Video trailer and another short video that helps sum up main thoughts of movie.
THRIVE lifts the veil on what's REALLY going on in our world by following the money upstream -- uncovering the global consolidation of power in nearly every aspect of our lives. Weaving together breakthroughs in science, consciousness and activism, THRIVE offers real solutions, empowering us with unprecedented and bold strategies for reclaiming our lives and our future.
Podcast 102 - http://www.richsoil.com/permaculture/637-podcast-102-thrive/ - Length 1:24 download thrive podcast Paul Wheaton and Jocelyn Campbell review the film, Thrive download thrive podcast --at http://www.archive.org/download/WheatonPermaculture102Thrive/wheaton-permaculture-102-thrive.mp3
Direct Link: http://hines.blogspot.com/2012/01/thrive-what-on-earth-will-it-take.html
Reddit Links for comments:
Regards to all,
Hines Farm Blog
If anyone is interested, my husband found on the interenet a PDF download for: "The Practical Guide To 'Free-Energy' Devices," by Patrick J. Kelly. It is a V-E-R-Y long read, but for people who like that kind of thing...it is out there and available.
I have about the same assessment of movie, mostly good, but some things I personally question.
I went looking for link you referred to "The Practical Guide To 'Free-Energy' Devices," by Patrick J. Kelly
I found link and have made a blog post - http://hines.blogspot.com/2012/01/free-energy-devices-patrick-j-kelly.html , so it easy to find links to complete set of articles.
Full Site is a wonderful resource... a very technical site... a source for diving into what intrigues you... but beware of marketing schemes concerning these sometimes unproven technologies !
Thanks for pointing us to Patrick J. Kelly
History of perpetual motion machines - Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines
Free energy suppression - Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression
Podcast 102 - http://www.richsoil.com/permaculture/637-podcast-102-thrive/ - Length 1:24 download thrive podcast Paul Wheaton and Jocelyn Campbell review the film, Thrive download thrive podcast
I share your concerns. I wonder about : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity of the film covering so many topics...
Objectivity (frame invariance)
Objectivity in historiography
SuperConsciousness Magazine Article
Interview with Foster Gamble
Author: Jair Robles
Note: http://www.thrivemovement.com/ is advertising with SuperConsciousness Magazine
To make sense of the energy issues, it's helpful to separate:
Re whether it's possible: most or all of these "free energy" claims would require rewriting almost all of what scientists have learnt about physics in the last century. Note also that Tesla's comments about free energy were speculative (suggestions that he had a working device aren't backed up by anything I can find) and were made at a time when we know a lot less about physics.
Re doing thorough assessments, note for example this assessment of recent free energy claims by someone called Rossi - assessment made by Ian Bryce, a good guy and sharp thinker I know in Sydney. (Podcast.) There are many claims that people discovered free energy devices, then we don't hear any more. Maybe it's because "men in black" turn up and heavy or kill the inventors (which requires a major conspiracy). Or maybe it's because they couldn't continue to run the experiments in such a way as to pass muster with critical scientists. (Echoes of Project Alpha.)
You also mentioned police enforcing the will of the elites and pointed out that they're hardly likely to be part of the conspiracy - rather, they're just required to do their job. I'd go further and say that they don't even need to be pushed hard to adopt these hardline attitudes to protesters. Note the disturbing Stanford Prison Experiment (A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment). Extending that idea a little, enforcers can very quickly come to identify with the interests of those whose rules they're enforcing.
Haven't finished the podcast yet - just wanted to share those thoughts.
paul wheaton wrote:I think this might be the full movie
Watched it from end to end.... not sure that the video was needed as it was all audio... could just as easy been printed text for that matter. I find it interesting that the solution suggested by the film, is in a form that Paul has already found doesn't work and that differs from the way that this forum is run just as an example.
Conspiracy or not, (and I would suggest there is even if the form of it is not quite as described) the solution as presented here has not worked in the past and is in this organization obviously not being followed. The author seems to think to replace one leader with another. He is suggesting to join his organization, to get involved. At the end of the film they are very careful to point out that none of the people they interviewed believe in things exactly the same way as they do. I noticed that the examples that are working are not based on any umbrella organization, but are just local people stepping out of depending on big money and doing things in their own way. I do think individuals can make a difference, at least in their own lives by removing their dependence loans and utilities to live. By deciding not to need what we are told we need.
Interesting take, not sure I completely agree that we aren't "ready for it." I would love a compressed air tractor and free refrigeration.
This movie has some salient points and what seems to me to be questionable attachments.
I am guessing the world domination aspect has some appeal to the dictator of this forum (i haven't listend to that podcast yet)
And their solutions offered discuss the utility of the internet and websites such as this to "infect brains" in a "terminal" capacity -- for the better.
It seems the focus on power accumulation in monetary systems, energy production and food resources are directly addressed in Mollison's big black book, without the finger wagging at the bad guys. So, the movie seems to have some parallel points of focus as permaculture.
