WeAreTheKey

It's time to start seriously addressing what society, and life in general will look like in the future.
Considering that our current money-driven, resource-depleting, debt-increasing model of "modern life" is entirely unsustainable for much longer, it no longer makes sense to simply look the other way and continue to assume that it'll all "somehow work out".
People need to start addressing reality, and coming up with some real ideas for building the future of life on Earth. Many ideas may try and fail, but we must continue to open-mindedly reassess our current state of existence relative to our goals and desires for the future.
The Zeitgeist Movement is one such idea. It is well thought-out, detailed and intelligent. It takes many of our societal issues into consideration, and attempts to provide the best possible solutions to the network of problems facing us on Earth.
Many of the ideas seem radical, unorthodox, far-fetched etc...
But taken altogether, I think we'd be hard-pressed to come up with a better overall vision for the future of Earth and all the humans inhabiting it.
I have personally been incredibly impressed with the person who created the Zeitgeist project, Peter Joseph. His ideas, information and insights seem very solid, and I HIGHLY recommend watching this latest in the series of films he has created.
It could easily be called Zeitgeist III, because it is full-length and definitely on par with Zeitgeist: Addendum.
Yet it is being presented as the 'Zeitgest Activist Orientation Video', and frankly, it may be the best one yet.

I highly support such creative, well-developed ideas personally. Check out the video and give your thoughts!

CLICK THE FULLSCREEN BUTTON
<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=3932487043163636261&hl=en&fs=true" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

Not sure if you've read this before, but I found this mainstream news article about Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco that is actually comparatively non-condescending and informative. It was actually a pleasant surprise and not at all what I expected to read when I clicked on the link.

I'll come back and talk more on this topic later.

Yes I had read that article, and yeah it was pretty good!
Watch it when you have 90 minutes of undisturbed time so you can take in the ideas fully. It's pretty wild, but very thought provoking.
One thing the article gets a major thumbs down for is their taking a comment my Mr. Jospeh totally out of context just so they could say that 9/11 being an inside job is a point of view that he "is moving away from", making ti sound like he no longer believes it. This is not true at all. He had been talking about the films and their subject matter and focus, and how he wasn't addressing such issues as 9/11 in his current films.
He still knows full-well that it was an inside job (that term is getting annoying, huh?), which he reiterated on the Zeitgeist Movement forum...

ANYWAY - I'd like to show that video to a lot of people and get their opinions on it, whether this is feasilble etc..
Also, join up at www.thezeitgeistmovement.com if you want.
It's the hippest cult around!
Yeah, but seriously, it's cool.

ALSO, here's an 80 page Pdf covering the whole concept and basic outline of the Zeitgeist movement and social structuring etc... definitely worth the read I'd say, even though I haven't finished it yet. Check it out.

www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeit ... vement.pdf

Thank you for posting this!!
Watched the vid today and was very pleased. Very simply put together for the extremely weighty and controversial stance. I want to share it with everyone I know, this type of thinking is precisely what I feel needs to be on the table for discussion as we work our way through what I tend to think of the birthing pains happening in the economy and thus our culture at the moment. I don't know what the result will end up as, but I think we are stretching the current paradigm's bounds near their breaking point.

Again, like I stated after Zeitgeist:addendum came out, the general concept reminded me of another worthy thought experiment with Robert Anton Wilson's RICH economy which I happened to be rereading about over the last week. particularly the bit about seeking and utilizing technological unemployment to our advantage rather then fearing it.
Also bits of it brought to mind Buckminster Fuller's concept of Ephemeralization or doing more with less which is an inevitable direction that should also be optimally embraced. The pivotal point of going back to the scientific method (which often becomes skewed by incentives) resonates with me and I would gladly accept the abolishing of currency so long as the methods of this presentation held true.I certainly agree with the ralph linton quote about every aspect lagging behind technology and I think we desperately need to reevaluate and shift or societal practices to reflect the knowledge we currently have. Most things don't even reflect the near century old findings in quantum physics...

Though I don't feel this presentation is flawless I agree with it in many many respects. A couple things that come to mind is the brutality of any transition to this sort of structure - you'd either have to have mass agreement (not going to happen), start an isolated city/country from scratch as an experiment (likely the most viable IMO) or have the complete collapse of our current structure while keeping intact technologies and enough people keeping their heads long enough for it's implementation (fingers crossed)...
Transfixed - going back to a conversation along these lines and talking about medicine - while I agree with the video and (I believe) your stance that most things could become automated due to the structured "illness A required treatment X" nature of most of medicine in my studies intention plays a large role and I have a hard time conceiving how such a thing could be technologically emulated. frequency specificity maybe? anyway... yeah almost all current jobs could be replaced by machines, largely due to the very linear thinking and logical model from which our whole culture and thus those jobs developed from. This thought is terrifying at first. machines running things - so much negative sci-fi press about the possible dangers of this - but I think most of that can be attributed to the 'a person fears freedom when all they have known is slavery' idea. Like people who spend 20, 30 years in prison, get out and are so lost they have no idea what to do with themselves so they want only to be put back in prison. But humans would then be left then to focus on the creative, intuitive, and evolutionary parts of themselves. A major adjustment. I did a couple times feel toward the end when discussing the Venus project like the video relied on a heavy trustworthiness in people as a whole...
Just my thoughts
sorry if this came out a jumbled mess, I got lost a couple times in there.

Yeah thanks for those links Ko, I've been meaning to look into the RICH Economy for a while now and haven't yet.

I'm glad you have the same basic reaction to this concept that I did, because there is just so much compelling information and conceptual groundwork layed out that it does almost allow your mind to catch the briefest glimpse of what the world might actually be like in the future, should we chose such a path. Which makes it that much more exciting.

I agree that this particular vision does seem to rely on the trustworthiness & good-nature of people for the system to work, but it would seem to be more believable considering that we would build quite gradually toward such a world, giving us plenty of time to adjust to the new conscious parameters of 'morality' and 'goodness'. It seems totally feasible to me that removing money from the equation would automatically reduce a huge percentage of the motivation for commiting crime, and allowing free access to nearly all necessary resources would only further reduce it. As well as removing all the modern stresses of our lives, fuurther reducing it etc, etc....

It seems like the crime that would likely be hardest to overcome would be crime based on personal issues, like jealousy, cheating, lying etc...which can all lead to murder and whatnot. Perhaps those will be the last to go.

Not sure what to make of the medicine issue because you make a good point about the intention/human energy playing a role. Perhaps there will still be people who naturally specialize in energy-based treatments who'd still be around to help, I dunno....

But anyway, the Zeitgeist Movement appears to be taking off quite nicely, members have already spun off 'unofficial' side-sites like www.zeitgeistresources.com which is pretty cool to see! People coming together and offering their resources, ability and knowledge for any actual implementation of these ideas. I added We Are The Key, cuz....why not?!
Also, lots of videos on YouTube about Jaqcue Fresco and The Venus Project, like this one!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zl_Y5IIqkwE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zl_Y5IIqkwE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Getting everyone to agree on what 'morality' and 'goodness' equates to is another major obstacle to overcome. Bibles, Korans, jihads, bombing abortion clinics, free-market capitalism, communism, etc, etc, are all seen as 'moral' or 'good' by segments of the human population. Getting people to all love one another enough to share our resources unequivocally and to all live completely equally seems almost anti-human.

I really like the egalitarian ideas presented, with war and resource deprivation eliminated and the world restored to health, but to get to that point there are about a million steps that have to be taken to get there. And those steps are extremely scary. In order for monetary elimination and the world's resources to all be distributed equally where needed, the world would have to be ruled by ONE power that controlled everything. It's Communism and Absolute Monarchism combined and on crack. And that ONE power would have to be absolutely altruistic all the time. It doesn't seem possible.

The end result seems amazing, but getting to that point seems impossible in our time or in any near future scenario. But, who knows, maybe the NWO is actually working toward that goal, and the current killings and secrecy are just necessary steps along the way.

Holy shit..
Jacque Fresco...is an alien from the future..
he has to be, guys straight genius.. and MEMORY METAL????!!!! That is freaking amazing!!!!I want sheets of it! How is it made and where??? Though i feel fear from having to move civilization to the oceans... it looks bitchin, but seems like so much of the natural human needs(on a psycho/spiritual/instinctual level) would suffer and feel empty.. dont get me wrong, i love water and the sea and know that there are some amazing creatures in the sea, but when it all comes down to it, humans are land creatures, and the fact that we need parks and gardens to keep our sanity in our skyscrapermetropolisis is proof that on some level we need to recconect with out natural environment, it seems that wouldnt be appropriatly synthicated in a man made island of bitchin design..

