Zeitgeist: Addendum and The Venus Project hoaxOctober 8, 2008
View the Zeitgeist film at the bottom of this post. The Venus Project assumes there can be an abundance of everything. That is simply not true. Technology can make many things abundant and the film discusses energy in great detail, but that is hardly everything. Human demand is limitless, it’s simply not possible for 6 billion people to each live in a 5000 square foot mansion with attached private beach on the Florida coast. We live in a finite world and I am simply not convinced that even the base assumption proselytized by this film is realistic. In fact, it appears to be terribly flawed and reminiscent of discredited communist rhetoric. The creator of this film doesn’t seem to understand the difference between money and currency. Money is not the paper bills we use as a medium to exchange goods and services, money is a store of purchasing power that is represented by currency. Eliminating currency will not eliminate crime and corruption because the purpose of greed in a free market capitalist system was never to get more money but to get the stuff money can buy. As long as there is stuff there will always be ways to acquire it, and thus, money. In the absence of currency perhaps power and influence become the new money, isn’t that much worse? If the intent is to achieve a more equitable distribution of stuff, and you believe that is desirable, it’s ironically much easier for that to be accomplished with currency. In reality when resources become abundant, money does not lose value, it gains value as it allows you to consume much more. Everybody who has money would LOVE to see an abundance of resources for all humanity. The problem is not the money, it’s the debt. If people could afford everything they wanted they would stop borrowing to consume and put the banks out of business. The reason capitalism discourages the selling of products until abundance is not because of a hatred of humanity, it’s because the capital required to fund those businesses could be better used to increase the supply of something else that is more in need of investment. How do we know that? By looking at prices! Take away the price system and you will have no way to know what the people want. You would need yet another corruptible “democratic” election process or a dictator to make decisions on your behalf. Here again the problem is not capitalism or profit, it’s debt. When money is cheap people no longer compete for scarce savings to maximize the efficiency of the money supply, they just build whatever the hell they want without regard for sustainability through profit because debt by inflation is always available from the banks. That creates inequality and poverty. In the new proposed system, if resources were cheap or freely available to everyone just as currency is today, competing projects would also have no incentive to maximize the efficient use of those resources. Everyone with influence (money) would support whichever pet projects provide maximum benefit to themselves. What’s the difference? When currency runs out, more is printed. When money runs out, prices adjust. When resources run out, what then? The biggest corrupting pyramid scheme of them all is not even the creation of currency through debt, it’s how the newly created currency is distributed. With the Venus Project, as the first 100 units of some new technology become available, how will it be distributed? Who gets it first? The delivery of technology necessitates the creation of some sort of order or class system just as it does with currency. There will still be a hierarchy of people making the decisions and a hierarchy of people benefiting from them. Today the people who use the newly created debt currency first benefit the most, in the new proposed system the people who get the newly created technology first benefit the most. They could even trade their privileges like a commodity for other stuff, like that prime Florida real estate that’s still scarce. Please don’t pretend real estate as currency is some novel idea. Who will design and build the machines and how will they be compensated? Pretending people will continue to work without compensation by blaming capitalist propaganda is a cop-out. Will you just give them even more of the stuff that is already in abundance, or perhaps some exclusive stuff that only the contributors enjoy? Would they not just trade those things like any other currency? Who will make sure the machines are not used for the benefit of one person or another, if there is no state or law? Who will prevent organized crime from cornering the market of still scarce primary materials? The problem with our current system, as with any other, is not one of money. The people “behind the curtain” as they are often called do not need more money — they already have control over the printing press — what motivates them is power. A resource based system does not eliminate that desire, if anything it enhances the power elite by making it difficult for ordinary people to protect themselves with savings. In our current system, power is achieved by the manipulation of currency people believe is money. It is possible to take away the currency and the power yet maintain an honest money free market capitalist system. The people in control have already had everything in abundance for generations and this utopia has never been their experience, what makes you think this project will be any different with the masses? The cry of “this time it will be different” is as shallow as ever, it’s not different, it’s never different. It has never been different and it never will be. People would find other things to fight about: sex, gossip, art, fashion, music, etc. There is no way I will ever buy into this experiment on a global scale without at least a trace of plausibility. The only way for this system to be functional is to abandon its principles from the outset since without some new religion to indoctrinate the people with its new philosophy the idea is pure fantasy. There are too many comments below for visitors to follow the discussion, please use the new forum. Zeitgeist: Addendum
395 Comments » |
(42 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...
