Online Films
Peter Joseph: Where Are We Now?
70 min - presentation - culture, solutions, the big picture 1145 views - website

This 70 minute presentation by Zeitgeist/Zeitgeist: Addendum creator Peter Joseph was given on July 25th 2009 in London, and expands on the ideas presented in the Zeitgeist Movement Orientation Presentation. A must watch for those keeping up with the series of films. Topics include: There is no "they." What are the root causes of our global problems? Why traditional green activist organizations do not go far enough with proposed solutions for change. The monetary system. The fundamental influence that human behavior and our social conditioning has on the problems we see today and much more.

Share|




Comments
Posted by anon e mouse on Wednesday, October 07, 2009

There's a lot of "This Perfect Day" (1970), a future-dystopian novel by Ira Levin (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Perfect_Day) in this vision of a technocratic authoritarian society envisioned by Peter Joseph, which draws heavily on the ideas of Jacque Fresco.

From the Wikipedia entry for This Perfect Day (vide supra): "The story is set in a seemingly perfect global society whose genesis remains vague. "Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei led us to this perfect day" is what school children learn to chant. ...

The world is ruled by a central computer called UniComp which has been programmed to keep every single human on the surface of the earth in check. People are continually drugged by means of regular injections so that they can never realize their potential as humans, but will remain satisfied and cooperative "Family members". They are told where to live, when to eat, whom to marry, when to reproduce, and which job they will be trained for. Everyone is assigned a counselor who acts somewhat like a mentor, confessor, and parole agent; violations against 'brothers' and 'sisters' by themselves and others are expected to be reported at a weekly confession.

Everyone wears a permanent identifying bracelet which interfaces with access points that act as scanners which tell the "Family members" where they are allowed to go and what they are allowed to do. At the age of 62, every person dies, presumably from an overdose of the treatment liquids; almost anything in them is poisonous if an excess dose is given. Now and then, someone dies at 61 or 63, so no one is too suspicious of the regularity. Even opposition against such a life by those few who happen to be resistant to the drugs, or those who purposely change their behavior to avoid strong doses of some of the drugs in the monthly treatment, and who consequently wake up to a day which for them turns out to be anything but perfect, is dealt with by the programmers of UniComp. These long-lived men and women, in their underground hideaway, constitute the real, albeit invisible, world government. They live in absolute luxury and choose their own members through a form of meritocracy. In part, people who choose, through evasion and modifying their own behavior, to leave the main Family are subtly re-directed to "nature preserves" of imperfect life on islands. These, however, have been put in place by the programmers as a place to isolate trouble-making Family members. The top minds among the outcasts are further manipulated into joining the programmers to help them maintain the equilibrium in the "perfect" world of UniComp and The Family."
============================================
There's a lot of "This Perfect Day" in Jacque Fresco's ideas.

Jacque Fresco is not the same person as Jacques R. Fresco, PhD, who was a chemist at Harvard and Princeton. Jacque Fresco, who helped write and illustrate "Future by Design", a 1969 book written by Kenneth S. Keyes, Jr., was primarily a special effects designer for movies in Hollywood, CA. He designed the special effects for "Project Moonbase", a 1953 science fiction film written by R. A. Heinlein and J. Seaman, and designed spacecraft models for other films. He also designed models of aircraft for the Revell Corporation, which produced plastic model kits until 1983, when it was acquired by Monogram Corporation. Fresco has two US patents, 2,410,056, issued in 1945, for a variable camber wing design, and 3,371,972, issued in 1967, for a smoker's pipe rack. In addition, an article was written in 1955 in Popular Mechanics about an idea he had about an electrical mechanism to prevent aircraft wing icing. There is no record of his having received any degree higher than a high school diploma, although Moffett University awarded Fresco the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and Social Science honoris causa in 2009. Alex Jones, the radio talk show host, was awarded the degree of Doctor of Journalism and Master of International Affairs, as well. Moffett University appears to have no fixed address or accreditation. Fresco's Wikipedia entry appears to have been derived from materials produced by his own organization(s) and there appears to be no independent corroboration of the facts alleged therein. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco) In checking his resume, there is no record of any ISBN for any of the books claimed to have been written by him before 1990

