Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

245: Moving Forward


KMO welcomes Eric Boyd back to the podcast to discuss the new film by Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. KMO and Eric agree with a lot of the concerns that motivate the Zeitgeist project, but even Eric, who is confident that technological innovations will see us through the decline of petroleum without serious upheaval, thinks that Mr. Joseph and Venus Project mastermind, Jacques Fresco, hold unreasonable expectations for the power of computer and robotic technology to provide the organizational and muscle power for a high tech utopia.



( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
Feb. 17th, 2011 07:12 pm (UTC)
sounds cool--when is the podcast?
where can i listen to it?
Feb. 17th, 2011 07:14 pm (UTC)
whoops--paint me as unobservant
didn't notice the link was the podcast.
i shall listen now
Feb. 24th, 2011 08:39 am (UTC)
Perfect city issues answered in Peter's podcast
Just thought I'd let you know that Peter has addressed these things here ... http://www.blogtalkradio.com/peter-joseph/2011/02/09/2911--peter-joseph-weekly-zm-radio-show
Feb. 24th, 2011 07:11 pm (UTC)
Re: Perfect city issues answered in Peter's podcast
I drove into town to download the podcast you recommended. I'm at the wifi hotspot now, but I don't see a download link on the page, and I can't sit here for an hour and 45 minutes and stream the thing. If you have an .mp3 audio file for the program, please send it to kmo@c-realm.com. Stay well.
Apr. 11th, 2011 01:43 pm (UTC)
Pretty lame
I must agree that episode 245 was pretty lame.
I haven't seen any of the Zitgeist videos and probably won't. The notion that a computer can design the most "efficient" production system is patently absurd. At the very least, someone must make decisions as to what will be produced and what lifestyle level will be supported. Are we going to eat corn and soybean gruel, corn chips and tofu, corn and soy fed beef, or caviar from corn and soy fed sturgeon? What inputs are in short supply and should be conserved? Is price a good measure of this? (probably not.) What is the value of anything? There are a large number of such questions that don't have "an answer".
Your last question got the ridiculous answer, that I paraphrase as "well it's worked so far so obviously it'll keep working." Such a notion is patently absurd in times of changing circumstances. No doubt some Easter islanders said it until the end.
I was listening in the car and scribbled a few notes. I could listen again and make additional specific criticisms.
I put efficient above in quotes because I think the word is generally misused. To an engineer, (I am one) efficiency is a unitless measure of output/input. By that I mean that the numerator and denominator are measured in the same units. So energy efficiency is energy out/energy in. Material efficiency is lbs out/pounds in, etc. To my way of thinking, "productivity" is the word generally used when different units are used.. Take American agriculture. Not energy efficient (we put in a lot more total energy than we get out as food energy). Labor productive if you only include direct farm labor (a suspect method that excludes indirect labor inputs, like the guys who dig the coal, make the steel, build the tractors, etc.) Not very land productive compared to many other systems. (I'll send you an interesting chart one of these days.)
As an engineer, I also object to using the unmodified word "technology" to mean "information technology" "computer technology" or however you want to more correctly describe it.
It is possible to include methods as well as "machines" in the definition of technology. "Software" and "hardware" in the lingo of "computer technology". In such a definition, democracy could be included as an enlightenment social/political technology.
I'd like to contrast complex with complicated. An ecosystem is complex. A nuclear power plant is complicated. Complexity (including diversity) can increase resilience. Complicatedness is fragile, inviting failure and collapse. See:
To me hyperefficient has a negative connotation. As in efficiency for its own sake to the exclusion of other values. I don't find this sense on the internet. Maybe it's just mine.
Definition of HYPER-
1: above : beyond : super-
*2a : excessively y
*b : excessive

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

September 2018


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes