Documentary Analysis Zeitgeist Addendum I believe that the main argument that was presented in the documentary was that money is the root of all evil. I personally am disagreeing with this. First, money is not the root in all crimes, yeah, some of them are but not all of them. He said in his documentary that if money is extracted from the society there would be no crimes, but did he even think about the small petty fights, small disagreements that lead to harm? Not every crime in this world is caused by money. . I think a man is a hypocrite if he says that he does not like money because we all need money to live. Money for me is the basic reason why people push themselves in this world. We push ourselves to earn money and by pushing ourselves, some may do it not exactly in a good way. So yes, if the statement was money was the cause of some crimes, then yes. The thing is for me, if you are saying that money is root of all evil and you are against money, you should stop from using it. I am just wondering, if they really hated money and stuff, why do they even sell the documentary for $10 each? I think he is being a hypocrite. I believe that everyone loves money not because they only want to live but they also want to experience the luxuries in the world. For me, people do not make extra efforts just because they simply want to live but I believe that people (being naturally selfish) would want to enjoy luxuries. For example, who would not want to even try to drive a Ferrari car right? Or have a big house. People, I believe just make big fusses about money but they themselves love money. I believe that they are only in a sense, bitter on those people who are more financially inclined. At the first part and second part of the movie, it was discussed that money was mainly created from debts and the danger of money. Since I was young, I was wondering where money comes from literally. So at first, I was hooked with his explanations because well, again, I am not against money but I am aware of the dirtiness it comes from or what it could do to the society. Generally, I was hooked at the documentary at first because he even stated books on his statements and that made me believe on it. And even right now, I do not oppose to this. (Well, because this was the only explanation I heard of where money comes from since I was young and I see that his statements are logical.) During the documentary, I heard the stories of John Perkins who is the author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman that the United States government do illegal things just for advantage, and they are even willing to kill for it. But, if the United States government is truly like this, why in the hell (I am sorry for the term) did they not kill him? If the United States government could even kill the presidents, dictators of a certain country, why couldn’t they even kill this person who is trying to expose the “real” United States government? So I began to wonder during the second part of the film. Well, it is not that I do not believe in his stories, but I was just wondering, if the things he said were true, why couldn’t they kill him right? Was the United States government scared of their evil being exposed to the society? Weren’t they scared that the society would lose their trusts in them? So maybe, there were death threats but I think that if what he was saying were all true, the United States government would do an action so the things he knew would not be revealed in the public. The Venus project was the one being discussed in the 3rd part of the documentary. I think that having a “resource based economy” is not good at all. First, for me, it will promote laziness in the society, having people a thought in their mind that all is good and we don’t need to bother or worry about things that will happen tomorrow. He is trying to make a society with no money and a society that will only rely on technology. The problem with this is that Jacque Fresco only said about theories and he did not state the negativities of this kind of system. (Well, in his defense he did state that this is not a perfect kind of system). Where would they even get all these technologies from? It would be from money, right? Or how would you even sustain this kind of system? I think it will all still come down to money because in our society today, people would not do something if it was not for their advantage. I believe that this is totally not good because if you think of it, no one would govern this kind of society and I believe that, by natural causes, someone would try to govern this kind of system and I believe that someone will surely take advantage of this system and will just create monopolies, which for me is even worse of what we are having right now. I believe that he was making a society that technology is above of humans, for me, he was implying that a technology is the solution for every problem in the society. And I believe that he did not research well about the Venus project, I think that it still lacks a lot of things like, “how would be things then if the society was changed into a resource type of economy”, “how will we get our basic resources then”. So for me, this idea of having this kind of system does not really work and I would totally disagree to this if this would be implemented in the society. I think this society is yet too ideal, there are even more flaws to it than our society today. And I think that all he said about technology would naturally happen in the future (except for the no money thing or being resourced based). The 4th part said that things we should do in order to lose this kind of monetary system. Again, I see that he is only making minimal changes, like, instead of using electricity daily, use it only sometime, so, again, if you are really opposing something, shouldn’t you go to the extreme so your voice would be heard? Okay, maybe he is saying suggestions in a minimal way so people would not die. But again, if you’re really willing to do these things, aren’t you willing to risk your life for it? So I believe this is just a kind of hypocrisy. If you are really against something, you should do everything and not just in a minimal way. I think what he said were just all (sorry for the term again) bullsh*ts. So, in the last part, you could see people leaving everything, for example, the businessman throwing his briefcase and kneeling down and the lady joining him. There was also a priest and rabbi throwing away their religion. You could see a woman throwing her designer things away, and a military soldier throwing his gun away. You could also see the constant eyeball thing that has different colors. I believe that these imply that they are now willing to let go of everything because they now see the truth. If you also notice, they are in a fast paced community which I think implies that we should stop and pause for a while and see the truth. Before the credits, you could see a woman tearing up of happiness, and her tear changed the world. I believe that after people let go, the system will finally change or the whole world would finally change. So to conclude, I did not like the documentary because it just implies something that will not be useful today. I believe that it is not even feasible and the technology advancement will happen in the future. Money is not also the root of evil but I believe that it is the people who make it evil.
Posted on: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 09:37:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015