Waking Up – An open source film about a positive future

Do you want to contribute to the writing of a film about a positive future with a resource based economy? Now you have the chance. There’s a scene made from this film, called Waking Up. And it is an ‘open source’ movie, meaning that others can contribute to the writing of the story, the script and to the realization of the whole film through it’s website. Take a look at the scene here:

If you have trouble watching the clip here, or would like to contribute with a translation, you can go to the YouTube version.

This is a submission to the Cinema Out of Your Backpack film festival. If you like the clip you can VOTE for it by Pressing ‘Like’ on the clip. You have to hover the mouse over the clip and the ‘Like’ button will appear top right. You have to log in or become a free member on Vimeo to do it. Last chance to vote is the last day of July 2011.

The film is about Ben, who froze himself down in 2010, in the hope that humanity once might be able to thaw him up and cure his disease. And this is exactly what happens. In the year 2110, the world has gone through massive changes towards the positive. Both technology and human values has developed into a whole new world, positive in all aspects for humanity. One of the aspects is that money and property is gone, and people do things for other reasons than hoarding wealth. Waking Up is about Ben’s experiences in this world and the difficulties he faces in waking up to this new reality.

In the scene, Ben is walking in the woods with his newly acquainted guide, Aweena. He has only been awake for a few days, after several weeks of curing and restituting his body while he was asleep. He is a bit confused, and can’t really understand what has happened. He feels somewhat attracted to this new world and to Aweena, but at the same time he has trouble believing it is real.

This movie is a unique chance to actually contribute to describe and create what the world will look like in a hundred years, and what steps we can take now to make it happen.

 


Science, The Scientific Method and The Workings of Creation

I get really annoyed when some people seem to think that science is ‘the answer to everything’. That if we only use science we’ll be fine. It is not like that. Thinking this makes science nothing more than another religion. Firstly, we have to distinguish between ‘science’ and ‘the scientific method’. Today, when we talk about ‘science’ we mostly think about ‘natural science’. In the beginning, though, ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’ was often used interchangeably.

Science, in today’s terms, does not have the answers to everything, and what science does have the answer to isn’t always correct. This have been proven over and over again over the millennia. Even a scientific ‘proof’ have to be believed by other scientists and society at large to be true. And even then, it might be disproved later.

There are also several different directions within the different fields within the scientific community, where some scientists agree upon one thing, while others agree upon something else. Thus, science doesn’t give any homogenous picture of the world, and is not as ‘all knowing’ as some people might believe. The scientific community, where ‘science’ comes from, is just like the rest of society, with a lot of compartments and prestige. They also live in a high degree within a created ‘paradigm’, where some things are ok to say and write, while others are taboo.

What is science, really? Commonly, philosophy isn’t regarded as ‘science’, since it deals with ‘non-provable’ concepts, deriving ‘science’ from a definition that everything has to be ‘provable’ according to a certain set of criteria. Still, I would argue that you can not have science without philosophy. Often times I hear so called scientists, highly regarded ones also, speak about ‘the age of the universe’, or ‘the distance from the earth to this or that galaxy’, measured in lightyears.

This is the same as being an ant and try to say something about the size of the planet, or even the forest it is in. It climbs up in the tallest tree and tries to look as far as possible and comes up with a measurement unit to measure the size of the forest. ‘Tree’s’ is say’s. The forest consists of so and so many trees, and this is it’s size. To me, this is humans trying to measure the ‘size of the universe’.

To say that the universe even has an age is philosophy. For it to have an age, you have to have time, and space. And you have to believe that everything you see around you actually is real, that it actually exists ‘out there’. All the physicists I’ve seen speak takes this for granted. And this is really a HUGE thing to take for granted. To build all your science upon something that you actually don’t know for sure.

A galaxy is like a rock. A rock lies there, apparently still and unmoving. A galaxy also seems to by ‘lying there’, apparently still and unmoving. Still here on earth we experience that the days and years go by from the earth’s rotation around itself and around the sun. According to scientists the earth moves around itself in the speed of about 1000 miles per hour. Hm, I use the metric system, so I would say about 1,600 km/h. Miles, kilometers, hours. It’s all created by us, by ‘scientists’.

Back to the rock that ‘lies there’. We now know that inside that rock there are atoms and particles that move around in infinite speeds. Thus, it’s not as ‘still’ as it looks like. We are in the middle of that rock, experiencing our lives. From the outside, there seems to be no movement, while being on the inside, you experience all kinds of movement. So, what is time? And what is space? These are not externally verifiable units. Time and space is subjective and experienced. Thus, everything that has been said about ‘the age of the universe’ and the ‘distance between stars’ is made up. It is fantasy. It is created in the minds of the scientists, trying to understand their experiences.