Peter Joseph has no background at all; his name is an alias, and he refuses to disclose his background, education, or frankly any real information about who he is and where he comes from. His Wikipedia entry was composed from data taken from his websites and has no independent confirmation of any of the facts alleged therein (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Joseph)
======================================
Although this may seem to be nitpicking, it isn't. Both Fresco and Joseph propose a radical redesign of society, throwing out all of the present system and replacing it with one of their own design. Fresco claims to be an engineer, which he is not; there are no articles by him published in any peer-reviewed engineering journals (or any engineering journals, period) and he doesn't appear to have a college degree in anything. He is not licensed as an architect in any state. Other details on his resume also do not check out. As for Peter Joseph, his name is an alias - he could be using an identity manufactured by the CIA, for all anyone knows. People who propose a radical transformation of society should be more transparent and open about their past, their experience, and where they're coming from, and where their ideas come from. I'm not seeing any of this - there's just a lot of unverifiable PR from their organizations.
Posted by Tim on Wednesday, October 07, 2009

OH MY GOD. You cannot look at a stub on Wikipedia and call that research! I'm not sure why you seem intent on harking on every idea or person you come across. Give me a break. If you actually looked into their ideas, (rather than the whack articles about them on Wikipedia (which IS, actually, edited by the CIA didn't ya know :) you might realize your superstitions about them are completely absurd. If you actually did some genuine research on Peter, you would know that he makes no claims that Peter Joseph is his full name. It is his first and middle name. He has not given out his last name to protect himself and his family from the numerous death threats he has received on account of his two films (especially the one that is critical of Christianity). If you put the pieces together I think you could have figured that out (and consider that reasonable), and would not leap to the ridiculous conclusion that his identity was manufactured by the CIA. Get some sun my friend! I'm guessing you have not actually watched the video above.

Just a couple days ago you were saying how a college degree doesn't mean anything (accept to those indoctrinated into believing it means something) and yet today you say Fresco never got a college degree so we should dismiss him. Wow! That is... something... alright.. Just.. wow.

The allusion you make between Fresco and Joseph's ideas and The Perfect Day is just pure nonsense. If you want to close off your ears before you have even looked into their ideas and then find articles that prove your conclusion, you will certainly find plenty of material to puff up your reasoning. But I don't think you've given Peter or Fresco their fair shake. Listen to Peter's bi-weekly radio address and he will answer some of your concerns (try one from about a month ago). The technocratic authoritarian society you think they are talking about is your misunderstanding, because of previous connotations you (and I previously) attached to the words they're using. But looking deeper beyond the semantics.. there is nothing authoritarian about it. Stop looking for faults my friend! You might find that they have a lot of good ideas, ones that go far beyond the culturally conditioned solutions that we all have trouble looking past.
Posted by anon e mouse on Friday, October 09, 2009

There's no possible way to do "real research" on "Peter Joseph" since he won't reveal his last name. The bit about the CIA manufacturing his identity was a joke; you seem not to have caught it. Both Wikipedia entries for "Peter Joseph" and Jacque Fresco are unreliable, being based solely on information provided by the Venus Project and its subsidiaries, and without independent corroborating information. That leaves the information above that I've dug up on Jacque Fresco.

I've watched the video in its entirety and did so before I did the research on Fresco. There are some real howlers in the video, btw.

A college degree is not necessary to do journalism: Ernest Hemingway didn't have one, Ted Koppel (Nightline) was a 10th grade dropout, as was Richard Nadler (contributing editor for National Review), and RIchard Brookhiser began getting published in National Review when he was 14. Brookhiser eventually became editor of the magazine. I knew Rich Nadler personally, he was always good for lunch and a spirited argument.