you make some very excellent points and this was definitely the counter i was looking for after seeing the movie.
however, it doesn’t change the entertainment value or feeling of hope that they could be correct. as they stated as well as something i have always acknowledged about the world; all new ideas/revolutions have been rejected by society until they are proven plausible.
it really could all be bullshit and not work, but apparently so is our current system.
the biggest obstacle is overcoming propaganda (of all kinds) and the elite who are truly in control of everything. I don’t see how anyone could deny these two things exist.
i think the importance of the films exposure of the current enforced perpetual debt system is the real issue and there are a lot of alternatives to this, (the venus project is but one)
monetary organisation in its current form can only be described as organised enslavement,
you dont do anyone any favours by drawing attention to what it gets wrong- most people seem to be accepting of the current state of affairs without understanding how truly evil they are,
it is the current establishments line to always claim the free market economy is the only way for humans to trade, if you are intelligent enough to understand the current economic system and use it to your advantage you are obviously going to play along and rubbish any new ideas, anyone who is quoting alan greenspan as some sort of authority in the current climate needs a kick in the teeth in my opinion.
referring to that quote what exactly is “primitive” about barter? oh of course it bypasses the percentage men doesnt it, i bet you do alright mate with your economic “wisdom” of course, or is this “wisdom” just a brow beaten complicity with the current system now youve got your own little stack?
id rather have anarchy than organised enslavement at least then you would be able to call a thief a thief as opposed to an economic consultant or merchant banker!
could i draw your attention to the barter card that seems to be doing very well and is far from primitive.
you are very right however concerning the earths finite resources but the current system already assumes an infinite resource mountain though in its gearing for “growth”! and if this growth is not maintained the system collapses as it has just done- at least these alternatives wouldnt be geared for power accumulation but for sharing of resources.
can i recommend the recent articles that appeared in the new scientist -pertaining to how the current economies assumption that this “growth” is acceptable is essentially heading for massive environmental collapse, a sustainable economy i couldnt give two figs about, a sustainable human existence is of far more importance.
the economys new purpose should be to bring this into existence not to perpetuate this myth of living standard improvements/ new technology etc.
fact: If everyone on the planet were to enjoy the living standards of an average american we would need around fifteen earths to provide them with this.
madness -destruction of our planet just so everyone can have a car and coffee maker.
i dont drive, i dont travel, i grow my own food and live in a tent i would happily put up with no medical care and a small amount of electricity maybe if it means my descendants in a thousand years can have the same small mercies, why do we need new technology? mainly to support the technologies weve already become accustomed to! as a species we need to slow down or just give it up as a bad job and if the latter is the case then we should share out the ferraris and sea bass equally.
oh and by the way greed is evil, it seems all economists always factor greed into economic reasoning when most people arent evil or greedy they just live in a society that rewards evil greedyness.
like it or lump it, socialism is what we are destined to end up with- capitalism was just an artificial growth spurt, a mass delusional concept to bring about what is slowly reverting to some sort of educated and abundant communism.
bye comrades.
Call me greedy, but I don’t want to live in a tent. I have worked too hard to get where I am, and wouldn’t want my children to undergo the hell I lived through. I want to give them the choice of pursuing art vs science and not the choice between foraging vs starvation.