The movie talks about some of the superpower families, and interestingly, I have heard Mollison mention that he has taught 3 generations of Carnegies (who have a huge, treeless tract of land in Oklahoma or somewhere around there) about permaculture and they have done nothing with the info -- hmmm, I wonder why given their resources?
It seems really difficult to discuss this movie w/out discussing politics.
Tom Davis wrote:I heard a well known permaculturist state that humanity is not "evolved" to a point where free energy would be a good thing. The rationale offered was, look at the destruction we have spread given the financial cost of current energy.
Interesting take, not sure I completely agree that we aren't "ready for it." I would love a compressed air tractor and free refrigeration.
That is indeed a very interesting philosophical point. One that I had not thought about.
However, you could say that burdon of energy is what keeps the minions in order, so would free energy free the minions?
This is a strictly philosophical post. I haven't even watched the video yet. I just wanted to comment on what I thought was an interesting post.
You have to be freakin' KIDDING us!
I just have to assume the inclusion of this "film" in one of your recent daily-ish e-mail posts was some sort of April Fool's joke... and the part about people no longer having to PAY to see this ridiculous piece of trash really got me going! I'll have to go back and see the actual date this came out.... must be -- must be an April Fools joke, right?
Even WORSE -- or maybe that makes it an even better joke (?) -- there appear to be a few people on this message-board who seem to be taking this nut-job seriously... Seriously
Whenever we get into a deep dark conspiracy theory I get cautiously aroused, but then you throw in free energy (as if that would even be a good thing!), and I get very close to infinitely skeptical at something approaching the speed of light. Watching the first few minutes I realized that this Gamble doofus has not a single clue what actual science is, and sets out to prove that his bizarre idea was true, looking the world over for the evidence... Sorry, folks, that is simply not how science is done at all! To promote such crap is to do great harm to actual science, such as the real science that is doing its best to warn us of the perils of Global Climate Change, and having not much luck, due to stooooopid mis-information campaigns (a la Faux News, et al), and simpleton garbage like this Foster Gamble trash.
For a far more complete review of all the failings of this nut-job, new-age, anti-science garbage, see the review by none other than the grand sage of all things Transition related, Mr. Rob Hopkins himself : http://transitionculture.org/2012/01/09/film-review-why-thrive-is-best-avoided/ Rob's writing and speaking are always first-rate, and this review is no exception.
I have to admit, I didn't get to the end of the movie (horror show?) where the nefarious corporate conspiracy stuff was revealed -- I was far too nauseated by the anti-science, Star Trek floating chair, wishful thinking, hokey, free-energy toroid stuff to watch all the way to the end, so I have learned that Rob Hopkins has a seriously tough constitution, since his review implies that he got all the way to the bitter end -- the part with the neo-libertarian Steve Forbes-styled "utopia" where there are no taxes.... Now, what makes you think a stupendously wealthy fella would like that?
Having a good laugh even 3 weeks later -- thanks for the side-splitter, Paul!
Brad Vietje wrote:OK, Paul,
You have to be freakin' KIDDING us!
I just have to assume the inclusion of this "film" in one of your recent daily-ish e-mail posts was some sort of April Fool's joke...
I share your opinion of the movie, Brad. Perhaps Paul is testing us, to see if we're on our toes?
it reminds me of the bajillionaires who all of the sudden decide to adopt zen and eschew possessions, but have multiple houses and fly first class.
as cooky as some of his "questionable attachments" may seem to me, I still see some parallels with permaculture in that he is attempting to get people to move in a new direction.
whatever works -- if this guy gets people to see that alternatives exist, or might exist, it seems his message is of benefit.
even if his free energy stuff works -- I think a trompe is infinitely more elegant and has verifiable large scale use.
btw, has anyone ever tried to find a book in a library that discusses trompes?
it's an interesting exercise.
Anyhow, I really support Paul's opening premise that whatever avenue you take, and however wacky they seem at first, if you look at it long and sometimes hard enough, all roads naturally lead to Permaculture and consciously living well with less consumption, and less consumerism -- my paraphrase, but that's what I remembered, and I'd vote for that!
However nice and benign Mr. Gamble seems to be, I think Paul is being too kind in suggesting that while we may need a tin foil hat to take this guys BS, that it's harmless and an interesting thought experiment, and why not be inclusive of divergent views, and welcome all comers to the tent of Permaculture and all things Transition.
Here's my take: if Foster Gamble arrived at my door next week or next decade, I'd welcome him in, feed and house him if he needed it, and if he wanted to help us raise food and manage our homestead, he'd be most welcome. As a person, he's probably a terrifically nice guy.
