on zeitgeist: addendum

The idea is a good one. Zeitgeist: Addendum is just as long as its predecessor, and simply continues along the same line. It makes an attempt to render the monetary system of economics palatable to the typical viewer, which is no easy task. But the basic premise of this exposé is easily palatable: that the monetary system upon which the economy of the developed world is based is one in which exponentially increasing debt and inflation are necessary outcomes. This bizarre system is explained in terms of its historical evolution, which the narrator admonishes as a new and insidious form of universal slavery.

Although the film is very blatantly anarchistic propaganda, many of these ideas are valid ones; in the end, I am captivated and intrigued by the explanations which I am already beginning to appreciate as a result of independent research of my own. It is insanity to hope to give any fair treatment of the subject of laissez-faire economics, or the ideas of "corporacracy" and "monetary-ism" as presented in this film, in a single blog entry. So this blog entry will simply serve as a segue into future entries in which I will attempt a deeper monologue (hopefully even a dialogue, if this ever gets read).

The latter part of this film actually begins to offer alternatives, which adds to its value. Like most great critics, however, Peter Joseph is better at critical deconstruction than realistic construction. This is not to say that some of the ideas aren't excellent ones, but it is dangerous to be overly naive in our desire for social utopia. Zeitgeist: Addendum offers us "the Venus Project", which is in essence a project designed by a graphic designer and "social engineer" named Jacques Fresco, whose words are the basis of the second half of the film.

As a set of ideas about the possible future of our species and our planet, the Venus Project is highly appealing. We hear and see renderings of a future planet where the monetary system has been abolished, replaced with a "resource-based" economy. We are made to imagine a world in which progress is not determined by politicians or corporations, but by the technicians themselves, whose technology is geared not towards short-term profit, but as a means to advance the well-being of the planet as a whole. Such technology includes clean, renewable, and abundant sources of energy such as solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal power generation.

All of this sounds very idealistic, but the film aptly points out that the requisite technology is either currently available, or quite feasible given our present state of technological advancement. Fresco makes it clear that he is not advocating a new utopia, and acknowledges that there is no perfect society; the essential idea, however, is to allow a fluid progression into an improved society, which he and Joseph (and I) see as being impeded and misdirected by our present systems of politics and economics.

Where do I disagree? Well, Fresco suggests that we are all basically blank slates upon which behavioural tendencies are scrawled by the social and familial traditions into which we are born and under which we develop. We know that this is at most only partially true. I agree that tradition is a huge factor in the determination of a cultural/political/economic social system, and thus the activity of masses of people will have trends that are determined by these traditions. However, there are certain traits which are to a lesser or greater degree innately present in all humans; these behavioural phenotypes are what distinguish us as a species, and are basically independent of culture and tradition.

I would not expect, for instance, as Fresco suggests, that crime would disappear if class distinctions were eliminated. We see far too much crime at the highest levels (and the film spends a huge amount of time exposing this) to truly believe that it is attributable solely to conditions of poverty and oppression, or that it would disappear in any society we construct. It is of course sensible to suggest that, under a different social organization in which the typical incentives for crime are eliminated, we should see a change in criminal behaviour, but I would need a far more convincing argument to agree that human exploitation will ever completely disappear. It is a short-term adaptive strategy, and genes care little for long-term ideologies.

There are certain unpleasant facts that we must acknowledge about ourselves if we ever hope to progress socially... deliberate optimism is simply another form of ignorance, and all forms of ignorance are counterproductive...

Anyways, a lovely movie full of lovely ideas, and I shall do my best to address each of those ideas more directly in future entries... stayed tuned :p