Unfortunately, I believe you are right. Socialism is where we will end up. Elites handing out scraps to the commons. Humans by nature are greedy. If we weren’t the species wouldn’t be here. “Survival of the fittest” is polite and scientific way of saying “survival of the most selfish.” Study nature and you will see this is true (alpha vs gamma). Those that seek power will ultimately get it. This is why socialism becomes oppressive, even though it was started with them most benevolent intent
i just want to give one example about how stupid our system is. A simple one.
We have in cities portion of land that are allocated to a green space. We grow grass and trees and decorative flowers. In the same time we have population of homeless and families living under the poverty line. Grass! why do we grow grass and not vegetables and fruits? And trees that bare fruits. This is for me not a green space but an environmental waste and disaster.
And finally communism was also a monetarist system read Das Capital from Karl Marx. He had a problem with a privilege elitist monetary system but not a collective one. We could say that he was one of the ongoing evolution that is part of the venus project. About the idea that we are naturally selfish and nature is. I can give you many example were species help each other and form very strong relations were their survival depends on it. Nature is not that straight forward. Open your eyes and go to your garden and you will see many relations. Example bees and flowers and many many others.
The Zeitgeist documemtary could have gone in to more depth with regards to how to culturally change humans from the having mode into the being mode (read Erich Fromm for clarifications of the two modes). However it is possible and it has to be gradually. We should not reject a new idea so quickly, debate, work on it and pass it on and we may have an alternative to the monetarism. The Zeitgeist film has been produced by one man and has made us debate….The smallest creation is more worth then the greatest words.
remember guys, we are only as free as our purchasing power.
who needs a fucking 5000 foot square house with a private beach. Some stinking capitalist monetarist scumbag
and i agree completely with you on this, because as soon as “the venus project” came up i was like,
really this is a freakin joke!!
talk about a new world order…only with benifits!!
and those of us who don’t by it, well then what happens too all of us???
everybody needs to wake up!
someone is living in fear what peter joseph is promoting is a better world ur all scared idiots.
listen to his point if we werent spending money on war we could be living in “eutopia” so to speak
its not perfect just better.
and its completely plausible
(Excuse me, for my bad English, but try to bare with me)
“they want power. A resource based system does not eliminate that desire”
Actually, now you miss the point. The point is, that if everyone has everything they need, there is no way that someone can affect others by more resources/money. True “democracy” in this way can be archived trough direct decisions, without representatives. With representatives and scarcity, there is always a problem with bribery of some kind. Few men can be bribed, millions cant.
“If resources become abundant, money does not lose value, it gains value as it allows you to consume much more.”
You are wrong here. Money is means to exchange scare resources. If resources are unlimited, there is no need for money. Key to unlimited resources is energy. If energy is practically free and clean, you can pretty much do anything with it.
The assumption that people will consume insanely if they have the means, is pretty much false too. One doesn’t eat or drink more than he needs. You cannot play more than one PSP at the time. One could argue that, “What about land? Space is limited, there is no way that everyone can have x number of mansions and beach houses?”. Well yes, that is true, but one cannot be more than one place at the time. In true democracy, where everyone can vote without other pressures (food, income, security, etc.) but space, that will be divided evenly quite fast. By default, people doesn’t want to be alone. That will drive people to cities, and in cities, there is no way, that everyone can have mansions. That is the reality, and it is hard to believe that people wouldn’t adjust to that. But in this system people could book a beach house for them selves.
One thing though should be issued, is the class system, what this system will inevitable will create / uphold. But, as sad it is, not everyone are smart nor no one knows everything about everything. By this reality of matters, there will be class. Some just are smarter than others. But that is the way it should be. Why should a voice from a man who has spent his life playing video games count in the matter (let’s say) of nano-technology? Or other matters outside of his/her experience? Of course it shouldn’t. Of course people who contribute most to society, will gain at least, more respect and fame than others. If that will create better accommodation or faster way to get technology, so be it. It is very small price to pay, if compared to current system.
First of all, thank you for the thoughtful comment.