I love this zeitgeist movie very very much, i think it is fantastic and wished there was a way to bring it to a larger audience-like a huge outdoor movie or something.. I think even though alot of resistence will come in reaction to such ideas i think it is good for all people to temporarily think about what life could be liek outside of the money box. It seems the last decade? people have spent so little time think ing about the future, that was what drove us to this point with our technology and life style, the people of the past toyed around with "the future" modle/theories.. and while alot of what they dreamed/theorizesd didn or hasnt yet come into being it fueled the drive towards a future.. These days, our future is filled with the fear of everyday life, preventing us from dreaming for a better life, for the future life.. it is holding us back, and diggging us a deeper hole.

I did think of something while reading these posts, about the transition.. wouldnt bthere be a "resistance" like bootleggers but with cash? Weird to think, but it seems to me that would be a common reaction to such a thing,

I hesitancy about destroying the current buildings and building new. while it makes sense, all the materials have already been harvested, and put to use, it seems to me finding ways to transform our current buildings into the energy efficient ecohabitabt intigrated beings that they would otherwise become would be a more appropriate manner of transformation,
I find in all honesty frustration with our overwhelming desire to build.. humans are constantly buildign, even when we dont need to, I would feel like we would be making better stance if we find ways to recycle/reuse all the old materials into new forms of life.. Obviously things would need to be destroyed, but it would have to be done with a form of care and thought..(applying all possiblities of use/efffect)

While Frescos cities look fantastic, I* have to say that the "perfect" look of their surrounding envrionment is alittle too organized, not organic enough, granted all plans and blueprints look naturally organized and clean, but I feel humans need (ontop of all the things presented in the movie) more of a personal connection with the actual earth we live in, obviously the money social structure, societal machine aspects have to be addressed first.. but I would like to know how they see society being taught.. how they theorize society will think/feel/ what they might do in their every day lives?

I hope this doesnt sound to negative, I truly enjoyed/generally agreed with 99% of it all, just theses points i felt i needed to present.

I love how it forces the mind to ask questions, wether for or against the topics... it is beautiful.

So wanna start our own experimental soiciety?

It's not out of some artificial view of 'love' that people would have the desire for such a world, but rather the survival instinct necessity. If major, radical changes need to take place in order for our species to simply continue surviving in a functional society-type lifestyle, then people won't need to be convinced to do it all for 'love'....even though they ought to.



Have you watched the activist orientation video, or just this last one I posted? The "one power" is addressed pretty specifically, and to much relief, it isn't a king, ruler, president, overlord or anything else. It's a cetralized computer system which regulates everything based on whatever needs arise. There are no politics, monarchies or anything like that. And though you could draw some theoretical lines between this idea and communism, the historically understood idea of communism bears practically no resemblance whatsoever.

And yeah, I've actually pondered that about the nwo, that maybe this is their end goal too, and they see their current steps as 'necessary'....Hahaha....doubtful to say the least.

But yeah, watch the Activist Orientation Video, it's amazing.

Yeah some people would have a hard time letting go of the money mentality, but in time it would fade away. They would simply be pretending that the money was worth something at that point anyway. Oh wait - we're already doing that! Hahaha....



Yeah I think there'd be a much tighter connection with nature, since we wouldn't be polluting it anymore, or bulldozing vast acreage to put in space-wasting inefficient housing/neighborhoods. From the way it looks, there's be plenty of gardens, waterways etc...



Umm.....
Yes.

Yes, I did watch the orientation video. And while I like the general concept and believe it's a great thing that they're throwing out there, I definitely felt like they seriously skimped over the whole political issue.

Unless we're all turned into drugged up zombies, somebody has to be in charge. Whether it's one man or a governing "council", there has to be one entity in charge of the entire world in order for all the resources to be allocated, law to be kept, laws to be passed (or simply ordered), and for the whole darned computer world to be implemented (or forced) upon the world, anyway.

And unless The Venus Project is the end-all for the human race, what happens when we advance even further and require change to our society? What about cultural differences and beliefs? What about crime and punishment? What about personal freedom? What if I don't want to live under water or in some round 'communal' city? What if I like to hunt, fish, and snow ski? Can I live near the mountains? What if I like to restore old Ford Mustangs? Can I build a large shop for the hobby that I love? Can I build a full length basketball court in my backyard? Or is that deemed inadmissable by the computer program because it takes up too much space so not utilitarian enough? Do I even have a "backyard"?

Is a computer program going to answer all questions and solve all problems presented? Would this give us more freedom or less?

