Zeitgeist Movement: doubts and reservations

1) What happens to people who don't agree with it and therefore don't want to be a part of it? We all know we can't please everyone all of the time, so how does it deal with dissent? Or for example, what happens to people who don't want to live in a city, who want to be self-sufficient, growing their own food, generating their own power, etc?

Nothing there will be no force on anyone, infact you still will be entitled to any advancements in technology, knowledge of medicine etc.

2) I keep hearing that nobody makes decisions in a resource based economy, that decisions are arrived at. But someone would have to define the education curriculum for example, no? And who would allocate jobs for example? A central computer would? Based on people's qualifications and skill sets? How about skills that can't be accurately measured, say due to their subjectivity? Right now I'm thinking of creativity as an example but I'm sure there are many more.

Tricky question to answer but here go's nothing, certain decisions would be arrived at by using a computer, but the main thing is that the scientific methos is used, which is basically a census arrived at by the leading scholars of the field/sector in question. A centralised system would only be there to allocate resource's similar to what the electricity grid does or the water/gas board! On education, children have natural interests and this will just be harnessed properly on a child to child basis, there won't be a curriculum as such just a bunch of intelligent inquisitive kids, remember if a child is interested in something they are a sponge for information. Regarding jobs, thats completely voluntary because all manual jobs will become automated, But hopefully once people are educated to understand how they will benefit by offering there time to help everyone as a wholethen people will volunteer.
Regarding the creative mind, this is strongly going to be encouraged if someone chose to give there life to being an artist, a musician, a magician or any other form of creativity they would be able to do so and be provided with all materials that they may need, the thing is most creative people also have many other interests/talents etc and everything someone create's will be available to all to appreciate.

3) Who defines and how is it defined, how much is enough? For example, lets say I want or need a second computer? Would I be allowed one? What if someone wants a much bigger house and a swimming pool than everybody else, using therefore more energy and water? Who's going to tell him/her that and they can't have it?

Hopefully once we grow up and become civilized, the whole "I want more than you, therefor my house must be bigger and better" will become diminished over time, but no one would be able to stop anyone demanding more unless the people locally are being left short and they'd probably just go and ask politely and explain their situation.

4) Whoever has access to the central resource management computer, has incredible power, be them programmer's engineers, etc. How is corruption prevented in this centralized system?

Everyone will have access to gain acces to resources, In the future people will be educated to understand the engineering and tecnical issue's regarding the system and will be involved in advancing the technology to improve efficiency.

5) What happens when there are bugs, errors, breakdowns of the system and what would it be its global impact? Same question goes for an entire society living of the grid, what happens if/when the grid fails? How is resilience achieved in a grid system?

I'm sure there will be errors, breakdowns etc and this should be taken into account when building the city, and safety measure's will be put in place! for example if the fire alarm goes off in a public building if there was a blackout at the same time there is a fail-safe power system seperately running the lighting! Basically what i'm trying to say is, we would constantly coming upto new barriers but we will meet them through arriving at a solution using the scientific method. Technology will constantly be evolving to meet which ever obstacles come our way.

6) Something that concerns me deeply is Genetically Modified food is dangerous and I know many who avoid it at all cost. Even if the technology was safe, I would rather not eat GM food for ethical reasons. What if scientists found that this was the only logical way to grow food, despite there being other options? I mean, how do ethics meet logic in a world where scientific progress rules all?

How would this be the case, Many other people think the same as you as well as many scientists around the world. I have heard Peter mention GM food but only as a very short term measure to overcome disasters and to feed the 3rd world but again only on a short term basis as they grow faster and these people just need food as fast as possible right now. But again there would have to be a worldwide consensus to arrive at the decision of which is the safest method. So expect from extremely urgent circumstance's GM food will not be produced in the citys. Plus there would be nothing to stop you from farming your own land or just growing your own veg, I'm sure if all food was free people would still grow there own vegetables/food as some do it as a hobbie. Also what you've got to remember is that everything is still up for discussion and debate, nothing is set in stone apart from the fact that we want to achieve a RBE via peaceful means.

Hope that helps if I could ask you to draw your attention to the F&Q's, pretty much anything you might want to know should be in there! If not and there are any more questions I'm sure someone will be able to clear anything up!

http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project-introduction/faq

Well, I just posted some of my comments to the blog, having found others beat me to it overnight before I could finish your list of questions, hope that helps but please do say so if anything is not clear.

Since I think your questions have been addressed adequately, I'd just like to address one little quibble I have with your blog post.

"The way I understand it, any system is only as morally ethical as the people running that system."

I think this is incorrect. The system determines the morals of the individuals, not vice versa. An important part of ZGM is the shift from reductionism to systems thinking and the shift from a fixed 'human nature' to the perspective of human development. Development Systems Theory provides the appropriate perspective. A human being is a developmental process that is extended over time. During the early phases of this process human beings are extremely developmentally malleable and the behaviour they will show later in life and the values this behaviour (including their avowed beliefs and thoughts) will display are determined by their development. Development is irreducibly situated within the larger socio-cultural system. Family life, peer interaction, schooling and interaction with the larger system of culture will all influence the development of people and their values. Moreover, the resulting adult isn't a fixed point either, and behaviour is itself highly situated within the environment.

Thank you everyone for the overwhelming feedback. I apologise but I don't have time to reply to everyone here and in other forums and the blog so I have updated my post with new questions which sparked from everyone's answers.

kuwale, that's a very good point, after all that is what ZMF argues, that the environment shapes the individual. Thanks for correcting me. I've updated the post with new questions reflecting this. I hope you can help me answer them.

Thank you.