“if everyone has everything they need, there is no way that someone can affect others by more resources/money.”
How do you know I have everything I need? Did you ask me, or decide on my behalf? Do I have a choice? What if I want something the committee says is not a priority of the next decade, how will they stop me if I want to build that thing myself, despite their objections? You call that freedom?
Is money the only way to control people’s behavior, have you never heard of intimidation, fear, sex, public relations, and so on? Millions can’t be bribed, tell that to Edward Bernays. Google him. Watch the documentary, “the century of the self”. The people are stupid and can be made to believe anything you want them to believe, you can even convince some of them it’s in their own best interest. Like the Venus Project. “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” I will not be fooled.
“Money is means to exchange scarce resources. If resources are unlimited, there is no need for money. Key to unlimited resources is energy. If energy is practically free and clean, you can pretty much do anything with it.”
Money is a concept, not an object. It is anything that can be exchanged for something you want, and human desire is unlimited. There will always be something people want beyond what they have, sometimes it’s a physical object and sometimes it’s not. There is no way all of those desires can be satisfied for all people so somebody will always be deprived of something and willing to trade to acquire it, and thus money will never go away. Making stuff abundant is technically the same as making money scarce, you will only make it more valuable by making it more difficult to find items or services that people are willing to accept in exchange for the stuff they trade. And the idea that resources on this planet are unlimited is absolute nonsense. Go watch Chris Martenson’s “Crash Course”. Google that.
“One doesn’t eat or drink more than he needs.”
Have you ever heard of America?
“You cannot play more than one PSP at the time.”
But you can treat your PSP carelessly because you know if you lose it or break it another one will be available at no cost. Rich people crash their hundred thousand dollar sports cars all the time. The idea that people with an abundance of things will somehow have the same appreciation for things is unfounded.
“But in this system people could book a beach house for them selves.”
That is slavery to me. How can I be free if you are deciding what I am allowed to own? The idea that anybody can be free in such a society is nonsense.
“Of course people who contribute most to society, will gain at least, more respect and fame than others. ”
And those privileges will be traded just like dollars are today, so you enslaved the entire population and didn’t even accomplish your objective of eliminating money. It’s not possible and it’s unbelievably dangerous. The biggest threat to you or anybody else is centralized power, not money. It’s the people who would decide which technology to build. You may not have officers enforcing legislated laws to fear, but you will have machines enforcing software programmed laws to fear, and you will have no ability to push back. This is a terrible idea.
Point, I think you are my hero.
I like your comment on money:
The problem is that most people don’t know what money realy is, and much less how it works.
Wow. Zeitgeist may skip from point to point but you LEAP from them.
Watch Zeitgeist about 3 or 4 more times and maybe.. just maybe you’ll start to get it. Then re-write this circular-rambling-on of yours.
(First take an intro-journalism course at your local community college.. and remember in our society you have to pay for it.. in the Zeitgeist society you could go to any school and learn for free because it betters all of us to be informed.. the energy used would be geo-thermal and infinite.. and people like you would wake up and stop sucking on that American dream of wealth, power, and prestige)
Dude, I think you’d do better to read the comments on this page 3 or 4 more times
I haven’t actually watched the video, but I’ll do what I can to counter your arguments insofar as I understand them…
1) “I don’t want to believe you!”, huh? That’s nice. Come up with something you could possibly need that wouldn’t be a matter of importance for a decent number of people. Go on, try it. I’m fairly certain you’ll prove unable.
2) More scarcity argumentation. Yeah, sure, resources aren’t technically unlimited, but the idea is that with a virtually inexhaustible source of energy the limited resources can be reused in any number of ways. It’s called “recycling.” Google that.
3) The problem with America isn’t over-consumption, actually. The vast majority of people don’t eat more than they need. The problem is that they eat the wrong things. Now, it is certainly true that America consumes too much in the way of energy, but that’s a matter that has already been covered.
4) What is lost can be found, what is broken can be repaired.