I'll go back and watch it again, but I don't remember questions like those being heavily addressed by the video.

No, they didn't get into every small detail in the video, but I recommend the 83-page Pdf document linked to above, and also the zeitgetist movement website, which has an FAQ (frequently asked questions) section, as well as a Q&A with Peter Joseph. There is a lot of info in the Venus Project, there's a book called The Best That Money Can't Buy... there's a lot of stuff, the video is just meant as a launching pad.
And all of these questions that you ask are being asked by a lot of people, so they definitely haven't been overlooked, especially not by Jaqcue Fresco, who's 93 and been developing many of these ideas for decades now.
There is no 'ruler', there are no 'politics' and no one is 'in charge'. The resources are inventoried and largely maintained by machinery and computers, which is frankly the hardest part to come to terms with. And it is done in the most efficient way beneficial to everyone, while providing maximum freedom within those parameters.
When it comes to freedom to do certain things, think about how much freedom you are giving up for 8+ hours a day, five days a week. Assuming that the average person works for 50 years of their life. They are giving up 104,000 HOURS of their life. 1/3 of their entire adult life! And for what? Not because they want to or love their job SO much, but because the slave-and-master monetary system forces us to, simply to stay alive, to pay for our food, to pay for our rent. We have no choice, and we're throwing vast chunks of our life away doing things we don't actually desire to do, and in the process stifling our own creative desires and ambitions. That is stealing our freedom.

To no longer have to compete, to struggle, to fight for survival, fighting for our jobs and our paycheck, would be true freedom. To be able to spend all of your time raising your children instead, spending time with your loved ones, doing whatever you wanted to do, to need potatoes and sour cream for dinner and just go get some for free... how could anything compare with that kind of freedom? Many neighborhoods nowdays wouldn't even let you put a basketball court in your backyard, and I don't know about the future, but when it comes down to it: what is more important in life?
I know at first it's not an easy question to answer, but for me at least, the more I've thought about it, the more I'm convinced that such a world is the best possible one we could build. Peripheral details like the shape of the city being round etc., could be worked out or altered as we move forward, but the basic concepts are pretty solid it seems.

As far as advancing even further, I don't see how that would be a problem, because such a future world would be much more adaptable to any such changes, especially if they were beneficial, they would happen almost naturally. Unlike today where we're so dug into our mental trenches that we desperately resist any change to our system even though we all kinda hate it!

Here's a little thought experiment: Imagine you have control over a large petri-dish full of little critters, and your mission is to do what is absolutely best for them, so they live happily and flourish. Asd time passes they slowly multiply until their numbers are large and indeed flourishing. But you soon come to a critical moment in which a serious decision must be made.
These creatures all desire to have total freedom over themselves, but also want to survive perpetually into the future. But you discover that the more individually and 'free' they act, the more they suffer from a disease which slowly kills them and threatens their survival.
Now - they all WANT to be as free as possible to do whatever they want whenever they want, but you know that this will lead to their ultimate demise. And you have the ability to restrict their individual freedoms in whatever way you want so - what would you do?
Let them have their desired utmost freedom until they burn themselves out?
Or restrict their freedoms just enough to ensure that they are able to continue surviving?
What if they're screaming and hollering about their freedoms the whole time?! What do you tell them? But more importantly, what would you do?

Obviously not meant to be a flawless analogy, but it gets to the heart of the question of freedom vs. survival. Which is truly more important?

Anyway, lot's of q&a over at www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

Even if it is conceded that necessity dictates some outside parameters on individual freedom in order for the species to survive, I still could not wrap my head around how Fresco (or anyone) could conceive of a computer controlled, politic-less society and still maintain an overall sense of human freedom.

That is, until I read this.

The missing link between necessary human governance and a computer-controlled world without massive conflicts between the two is quickly noted with frightening precision, then passed by, in the middle of this excellent paper. I'm quite taken aback that I hadn't seen any mention of this particular aspect of the Venus project until I read this paper.

Take the time to read it. It's excellently researched and very well written. It far exceeds the somewhat poor level of authorship on the Venus Project website (IMO). Get through the first few grinding pages, then it gets to the heart of the topic. It's also not as long as it looks, because the last 4 1/2 pages are all just references.

And perhaps the 83 page manifesto does go into detail on the topic, but I've only been making occasional progress on it when I get the chance, and am only on page 25. I'll continue reading.