A college degree, however, is necessary to do industrial design, architecture, and engineering, all of which Fresco claims expertise in. He also claims expertise in "social design engineering" but the only articles he's published have been in non-peer reviewed journals. He talks incessantly about using the "scientific method", but he's had no experience doing any kind of science. I happen to have had a bit of experience with the scientific method - I've got a PhD in a hard science. I've also done fairly extensive work in artificial intelligence methods as applied to real-world problems, and I've had work published in peer-reviewed journals in the relevant fields. From this experience, and knowing what I know about the state of the art in artificial intelligence, I'll say that Fresco and "Joseph" are flogging unalloyed pure crapola. It's a lot of fancy words with no substance underneath, and it looks like their agenda is entirely self-serving.

As for the scientific validity of their proposed solution, I offer the following quote and analysis:

"In a Resource-Based, Global Economy,
where “industry” and “government” are combined into a Cybernated System
that incorporates

advanced problem solving database computers,
coupled with vast planetary wide observation sensors,

the traditional concepts of politics, elections and the like
have no relevance or basis. ...

So how would a person participate within a Resource-Based Economy?

First, they would interact with the Central Database System program,....
They would then input their proposal.
The Central Database, with its historical knowledge databases ...,
would then analyze the concept
...
along with optimizing the materials required ....
If the proposal makes
logical sense
and
the optimized resources to make it happen are available,
it would be turned over to the Interdisciplinary Teams
that oversee the
implementation of the new proposal ...."

- excerpted from "The Zeitgeist Movement - Observations and Responses - Activist Orientation Guide"

All it takes to invalidate this proposed decision-making means is a simple use of the scientific method.

We first look at how people interact with the proposed Cybernated System which runs the Resource-Based Economy: First, they interact with the Central Database System program and input their proposal; then the Central Database would analyse the concept, presumably using
"advanced problem-solving database computers" which imply the use of some sort of AI, and imply the existence of preselected sets of problem-solving algorithms in the AI.

Of course, the lion's share of problem-solving lies in the definition of the problem.

First, the problem has to be analysed to determine whether it is an NP-complete problem (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NP-complete_problems).

If the problem falls into this class, it (effectively) cannot be solved: "The most notable characteristic of NP-complete problems is that no fast solution to them is known. That is, the time required to solve the problem using any currently known algorithm increases very quickly as the size of the problem grows. As a result, the time required to solve even moderately large versions of many of these problems easily reaches into the billions or trillions of years, using any amount of computing power available today." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete)

In a Resource-Based Economy, some potential problems might depend on answers to questions about:

Minimum edge-cost flow
Directed two-commodity integral flow
Maximum flow network interdiction problems
Unsplittable multicommodity flow
Resource constrained scheduling
Scheduling with individual deadlines
Preemptive scheduling
Scheduling to minimize weighted completion time

... and so on.

There are more than 3000 NP-complete problems, so if the problem presented falls into any one of these descriptions, no computer will be able to find a solution in a reasonable period of time (less than a million years). If this is the case, then the problem cannot be solved and no decision can be made by the Central Database System.

If, on the other hand, the problem is not NP-complete, then "if it makes logical sense" and "optimized resources are available" then it is passed on to an "Interdisciplinary Team" for implementation.

There are two additional decisions to be made at this point:
the concept must "make logical sense" and
"optimized resources" must be available.

The problem of determining whether a concept "makes logical sense" is an NP-complete problem:

"In complexity theory, the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT) is a decision problem, whose instance is a Boolean expression written using only AND, OR, NOT, variables, and parentheses. The question is: given the expression, is there some assignment of TRUE and FALSE values to the variables that will make the entire expression true? A formula of propositional logic is said to be satisfiable if logical values can be assigned to its variables in a way that makes the formula true. The boolean satisfiability problem is NP-complete.

