We do not want your money, we are here to help.

In an age where so many of us have had our eyes opened to the
fraudulent financial system, it amazes me that the majority is of the
opinion that by the deconstruction of one small portion of the
problem a solution will be reached. This would seem to stem from
a lack of understanding in relation to the depth and scope of the
actual problems the human species is facing.
It would appear that many have come to the opinion that through
the end of the Federal Reserve Bank, the problems of inflation and
perpetual debt will be resolved.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Federal Reserve bank although a major player in the entire
system, is only one portion of that corrupt and fraudulent system.
The practice of fractional reserve banking will continue, thus the
inflation, or expansion of the money supply will be perpetuated.
Interest will still be charged on so called outstanding debts, and the
human species as a whole will still be enslaved through perpetuating
debt. Major corporations will still control global governments, and
policies will continue to ensure the control of the global population
through wage slavery.
The newest and most advanced technologies will continue to be
held back. Poverty will not be averted simply by bringing an end to
one portion of an outmoded financial system. Social stratification will
continue unhindered, recessions and depressions will occur
unhindered. Wars will still be raged in the name of capturing resources.
How many times will the human species have to go through great loss
at the hands of a fraudulent outdated financial system, before we will
all open our eyes to the natural truth of the world.
We have but one planet to live on together, and that planet and
everything contained on and within it are the common heritage of all
the human species.
If every human on the planet requires clean fresh water, a reliable
source of sustainable food, and shelter in order to live a healthy life,
why would these things not be the common heritage of our entire
family.
Through putting some abstract financial value on these things are we
not saying that a certain percentage of our species do not deserve to
live a healthy life?
If we implemented a global plan of hydroponic based food production
we could feed every human on the planet many many times over. The
instant reaction by many is to say "We do not have enough of our
fraudulent money to pay for such a venture."
When the only real question is, "Do we have the technological
understanding and the resources to do it?"
Of course, we do.
Let us think about our precious financial system this way. If a giant
meteor, or comet was heading toward earth, that would result in an
extinction level event, how much time would we spend ,in our current
financial mind set, debating who would fit the monetary bill in
relation to solving this problem.
It is of interest to note that work in this field has already begun.
A committee has been established through the United Nations, not
only to investigate how such an event could be averted, but to also
stipulate who would pay and how.
This in itself is ludicrous, for if a solution was not reached we would
ALL be dead.
Who would pay for that?
The human race as a whole needs to grow up, and fast.
We are so capable, we have the ability to solve every problem we
face, all we need do is abandon our current financial system, and
beliefs that any one country is somehow better than any other. We
need to come to the understanding that we are all one, and have
much more in common with each other, than what we have been
lead to believe.
There is nothing scary about sharing with each other, what is scary
is what we have now. One human being not only being willing to
take from another, but being educated that to do so is in fact all we
have. Solving the human races problems may not be a quick fix,
and it may take many many years of re-education for the masses to
understand a new social design.
This is in no way saying it can not be done.
The reality of the situation is that we have very little choice in the
matter. If we are to continue our existence on this planet, we most
certainly need to start thinking more about each other and  less
about our own selfish wants.
The time of finger pointing and playing the blame game has long
since past. It is now time to wake up, and accept responsibility for
the state we find our society in. Looking critically at our global
society and pin pointing the root cause to the many symptoms that
have manifested themselves due to the continued use of an
antiquated anachronistic institutionalized modes of thinking.
It is a brave new world we stand ready to enter.
The question remains, is the human race ready to move forward?
Do we have what it takes as a species to move in this brave new
directionof global responsibility?
I cannot answer that question for anyone apart from myself.
This will be the most difficult test the human species has had to
pass to date.
Can we change?
Upon investigation and self education the solution becomes clear.
Are you willing to take the first steps toward true global freedom?

The Zeitgeist Movement 

Green Living

One World, this planet, Earth.
It is all we have.
Our actions on this planet are not always worthy of praise, not when as a species we choose to act in a less than symbiotic manner.
As we choose to live and promote unsustainable living, and ignore the problems we as a species face.
The issues are too big, or things are not really that bad.
Is this the legacy we feel is acceptable to leave behind?
Should we choose not to make things better because they are not bad enough just yet?
I would like to think we can change anything and everything, simply because we can make things better than they currently are.
I believe that being green means coming together as one race, understanding that we share this planet not only with each other but with every species on this planet.
That our current industrial production systems are not only counter productive to a sustainable future for our children but life in general on this planet.
The continued pollution of our home is by no means to be viewed as or explained away as progress.
It is time for us all to come together, to get to know the people we coexist with and to share our thoughts and ideas.
To help each other, not for some sort of false financial gain, but for the benefit of our lives and future together.
To engage in open discussion, willing to grow from what we learn form each other and not hold stringently to what we think is true and correct. To accept as time moves forward we must as a unified species learn to evolve our ways of thinking to become more in line with sustainability.
Unlike any other species on this planet we have the ability to alter our environment on a global scale, perhaps we should consider that in our daily actions.
Together we can achieve anything, maybe it is time anything became the promotion of an altruistic movement toward green, peaceful living.
It is up to each and everyone of us.
Lets stand up together and demand change.
Peace and love will set us free.

A very good friend of mine has something to say.

