the zeitgeist movement

Freedom from Work and Social Evolution – ZDAY Los Angeles 2013

A keynote I gave at ZDAY Los Angeles 2013 about the impact of ideas in society (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIc-c8iv-iY).

Link to the final video (stand alone, Ideas are Social Evolution): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S7c9oQV3LU

ZDAY 2012 Vancouver - Robots will steal your job

My talk at ZDAY 2012 Vancouver regarding automation, technology, and their impact on jobs and the economy.

The Book: http://robotswillstealyourjob.com
Help with subtitles: http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/IdRKMtT8Uliu/info/

Slides


Video: The science of well being

See video

Help with translations and subtitles
http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/ywxINQQqJq2V (please fix timing before translating)
http://federicopistono.org/video

Sources cited
Democracy, technocracy, the free market or the scientific method for social concern? http://youtu.be/83LAk3BT7no
Does the world produce enough food to feed everyone? http://goo.gl/tGF64

Music
2 Ghost I - Nine Inch Nails
8 Ghost I - Nine Inch Nails

Follow me on
http://gplus.to/federicopistono
http://twitter.com/federicopistono
http://facebook.com/federicopistono.page

Transcript
On the last video I began to explore the issue of the utilisation of the scientific method for social concern, comparing it to other forms of governance and decision making, such as democracy, technocracy and how the market forces influence those.
The video received an overwhelming positive response from many of you, and I was really surprised. As expected, there were also a few questions and critiques, and I thank you for those, we shall explore each of them individually.

One of the criticisms raised was that there is no universal definition of well being, therefore we cannot possibly address the issue in scientific terms.
OK, let's examine this statement with the help of a graphic. Imagine we have two persons. The one on the left is in the quintessential perfect well being. Now, we do not know what that looks like, but we can imagine a hypothetical scenario where such a person in such a state exists. On the opposite side, you have a unfortunate individual in the worst possible misery, both physical and mental. If you can imagine something going bad in your life, it's there. And if you can imagine something worse that, it's also there. Between these two conditions there are millions of degrees of variation, from left to right.
Somebody here, for example, may have the following scenario:
- she never gets sick
- she never broke a bone in her body
- she can run a marathon and finish up with ease
- she is generally very happy with her life and never displayed signs of depression or mental illnesses
- she has a stable and balanced diet, as well access to proper nutrition
- she follows her interests with passion and is intellectually stimulated
- her social relationships are strong and healthy
- her sentimental life is more than satisfying and she enjoys it thoroughly
Clearly, these are not all the best traits one person can have, and it's far from being the ideal situation of well being. It's just a point of reference.

Similarly, a person here is in the following condition:
- she was never fed properly, due to a lack of access to food. As a result, serious growing deficiencies affected her body and her mind
- she is crippled and underdeveloped, both physically and mentally
- she is constantly being abused sexually
- continuous tortures and harassment have worsen her conditions over time
- she is in a constant state of pain. Whenever her body adjusts to a level of suffering, new pain is added, and the torture continues
- due to the enormous amount of physical and psychological abuses, she was never able to create any social bond
- she developed psychoses and she is mentally unstable
I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Now, it is true that we don't have a univocal and universal definition of well being, but that doesn't stop us from recognising that there are certain positions on this line that are more desirable than others. And these can be evaluated objectively and scientifically.
But we still don't understand everything about the human condition, you might say. We don't understand everything about aerodynamics, either, but that hasn't stopped us from building airplanes and move across the skies of the world.

One could make a similar argument about life. Nobody really knows what life is. Yet we can safely say that a rock is not alive, but a squirrel is. What about corals, and viruses, and artificial intelligences? Yet again, there is degree of possibilities within the line, and it’s an open discussion. But when somebody stops breathing, grows cold and starts to decompose... well that might be a sign that the person is not alive anymore. Surely in the future we might discover that we got it all wrong, that rocks are alive and we are not, who knows. But at any given time, we have a context and a frame of reference, which we utilise to make an argument. This is not a philosophical discussion about the nature of Truth in the realm of platonic ideas. This is a very practical argument, where we pose a question: can we try and maximise well being, and can we use a scientific approach to achieve this goal? The answer is yes, in both cases. And given the disastrous results that politics and modern economics have given us, it would be utterly irresponsible not to do so.

It really saddens me the fact that, even though we have an abundance of food and medicines in the world, millions of people continue to die. This is completely unnecessary, and avoidable. We let economics and politics deal with this problem for far too many years, and they have failed. On 9-11-2001, 2,966 died in US soil. People still talk about how this could have been prevented. There is an intense debate about that. Today, 23,987 people, mostly children, died of hunger. There is not debate about that. We can prevent this holocaust that keeps repeating every fucking day of the year.

It’s time evolve.

Video: Democracy, technocracy, the free market or the scientific method for social concern?

This video is an attempt to show how the various forms of government and decision making work, what are their advantages and their problems.


Help translate this video! :D http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/QEFU2Eh3YXrY/info

Sources cited in the video
The scientific method made easy http://goo.gl/v9SZi
Scientists and engineers in the 111th U.S. Congress http://goo.gl/a5uOO
Only two scientists among the 535 member of the U.S. Congress http://goo.gl/Ak8np
BitCoin Forum quote #1 http://goo.gl/JWzes
BitCoin Forum quote #2 http://goo.gl/j24IO
BitCoin Forum quote #3 http://goo.gl/nzDNz

Follow me on
http://federicopistono.org
http://twitter.com/federicopistono
http://facebook.com/federicopistono.page

More info on sustainability and social action
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com

Full transcript of the video
One of the most misunderstood topics among the people I encounter is the application of the scientific method for social concern. There is an old belief that was propagated throughout the centuries, possibly due to an evolutionary cultural baggage that our species has, apparently very difficult to drop, according to which you can’t use science or the scientific method to figure out how to run a society.

The Zeitgeist Movement Symposium with Federico Pistono

See video

After a long and painstaking time, we were finally able to edit, polish and publish the recording of my presentation of The Zeitgeist Movement that I held on October 2010, when I was invited at a symposium called "Foundations of the new civilisation", organised by the World Center of Humanist Studies.

We recorder the event, and it took us several months to capture the material from 3 different cameras, mix the audio, fix the video and add effects and transitions, transcribe and translate the whole conference and Q&A session.

Now are finally done! You can watch the video here in full 1080p-glory with English subtitles.

For those of you who may have seen this video before, I shall tell you that the subtitles have been completely revised, as they were originally poorly translated and much of the meaning was lost. These are very accurate and well done subtitles, which hopefully will give you a real sense of what the conference was like.

I would like to thank all the Italian teams that have been involved with this project, particularly Stefan Danov for the editing and patience, and Daniele Mancinelli, for taking the time to completely revise the subs, as well as giving great insights and teaching me many things.

Peace to you all,

Syndicate content