The propositional satisfiability problem (PSAT), which decides whether a given propositional formula is satisfiable, is of central importance in various areas of computer science, including theoretical computer science, algorithmics, artificial intelligence, hardware design, electronic design automation, and verification." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability)

Thus, without having to address the constrained optimization problem presented by the resource availability criterion, it is shown that the decision process suggested by Fresco and "Joseph" is NP-complete and cannot, for any problem or decision, produce an answer within a reasonable time (less than a million years). QED.
[edit]



==========================================
By the way, Fresco's ideas are not original:
http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/CyberGeog/cybintro.html
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=80AF03BF-AAD1-4997-B603-F418B2DCFEA4&ttype=2&tid=4006&xid=4&xcid=0


Posted by Tim on Friday, October 09, 2009

"By the way, Fresco's ideas are not original: "

And your point is? Lots of ideas are not original. The transition movement concept is certainly not original and you're not harking on Rob Hopkins. I'm actually really surprised you're not in support of what they are trying to do. Since the solutions using computers are still theoretical, I'm not sure what your point is in creating some specific variables that will disprove the feasibility of the proposal. Since the proposal is theoretical, you could just as easily choose a different set of variables to prove that it's possible. Either way though, I think that's missing the point. The point is to explore ideas of new ways of living that go beyond our corrupt monetary based system. What is wrong with that?
Posted by Tim on Friday, October 09, 2009

What is the point of doing research on Peter or Fresco other than (for your purposes in this case) to make character assassinations. Shouldn't their ideas be judged on there own?

I'm sorry but in your first post you compared their idea to "The Perfect Day" and that is just nonsense. Listen to the radio address I gave you a link to. He flatly spells out why the notion of a "technocratic authoritarian dictatorship" or whatever is complete nonsense.

Okay, so instead of focusing on appeals to authority or credentials, you've made one criticism of their solution. What other "howlers" did you find in the video?
Posted by Tim on Friday, October 09, 2009

Though I'm not sure it's worth debating at this point because it seems pretty clear you have made up your mind about the Zeitgeist movement and any further exploration of their ideas will be to confirm your so-far established conclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Again, still really surprised how you're responding to this. Earlier this year you were talking about how you thought we should screen Zeitgeist: Addendum..
Posted by anon e mouse on Friday, October 09, 2009

In my analysis above, I'm not trying to assassinate their character(s). I'm assassinating their method of governance, showing that their method is not only unworkable, but impossible, given *any* set of variables. I suppose I should have analysed this from a scientific standpoint in the first place rather than waiting until now.

As for the ideas not being original, oftentimes it's a useful thing to find out where ideas come from. Part of the advantage of having lived for a while is that you get to see a lot of things, and I've seen this brand of Utopianism before, in the 1970s, hence the allusion to "This Perfect Day". Have you read that book?

In any case, the computational model on which their method of governance and their resource-based economy theory depend are examples of a set of NP-complete problems and thus are unusable as written. Their solution won't work, and it's been scientifically proven not to work. It isn't just *one* NP-complete problem, it's a whole universe of NP-complete problems. Look at my references to the wiki entries on NP-complete problems above, and look at the following papers:
1. www.cs.ucsb.edu/~rich/publications/gc-book.pdf
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resource_economics
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_rule
4. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12350/
5. http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=2160390
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy


Oh, and have a look at this bit of lunacy from the Venus Project people:
http://rbecollective.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12
Apparently they're asserting some sort of trademark rights to the term "Resource-Based Economy" in order to attempt to control discussions using the term. It's laughable, and it's bogus. For people who want to abolish money, they're awfully concerned about keeping theirs.

They'd better let the OECD know about this, ASAP. bwahahahaha.
Posted by Tim on Saturday, October 10, 2009

The trademark issue is concerning. I just don't know if I could judge others so easily. I would hate for people to dismiss you and your ideas so quickly.
Posted by streamfortyseven on Sunday, October 11, 2009

People have no difficulty dismissing me and my ideas, but ideas are examples of form, and attachment to form is suffering, because form comes from no-thing-ness, and returns to no-thing-ness just as quickly, so it's OK for people to dismiss me and my ideas. It's part of what is, it's a part of the present moment.

