the zeitgeist movement manifesto: part i

In this series I will use individual segments of the manifesto expressed here as seeds for brief discussion from my perspective. Since I am very much attracted to the idea of progressive (nonviolent) change to our social systems, I think it is worth expending the effort and time to consider these ideas critically and practically.

The central foundation of the "movement" is summarized in the following quote:

The central insights of this awareness is the recognition of the Emergent and Symbiotic elements of natural law and how aligning with these understandings as the bedrock of our personal and social institutions, life on earth can and will flourish into a system which will continuously grow in a positive way, where negative social consequences, such as social stratification, war, biases, elitism and criminal activity will be constantly reduced and, idealistically, eventually become nonexistent within the spectrum of human behavior itself.

This possibility is, of course, very difficult for most humans to consider, for we have been conditioned by society to think that crime, corruption and dishonesty is "the way it is" and that there will always be people who want to abuse, hurt and take advantage of others. Religion is the largest promoter of this propaganda, for the "us and them" or "good and evil" mentality promotes this false assumption.

Accordingly, it is critical to address the issue of "human behaviour", as it is the sole underlying determinant of social organization. This point is not exclusive to the Zeitgeist philosophy; it is the essential question in any political philosophy. Thomas Hobbes, for instance, addresses this question in Part I of his book Leviathon, postulating a "state of nature" for human existence, in which all human drives are in conflict; in other words, our "state of nature" is a state of war. Out of this state of nature are born social contracts, under which a man agrees "to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself".

Hobbes's is, of course, a classical mind, lacking the wealth of scientific knowledge available to us today. His argument, that man requires social contracts and, ultimately, the rule of an "absolute sovereign", is in many ways diametrically opposed to the view espoused by the Zeitgeist movement, which is that it is our present set of contracts and unequal distribution of power which leads to the "morally bad" behaviours we continue to see in society. Crime, for instance, is the breaking of a contract whose terms are skewed. For Hobbes this is the true measure of morality; for Zeitgeist it is a predictable outcome of a human placed in a particular environment.