5) It’s slavery? Then I guess you admit that you are currently enslaved by money. Whether or not you get to own a beach house is only a question for the type of people who are adapted to current society.
Also, it’s always possible that advancing technology could make real space irrelevant in the wake of virtual reality–just have a virtual beach house and achieve the same experience.
6) You can trade respect now? That’s a new one. I’d like for you to explain how that would work.
As far as centralized power goes, though, you have a real argument. I don’t really understand how that system is supposed to work just from the exchange in these comments.
“Come up with something you could possibly need that wouldn’t be a matter of importance for a decent number of people.”
I want to watch the world cup finals live. Will all 6 billion people be able to do that? I want to marry Jessica Alba, how will the Venus Project accomplish that? I want to spend every winter on my Mediterranean island. What is your point, exactly?
“It’s called “recycling.” ”
And I suppose you’re going to recycle all the Jessica Alba blow up dolls? It’s an intriguing concept, but I’m not convinced that we can eliminate all consumption of resources entirely, especially not with a growing population. Do you plan on restricting the number of children people can have too? The fact is, much of what this project describes is new infrastructure, like those train tubes at the bottom of the ocean. That’s not meant to be recycled, and unless they cover the globe, they wouldn’t reasonably be able to replace conventional travel.
“The vast majority of people don’t eat more than they need.”
Food is not the point, it was an example. The problem with people in general is that they don’t appreciate something when it is in abundance, they take it for granted. Whatever you provide people for free will be abused.
“What is lost can be found, what is broken can be repaired.”
How will machines find my lost PSP? That’s a scary thought. How will technology repair rotten food?
“Then I guess you admit that you are currently enslaved by money. ”
Personally I am not enslaved by money, but many people are enslaved by many things, including money, but mostly debt. Let’s at least agree to remove those restrictions and limitations rather than adding new ones. Listen, abundant energy would be fantastic. I’m all for it, let’s do it. I’ll even contribute my tax dollars for it. If the technology is as promising as the film suggests, even if it were pursued by a private company the cost of delivery would be so low that it would be practically free anyhow. That would be as revolutionary and productive as the personal computer. But don’t try to decide for me how to use it.
“You can trade respect now?”
You can certainly trade quite a bit of things people consider valuable in an effort to earn respect, of course! You can bribe journalists for a glowing profile in Time magazine, for example. I’m not sure I get your point.
“(a)I want to watch the world cup finals live. Will all 6 billion people be able to do that? (b) I want to marry Jessica Alba, how will the Venus Project accomplish that? (c) I want to spend every winter on my Mediterranean island. What is your point, exactly?”
A. With the current technology, probably not. But in time, I think that would be a possibility. However, you must remember that this is an extreme example, because not everyone’s interests lay in the same things to that degree.
B. That is not what the VP is trying to do. You are making it out to be some sort of society where all your wildest dreams can come true. That is absurd. It is merely saying that by working together in a co-dependent way, we can provide everyone on earth with the essentials they need to live peacefully and happily. It is not something that can control the actions of its citizens. If you want to marry Jessica Alba, you have to try for her love, as would anyone else.
C. The fact that you desire to have your own Mediterranean Island is a direct result of the self-indulged and greed-powered society that is currently established. As I have said in my post from 11-16, this society would be aimed at the good of the public, not personal gain. By helping others, you would be helping yourself, and it would be a continues cycle of giving back to the whole. Citizens is such a society would not be so selfishly minded as you are being here, because society would shun that just as it shuns devoting your life to anything but money and material possessions now. So this would not be a desire anyone who truly supported the system would have, as it takes away from the good of the whole, and amplifies our current unquenchable thirst for more.
Do you ever think that maybe jessica Alba doesn’t want you. That competitive sport is a tool to divide and rule peacefully. Dumbing down billions of men.
and maybe why not sharing your northern dwelling with someone that lives in the mediterranee. You see with a bit of effort and some collective thoughts maybe we can resolve your selfish mode of program.