From an energetic standpoint, both Derrick Jensen and his movement which advocates direct democracy, horizontal governance, radical deindustrialization and the "bringing down" of industrial civilization, and its apparent antithesis, with Jacque Fresco et al advocating an extremely hierarchical form of technocratic government, radical hyperindustrialization to form societies and structures which look quite similar to what Paolo Soleri has proposed with his Arcologies, are like vortexes on the boundaries of a quickly-moving stream. Both Jensen and Fresco cannot abide any sort of dissent, hence Jensen's insistence that participants in his forums agree to and abide by Jensen's "Premises", and Fresco and his associates' tendency to "lock" topics on the Venus Project discussion board, and to deny outsiders the privilege of posting on the board.

Both of them attract people who are driven mainly by feelings; there isn't a great deal of analytic thinking or rational discussion going on. I'd like to see some discussion of the NP-complete problem and how the system of governance and control will deal with such problems. If your system is based on algorithms which work in NP-complete time, then it's unworkable, and you have to find another way to do things. People can scream and shout and talk about their feelings about what should happen, but at the end of the day, the Advanced Database Computers or whatever, with their AI and their sensors, and their databases still won't be able to produce a meaningful result in a finite time.

I get the idea that you aren't reading my technical critiques of the Fresco/Joseph system; you haven't said anything in reply to those comments.

Incidentally, what with peak oil and all, where are they going to get all the power to build all of those structures, all the Portland cement (which is made using a fossil-fuel intensive process), the structural steel, the aluminum skin, the glass or plastic windows; and then supply them with electric power and heat and cooling? What happens to the nice-looking floating city in a hurricane? Do they use ferrocement and if so where do they get the energy to make it? Just by wiping out money they won't be able to get things done for free, there's still an energetic cost. What happens to Fresco's vision when oil production peaks? Do you see his radical restructuring of society happening before 2015? That's 5 years away. That's a good estimate of when the effects of peak oil will really start to kick in. What happens to his vision then? Has peak oil been addressed on his forums? I haven't seen any discussion of it, although I'll have another look tonight.
Posted by streamfortyseven on Monday, October 12, 2009

With regard to peak oil, their position seems to be that the scarcity is caused by deliberate manipulation of markets by oil companies and speculators in oil, not by depletion of the resource:
"I used to think peak oil was a serious threat. It will only be a serious threat if the oil barons have their way and purport that oil is scarce. News flash-Ever since the recession hit, production was scaled back sharply. They are artificially inflating the price of oil and oil products."

They also look for technological solutions:
"Each house needs a bank of solar cell, a wind turbine, and a humdinger micro-generator or two. They need a battery backup, and a means to tie on to the grid to either push excess into the grid, or take from the grid when it's needed. They need their own water treatment systems. Everyone needs to buy local as much as possible. And grow your own food. That right there will have vastly more effect than going all electric for vehicles, comparatively."

Solar cells, wind turbines, and even "humdinger micro-generators" have got to be manufactured, which means that raw materials have to be mined or transformed from recycled items. Solar cells wear out over a period of about 15 years, wind turbines last up to 10 years, maybe less depending on conditions. I'm not sure how long "humdinger micro-generators" last, I suppose that's up to the Humdinger Corporation.

And there's still no explanation of where the energy will come from to produce all the structures in the fancy computer graphics that everyone is so taken by - and then there's seawater, corrosive stuff. It's why they say in the Navy "If it moves, salute it, if it doesn't, paint it"
12


Add a Comment
 Name


Word in Image
 
Search Films


View by Category
Comedy
Documentary
Peak Moment TV
Presentation
PSA
Short Film
Trailer
TV Clip
Video Clip

View by Subject
9/11
activism
animal rights
big ideas
big media
business
cities
climate change
community
consumerism
corporations
culture
drug prohibition
education
elections & democracy
empire
energy
food
globalization
government
health
human rights
impeachment
indigenous issues
indy media
media & war
media literacy
money & economics
peak oil
permaculture
philosophy
police state
politics
relocalization
social issues
solutions
sustainability
technology & design
terrorism?
the big picture
vision
war & peace



http://www.filmsforaction.org admin