Many people like to pigeon-hole the Zeitgeisters as communists... I think that might be adding a political meaning to the movement that really probably was not originally intended. I thought the ZG and the Venus Project were supposedly apolitical; perhaps I've been mis- or under- informed.
But, from what I gather about these people: They are anti-CONSUMERISM. So, what's the opposite of consuming? Producing. So, are they producers? Maybe wanna-be producers?
I've read elsewhere on this forum (and other places) that our current economic situation has something to do with the balance between consuming and producing tipping too heavily toward consuming. Anyway, I don't think the issue needs any extra politification. Just my 0.02 BTC.
But, from what I gather about these people: They are anti-CONSUMERISM. So, what's the opposite of consuming? Producing. So, are they producers? Maybe wanna-be producers?
I've read elsewhere on this forum (and other places) that our current economic situation has something to do with the balance between consuming and producing tipping too heavily toward consuming. Anyway, I don't think the issue needs any extra politification. Just my 0.02 BTC.
By a-political they just mean they are the other side of the coin.
They would have to excert extreme political power to make their ideas reality.
If their ideas boil down to producerism (as opposed to consumerism), I can see that manifesting worldwide without any political influence at all... Aside from possibly comic relief
Hoo boy, that election happened, and people sure were acting more foolish than usual that day.
They cannot manifest without profoundly affecting current politics.
Therefore their ideas are very political in nature whether they realise it or not.
Nahhh... That's all backwards gobbledy-gook. Just because something affects something else, does not mean it is or becomes or has anything to do with the nature of the something else. Yeah, politricks will be affected -- by being more exposed than ever as the impotent (mostly with regard to effective policy-making: the thing it's supposed to be for) dress-up extravaganza that it is -- And then it might actually become (or be replaced [likely with "AI"] with) a system of distributing resources that is hopefully more efficient than the current abysmal policy-making system we have now. Politics is supposed to be about making policies that best distribute resources among entities, but the "politics" we all are used to is nothing more than a homecoming queen crowning.
Politics being affected or changed or exposed or eliminated... affected in any way, by any thing, does not mean that that thing that affected it is political. I guess I'm repeating myself here but it really looks like some backwards logic you are using, based on some sort of mindset that politics will always have to exist in its current form?
I mean, I pee in a fresh porcelain bowl of water. The water is then affected by my pee. Does that fact alone make my pee of the nature of water? What if I peed on the bowl instead of in it?
Yes, it will be a new policy-making system. And that is still a system that is making political desicions.
Because you outsource it to an AI doesn't make it less political.
Politics in reality is a much wider notion than you make it out to be.
Saying something affects politics on a global scale but is not somehow political is nonsense.
Politics is not just a mechanism, it's a playing field. Needless to say, these ideas are staged on a political stage and that is where they need to fight to have any chace of becoming reality.
To use your example (
), the bowl is the stage of politics. You could put anything in there and it will be political.Politics is about steering societal structures. It doesnt matter if it is controlled by democratically elected humans or by AI's, it's still politics.
And this is a very good example of the kind of short-sightedness that proponents of these ideas tend to propagate.
They see their ideal but do not notice that the ideal requires the same kinds of mechanisms to become reality as the ones it is supposedly trying to remove.
It's a fairytale that can only have come from the luxury laden ritch western countries we tend to live in because it is depending very much on the thing it tries to eliminate.
It's exactly like people using the internet to say that we don't need the internet.
So let me drop this question again:
How will you convince Russia to give up all their resources without any politics or wars?
Or China?
Do you realize that there are a lot of unique places on earth that have certain resources that other parts don't have? How will you convince them to listen to an AI telling them to give away the stuff that makes them wealthy without any political action?
If you think these things don't matter then you're in denial.
There is no realistical way of implementing a resource based economy wthout getting the whole world on your side. And politics is the stage to these people. So no matter how you communicate your ideas to the people, that communication is political in nature no matter the message.