A conversation

A
To understand where I am coming from it would pay to watch Zeitgeist Moving forward. From there we should be able to discuss your concerns from a point of common understanding.
B
sure i have seen all 3 zietgiest docos btw
A
That's great, so now I am having trouble understanding your concerns of privacy and control.
B
the one thing i have not been able to understand about the venus project ideas is how do you ensure fair and just rations of resources without knowing what everyone has makes and consumes and without total control over those resourses...
please change my mind that resource based system is anything other that what I see it to be thus far
A
Well I think first we should understand The Venus Project is just a name, it is a good example of a resource based economy, but the idea of an R.B.E. transcends T.V.P.
We must also understand that for a R.B.E. to operate correctly requires us to embrace automation. Now what we monitor is the earth.
We start by first finding out what we have. Then we monitor extraction of resources and replenishment of resources.
We also make use of computing power and have all resources logged.
Now if say the resources for the production of cars is running low we are forewarned. Thus we can find a way to replace the resource that is running low or find a way to create that resource artificially.
It is not a matter of knowing that human x has two cars but rather keeping track of what is being produced and being used, not by who but simply how much.
We must also understand that in time we will go through a values shift.
There will come a time when we as a species do not want one of everything, but understand what we want is the functional utility of the things. Therefore we could see in the future a library style of distribution for certain objects.
Say golf clubs, why carry golf clubs around and have to care for, and store them, when we could simply go to the golf course and use a custom fitted set and then return them. Custom fit could be as simple as changing shafts.
Cars will go the same direction, why have a car sitting at your home not in use, when we could make use of automation (goggle has been road testing fully automated cars for several years now.)and call for a car if and when we require it.
B
first - Personally I do not want technology making decisions for me. I do not want technology deciding what I need and how much I should have. It is my right as a human to choose that which does not infringe on other humans rights.
Is technology capable of knowing what each individual needs? Each individuals needs are quite different from their neighbors.
Personally I do not want technology making decisions for me.
second - What action (punishment) is taken when someone uses more than the amount of resources a 'technology' has allocated them?
Using the example you have given about owning 2 cars - How do you know who is responsible for using more resources than allocated if only the amounts allocated and used are monitored?
Using the golf club example you have provided - this is removal of personal property, which is a fundamental human right.
But if objects like that were to be 'communal' what happens when someone breaks the objects?
As for cars, that is why we have (what should be public but are undemocratically privatised) transport systems...which work for well urban environments but not for rural areas..
Are property rights to be removed and people forced to live in urban centers so that automated communal transport can be viable?
That is not only ultimate control but an outright breach of the most fundamental human right - of choice.
A
Technology will not make decisions for you, I have no idea where that idea comes from. You will always have the right to choose what you want and how much you would like.
If you have a reference to information that states otherwise I would like to see it.
It is not up to technology to determine what we need, the idea is to use technology to produce good, and monitor earthly resources, so that we know what we can produce, in relation to the resources available.
Technology does not allocate resources to people, so there is no need to punish anyone when it comes to the use of resources.
Property rights are nothing more than a throw back to this outdated model, and is simply away to claim ownership of this or that, and allow any of us to sue another for things like wilful destruction of theft.
If the idea is to create abundance, and it is, coupled with no need for a price tag there becomes little to no need for so called property rights.
Why would you steal something if you could acquire it for free anyway. Why would you destroy something of someone. Even if something you had did break, why would you care if you could send it away to be recycled and simply replace it?
Remember a resource based economy is something we all create, so if you have concerns you can certainly get involved in the process of creating the system.
Nothing is set and stone, or unchangeable.
The beauty of an R.B.E. and science is that it is open to change, just as it should be as the only constant on our planet is just that.

Change.

B
You will always have the right to choose what you want and how much you would like are you saying the planets resources are infinite? as for your response re: property rights
It is a fundamental human right!
People have for a long time proven that the cheaper the objects the 'own' or use are the less they care about them which would use even more resources than currently. The throw-away society now is bad enough
this seems to assume that the planets resources are infinite which it is mathematically obvious that they are not
A
You will always have the right to choose what you want and how much you would like. are you saying the planets resources are infinite?
No, not at all. In fact we clearly understand that we live on a finite planet. A R.B.E. is nothing like our current economy, and as a result creates a society that is nothing like our current social design. Think about it this way, while we will continue to produce say T.V.s we will only produce the best T.V., so there will not be a massive stratified range that results in an aberrant waste of resources. The best we can build includes functionality, parts that are easily replaced or upgraded, and using materials that are easily recycled.
And of course importantly things will be built to last.

Product obsolescence : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTdseBKbWAE

Understanding a R.B.E. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ej3k5kzvmw&feature=related

We have arrived at a time when new innovations in science and technology can easily provide abundance to all of the world's people. It is no longer necessary to perpetuate the conscious withdrawal of efficiency by planned obsolescence, perpetuated by our old and outworn profit system. If we are genuinely concerned about the environment and our fellow human beings, if we really want to end territorial disputes, war, crime, poverty and hunger, we must consciously reconsider the social processes that led us to a world where these factors are common. Like it or not, it is our social processes - political practices, belief systems, profit-based economy, our culture-driven behavioural norms - that lead to and support hunger, war, disease and environmental damage.
The aim of this new social design is to encourage an incentive system no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centred goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people toward self-fulfilment and creativity, both materially and spiritually.
as for your response re: property rights
It is a fundamental human right!
Property: anything that is owned by a person or entity. Property is divided into two types: "real property" which is any interest in land, real estate, growing plants or the improvements on it, and "personal property" (sometimes called "personalty") which is everything else. "Common property" is ownership by more than one person of the same possession. "Community property" is a form of joint ownership between husband and wife recognized in several states. "Separate property" is property owned by one spouse only in a community property state, or a married woman's sole ownership in some states. "Public property," refers to ownership by a governmental body such as the federal, state, county or city governments or their agencies (e.g. school or redevelopment districts). The government, and, in particular, the courts are obligated to protect property rights and to help clarify ownership.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/property