And by the way your not taking about the concept of the venus project of abundance but about the capitalist myhtical idea of oil resource abundance. it is Again a lie. What you don’t understand. All this idea is about real human social ethics. Respect of human species, respect of the environment and respect of the other species. Not enforced by ideological thinking but by logic and rational thoughts. Open your mind and ask yourself is it worth it or am i not being to self-centred and selfish.
Dear point,
It is my understanding that you seem preoccupied by the fear of loosing your freedom which is enabling you to grasp the true meening of this video. No one is trying to prevent you from marrying Jessica Alba no one is preventing you from spending the winter on an Mediterreanian island. In fact the point being presented is quite the opposite. Every should have the chance of asking for Jessicas hand in marrage as everyone should be able to reahc the med whenever they please. As far as actually marrying Jessica, You cant do that now (and if you can kudos)so what would you be missing in the VP. But lets be realistic, say nessecity declares that in order for everyone to have a home everyones home must be a hundred feet. are you arguing that you would rather have two hundred feet of land and leave someone homeless than simply be happy with what you do have? And yes the population is evergrowing and in response we will take measures to insure everyone remains fed or we will take steps to reduce the population as China is doing today. I understand that these courses of action may take some of your freedom but if its for the better of all living creatures on earth isnt it worth it? Do I really need the freedom to eat or drink myself to death?
Thank you for your comment, I don’t think it’s possible that everyone can visit the Mediterranean whenever they want. The purpose of having a price is to help divide the available resources among the people who really want it. If there were today enough space for everyone who wants to be where I have in mind, the prices would already be practically free. If you eliminate the price, you will not magically create new spaces, someone will have to decide when and where and how and what to build, and the resources to do so would have to managed and allocated to this project or another. It could take 20 years for my project to get on the list. That’s not freedom, that’s like an animal stuck in a cage waiting for his master to come feed him. And the power it would give the people in control, my goodness, it’s unbelievable. What happens if after 20 years of waiting the committee decides my plan is too luxurious and scales it down or removes that one feature I wanted the most, like an indoor pool or something. What would you do if I tried to build my dream despite your objections? It’s communism and tyranny by another name.
About the 200 feet of housing, I don’t want you to decide for me how many feet of housing I need, how many vacations I need, how many apples and bananas I need, how many chocolate bars I need, how many razors I need, or anything else. That is 1984. And I definitely don’t want you to kill every child I choose to have beyond your limit. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what I want, it only matters what will work. Everything can’t be in abundance all the time unless many things sometimes go to waste when patterns change. That’s why we use prices. It’s not to create scarcity, it’s to find equilibrium between producers and consumers and clear the market as efficiently as possible because production is limited, but demand is not. It’s to tell people what needs investment and what doesn’t. If somebody could build a machine that auto-magically mines the ground and builds televisions without any human intervention, there is no reason they couldn’t do such a thing today. What makes you think people will work harder to develop such technology when you force everyone to live in 100 foot homes? These ideas are not new, and they never work.
most of what you say is utter rubbish “thats why we use prices” etc money essentially is an idea that is beginning to use us, we have built a system with human misery and ultimately self destruction inherent within it, the very idea of monetary competetiveness is what has to go and you are using all the arguments that were made for the capitalist system in the first place. ie free flowing money= freedom, competition is healthy, all proven utter tripe in the past 8 weeks alone!
Dave, get a grip. If the last 8 weeks have proven anything it’s that government intervention ultimately leads to destruction of markets. The government created this problem.
http://www.pointbite.com/2008/04/29/the-subprime-crisis-is-not-a-failure-of-market/
It was actually deregulation of the financial system - actually a lack of legal control by government that caused the current flop- or the extreme nature of its bubble bursting at least.
