1) Scientifically directed evolution assumes good is an absolute concept
1.1 Who ever said "scientifically directed evolution"? It;s something you brought up, I don't even know what that would mean/imply.
I'm sorry if you don't like that term. Yes I made it up inspired by your videos. You can chose another one you feel more confortable with.
But not dynamic equilibrium, because there's many ways to achieve it and you claim science can make you decide one.
Quote from: 4v4l0n42
1.2 Good as an absolute concept. No, on the contrary, it's highly subjective. But there are things are are objectively negative, and we should avoid (e.g.: starvation, slavery). The free market doesn't solve any of those by design.
You say good is subjective but bad is objective.
I don't like starvation, but I don't think it is objectively bad. Bad (as good) is always subjective .
Quote from: 4v4l0n42
Quote
2) The end of scarceness and strategic conservation conflict between them.
Eh, what?
2.1 Priority number one, strategic conversation and sustainability
2.2 Automate the process as much as possible
2.3 People get access to the necessities of life without having to enslave themselves for profit, and can finally do something useful for themselves and for the rest of society
Finally understood. Sustainability is a priority over people getting free access to their necessities.
When a conflict appears, sutainability gets first and the free access may be stopped when necessary.
Quote from: 4v4l0n42
Quote
3) Private property and free trade are best recipes for non coercive society
Say, whaaaat?
The evidence shows exactly the opposite. You have to illusion of being free, sure, but you are only as free as your purchasing power allows you to, which is a complete joke because social darwinism implies almost complete social immobility, poor getting poorer and rich getting richer, centralisation of power.
If there were evidences, it may evident to me. But I (and many people) happen to think different from you. You can say that's because our ignorance, but that wouldn't be an argument.
As far as I can tell, nobody defends social darwinism nor eugenics here.
I don't think free trade results in "poor getting poorer and rich getting richer", but if it did, then can't imply "almost complete social immobility" at the same time.
Quote from: 4v4l0n42
Quote
4) Interest is a flaw of a technology called money with evil effects for both the society and the environment
Interest is only part of the problem. The real problem is that the bottom line of a moetary based economy is to make money, not to live well, not to live sustainably, not to be happy. It's to make money.
If TZM believes Interest is a problem, I can provide you material and links to other organizations that think the same way.
Here's an example:
http://www.complementarycurrency.org/
Not all the currencies listed there have a way to prevent interest (demurrage or mutual credit).
Quote from: 4v4l0n42
And it's been proven over and ver that:
4.1 money doesn't make you happy (as the complete lack of it, what matters is to get access to what you need)
4.1 money doesn't make you happy (as the complete lack of it, what matters is to get access to what you need)
Unless the producer of the good/service you need/want wants to give it to you as charity, you either have to coerce him or give him something he wants/needs in exchange.
Money's just a proxy.
Quote from: 4v4l0n42
4.2 profit-based competition breeds natural monopolies, corruption and environmental degradation
No. This your an opinion. It must be proved to become science.
Quote from: 4v4l0n42
I thin we are missing the point here. I'll make it crystal clear, and I'll call it number zero, 'cause it's the one that matters most 
0. We need to find a way to live sustainably on the planet, where people are not forced into slavery/poverty and everybody gets access to the necessities of life.
0. We need to find a way to live sustainably on the planet, where people are not forced into slavery/poverty and everybody gets access to the necessities of life.
We have the same goals, we just differ in the means needed to achieve it.
Quote from: 4v4l0n42
Tell me how the free market is going to provide that.
The free market won't provide that. The people within the free market have to do it.
If they chose suicide and self destruction, there's nothing free market can do. Free market can't impede suicide.