Personal property: A type of property which, in its most general definition, can include any asset other than real estate. The distinguishing factor between personal property and real estate is that personal property is movable. That is, the asset is not fixed permanently to one location as with real property such as land or buildings. Examples of personal property include vehicles, furniture, boats, collectibles, etc.
It's tough to have a precise definition for "personal property" as it is very much a legal term. The concept is perhaps best understood with a comparison to real property. Under common law systems it is possible to place a mortgage upon real property. Because the lender has rights to the property it makes the extension of credit relatively safe and easy. After all, it's tough to flee the country with your house. On the other hand, it's tougher for a creditor to secure personal property. While common law systems do allow liens to be placed on personal property (such as vehicles) to protect the rights of creditors, there is obviously much more risk that the debtor simply drives away with the collateral if fleeing the country.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/personalproperty.asp#axzz1cbRywTDr

Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 - SECT 20

Property rights

20. Property rights

A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law.

http://www.austlii.org/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cohrara2006433/

Your so called property rights are nothing more than a throwback to an outdated, outmoded monetary system. You only have so called property as a resource to accumulate credit.
If you fail to pay your bills, then your property can be taken.
People have for a long time proven that the cheaper the objects the 'own' or use are the less they care about them which would use even more resources than currently. The throw-away society now is bad enough this seems to assume that the planets resources are infinite which it is mathematically obvious that they are not.
This fails to understand the basic premises of a R.B.E.
It is not about producing objects in a cheap fashion, but rather in a sustainable manner. Why would we even consider producing anything that could be found in let us say a 2$ shop? There is simply no point in producing junk or materialistic garbage. The idea is to produce only the best, and using strategic practices to do so. High quality materials, ease of upgrade, and of course being easily recycled.

Project Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lyj4edQk9Aw&feature=related

The Venus Project F.A.Q.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/faq
Zeitgeist orientation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5zCfn4NyyU
Economize
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ9rYuh4-jg&feature=related
Economists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNWGZEF6CAM&feature=related
Where are we now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O67AZfUMXw
Where are we going?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdk3z7scPYk

North Pacific Gyre, The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

"Twice the size of France and growing exponentially, this sea of rubbish is threatening to become one of the great ecological disasters of our time,"
Tim Silverwood

1/5th of junk trapped in the “garbage patch” comes from ship dumping and the rest of the trash comes from human land trash.

Environmental researchers believe 90% of the trash in the ocean dump is from plastic, which is not bio-degradable.

Thousands of birds and sea-life creatures are dying from eating plastic particles in this huge debris field, because they can not digest the plastic and it dehydrates them or stops their digestive system from functioning.

Some of the tiny plastic bits pass into the living systems of marine life and travel up the food chain until it lands on your dinner plate or in your fish sandwich! You have eaten residual plastic! Perhaps a piece of your plastic grocery bag, water bottle, used condom or plastic chips bag .

Economic inequality

Economic inequality (or "wealth and income differences") comprises all disparities in the distribution of economic assets and income. The term typically refers to inequality among individuals and groups within a society, but can also refer to inequality among countries.

"Social and economic inequality is detrimental to the health of any society. Especially when the society is diverse, multicultural, overpopulated and undergoing rapid but unequal economic growth."

~Milind Deogaonkar, MD~

Over the last 50 years economic inequality has increased tremendously both within and between countries worldwide.

The richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. Half the world, nearly 3 billion people, live on less than $2 a day. The three richest people in the world –- Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, investor Warren Buffett and Mexican Telecom mogul Carlos Slim Helú -- have more money than the poorest 48 nations combined.Overall, wealth is mostly concentrated in North America, Europe and high-income Asia-Pacific countries. People in these countries collectively hold almost 90% of total world wealth. As striking as these numbers may be they fail to explain that wealth and income are also highly unequal within the U.S., China, and other countries of the world. In 2005 little more than 50 million people in China had more than roughly $3000 (CNY 20,000) of disposable income, while almost 750 million people didn’t even have $800 (CNY 5,000) of disposable income. In the rural areas of China, where the majority of the population is, the poorest 10 percent now hold only 2% of wealth while the richest 10% hold 31% of all wealth. The major disparities in wealth and income are not unique to China. In fact, 30 out of 177 countries had sharper income inequality than China in 2006

A 2011 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) finds that

1) Across OECD countries, the average income of the richest 10% of the population is nine times that of the poorest 10%. Additionally, with the exceptions of only France, Japan and Spain, wages of the 10% best-paid workers have risen relative to those of the 10% least-paid workers; and

2), the differential between the top and bottom 10% varies greatly from country to country: “While this ratio is much lower in the Nordic countries and in many continental European countries, it rises to around 14 to 1 in Israel, Turkey and the United States, to a high of 27 to 1 in Chile and Mexico.”

In the U.S., the share of income now going to the top .1% has more than tripled since the 1980s. In the 1980s a successful CEO could expect to take home about 40 times more pay than their average worker but in 2001 the same CEO could take home as much as 350 times the pay of typical workers. In 2005, Wal-Mart’s CEO Lee Scott Jr., made more than 900 times the pay and benefits the typical Wal-Mart worker made in 2005, or roughly the same amount the average Wal-Mart worker earns in a lifetime.

To shed some light on the relative poverty of the poorest countries to the wealthiest, imagine this: average wages of people in poor exporting countries are one-tenth that of average wages in U.S., and so are perhaps almost 9000 times less than the wage of an American CEO such as Lee Scott Jr.