Hrmm... well it was definitely wordy, and I suppose you could call it well written, in that overly-verbose kinda way. I just about gave up a few pages in, as it seemed more like a dry history lesson dropping constant in-line citations than an actual analysis that had anything to say, but yeah towards the end it gets more interesting.
On the flip-side, I don't really see the Venus Project website as being poorly written though so.... but then again, it's not trying to be a scholarly research essay, more of an apporachable by the public introduction to the ideas presented.
I'd like to read Fresco's book The Best That Money Can't Buy, it sounds like it goes into a lot of detail as to how the whole thing would work. But I believe the transition from our current social strcture into a Venus-esque one would start in small, isolated pockets of society which would serve as test cities, and as they grew, they would slowly network together, and basically "grow over" the current set-up. It wouldn't and couldn't be simply one major "shift" from one world into another like flipping a switch, it would be slow and methodical. And as it was shown to work successfully in small areas, people would have a tangible example to work off of and work towards.
Then we'd need the scientists and mechanical engineers to join up and work on the technical underpinnings of the machinery and computer systems, because we'll never create it without them working hard to design, engineer and create them.

So, technical details aside, what do you make of the overarching philosophical concept? Aside form seeming out of reach to our present modern minds, do you think this is feasible? Realistic? Necessary? Possible?

As to the overarching ideas, I like the ideas of changing our culture away from that of a current debt/'required' labor priority to that of family and following true human ideas and passions become the priority. I also like the ideas of having a world where human actions don't conflict with a healthy earth.

However, from an organizational point of view I have problems coming to terms with many aspects Fresco's plan. The political/governing aspect is one where the only solution I've seen provided seems totally unacceptable to basic human nature and freedom. Also, as I've been reading their website and thinking about this topic a lot the last few days, I am having serious trouble reconciling how human ingenuity would be fostered in such an environment.

As to the essay that I linked, it is precisely the dry, comparative, citation/reference filled components that make it so valuable and so good. Being someone who majored in Social Science with a heavy proportion of that discipline being History, I had to write many papers that looked just like the one that I linked. She wasn't just putting down ideas from the top of her head, or claiming things that she "thought", but backed up her claims with research that can be checked and verified. Her thesis was based on how the idea of the utopian city is an old idea, but has been morphed and redesigned in our modern times. Then she compared the vision of the Venus Project to various other "utopian" ideals that have been brought forth both in the past and near present.

What I liked about it is the fact that it gives you an historical perspective of how the idea has evolved and how different people in different countries are attempting to envision the future of human development.

The part that struck me was on page 13 when, although seemingly troubled by the idea, she briefly slid over the topic that has given me the most trouble: Human civilization regulated by computers/machines with no human governing body. She cited Fresco himself in the following section:

"Having disposed of politics – apparently one of the world’s
great evils together with poverty – see Fresco’s book The Best that Money Can’t buy,
Beyond Politics, Poverty, & War (2002) – one is left wondering what form of governance
future society will have. Having identified today’s problems as technical in nature it is
not surprising that Fresco foresees a cybernated society where as ‘AI develops, machines
will be assigned the tasks of complex decision-making in industrial, military and
governmental affairs … This would not imply a take-over by machines’ (Ibidem 56).9 It
won’t be a take-over because, as it is already argued – at various degrees of alarm and/or
approval – within contemporary post-humanist discourse, ‘the division between living
bodies and technology is increasingly difficult to maintain’ and ‘we are well on our way
to becoming machinic’ (Armitage 1999, 2)10. In other words, we will become machine
ourselves, our salvation as a species resides in the loss of our humanity as we know it:
‘When biological technology becomes further advanced, human beings as we know them,
will become a modified species. If we as human beings fail to include the possibility of
this development in our overall, social evolution we will witness the decline of our
species’ (Fresco 2002, 141). One is puzzled at the way in which a perspective of such
magnitude is introduced with a matter of fact attitude, regardless of the deep
philosophical and ethical implication. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be space for
idle theoretical speculations on ‘pointless’ questions such as ‘what is the meaning of life’
in the Venus project, although one would have hoped that once humanity is relieved from
menial labor, this is exactly the sort of spiritual activity one would entertain."
In the next sentence she goes on to describe Fresco's circular city designs. Strange transition.

"The Borg" from Star Trek: The Next Generation was the first thing that popped into my head when I read that. His train kind of runs off the tracks for me with his machine-world ideas. I'm not sure a total computer controlled civilization with a human/machine hybrid species is the sort of world I want my descendants moving toward.