My bitch with his "movie" basically boils down to two larger issues:
1. This is not benign and harmless pseudo-science, it is completely antithetical to science; it is anti-science. Acceptance of this sort of batshit-crazy drivel brainwashes people to accept all manner of hokey and completely unsubstantiated notions -- in his case, utter nonsense -- as actual science. Let's remember, and let's get this straight: science does not require "belief"; rather, it requires the acceptance of evidence that can be verified and repeated. Belief is the realm of religion, not science. When someone asks me if I "believe in Climate Change", they are pointing out a real problem in our larger society. Mr. Gamble may have no connections to the Koch brothers, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdock and all those involved in the dis-information campaign to keep people from seeing the terrible truth of (human caused) Global Climate Change, but in the end, they are all taking our eyes off the ball, and diluting -- some might suggest poisoning -- the actual science of the matter. The net result is that we keep breeding like little bunnies, and we keep using great gobs of energy without taking responsibility for the damage we inflict all around us, and in the assumption that some brilliant engineer will teach us how to "solve" the energy crisis through I-pads and slick technology. Thus, we (and I do not mean Permies here, but the wider brain-dead cultures in which we find ourselves embedded) fiddle while the whole freakin' planet burns. Sorry kiddo's, this guy is simply crazy.
2. What if we DID find an infinite source of clean, renewable, even cosmic energy... would that be a solution to any problems we currently face? Since our current paradigm is to kill everything and everyone that gets between us and our fossil fuels, I suppose we might be able to call back the Marines, and re-think the whole military domination of the planet, but the odds of that happening are pretty small! Would Donny Rumsfeld, Maggie Thatcher and their ilk want to live in a just and egalitarian non-violent world like some alien creatures on Star Trek? Not so likely. So, we currently have around 7.5 BILLION people, and the trends point to 10 billion, then 12 billion, then -- well, don't worry, we won't be here long enough to get any higher than that. We have a world-wide economic system predicated on infinite growth of population, consumption, production and wealth on a FINITE planet with FINITE resources. Your reference to Chris Martensen's Crash Course in the podcast is spot-on, BTW. The carrying capacity of the Earth is around 1.8 - 2.2 billion, and we have somewhere around 4 times that number. Completely ignoring Peak Oil and Climate Change, we gotta get to a much smaller population if we intend to survive very far into the future. Throw in all the climate disruption we've already caused, and the feedback loops already triggered, and we're toast.
At this point, evidence suggests that having more energy available to us would only allow us to continue to overpopulate the planet, while causing the extinction of every living thing around us. It would most likely allow us to stop focusing on the terrifying implications of Climate Change (Climate Chaos, as Guy McPherson calls it), and blithely ride into the sunset until we complete our mission of suicide by gluttony... I'm not convinced that "free energy" -- from any source -- would be a very good thing at all.
Why not open our eyes to see the damage we've created already, and derail this omnicidal express locomotive while there's still a slim chance for human survival. Let's all learn to live with LESS energy, not more, and with FEWER people. The alternative is certain: near-term human extinction -- along with all the other mammals on the planet. Nice.
Footnote on science: Many have vilified science itself as the root of all evil, such as nuclear power, nuclear weapons, or terrible biologic weapons. These are very real issues we have to deal with, but these are caused by evil people, perhaps even evil scientists, but not by science. Science is a way of thinking, a method of answering questions, and this is usually expressed as a careful and calculated search for cause and effect based on observation and experimentation. Science itself does not cause animals to be tortured testing drugs or "beauty" products, but rather, some people have chosen to use scientific methods to do evil or unkind things. These are problems of our wider society and culture, such as placing a high value on wearing fur coats or animal skins, and not caused by science. The problem is that we desperately need science to help us figure out how to survive this awful mess we've created, and anti-science teaches us to look to all sorts of utter nonsense that just takes our eyes off the real issues.
Oh Dear, ...Sorry Paul! Looks like I pegged your aggressive and over-the-top jerk-poster meter... OOPS! I humbly apologize.
I've probably spent too much time responding to aggressive threads and trolls over at Grist, which can get out of hand, and got my knickers in a twist before perusing the Permies forums. Just 2 days ago I was complaining about the aggressive and personal attacks on a thread at Grist, so I can actually be sensitive to these issues.
As someone who's had 2 different careers in science so far, I get a little cranky when someone pretends to do science while espousing something that is not in the least based in science, the scientific method, or verifiable "facts"or data collected objectively. Perhaps I anointed myself the "Defender of Science" the way Superman was the defender of truth, justice, and the American Way (which now seems like he worked for the CIA or FBI or NSA!), so I'll climb down off the soapbox.
I'll be sure to play nice and share the sandbox, and keep my sanctimonious attitude in check.
The most important thing about this movie: something that I think people who buy science flags by the case should note in this movie, is that I think they did a really good job of qualifying their statements. Something that many scientists and engineers seem to forget.
There is a huge amount of stuff in this movie that I don't agree with. And, at the same time, I find that myself thinking back to this movie a lot.
And the fact that they took the time to carefully qualify their statements puts this move ahead of a lot of bullshit peer reviewed studies in my book.
8% of the stuff done under the banner of "science" is stuff that I think is "good science".