Moreover, there is a common misconception that rising inequality is acceptable because absolute gains have been seen by all, however, this is not the case. In China for example, despite an increase in total income, the average income of the poorest 10% of households fell by 2.5%. Not surprisingly, inequalities in standards of living are also greater today than they have been for 50 to 100 years, and many economists expect the growth of these inequalities to continue.

A main reason for the increasing disparities are globalization and skill-biased technological advances.

As robotics and artificial intelligence develop further, even many skilled jobs may be threatened. Technologies such as machine learning may ultimately allow computers to do many knowledge-based jobs that require significant education. This may result in substantial unemployment at all skill levels, stagnant or falling wages for most workers, and increased concentration of income and wealth as the owners of capital capture an ever larger fraction of the economy. This in turn could lead to depressed consumer spending and economic growth as the bulk of the population lacks sufficient discretionary income to purchase the products and services produced by the economy.

Machine learning is one of the primary technologies that powers IBM’s Watson computer. Watson was able to achieve championship-level proficiency at Jeopardy! by analysing thousands of previous Jeopardy! questions. Jobs that are routine and repetitive in nature—regardless of the skill and education required to perform the job—are going to be increasingly susceptible to automation. Now, most people would probably not characterize playing Jeopardy! at a championship level as a “routine and repetitive” activity. Yet, a machine was able to prevail.

Machine learning essentially allows a computer to analyse past situations (together with outcomes) and develop optimal, statistical-based rules that can be applied in the future. In other words, machine learning is basically a way to take a seemingly non-routine task or job and turn it into something that can be handled by a computer.

One important factor in the creation of inequality is variation in individuals' access to education.

Research shows that growing up in a poor neighbourhood is associated with worse outcomes for children. This suggests that economic segregation may be harmful to children.If rising economic inequality among adults has led to more economic segregation and if increased economic segregation led to more inequality in children’s outcomes such as educational attainment, increases in economic inequality among parents are likely to be transmitted to the next generation perpetuating economic segregation.

Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated (within each country and, particularly, between countries), and it appears that this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even controlling for other crime determinants.

“with a degree of consistency which is unusual in social sciences, lower-class people, and people living in lower class areas, have higher official crime rates than other groups.”

~John Braithwaite, Inequality, Crime, and Public Policy~

One of the leading sociological paradigms on crime, the theory of “relative deprivation,” states that inequality breeds social tensions as the less well-off feel dispossessed when compared with wealthier people. The feeling of disadvantage and unfairness leads the poor to seek compensation and satisfaction by all means, including committing crimes against both poor and rich.

An increase in income inequality has a significant and robust effect of raising crime rates. Since the rate of growth and distribution of income jointly determine the rate of poverty reduction, the two aforementioned results imply that the rate of poverty alleviation has a crime-reducing effect. Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated (within each country and, particularly, between countries), and it appears that this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even controlling for other crime determinants.

“How cohesive a society is, how much people trust each other and are involved in community life, is an important social asset that makes a very substantial contribution to the quality of life.”

~Richard Wilkinson~

Studies show that people actually trust each other much less in countries with larger income differences.

Brazil, a country with high income inequality, had the lowest levels of trust, while Sweden, which has a very equal income distribution, had the highest level of trust.

It should now be clear that extreme economic inequality is detrimental to the cohesion and safety of societies and also of the international community. As Wilkinson put it, “What the relationship with inequality actually demonstrates is that societies that tolerate the injustices of great inequality will almost inescapably suffer their social consequences: they will be unfriendly and violent societies, recognized more for their hostility than for their hospitality.”

Another concerning feature of economic inequality is it’s impact on health and happiness. In the U.S. the gap in life expectancy has dramatically widened as inequality has grown. In 2000 for example, men in deprived counties had an average of 10 years’ shorter life expectancy than women of affluent counties, and poor black men lived almost 14 years less than affluent whites. Another study in 2007 showed that people with incomes less than $50,000 a year have a significantly shorter lifespan than those with incomes above $50,000.

The trend of economic inequality will not end if nothing is done to stop it. If anything, inequality will likely rise in the coming future without comprehensive intervention, the extent of economic inequality that now exists in the world is so extreme that it is unjust to let it continue.

In a monetary system, the major aim is profit: maintaining the competitive edge and the bottom line is all that matters. The social and health problems that arise from mass unemployment of people rendered obsolete by automation are considered irrelevant, if they are considered at all.

Any social need that may be met is secondary to acquiring a profit for the business. If the profit is insufficient, the service will be withdrawn. Everything is subordinate to increasing the profit margin for shareholders. It does not serve the interest of a money-based society to engage in the production of goods and services to enhance the lives of people, just as man made laws enacted do not protect the lives of citizens.

All of the world’s economic systems – socialism, communism, fascism, and even our free enterprise capitalist system- perpetuate social stratification, elitism, nationalism, and racism, based primarily on economic disparity. As long as a social system uses money or barter, people and nations will seek differential advantage by maintaining their economic competitive edge or by military intervention.

The Earth is abundant with resources our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter-productive to the well-being of people. Modern society has highly advanced technologies and can easily provide more than enough for a high standard of living for all by implementing a resource-based economy.

Simply stated, a resource –based economy uses existing resources rather than money, and provides an equitable distribution of goods and services in a humane and efficient manner for the entire population.