Which actually was exascerbated by the medias insistence on a credit crunch! for months beforehand and the palming off of bad debts for a few years into the portfolios of the unwise.
credit crunch!?! what the feck does that mean anyway? its econopsychobabble- just a propogation of fear i presume,
all this was done in the pursuit of growth,
in the current climate a “healthy” economy is one that grows,
to put it simply -continuous economic growth assumes endless resources, the earth has only so much resource ergo it was going to go tits up at some point, the confidence trick of everyone can have it all has worn out and we reap what we have sown. admittedly we have made technological advancements that would have not been possible otherwise but 40% of the money is in the pockets of 1%, poverty is growing and the skeletons in the closet are beginning to whiff.
a resource based economy is inevitable by hook or crook because of the finite size and resource the earth has to offer, it would however be better if this came about peacably via discussion rather than squeezing the last drops out of an earth and an economy thats had it already.
get a grip? you should wind yer neck in.
“The purpose of having a price is to help divide the available resources among the people who really want it.”
Ooooh, I see your possition very clearly now. You are a friggin nazi!
So, nobody can decide how much land you can have, or how many bananas, but money can decide who REALLY WANTS to visit the Mediterranean? Ha! That, my friend, is fascim. And it’s exactly what we’re talking about here: Keeping the Status Quo of the wealthy elite. You’re clearly a conservative, wealthy, fat, yankee, who doesn’t give a shit about everyone, as long as their comforts remain untouched (you wouldn’t sacrifice one thing for the actual benefit of humanity, or would you? …I didn’t think so)
With this in mind it’s obvious that you didn’t get one single of the points made in the film, cause you were too busy thinking of what you might lose in the change. Well, guess what? change has already begin, and you are living it first hand.
All your education has been a propaganda campaign; just to mention “communism” is a reason for you to shake in fear and speak in terms of “tyranny”, “evil” and such.
If you can’t see the many flaws in the actual system, you’re blind (yersterday news?), and if you can’t see the relation between world poverty and capitalism, you’re hopeless, and it’s pointless to keep writing this.
Are you a troll or a serious person? I’m having a hard time deciding. You are accusing me of being a nazi AND a fascist because I don’t want a ruling elite to dictate how many bananas I can eat? Can’t you see the obvious contradiction in your logic? How can someone who detests centers of power be a nazi or a fascist? Do you even know what those words mean?
Listen, this is the problem with ideologues in general, you need to avoid judging ideas by their intent and instead focus on results. I don’t profit from poverty, I don’t profit from unhappiness in the world, if I thought we could solve every problem in the world I would be for it, that has nothing to do with me “losing” anything. But you’ve got to separate those ideas from the plan, just because someone slaps a no-more-poverty label on something doesn’t mean it will work, and even if it does work doesn’t mean it won’t cause many other more serious problems.
And let me make this even more clear to you, I believe this project is bullshit and insulting me and my intentions will never change that. I got every point, but most of them were wrong. This post and my comments are the reasons why. You need to go through the points I listed one by one and convince me I’m wrong or you’re just wasting both our time. Did you honestly expect everyone to immediately jump right on the bandwagon from the beginning? Or did you expect your fancy videos would be sufficient propaganda to put us all in a daze of wonder and amazement? Or perhaps your goal is to impose your ideology on the world through force, like (gulp) the nazis? I’m just happy you’re only producing an insignificant website and not something vital to the world because you are giving me great insight into the ability of VPers to organize anything…
Answer the questions or stop bothering me.
Greetings…!!
First of all let describe my position regarding to this so you can make a informed judge.
I consider myself a deep philosopher and I believe most of the ideas mentioned in “Zeitgeist” since I can remember…
However there are righteous points on both sides, so I’ll try to be impartial on my opinion…
The capitalist arguments ARE VERY STRONG in general, and thats why they have sticked for so long, because our nature makes us by design ambitious and it’s quite logical if you have in mind that as an imperfect species that we are we will never be absolutely happy with anything because we will always want more than we already achieved…
However, for our own good we should find another system of society (whether the stated in Venus Project or any other) fast because it’s proven that the current Capitalist system it’s destroying us as a hole, and it’s having us destroying the natural resources of the planet, not to mention the barbarities that we have been making to other Species on the Planet and even to the Planet itself…!!
