Jealousy, Drugs, and other sticky things

On the jealousy front. I do feel that jealousy will be around to a lesser extent although not eradicated altogether. Some jealousy over possesion will disappear. Other feelings will still be kicking around, folk will still get angry at eachother and I would say that anxiety and depression will not be totally eradicated though much reduced. "Loss" will always be there if love and closeness exists - nobody will live forever.

Although I agree that social factors play a large part in creating mental distress, folk will still feel stuff. A more empathic society is likely to emerge as values alter and that contributes to better mental health in itself.

1.Is there a difference between emotional and material jealousy?in your example you explain what a man might do,but is he in the right?is it really love or a desire to possess?this is something thats always bothered me,just what exactly gives a man the right to force his will on another,especially the perceived weaker sex as it were.This I think is still a notion of the old ways,where women were bartered between father and businessmen.This frame of thinking still lingers nowadays,almost ingrained on the male psyche,though it is lessening.Hopefully in an RBE this will completely disappear...eventually.

2. and 3.The 'system' we're trying to create is not a dictatorship,you are welcome to your desired experiences,no one will try to stop you,just help you when you need it.Atleast I hope so.

I'm enjoying thinking these ones over immediately.

I'll stress that I have no qualifications in any of the psyche/neuro-sciences, so there may be a complete invalidity to everything I say here. If you get a look at the new film there is some great stuff regarding psychology at the start, and it's presented by some folks that may, and probably do, have much better answers than I.

1. Jealousy to me, is an extension of the self, where the first victim is the person who is jealous, and any number of other people can suffer for it afterwards. The person that is the "owner" of the jealousy is very much torturing themself first and foremost. Self-ness is very possibly an effect of being sold our current social model, where we are taught that we must fight for everything, and be acquisitive and competitive etc. As a younger man I always used to worry about money and career etc, and how I had to get myself into a better position. As I got older, I realised that the benchmark was not only invisible, but it was based on my own illusions of how I was performing, when seen relative to the other kids I grew up with in school. But all of these people had left my life by the time I was in my mid-20's with the exception of just a very small few.

Children are very cruel, and the cruelty that we show to each other as kids has a profound effect on our later lives; take a look on facebook at that page that's got like 1000 people who you might just know (new profile version - the old version did it more selectively ). On there you should more or less see about 80% of the people you went to school with or more, depending on age of course. Now go through that list, as an experiment, and I can guarantee you that from your school and locale at the time you grew up, you will see people that without looking at their profile at all, just seeing the face and the name, you will get pangs of jealousy and anger, and all sorts of negative emotions. You feel that emotion based on something that was written into your programming when you were still very far from being developed. There are many crucial development stages for humans, and part of the ethos of TZM is to change what we think about development of children, and break the various abuse cycles that are in place under our current society.

It's a logical assumption (keeping in mind the danger of assumptions) that once society wide action is taken to break the abuse cycles at the start, that all of these types of behaviour will begin to disappear, or at least become much less at the forefront. The really interesting part is that a society that has opted to heal itself in a revolutionary way like this, should also be able to react more positively to the side effects of reconditioning ourselves, so once the touch paper is lit, so to speak, then it should be a one way process, so long as we can permanently lose this idea of immortality that has been programmed into us. The idea that humans have a right to life is not valid while we act like a virus, but if we adapt to our surroundings, then it means our thinking has changed enough for us to survive, and it stands to reason that all will follow after that. This positive thinking is our "cure".

I'll return to talk about 2+3 a bit later

Thanks for your responses so far. To be honest, I'm still not convinced, I would like to be convinced, but the current thinking seems to be:

Remove Current Society-->Some Stuff will happen-->Utopian Glory arrives.

This is probably due to my lack of knowledge so far. Since the Jealousy point has been discussed most it seems like that will just disappear. As mentioned above, people will still get hurt, feel jealous/rage/guilt.

My big issue I guess is the 'Transition period'. It seems this whole system is hinged on an overnight switch over (i.e., Some Stuff will happen). What happens during the transition period, when only half the planet is enlightened? Let's say the USA switch to RBE, but China does not. What's to stop the Chinese taking over the USA, with thier Rage and Jealousy and Guns?

i agree, the transition period will be the hardest part, but I have to ask about the whole jealousy thing.
We are talking about this fight over a girl story and saying that those jealous feelings were produced through the system that we live in, but I completely disagree. Although we are intelligent, evolved beings we still have some basic instincts that won't go away in my opinion. Sex urge, and competiton are both examples. I understand that in the example given, although I'm sure we all kno those feelings, to attack the person who got your love is unreasonable and won't get you that girl, but the emotion behind the actions are primal and natural.
And crime itself will still be an issue, for although the lack of an economy will erradicate burglary, robbery and other crimes comitted out of desperarion due to poverty, that cannot apply to mentally insane people, or even normal people attacking someone due to what i believe is known as "temporary insanity".
I'm just wonderring what you guys think about all these things