How can you know anything around you is real? The answer is; You can’t. We are creating this world as we experience it.

Science is, as stated, far from something homogenous. Science is very diverse, and there are many types of sciences.

The scientific method, on the other hand, now that is probably a better yardstick to go by, than ‘science’.

So, what is the scientific method? There are several methods within science. But the most common one is described as ‘the hypothetic deductive method’.  This method starts with a question, hypothesis or theory, and from that question one deduces certain logical consequences that are testable and verifiable by others. After testing one draws conclusions and determine whether the theory is true or false. It’s a pretty simple and straight forward method, and it is the method that have been utilized to build the world we have today. It is good and sound and gives answers to many things.

Still, it is highly dependent of the creativity of the researcher. The questions asked and theories derived can only be as good and deep as the mindset and ability of the scientist. A scientist with a closed mind gets one type of results, while a scientist with an open mind gets another type of results. It has been proven many times that different scientist with different theories about the same subject gets different results when testing. They get results supporting their own theory.

And this leads us to quantum physics. Science have gotten so far now, that the most open minded (and even a good deal of the closed minded ones too) now acknowledges that we, humans, are affecting the world around us, simply by being in it, thinking, feeling, talking, acting and having an intent. And this is proven in many experiments in several fields. It is proven that when particles are observed, they are influenced by the observer.

We are all co-creating this universe through our own thoughts. Even though scientists have researched, tested, researched and tested again, trying to seek out the truth, thinking, and thinking again, they haven’t thought about the one thing that obviously plays a big part in this: Thought itself. Now, though, even science, is acknowledging this. That our thoughts and our intent is crucial to the results we get.

So, what does this all mean? If science per se is not the answer to everything, then what is?

We are.

We are the ones who are creating everything through our minds, desires, intents, thoughts, feelings, words and actions. Not science. Not religion. Not money. Not God.

We.

So, we have to ask ourselves: What do we want, then? What kind of world do we really want?

Sure, we can take the scientific method and use it for what it’s worth. We can listen to science, but not make a religion out of it. We can listen to religions but not be blinded by it. We can listen to spirituality and not be overtaken by it.

But most of all, we can listen to our selves. Build up trust in our selves. Because we all have the same ability to give answers than anyone else. Not in the same fields, maybe, but that’s not the point. We all have the same ability to create. We are all creators by default. Because simply by thinking, experiencing and acting in this world, we create. We can not not create. It is impossible. Every interpretation of something is a creation. Every step is a creation. Every movement is a creation on some level. Every thought is a creation. And what you think about yourself creates yourself. And what we think about the world creates the world.

Now is the time for co-creation and trust in ourselves. We create by choosing consciously what we want to focus on. What we focus on we get more of. And the only limit is our imagination. If it can be imagined, it can be created.

So let’s imagine the world we want and create it together. This is what it is all about. Putting our trust to ‘science’ is again putting our trust to someone or something outside of ourselves, just like we’ve done with religion for so many years.

Now, the turn has come to us. And when I say ‘us’, I mean all of us. You, me, scientists, artists, everyone. We are the ones who now will create this world and our future together. And it will happen by someone proposing suggestions to what the future can be like, to what our society can be like, and we will all take more or less part in giving feedback, coming up with new creations, tweaking and developing.

The one major new idea we have before us now is a society without money. Even the greatest scientists of the times seems to have taken money and the monetary system for granted. For something that has had to be there, like air. Something that it has been impossible to be without.

Now has the time come to imagine a world without this thing called ‘money’, and without the usual notions of ‘ownership’ and ‘property’. And we are now faced with the challenge of imagining and creating how this world will work and how we can move from where we are now to where we want to be. ‘Science’ alone will not get us there, but using it as the tool it is, I highly recommend.

All this said, I think this guy deepens my point:

YouTube Preview Image

A Desert Island

This article is extracts from a longer discussion on The World Freedom Demo group on Facebook.

You might also want to read the post ‘Will a Resource Based Economy Work?‘, for a more in depth look at RBE.

Picture a group of 100 people on a desert island. They only have what nature provides. There are no banks and no money.

What will be most efficient and meaningful to do?