To gain a better understanding of a resource based economy please visit The Venus Project

References:

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/slides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol8.1/deogaonkar.html

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/News/StudyRevealsOverwhelmingWealthGap.aspx

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/international/income-inequality-in-oecd-countries/

http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/machine-learning-a-job-killer/

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime&Inequality.pdf

http://keepthemiddleclassalive.com/is-economic-inequality-ethical/

http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/store?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=19&category_id=6

Housing

The Great Australian Dream could remain just a dream with house prices moving from being affordable to severely unaffordable in the last 10 years. According to an AMP.NATSEM Income and Wealth Report, it will take at least another decade of flat house prices coupled with income growth for houses to regain an affordable status.

Link to AMP.NATSEM Report 29 - The Great Australian Dream - Just a Dream?

The report found median house prices grew 147 per cent to $417,000 while median after-tax incomes only increased 50 per cent to $57,000 from 2001 to 2011, pushing the price to income ratio from an affordable 4.7 to a severely unaffordable 7.3 today. In 2001, more than 50 per cent of all suburbs in Australia’s five major capital cities were affordable but today only four per cent are affordable and not one of these affordable suburbs is in inner city areas.

AMP Financial Services Managing Director Craig Meller said households that are in housing stress are devoting a large portion of their after-tax income to housing costs. "Buying a home and paying off the mortgage is putting Australians under considerable stress. It can be a struggle to get into the market and when people do, many have little funds left over for essentials, let alone a family holiday," Mr Meller said.

Somewhere along the way, we as a species have lost sight of the fact that housing is a human right and need.

Each day nearly 1 in every 200 Australians is homeless, without safe, secure or affordable housing. Last year, 105 000 Australians experienced homelessness. One in every 154 Australians sought help from a homeless assistance service and one in every 39 children aged under 4 slept in a homeless service. 23% of Australia’s homeless are children – almost one in four homeless people is under 18. Of every 42 Australian children under four, one has experienced homelessness. Every day, half the people who request immediate accommodation from the homeless service system are turned away. Two in every 3 children who need support are also turned away, as are almost 80% percent of families.

Link to Homelessness in Australia (General overview)

In contrast to common perceptions of homelessness, children are among Australia’s homeless population. In fact, children in homeless families are the largest single group who seek support from the homeless service system. Tonight, approximately 105,000 people will be homeless across the country. Among them are 7,483 families with children. Twelve per cent (or 12,133 people) are children under 12. Another 21 per cent (or 21,940 people) are children and young people aged 12 to 18, most of them homeless as well as estranged from their families.

Link to Homelessness and Children

Children who are homeless:

Have higher rates of asthma, recurrent ear infections, vision problems, eczema, and developmental delays.

Are often reliant on hospital emergency departments and outpatient clinics for health care.

Spend less time in school than other kids.

Are more likely to leave school altogether. Two thirds of young people who become homeless leave school within 12 months.

Often experience lower levels of safety and security.

Are more likely to become homeless later in life and raise families who, in turn, also become homeless.

The early years of life are a crucial period of development for children. Safe and stable living environments ensure children’s long-term well being, the fulfilment of their potential and strong, healthy communities. Children’s health and education are affected by homelessness. In addition children who have been homeless are more likely to have been victims of crime, and to have been involved in criminal activities. Many homeless children have experienced or witnessed domestic violence, have been victims of other crime, or have been involved in criminal activities themselves. Children who have been homeless are more likely than others to find themselves homeless as adults - homelessness can become a way of life.

Half of the people using homeless assistance services in Australia are families – parents and their children experiencing homelessness. Family homelessness is not visible or widely recognised in Australia; many people find it difficult to believe that there are homeless families in our communities. In fact, families with children are the fastest growing group of people experiencing homelessness in Australia. More than 16 per cent of Australia’s 105,000 homeless are homeless with other family members.

Link to Homelessness and Families

The two primary reasons for family homeless are domestic and family violence and the shortage of affordable housing and appropriate housing support in Australia.

Homelessness has a devastating impact on families, causing instability and insecurity.

Homeless families may lose their possessions and jobs. They may lose their relationships with friends and family, links to their community - their relationships with GPs, teachers, sporting clubs.

Most of the children in homeless assistance services are under 12 years old and therefore in a crucial period of their development.

The experience of homelessness and domestic violence has a serious impact on their health, education and wellbeing. These impacts include higher rates of anxiety, emotional and behavioural issues and mental illness.

Parents in homeless families can experience emotional and physical health issues, poor nutrition, isolation, and relationship difficulties. Homelessness affects parents’ ability to provide appropriate support to their children.

The longer homelessness lasts, the more difficult it is for families to regain their stability.

In a resource based economy , with equitable distribution to maintain the highest standard of living for all humans, this simply would not happen.

Stop the madness, put an end to monetary economics, and give humans what they need.

The Zeitgeist Movement

The Venus Project

Peter steps back, nothing is gong to change.

Peter steps back.
Nothing is going to change.
Well OK that is not entirely true, some things will need to change.
We who declare ourselves to be Zeitgeist/Venus Project supporters need to be sure we are up to date with the direction and tenants. That is our responsibility, the information is out there for us and we do not have to look very hard to find it. The global site has an extensive range of documentation available free for down load. Read it. The Venus Project also has an extensive range of material, READ IT. It is nowhere near enough to sit down watch a couple of films and then claim to have a full and complete understanding, only to then start spreading unfounded opinions that have little to nothing to do with the movement, or project.
More of us will need to start presenting information in the public arena. Be that video, radio, or local presentations. It all needs to be done.
Peter has done enough. He has put his life basically on hold in order to bring awareness of T.V.P and an R.B.E. to a global stage. In all that I have heard Peter say about this direction, I can not ever recall a time when he did not credit T.V.P.
Peter should step back, for a little while. Get some rest, do what he needs to do in order to recoup and recover from all his effort over the past few years.
Should he stay away and not return to help to guide this movement. NO. Now friends it is our time. It is now for us to take up the slack and show the world that T.Z.M. is not the P.J. show. That we are all capable of being involved on a much greater social level, and that we understand this direction well enough to advocate and educate.
Lets show Peter he can take some time off, lets start doing more.

Finally this was Peters last words on the subject.
People- I'm not "going anywhere" in effect nor is The Zeitgeist Movement. The Zeitgeist Movement has existed to help TVP. If TVP doesnt want our help, we adapt.
Nothing Changes in the end.
My interest to remove myself from the forefront is not a reaction to Jacques' statements alone for I have been trying to get that done for a while; many who give talks & coordinate know I have been trying to do this for about a year. This is why I announced two weeks ago that the radio show would no longer be the "Peter Joseph..." but "ZM Global" for many others to talk. I also almost didn't attend Zday London for that reason as well.
Contrary to this idea of removing "hero" worship and the importance of not having a "cult of personality" notion... is the rhetoric now coming from TVP camp. Well, my feelings aside, their approach to make themselves the "source" of everything and demand credit will only backfire.
Also, TZM has been doing a DAMN good job of promoting this direction, with likely the largest mass following for such a thing in history, given the short time frame we have been in existence. So please don't let Fresco's comment make you feel otherwise.
At any rate, everyone please stop speculating on this and move forward! ~p
ps: and thanks for the supportive comments. I give Jacque the benefit of the doubt, of course, and think he is simply going through a strange time with perhaps some negative influences that are reducing his objectivity with poor information.
So there you have it folks, near nothing will change, apart from how involved we are on a social level, and how aware we are.
So lets get on with it.

The Venus Project / Resource Based Economy

1. What is The Venus Project?

Very Briefly, The Venus Project is an organization that proposes a feasible plan of action for social change; one that works toward a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative to strive toward where human rights are not only paper proclamations but also a way of life. The Venus Project presents a vision not of what the future will be, but what it can be if we apply what we already know in order to achieve a sustainable new world civilization. It calls for a straightforward redesign of our culture in which the age-old problems of war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but as totally unacceptable. Anything less will result in a continuation of the same catalogue of problems found in today’s world. The Venus Project presents an alternative vision for a sustainable world civilization unlike any political, economic or social system that has gone before. It envisions a time in the near future when money, politics, self and national-interest have been phased out. Although this vision may seem idealistic, it is based upon years of study and experimental research. It spans the gambit from education, transportation, clean sources of energy to total city systems. Many people believe what is needed is a higher sense of ethical standards and the enactment of international laws and treaties to assure a sustainable global society. Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources we would still have many of the same problems we have today. As long as a few nations control most of the world’s resources and profit is the bottom line, the same cycle of events will prevail. As global challenges and scientific information proliferate, nations and people face common threats that transcend national boundaries. Overpopulation, energy shortages, global warming, environmental pollution, water scarcity, economic catastrophe, the spread of uncontrollable disease, and the technological displacement of people by machines threaten each of us. Although many people are dedicated to alleviating those conditions, our social and environmental problems will remain insurmountable as long as a few powerful nations and financial interests maintain control of and consume most of the world’s resources and the monetary system prevails. If we really wish to put an end to our ongoing international and social problems, we must declare Earth and all of its resources the common heritage of all of the world’s people. Earth is abundant and has plentiful resources. Our practice of rationing resources through monetary control is no longer relevant and is counter-productive to our survival. Today we have highly advanced technologies, but our social and economic system has not kept up with our technological capabilities. We could easily create a world of abundance for all, free of servitude and debt based on the carrying capacity of Earth resources. With the intelligent and humane application of science and technology, the people of the earth can guide and shape the future together while protecting the environment. We don’t have enough money to accomplish these ends but we do have more than enough resources. This is why we advocate a Resource- Based Economy. 2. What is a Resource-Based Economy? To transcend these limitations, The Venus Project proposes we work toward a worldwide, resource-based economy, in which the planetary resources are held as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants. The current practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant, counter-productive, and falls far short of meeting humanity’s needs. Simply stated, a resource-based economy utilizes existing resources - rather than money - to provide an equitable method of distribution in the most humane and efficient manner. It is a system in which all goods and services are available to everyone without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude. To better understand a resource-based economy, consider this. If all the money in the world disappeared overnight, as long as topsoil, factories, personnel and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we needed to fulfil most human needs. It is not money that people require, but rather free access to most of their needs without worrying about financial security or having to appeal to a government bureaucracy. In a resource-based economy of abundance, money will become irrelevant. We have arrived at a time when new innovations in science and technology can easily provide abundance to all of the world’s people. It is no longer necessary to perpetuate the conscious withdrawal of efficiency by planned obsolescence, perpetuated by our old and outworn profit system. If we are genuinely concerned about the environment and our fellow human beings, if we really want to end territorial disputes, war, crime, poverty and hunger, we must consciously reconsider the social processes that led us to a world where these factors are common. Like it or not, it is our social processes – political practices, belief systems, profit-based economy, our culture-driven behavioural norms – that lead to and support hunger, war, disease and environmental damage. The aim of this new social design is to encourage an incentive system no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centred goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people toward self-fulfillment and creativity, both materially and spiritually.