In my opinion, I think the world we are trying to create is not really for us, it's more for our children, or our children's children. I'd say most of our generation is kind of a lost because we have been deeply, deeply conditioned, wether it be by the crap on the telly, how the guy always gets the girl in the movies, The adverts where everyone looks so popular and friendly because they have the latest piece of plastic gadgetry.
What you've got to realise is that its all crap. When you feel jealousy or hurt you get 2 voice's good and bad and its about making the choice. We just need to teach the kids that the most productive way is to seek the peaceful option. Many will say that they do now, but in reality most parents can't be there for there child due to the fact that they have to go and earn money for the basics of life. and the children today mainly learn from other children, tv and video games.
If we implemented the kind of world envisioned by the movement over time there woud be a drastic change in the way we think on a day to day basis.

Also I think questions 2 & 3 we're answeres by MartinV or atleast thats what impression i get from the iterature regarding TVP.

Remove Current Society-->Some Stuff will happen-->Utopian Glory arrives.

Yip, it seems like that is a little too much to ask for doesn't it, but it's perfectly logical to asssume that this is what would happen.

Getting people to be nice to each other is as simple as breaking the abuse cycle that causes us to be such a bunch of fuck ups, and then things will work.

The biggest thing to be aware of though, I'm afraid to say, is that YOUR life has already been ruined, and you cannot change that. You cannot change your past, but we can direct the future to the required extent if we make the necessary changes to ourselves within the now.

What was it that taught you, that there was ever anything to be jealous of? Is it not possible that it is a direct result of years of programming to be acquisitive?

Think about what those instructions have done to you, in the long term, and then ask yourself, "would our society be any different, if our primary directive given to us by our parents, had been to express our love of nature and each other in artistic and progressive ways?" or to put it more simply had our primary instinct not been to gain, but just" not to lose" i.e. not to destroy rather than build something for ourselves.

It's painful to think what my life could have been, had my life been taught to me this way. My parents did not choose that path for me. I WILL choose that path for my children, one of understanding rather than blindness.

dbl post

Good answers so far regarding number 1. I suppose, it's more of a learning how to react to our emotions rather than 'getting rid' of them?

In terms of 2 and 3. I'm still not sure how it fits into the system as a whole.

Let's say I want to build my own car, and for this I require 1 ton of Aluminium to build the panels. So I enter my request into the worldwide database. My understanding was that the system would weigh up the efficiency of this request? Surely the most efficient and economical (in terms of resources) would be the answer "Car's already exist, you can use one of those?"
"Yes, but I want to understand the History of the Car, and how the developed?"
"Fine, here's a book about that."
"But I want to do it more for the experience and the technical challenge."
"That's not efficient, here's that car you ordered"

its a gd point, but I mean look at the grand scheme of things. If u want to learn about the history of cars then read the book or study the one youve been given, don't complain about the fact that you can't build one. Venus project or no venus project, asking for a tonne of aluminium just so u can "experience" the making of a car is a bit wasteful.

Yes it is wateful.

The thing is, in a society where only 5% of the population required to run it, what do the rest of us have apart from the time to experience things?
People now a days build steam engines, just for the fun of it, for the challange. Why? They're centuries old bits of tech, why not build a car? For the challenge, that's why!
Why climb Everest? You could die! That's REALLY wasteful! Plus all the tech it actually requires to get there! There's not even anything at the top.
You have a 95% chance of not being one of the guys who get to maintain the system, and let's say there's 10% of people who aren't interested in that sort of thing, that's still a few million people. The example in the text I read was Golf Clubs, you don't need your own, you can just use the ones at the club, which is a great idea. Except I don't play golf. Why make any? What a waste!

Sorry if I'm coming across badly here, I just really like the idea of this system, but I like to understand things (I'm the sort of guy who won't go on a car journey with out a fully charged Sat Nav, a charger for it, a map in case it goes wrong and step by step instructions).

Thank you all for your replies so far, discussion is very important in this kind of situation and I am very appreciative of it.

And no I don't think you come across badly at all, and I know that without jobs or anything people will be wanting to challenge themselves and experience things, and i suppose I don't really know how that whole thing would work in the new system. I mean, if there's someone like me who plays the sax, and so wants a saxophone, that is no less of a waste than you asking to make a car as far as necessity is concerned. Especially when most saxophonists play more than one type of sax, so that could be two or even three saxes worth of metal, that equates to quite a lot for one person.