1. To establish a ‘monetary system’ where everyone gets ‘points’ or ‘promissory obligations’ based on how much they contribute, and have one part of the population manage this system. Still, they would get in trouble when one person says, ‘I spent all day fishing! I deserve a full day’s wage!’, while the other one say’s ‘But you didn’t catch any fish! I, on the contrary spent all day building bungalows, I deserve a full day’s wage, not him!’, while the third person say’s ‘I’ve been sitting and thinking all day, coming up with much better solutions on both building bungalows AND catching fish! I deserve 3 day’s of wages!’, while the 4th person say’s ‘I have been working my ass of managing our monetary system! I deserve a weeks wages!’. No matter if there is interest or not interest on the money, one would have to establish the worth of all the different activities and ‘products’. How to one really do that? Of course, supply and demand, which really is totally manipulatable. One day one guy picks all the bananas and say’s ‘I picked all the bananas, now you have to buy them from me’. And of course, in a matter of days, they rot, the others get’s pissed, war is inevitable.

or

2. Skip the whole monetary system, get out of their egos and simply contribute where it is needed. And of course, not everyone will be fit to do everything, so the ones who WANT’S to fish and are good at it, they fish. Those who WANT’S to cook and are good at it, they cook. Those who WANT’S to sit and think out better solutions to stuff and share that with the other, do that. And everyone needs places to sleep, so everyone contributes to building bungalows. And yes, there might be discussions and arguments about what works best, who did what and how much. But then again, we are talking about THE EGO’s here, the ones ALL OF US have to get out of. In any case, they won’t have to toil with a monetary system on top of it. It is much much easier for them to simply be humble, helpful and creative and cooperate in building the best world they can for each other there on the island. In fact, they are already living in a paradise with free bananas and coconuts, fish and more. And interacting with this wonderful world and each other gives them tremendous joy. Non of them would ever think of hoarding bananas or fish, to sell to each other later. This would be meaningless. And of course, non of them would claim any of the others beds as ‘theirs’. They would live in a gift economy where no accounts are made on ‘who did what’. Everyone has a conscience that feels if one has been lazy for too long, others will start to grumble and say ‘get of your ass’!

The monetary system is BASED on egoism and indoctrination to a scarcity mindset. It is based on greed. It is based on an illusion. It is based on keeping the population brainwashed as to what is really relevant and necessary in the world. We live in a paradise. But the paradise has been corrupted by money and property.

People DO contribute as needed in many many many many many cases without monetary reward every single day on this planet. The family is one example, where one might cook dinner, while the other is washing clothes. There’s no money or ‘promissory obligations’ involved. Another example would be volunteers on a project, where some might plant trees, while others spread mulch. And true friends help friends every day for free. www.doctorswithoutborders.org/ is a good example of where doctors and nurses contribute as needed without any monetary incentive. A lot of software we have today has been made free of charge. Wikipedia is another example of people who do contribute as needed, where thousands of article writers all over the world share their knowledge for free. And these examples are only a tiny fraction of the millions of people volunteering every day all over the planet in countless projects and fields. If you don’t call that ‘contribute as needed’, I don’t know what is. To me this is outstanding proof that a resource based economy not only will work, but actually is working as we speak.

When it comes to tools and property, I think you misunderstand, Mike. No property doesn’t mean no tools. Why should it mean that? Let’s go back to the desert island again. Every tool they make and use there is of course shared with the ones who need them. The guy who made an axe from a rock, a stick and some straw of course lends his axe to the next person when needed. Why wouldn’t he? And of course, he also teaches others to make the same type of axe. The same goes for the fishing rod, the trunk canoe, the fibre rope, the ladder, the cutting tools and the paddle.

Now, sharing tools is a highly relevant topic in regards to RBE, and to make our world much more efficient and sustainable. If we all had shared a lot of our ‘tools’ (cars, boats, power drills, golf equipment, skis, etc.) instead of each one owning them, we could have managed with a lot less ‘tools’, and thus with a lot less production and strain on the environment. Not to speak of that we would ALL HAVE AN ABUNDANCE OF TOOLS. Instead of one measly drill or an old car we would instead share top super quality items. So, ‘no property’ doesn’t mean ‘no tools’. Quite the contrary. It means much more efficient use of tools. Also, instead of trying to minimize the cost of producing super cheap tools like power drills and such that have a short life span, we could have made only the best possible tools in all areas, lasting many many times longer, since we now would only need a fraction of them. But of course, our monetary system is based on continuous consumption, so to optimize production like this would mean the loss of too many jobs. This might be a bit better with MPE, but a certain amount of continuous consumption must always be there with a monetary system.

You’re right about EGO, though. Ego is not the only reason people do or don’t contribute. Their upbringing and environment is another, just as important, reason. What one is taught to do from childhood is paramount in this regard. And yes, this has nothing to do with ego, but simply how one is ‘programmed’ to think from day one in one’s life. MPE might be a brilliant ‘first step’ to alleviate us all from the devastating banking system and introduce a more human and actually functioning economic system. And we might stick with the ‘MPE’ system for several decades. Still, in the end, a moneyless system is not only possible, but it is the most stress free, natural, uncomplicated and most desirable system we can implement on the planet. When you think about it.