3. Why do you feel that an approach as revolutionary as The Venus Project is necessary?

Our current system is not capable of providing a high standard of living for everyone, nor can it ensure the protection of the environment because the major motive is profit. Businesses aren't entirely to blame; they are forced to operate this way in order to retain the competitive edge. Additionally, with the advent of automation, cybernetics, and artificial intelligence, there will be an ever-increasing replacement of people by automated systems. As a result, fewer people will be able to purchase goods and services even though our capability to produce an abundance will continue to exist. This is well-documented in Jeremy Rifkin's new book The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labour Force and the Dawn of the Post-market Era (Putnam, 1995). The Venus Project offers a fresh approach that reverses the negative aspects experienced in our current applications of automation and artificial intelligence. This project eliminates the disastrous consequences that such approaches can have on our society, i.e. the displacement of millions of workers, skilled and unskilled alike.

4. Isn’t it just decent people that we need in government?

It is not enough to criticize, point out the shortcomings of society, or advocate that people of high moral character be elected into office; this would do little to advance civilization. What is needed is the intelligent management of the world’s resources, and a comprehensive and workable arrangement of environmental and social affairs that are in strict accord with existing resources and the carrying capacity of our planet. Even with the election of men and women of impeccable character into government, without available resources and advanced technology, war, poverty, and corruption will prevail no matter how many new laws are passed or treaties signed. It is not democracy that elevated our standard of living, it is our resources, water, arable land, and new technology. Rhetoric and paper proclamations are irrelevant in the management of human and social affairs.

5. Elaborate a bit, if you will, on your views regarding money.

If all the money in the world were destroyed, as long as we have sufficient arable land, the factories, the necessary resources, and technical personnel, we could build anything and even supply an abundance. During the Depression, there were vacuum cleaners in store windows and automobiles in car lots. The Earth was still the same place. There was just no money in people's wallets and very little purchasing power. At the beginning of World War II, the U.S. had about 600 first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short-supply by turning out over 90,000 planes per year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money or gold, but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources and technical personnel that enabled the U.S. to achieve the production and efficiency required to win the war. It appears that the real wealth of any nation is in its natural resources and its people who are working toward a more humane life-style through the elimination of scarcity. All social systems, regardless of the political philosophy, religious beliefs, or social mores, ultimately depend upon natural resources -- i.e. clean air and water and arable land area -- and the industrial equipment and technical personnel for a high standard of living. The money- based system was designed hundreds of years ago and was hardly appropriate for that time. We still utilize this same outmoded system, which is probably responsible for most of today's problems. I have no doubt that even the wealthiest person today would be far better off in the high energy society that The Venus Project proposes.

6. What are some of the detrimental effects of The Monetary System?

There are many disadvantages to using this old method of exchange for goods and services. We will consider just a few here and let you add to this list on your own. 1. Money is just an interference between what one needs and what one is able to get. It is not money that people need, it is access to resources. 2. The use of money results in social stratification and elitism based primarily on economic disparity. 3. People are not equal without equal purchasing power. 4. Most people are slaves to jobs they do not like because they need the money. 5. There is tremendous corruption, greed, crime, embezzlement, and more caused by the need for money. 6. Most laws are enacted for the benefit of corporations, which have enough money to lobby, bribe, or persuade government officials to make laws that serve their interests. 7. Those who control purchasing power have greater influence. 8. Money is used to control the behaviour of those with limited purchasing power. 9. Goods such as foods are sometimes destroyed to keep prices up; when things are scarce prices increase. 10. There is tremendous waste of material and strain on available resources from superficial design changes for newer later fads each year in order to create continuous markets for manufacturers. 11. There is tremendous environmental degradation due to the high cost of better methods of waste disposal. 12. The Earth is being plundered for profit. 13. The benefits of technology are only distributed to those with sufficient purchasing power. 14. Most important, when the corporation’s bottom line is profit, decisions in all areas are made not for the benefit of people and the environment, but primarily for the acquisition of wealth, property, and power.

7. You mentioned economic collapse in your book. Do you believe this is the only way our society can escape a monetary economy?

No government in history has ever planned ahead and directed society into the next phase of social evolution. Established orders want to perpetuate themselves. Unfortunately, it may take an economic breakdown and people becoming disillusioned with their leaders before they will seek an alternative social direction Social change was always brought about by economic collapse, corruption in government, abuse of the population, etc. Governments are generally comprised of businessmen, lawyers, and other self-appointed individuals with personal and corporate interest rather than upgrading society as a whole.

8. Wouldn’t there be Resistance of the Rich and Powerful?

What you had to say about the rich and powerful being resistant to such a society in many cases is true, however if they keep using automation in their industries, as they have to in order to compete, millions of people will be replaced by machines. This includes not only the assembly line workers but also doctors, engineers, architects and the like. As they lose their purchasing power, the very industries that depend on them can no longer function. This will bring an end to the old outworn monetary system. It is not a question of them giving up their industries; it is that their greed will eventually render them obsolete. Only when science and technology are used with human concern in a world in which all of the earth’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of the earth’s people can we truly say that there is intelligent life on earth.

9. In the idea of future, do you think that the regional differences will still have the greatest influence as they do today? Or will these differences disappear?

Our problems today are enormous and global in their scope and impact. They cannot be solved by any one nation. The concept of common good is global in nature, but local in implementation. We must start with what we have in common. All social systems, regardless of political philosophy, religious beliefs, or social customs, ultimately depend upon natural resources like clean air and water, arable land, and the technology and personnel to maintain a high standard of living. This can be accomplished through the intelligent and humane application of science and technology using a global systems approach. When money and self interests are outgrown, interaction between nations won’t be based on self interest, but on mutual interest. This approach will help eliminate artificial boundaries that separate people.