Oooh you've made me think now haha

I don't think 3 is a problem. The key word here is 'sustainable.' As long as the overall economic system is sustainable, you can have whatever you like, within reason. Efficiency isn't the overall goal. It isn't about only using resources for strictly functional reasons. Art and entertainment and curiosity will still exist. Obviously some resources will always be constrained. Although that will be reduced as the population is reduced.

Oooh you've made me think now haha

Yeah, it's certainly got me a bit stumped.

I suppose it might come down to the whole 'ownership' issue. Do you feel you need your own Sax, or (within Hygiene limits) would you be willing to share one with you local Orchestra? What if you become the worlds greatest ever Saxophonist, would we keep your Sax for posterity, simply to inspire the next generation? (I guess not). Does a golfer need a 'Lucky' set of clubs?

Kuwale: A good response, thanks. I'm not sure about the population getting reduced? I must have missed that, how does that happen? For some reason I have an increasing population in my head?
Do we go down a one/two child policy like China (something I am inclined to agree with, says the father of one 21 day old baby) or is it another method? A social one? As an Atheist I see the purpose of life to be to pass your genes onto the next generation, and anything else is simply to make that easier, or less boring while you're waiting for that to occur?

Just trying to answer your question on depopuation

1) If people we're educated to a high level.
2) If people had the freedom to travel anywhere at anytime.
3) If we had a good control of all known health problems especially those that occur whilst in infancy.

It's only a philosophical theory, but Jacque Fresco in many of his talks has suggested that this is how he see's it being way off in the future. It's no certainty but I can see his logic.

With regards to the ownership, you would be able to get whatever you want, I also imagine that if your interest was building car engine's, you'd have probably learnt to do this in school by the age of 10 or something, or atleast have the ability to go back into education at any point in your life to learn this kinda stuff. The way of the future in an RBE is going to be specifically designed to facilitate the curious amongst us, the scientists and engineers etc thats what will be driving us forward an enriching everyone! I'm also a musician, I play guitar and I'd say I need a guitar with me as you can't time moments of creativity and I woudn't wanna have to run to the "library" to go grab a guitar all the time. But it would be made to the best quality it can be rather than a cheap £100 piece of crap that will break within a couple of years or lose its sound, If its quaity made then it can be passed on through generation and generation. I think the main idea of getting rid of ownership is for us to deal with the false materialistic way of life that has been/is being sold to us at, and try and rid ourselv'es of it as much as possible before we pass these traits on to the next generation and give them a chance. just my thoughts

More equitable, better educated societies in which women have freedom tend to have lower population growth. Right now Western Europe and the developed parts of Asia (particularly South Korea and Japan) have declining populations. As a developed country with a growing population the US is an aberration (this is probably due to high levels of immigration and social inequality). So I'd expect the population to decline under an RBE. This will take time though.

I think it's a confused to think your purpose is to pass on your genes. Evolution may work via genes spreading through a population due to a conferred advantage but it doesn't follow that that's your purpose in life. Indeed, it's obvious that we have a sexual appetite but no comparative desire to procreate as much as possible, which would be the case if winning the game of evolution was our purpose.

Personally I think it's a mistake to think that an atheist can't talk about purpose (or can only take winning the game of evolution as a purpose). Our various social roles and moral responsibilities give us purposes and we have purposes derivative of our nature and what it means for us to flourish as the kind of creatures that we are. We are social creatures who are highly dependent upon one another and incapable of surviving outside a social context, so creating an equitable, fair and just society that is capable of providing for everyone will always be our goal. Even then, to have everyone flourish in this way, I think is not enough. We are uniquely curious language and tool using animals and I think striving always for new knowledge and capabilities is the ultimate end of our society.

Matt, thanks for that. I see how the population may reduce, or at least reduce in expansion.

I see what you mean about returning to school to learn things, but I'm slightly annoyed that you get one of the best guitars ever made, but I don't get to keep the car I built! I'd probably be really proud of it.
I think sometimes building things yourself, using your own knowledge is important, 'hands on' experience is vital to the learning process. Imagine trying to teach someone to play guitar, without having an actual guitar to use. You could tell them about the strings, the frets, the notes. You could teach them to read sheet music/tabs, but until you put a guitar in their hands, they're not really going to 'get it', and they're certainly not really going to be able to compose anything new.

