http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/da/node/51853

Question one:
Given the market economy requires consumption in order to maintain demand for human employment and further economic growth as needed, is there a structural incentive to reduce resource use, biodiversity loss, the global pollution footprint and hence assist the ever-increasing need for improved ecological sustainability in the world today?

Reply: The market economy does not need a certain level of consumption to maintain a certain level of employment or economic growth. Tyler Cowen, one of the most famous economists today, actually wrote a piece that quality of life, as in life expectancy, can increase during recessions.

The less resources you use generally the product is cheaper. A flat screen tv is cheaper and has bigger screen and cost less than the old crt projection tvs. Same with the equipment used to make your video. Most wildlife has rebounded within the United States to sustainable levels. Look at the populations of Rocky Mountain elk, Tule elk, moose, Bald Eagles, Deer, Black Bear, Buffalo, they have all increased population a 100 fold. We have increased parks and open land in critical areas. The air is cleaner today in Los Angeles than in the 1940s even though the population is much higher. Today all the coal plants are being retired and are being changed out by photovoltaics. Green energy is a large employer of the people. The reason it is cheaper. Pollution can be taxed as you hurt and cause economic loss to the people you pollute with your car exhaust. Los Angles is planning on 100% recycling of its solid waste. China is now going full tilt with solar and it is the lowest cost producer per watt. An electric world is a clean world.

If you have a mile of fence to paint. Would you not like to have some of the government workers quit their desk jobs and help you?

Question Two:
In an economic system where companies seek to limit their production costs (“cost efficiency”) in order to maximize profits and remain competitive against other producers, what structural incentive exists to keep human beings employed, in the wake of an emerging technological condition where the majority of jobs can now be done more cheaply and effectively by machine automation?

Lower costs only help the consumers and the workers. Suppose you dream was 2 cars a kid and a car. Now it might be a mansion, 2 kids, a boat, an rv, a trip to europe, and ipad, amazon prime, wildlife foundation donation, and a 80 year lifespan. The more automation the longer, better, happier lives you will have. As for the homeless give them 5000 square feet and end the property taxes and building permit fees on it. Automation makes your labor more valuable.

Would you rather have a hand drill of the 1920s or a lithum ion 18V power drill? Peter Joseph, would you rather use an 8 mm black and white film or the new equipment you are using?

Question 3:
In an economic system which inherently generates class stratification and overall inequity, how can the effects of “Structural Violence” - a phenomenon noted by public health researchers to kill well over 18 million a year, generating a vast range of systemic detriments such as behavioral, emotional and physical disorders – be minimized or even removed as an effect?

The only violence is the liberal Zeitgeister on the capitalist. The union school teacher on the Mcdonalds worker. If everyone was given 5000 square feet of property tax free land. If the land has no trees nor water the owner should be compensated with food stamps and lumber from those that use the best lands if they can not afford them. Most of these disorders result from use of free land as if you were charged for air. It is the government hurting the people, not the capitalist or corporation hurting the people.

If you only worry about your 5000 square feet, what right do you have to care how someone else is using their square 5000 feet? The emotional disorder is you are jealous of other classes. There is a reason why rural areas are generally red and cities are generally blue. Land is cheaper in red areas, the public sector unions and land owners have low ability to extract rent.