Read the rest from the Venus Project F.A.Q.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ASSOCIATION CREATED BETWEEN “ZEITGEIST” AND THE TUCSON MURDERS.

It has come to my attention that various mainstream news organizations are beginning to run an association between my 2007 performance piece/film, “Zeitgeist: The Movie” and the tragic murders conducted by an extremely troubled young man in Tucson, Arizona. They are also slowly beginning to bleed the obvious line between my 2007 documentary work, my film series as a whole and The Zeitgeist Movement, which I am the founder. Frankly, I find this isolating, growing association tremendously irresponsible on the part of ABC, NBC and their affiliates - further reflecting the disingenuous nature of the America Media Establishment today. It appears to have begun with a comment on NBC news referencing my film along with other “influential” films as well, such as Richard Kelly's film “Donnie Darko” and then spreading to ABC News where it singled out Zeitgeist: The Movie and the Series itself, stating: “Osler pointed to an online documentary series called "Zeitgeist" as a possible influence on the man. The series rails on currency-based economics. "I really think that this 'Zeitgeist' documentary had a profound impact on Jared's mindset and how he viewed that world that he lives in," Osler said.” abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-shooting-friend...ed/story?id=12597092 When we reflect on the history of seeming random violence or other forms of highly offensive, irrational, aberrant behavior, we see a common pattern of reaction from the public and media in their attempt to explain such extreme acts. Rather than deeply examining the Bio-Psycho-Social nature of human social development and the vast spectrum of influences that create and morph each of us in unique and sometime detrimental ways, they take the easy way out. The first thing do it simply ignore all modern scientific social understandings of what generates human motivation in both positive and negative regard, for to do so can only call into question the social system itself and hence the “zeitgeist” (meaning: spirit/intellectual climate of the time/culture) at large. Generally speaking, it is historically accurate to say that the Mainstream Media simply isn't in the business of challenging the Status Quo. The limits of debate are firmly set. Virtually all ideas, persons or groups who have succeeded in changing the world for the better, later to be hailed as heros in the public mind, started out being condemn by those in the Mainstream Media who latch on to the dominant world view of the time. Even Martin Luther King Jr., a peaceful, loving, wonder of a man who contributed more to our social progress than likely any humanitarian in the US history, was followed by the CIA and publicly humiliated as a “Communist” which he even had to defend in front of a Congressional Committee. In fact, you can rest assured that if King was alive in the current paradigm today and seeking an equal form of justice- he would be given the name: “Terrorist”. So, again, rather than taking the scientific view, the Mainstream Media often seeks out or implies one point of blame and runs with it. After all, it is much easier, presentable and more simplistic for the public to think that the troubling reality of seemingly random acts of mass murder is the result of a “singular influence” and hence the logic goes that if that one influence is removed, then the world will be back in balance. This gives the public a false resolve and position of focus in an otherwise ambiguous, complex world of social and biologic influences. And as far as the scapegoat itself, very often any group, media or dataset that is counter-culture or even hints at wishing to challenge the status quo, is a magnet for such blame. For example, musical groups of a counter-culture nature have been a favorite scapegoat for acts of murder/violence historically. In 1990, the rock band Judas Priest was actually taken to court for their “role” in the self-inflicted gunshot wounds in 1985 of 20-year old James Vance and 18-year old Raymond Belknap in Reno, Nevada. In 2008, the band Slipknot was publicly tied/blamed to a high-school murder in South Africa. Even the Beatles song “Helter-skelter” was associated to the murders incited by Charles Manson. It goes on and on... and, frankly, it's simply pathetic - avoiding the true nature of the problem- which is the Socio-Economic Environment itself. Make no mistake: The Social System is to blame for the rampage of Jared Loughner – not some famous online documentary which is known as the most viewed documentary of all time in internet history. Are the other 200 million people who have seen the film also preparing for murder sprees? I think not. In my new film: Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, I feature a prominent Harvard Criminal Psychologist by the name of Dr. James Gilligan who headed the Centre for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical School for many years. In his life work of personally engaging with the most dangerous, violent offenders the US system produces, he found some basic trends. The most common is the social issue of “shame”. Our socio-economic system inherently breeds social division and there is a natural demeaning of others generated as a result. It is a scientific fact that mass murderers and those who many just dismiss as “evil” today, are the product of years of being shamed, humiliated and demeaned. Their acts of violence is a reaction from these highly oppressive feelings and the real resolve to such acts can only come from removing the real source of such emotional hurt. You will notice that most other countries don't come close to the level of violence we see in the United States. The US is the capital of violence with 30-300 times more acts of violence than any other country. Why? We have produced more serial killers in america than all other countries combined. You will notice the Mainstream never asks this question. If anyone would like to understand why more and more people in the modern world end up like Jared Loughner and why these patterns are only going to get worse as time goes in this system, I suggest the book “Violence” by Harvard Criminal Psychologist Dr. Gilligan. In conclusion, let it be stated that the Zeitgeist Film Series is about critical thought regarding various social issues which challenge many erroneous notions held as fact in the modern culture. It also explicitly promotes non-violence, human unity and prosperous human development based on truth and science. Anyone who wishes to really understand the works can view them for free online at zeitgeistmovie.com and my new film, which will detail how a new, humane social system can work, will be 315 theaters in 60 countries and 30 language starting Jan 15th 2011. www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com

ZeitNews

Stay up to date with news that matters. ZeitNews