Kuwale: Thanks again for the population point.
Maybe 'purpose' was the wrong word to use. Maybe 'responsibility' would be better. I just think about all the generations before me, and how you can trace an unbroken line of life all the way back to the dawn of time. If it was for a misplaced bomb in London in WWII my parents would not have been born, if my Great Grandfather had been shot in WWI my Grandparents would not have been born, the generation before them had to survive the cholera and crime ridden streets of Victorian London. Before them they had to survive the early industrial revolution and the unemployment and starvation that the new machines bought. Earlier still was the medieval period, when knowledge was scarce and you could easily die from a wound that got infected, or a bad winter that killed your crop. Back through to the time of the Norman Conquest of England and the Vikings...all the way back through the time of the Roman Empire and onto Ancient Egypt. Back to when humans first evolved in Africa. Back to when we were primates, barely recognizable as being related to modern man, clinging to some tree in a terrible storm, hoping to survive to eat again, to find a mate. Back to when we first crawled out of the ocean, back to when life was just multi-celled organisms, back to single celled ones. All the way back to when life first evolved you can trace an unbroken line of reproduction, for every person alive today.
I think of that and it makes me think "I don't want to be the guy that breaks that chain". Particularly given how 'easy' we have it in the Western World compared to most of history, or the third world. Now there are other things you can do to help the next generation, teaching is a great example. Trying to make the world a better place, like this movement, as the 'ease' with which we have it comes at extraordinary cost to the planet and society, which is only just being understood. So maybe reproduction isn't our purpose, but it does strike me as pretty important!

I'm sorry but I don't really see how a population decrease would be expected. I mean, at the moment the birth rate isnt ridiculous, it's the death rate that allows the population to grow. I mean in the past hundred years or so we have seen a huge increase in the population of the planet and it is because people are living longer, not because everyones having loads of babies.
Which actually brings up another point, with people not necessarily havin to work A lot more people would be willing to start families. Without having to worry about bringing in enough money to suffice the baby there's no reason why people won't have five kids, and believe me i kno plenty of people who'd be willing to. Do we let this happen? what is the general consensis with that?
And in reply to Greendan, I would consider sharing something like the baritone sax with the local orchestra, but a tenor or an alto I would at least like to have on that I could keep and call my own. I have the freedom at the moment to take my sax anywhere and play it anytime I like, so I don't want to downgrade if yo know what I mean.
and since money wont be an issue, I would be able to get a good quality on that could last me and I could always pass down to my children or whoever when I've passed. (I say that because I know people in their 90s who still play the sax in their local jazz pubs, so its not as if when i reach a certain age i would just give up the sax)

The explosive population growth of the last century is primarily because of reduced infant mortality. So, technically, it's because people are having more babies (that live). Most of the population growth is in 3rd world countries. It's not because people are living longer. The countries with the highest population growth also have the lowest life expectancy. Think of it this way: If nobody ever died, but there were no children being born, the total population would be static. But if every couple had more than 2 children, but died immediately afterwards, there'd be growth. The massive population growth we've seen is because births lead to exponential growth. A couple can have more than two children, who in turn will have children, and so on, so that there's population growth. A lowered death rate doesn't have the same effect because each person can only die once.

Fair enough but where does this population decrease come in then? I mean our death rate is hardly going to increase, i mean with increased technology and hygeine standards everywhere people will be living a lot longer everwhere, plus infant mortality will be reduced dramatically in what are at the moment developing countries. Plus, as I said people will have more free time and no money issues meaning that a lot of people would be more inclined to start a family.
I just think that there'll be a huge population increase instead of decrease, but maybe I'm missing something here.

Nobody knows what the exact cause is but developed countries tend to have lower population growth. Western Europe and East Asia are below replacement rate so their populations are shrinking. This is especially pronounced in South Korea and Japan where there is no immigration to counteract lower levels of population growth. (Some researchers think that China's population growth would have stalled even without the one-child policy.) One obvious cause is access to contraception and family planning. Women's rights are also a cause; once given a choice, many women would prefer not to have large families. Women moving into the workplace and not being able to have large families might also be a reason, so that might reverse after a transition to a resource-based economy.

1) Jealousy

Good question, to understand the answer, one must see that the question itself is based within the current social/psychological "climate", we are raised to be aggressive, and to be driven by what has been called "the ego". The problem of "crimes of passions", or emotionally driven "crimes", would only be an issue if the inhabitants of the world were raised to be aggressive, and to think of "their" women, and other forms of relationships from within a possessive mindset.

Purely as a hypothetical, if a society existed [and I am sure it has] in which no member thought of sex, and relationships in a monogamous way. Meaning they all slept around, with whomever they wished to, and had no thoughts of sensibility towards promiscuousness. I find it hard to see how a member of that society would justify attacking another member, for essentially doing that which he/she has done themselves, for most of their lives. Even if, on occasion, this did happen, and it may well do, we are unpredictable beings after all, all the other members of the society would see the attacks actions as morally wrong, or discussing, and would uphold their way of living, effectively "policing" themselves.

