limited sense.

  • They are trying to develop a wireless sensoring system

  • to acquire extremely high resolution seismic data on land.

  • And this is exactly the direction.

  • It's funny with these things that have been talked about for a long time

  • and people say "Oh, that can never happen," and we see it beginning to happen

  • in small pockets.

  • All we have to do is scale this out

  • and expand it for the needs that we require.

  • OK, so what do we have so far? We have the locations

  • of our energy resources. We have the outputs, potentials

  • and distribution qualifiers based on strategic usage.

  • You would survey the public to see what they wanted.

  • Just as someone goes to a store, they say to the salesman "I want this."

  • They get what they need, and it becomes a statistical point.

  • Therefore, it's a dynamic monitoring of the consumption rates.

  • And finally, we have a system of active resource monitoring that reports

  • the state of energy supplies, rates of usage, and other relevant trends.

  • I know I'm moving very quickly with this. If you want to hear

  • a more expanded expression of this point

  • you can go online and watch the lecture "Where Are We Going?"

  • In other words, with this entire concept, we've created a system

  • a systems approach to energy management on the planet.

  • The system is comprised of real-time data and statistics.

  • The process of unfolding is based not on a person or a group's opinion

  • not on the whims of a corporation or government

  • but on natural law and reasoning.

  • In other words, once we establish the interest

  • that survival, and hence sustainability is our goal

  • as a species, which I hope everyone here shares

  • each parameter to consider in regard to resource management

  • becomes completely self-evident from the ground up.

  • It's called "arriving at decisions"

  • as opposed to "making" them which is a subjective act

  • based on incomplete information

  • and very often cultural or personal biases.

  • Using this energy model as a procedural example (and I'll move very quickly.

  • I didn't realize how long this presentation was. It's already almost 17:30.)

  • we would compile this information into a computer database management program

  • and this will be a logical means to monitor and have automation systems

  • to correct elements that are problematic.

  • We want to eliminate the subjectivity currently dominant in our society.

  • This is like a nervous system. There's no reason to vote on anything.

  • There's no reason to debate anything in Congress.

  • Moving on to Point 4.

  • For the sake of humanity and efficiency

  • we need to stop wasting time on labor processes that are generated

  • by the market system to maintain employment.

  • We need to move into deliberate automation of everything we can.

  • Given the current state of technology today, there's absolutely no reason

  • for a waiter to exist in any restaurant.

  • There is absolutely no reason for anyone to work at the post office.

  • There's absolutely no reason why anyone should be

  • in virtually any factory whatsoever.

  • I've been working on a statistical data set

  • for a project that I'm doing in regard to employment in America

  • considering what percentage of the current workforce

  • could be automated at this stage of technological know-how.

  • Coupled with eliminating occupations that have no social return

  • such as Wall Street, including all jobs that have to do with money.

  • [Applause]

  • As Jacque would describe, our system has no money.

  • There's no banks. There's no cashiers.

  • I have recently come to the generalized conclusion

  • which I'm continually working on, but I'm going to throw it out there.

  • I believe 65% of the American jobs could be eliminated tomorrow

  • with the knowledge we have now.

  • Not trend-projections, which make things cataclysmic

  • but the knowledge we have now.

  • [Applause]

  • But this isn't just a fanciful notion of, "Oh, we can have more free time".

  • There's also a social imperative here.

  • It's a very critical thing to point out that historically speaking

  • the more that we have moved to automation or what's called "mechanization"

  • in any industry, the greater the productivity.

  • In fact, productivity is now inverse

  • to employment in many sectors studied

  • which means it is socially irresponsible

  • not to automate as much as possible

  • for it allows for greater abundance and efficiency.

  • Here's a chart of the G7 advanced industrialized countries

  • showing how employment in manufacturing has been dropping

  • while manufacturing output has risen substantially.

  • And this particular trend is happening across the board, and why wouldn't it?

  • These machines don't need to take lunch breaks.

  • They don't need vacations. They don't need insurance.

  • It makes perfect sense. And as a very quick point

  • what you're going to find is the inexpense of machines.

  • Machines are becoming so inexpensive now.

  • Technology is exponentially growing at such a rate.

  • In your cell phone you have a little microchip that's more powerful

  • than the greatest super-computer that existed 50 years ago.

  • And it's really cheap now. The first great super-computer costed

  • millions and millions of dollars.

  • People aren't going to be affordable anymore to most corporations.

  • They are going to automate because they can't figure out a way

  • to reconcile keeping human labor anymore

  • except for ideological things, of course.

  • And fifth

  • we have to move from a system of materialism and property

  • to a system of universal access.

  • Before this point is dismissed as communist propaganda

  • let's consider the train of thought.

  • In a resource-based economy, where production is streamlined

  • to maximize quality and minimize waste and duplication

  • the idea of property becomes obsolete and, in fact, detrimental.

  • People do not need to hoard and protect anything.

  • They simply need access to what they need at the time they need it.

  • The best example is the automobile. We've been finding in science now

  • there have been tests done of cars that can drive themselves.

  • It's been tested: satellite-driven automobiles that can navigate very well.

  • And Jacque talked about this years ago as well, using Doppler radar

  • so cars simply cannot hit another car.

  • These things are coming to fruition. So in the future if you need to go somewhere

  • you call up the car that you need, it comes to you, you utilize it

  • and then, when you are at your location, it goes back and helps somebody else

  • as opposed to sitting in some parking lot

  • wasting time and space for likely 80% of the automobile's life.

  • This is what we do. We waste so much space and resources...

  • [Applause]

  • We waste so much space and resources with this primitive

  • concept of personal ownership.

  • It is environmentally detrimental and socially inefficient.

  • And by the way, property isn't an American or capitalist idea.

  • It's really a primitive mental perspective generated from generations of scarcity.

  • People claimed legal ownership because it was simply a form of protection.

  • It's also controlled restriction, in fact.

  • You know, no longer would someone need to live in one place.

  • One could travel the world constantly, getting what they need, as they move along.

  • Anything needed is obtained without restriction. There's no reason

  • to even steal something and this is an extremely important point.

  • How could you steal something that no one owns?

  • You certainly couldn't resell it because there's no money.

  • Right there, you have 95% of all crime gone.

  • [Applause]

  • In conclusion, as paradoxical as it may seem

  • the more efficient and conservative we become

  • the more streamlined we become

  • the higher the level of abundance we can generate for all of us.

  • Today around the world many people often say

  • "I wish we could live like Americans." I know you've heard this before.

  • Well... no.

  • The contrived, ostentatious orientation

  • and conspicious consumption patterns of the American culture

  • should be despised by all other countries on this planet.

  • We have 5% of the population...

  • [Applause]

  • We have 5% of the population and we consume

  • 30% of the world's resources. It's insane.

  • In a resource-based economy where we base our production

  • distribution on physical referents

  • starting with the carrying capacity of the Earth;

  • where we streamline our labor expression towards things

  • that have a long-term social return;

  • where we get rid of the cancer known as the financial system

  • and start to share our resources in a diligent way

  • working together, avoiding the false values of materialism

  • and consumption pushed upon our culture

  • we find that we can provide a high quality of life for everyone on this planet

  • while eliminating all of the central reasons for war

  • poverty, destitution, violence, criminal behavior, neuroses.

  • It would be the dawn of a world we could actually label a civilization.

  • And if that isn't a goal worth working towards

  • I don't know what is. Thank you.

  • www.thevenusproject.com

  • www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

I've entitled this "Social Pathology."

Subtitles and vocabulary

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