But I am definitely open to exploring his ideas in more detail. I do like a lot of what he is trying to accomplish.

I had read that as well, and from what I can gather, he doesn't mention this anywhere else, and it is not discussed as part of the zeitgeist movement. So I figure he either means this in a metaphorical sense, or he is pushing the boundaries of his own theoretical imagination for way, waaaaaay into the future.

Or.... keep in mind nanotechnology, which is very real and advancing all the time, and all the implications that come with it. Nanobots can actually be introduced into the bloostream which would circulate through the body and perform a myriad of functions such as eliminating waste, oxidants, break down plaque in arteries, destroy tumors and cancers, deliver drugs to targeted cites/organs, etc... and be powered by our body's heat.

They are working on this stuff right now, so you can imagine a few decades into the future that nanobots could travel to the eye and perform a kind of internal surgery which would correct someone's vision, eliminating the need for glasses & contacts. This sort of stuff would unite humans and machinery, but in a more naturalistic, benevolent and beneficial way, unlike the BORG which has no free will and only stomped around "assimilating" everyone else

My issue with the essay was presumtuous statements like this: "In other words, we will become machine ourselves, our salvation as a species resides in the loss of our humanity as we know it."

Umm - no. There is no "loss of humanity". On the contrary, there would be a great liberation of our humanity, to follow our own instinctive, creative drives, and do work that is more suited to us all. Unless the term "as we know it" is to be taken literally, in which case the loss of such has already happened many times over throughout history. Our humanity "as we knew it" 500 yeas ago has been essentially eradicated in favor of our current, technological, materialistic and modernistic lifestyle. So why fear the next steps?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you mean when you say "The political/governing aspect is one where the only solution I've seen provided seems totally unacceptable to basic human nature and freedom."
Perhaps you could elaborate?

As for ingenuity, everyone would be able to come up with whatever ideas they wanted, share them with others, have engineers come up with the design specifications, put it into the system and after testing the creation, it could be automatically generated for anyone who wanted it, OR you could make it yourself...?! We would have so much more time to come up with ideas that ingenuity would seemingly flourish instead of being basically oppressed in today's world where nothiong gets made unless there is a profit motive behind it, in which case the ingenuity is actually restricted to the realms of "profitability" rather that something that would be truly beneficial.

Don't know if you've read it yet, but:
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/ind ... &Itemid=66

I was referring to the human/machine hybridization implications.

You make a great point with the nano-technology. The BORG just had to pop into my head, of course. However, it is still somewhat troubling to me that machinic humans are the only response to how the computer government / free willed human dichotomy would function.



I understand that's the theory, and it's enormously appealling, but when I attempt to break it down in my mind on how it would work, I struggle and can't make it work. It doesn't mean it can't, it just means that I'm struggling with the concept.

I've got examples about what I mean, but I think that I'll finish reading the 83 page Zeitgeist document, and maybe some of my questions will be answered before I make anymore possibly dummy remarks.

BTW-your link above doesn't seem to work, for some reason. I assume it's to a post in their forums. I've scanned through them, and I think I might know which one you're referring to.

Ack, here maybe this link works better, sorry. It's to the FAQ.
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/ind ... temid=66#1

I haven't personally read the Pdf either, so don't worry about asking any wrong or silly questions, because there's a ton that I don't fully get yet, and I'm trying to work it all out too. I've been surfing the forum which is already huge, and has a lot of info and discussion among people trying to figure out all this stuff as well.
But I find the concept of a well-designed futuristic direction fascinating no matter what, whether we end up going in this direction or not. It's probably worth mentioning that even if the world 'decides' to follow this path, it's unlikely to end up actually being just like the theoretical ideas on paper...nothing seems to ever work out that precisely So it's more of an outline, a general infrastructure that we would fill in, in unknown ways.
I'd like to see it happen though.

Speaking of this societal evolution tkaing place in small, isolated pockets which will eventually "grow together", it seems that at least one group is already completely intetnt on doing just that, in New Zealand, or "New-Z-Land" as they call it. They have figured out a ton of the logistics required for a successful building of such a small city, and have it all outlined in this pdf document.
It seems that the author's first language may not have been English, either that or they just don't have the best punctuation/grammar. But aside form that, it is an interesting read to see how serious they apparently are at creating city #1 for this movement. Check it out.

www.new-zland.com/ZLand_v1r6.pdf