No one has ever claimed that a RBE would stop all violence, however we recognize that by changing the environment that causes negative behavior, and by allowing people to educate themselves, socially, through positive experience. Instead of the "repeat this until it "sinks in"" approach currently employed by schools. We could prevent, not punish, but prevent most violence from occurring. By studying the environments that cause violent behavior, then adjusting the environment humans are raised in, accordingly.

________________________________________

2) Drugs

In a RBE, there are no laws. This is a very provocative statement to make, and you always get half-thought-out, emotional charged responses to it, and for good reason. Get rid of police, and laws tomorrow, and the world wouldn't be a very nice place to live in, at least for a while.

The only laws that are needed are natural laws, laws like, "if you throw something up into the air, provided that there are gravity, it will come back down."

Now, this may seem obvious, but most people do not realize that the laws of this world are already predetermined, set-in-stone, they are self-evident, self-enforcing laws that can't be "changed", without changing the rules of nature itself, [or the environment in which you are talking about, on another planet, certain laws would obviously be different] The "system", can't tell you what to do, if you want to smoke crack, snort coke, inject yourself with whatever- you can. There will be voluntary help/ support available, and on a more social level, people in this society would be more empathetic, and caring, and would try to help/ give you advice etc. This said, there would be no police force, no-one to drag you away kicking and screaming, into some facility to be "treated". No laws, however natural law you can not escape, it dictates that if you abuse your body, you will eventually die.

The system will see uses for drugs, that are beneficial to the whole, I am sure free groups of people would get together and use some of the cities hydroponic facilities to grow some nice skunk, I know I would. As far as using the RBE to get more socially harmful drugs, like heroin etc, I am sure that the raw materials would be produced, and therefor anyone "in theory" should be allowed access to the, however the manufacturing of those types of drugs would have no place within an RBE, they would be hardly the best way to use the resources, i.e. the opium. Medicine and research would need the materials more. One could obviously grow the necessary plants oneself though. Not that I would be shooting up, but some might prefer smoking opium for pain relief, that taking other forms of drugs, in pill form or whatever.

___________________________________
3) Hobbies.

I would also choose to build my own house, in the countryside. I dislike cities, and would prefer to travel to them, to get goods/ take my ideas/ contribute to the good of the whole, by volunteering to perform some role that is required. Regarding the car, resources would be available to help you do that, unless there is a shortage, and the resources the city currently has have to go towards more necessary projects.

We can only imagine what will be possible in the future, but I would expect there to be mechanized means of production, that would allow you to "print", then assemble any component, after designing it via computer, you could design it in your countryside home, then go pick it up, once it has finished being made. Roller coasters?!, I'm not sure about this one, I guess if a group of enough people wanted to make one, no one would be able to stop them. Not being able to do something, is different to not being allowed to do something, meaning- you wont be able to build one on your own.
_________________________________________

I hope this helps, please feel free to ask any follow up questions.

And watch the films, especially the new one- its great.

Don't worry, we're not going to arrest you, or attack you for not wanting to do anything.

I think TZM needs to make its commitment to non-violence more vocal, and succinct.

Much love, Apok

Ultimately, there is enough resources to go around... say there wasn't enough aluminum for you to make your car, or sax, or whatever... the system would just suggest an alternative...

How long are you going to want to keep you homemade car?, all your life?, fine- that means in [hopefully] 90 years, those resources go back into the system. You'd probably either get board of making it (no offense), or make it, enjoy it, then realize that "one of those new, super quick, less deadly cars" are probably the better way to get around.

We haven't started any type of deep mining, we haven't scratched the earths surface, with improved technology, there is an abundance of metals, rare and otherwise, literally under our feet, not to mention the possibility of eventually mining other planets. [long term]

The RBE/ TZM couldn't have a "one child" policy, thats a man made law. Completely against the principles of the movement. If we continue with this system, natural law will reduce the population, no breaking natural law, the universe enforces that. Changing our economic system to something like a RBE would, in my opinion allow Earth to support a population at least 10 times bigger, when we start living on the oceans, under the ground, and in structures that make our skyscrapers look like tiny office filing cabinets. We could already be geo-engineering mars, with current technology. All that is needed is massive amounts of CO2, [and don't say, "we've got too much of that, so lets send it there] Plants on earth, grow best when CO2 is at levels over 1000ppm, currently at 380ish ppm [part per million] so more CO2 = more plant growth to counter that.