It’s simply an issue of resource management because the current system promotes competition and self preservation and also other forms of individualism, and the reason why that’s not good is because we can only evolve faster if we do it as a Hole (referring to Human Specie).
One of the main issues discussed in here is the use of technology and energy production
and how it could affect our evolution, first of all the idea that unlimited and renewal Energy wouldn’t solve most of our problems is RIDICULOUS… Think about it, with more energy you can improve technology using less resources witch in turn would drastically reduce pollution and the use and destruction of natural resources also sparing the environment of the atrocities we currently practice…
As a matter a fact, if we where ever visited by aliens, I’m quite sure they did it with advanced energy production systems, because such a long journey using the amount of matter that we use to produce the energy required would be unsustainable not to even say IMPOSSIBLE…
Finally I also must say that most of the topics I read in this page was referring to ideologies that where conceived at the image of the “Institutionalized Powers” that we where trained by our environmental variables (Family, Religion, Geopolitical situation, Etc…) to respect, so it’s hard for us to even try to understand even more embrace such changes to the hole society system, but anyway most of us should at least try to have some critical thinking about where are we leading the future of our kind because you discuss “how much one’s going to lose an so one” and “the individual rights” and “Who as the right to make decisions…” well forgive me for my presumption but that’s a little bit irrelevant because if we destroy the Planet so bad putting ourselves in the urge of Extinction believe me, this matters will be pitiful compared to the REAL PROBLEMS WE ARE ABOUT TO FACE…
It’s a cultural issue that affects us all, so we should try to be more constructive if we really want to create a system that is better that the current one, because one thing is UNDENIABLE the system we have today it is not a sustainable reliable system, witch is what we need if we want to survive as a Species…
Thank you for reading this…
I’ll appreciate any comments…
I very much enjoyed your post.
I think everyone needs to keep in mind that we have all been born into this current society, with it’s current values and beliefs. It is important that before you make such points as “Greed is human nature” and “People will always want power” you stop and thinks about this.
You must consider that in a new society education from an early age about “the important issues” will need to take place and could remove these negative behaviors.
Cheers
who will be deciding what “the important issues” are?
Well, actually, why not, if I knew for example that eating 100 bananas would make me sick of it, or worse, then I won’t mind a system that determined that exact number and would not allocate more resources than that (except maybe once, so I would know that it’s not that good for me), and having this equation could determine the number of bananas that must be produced (of course all number of factors would be including, related to efficiency so that 100+ bananas don’t get created for each and every person) . 1984 would cap everyone’s “banana consumption” by an exact number, VP could have an individualized technology solution that made everyone happy. That’s what it’s all about - solving problems not by laws/prohibitions, but with technology. That same thing could be applied to chocolate bars, razors and even vacations. (Also have in mind that vacations are something that you usually do when you want to take a brake from a repetitive and boring work, which will not exist in something like VP)
Are you suggesting there will be a form to specify how many of every item on the planet we will expect to consume in the next production cycle or is becoming “sick” the only threshold? Will there be enough of the best quality (aged?) items for everyone? Will everything be produced on demand or is there a lead time? What if I develop an illness and need a sudden change? What if I just change my mind, am I allowed to trade my allocation? Will there be a market or will I be prosecuted for commercialization? Oh wait, there are no laws… What happens to all the excess bananas? Do you really trust a central authority to control the plant species, they will inevitably eliminate genetic variations in the food supply that could cause diseases to wipe out entire crops… How do we handle failures in the supply chain? What happens if a yield isn’t as expected and we can’t deliver on our promises?
I could probably go on… but I think I made my point.
Again and again you have not grasp the core idea about the venus project.
Its very much possible to visit the mediterrannee any time you want. To own it is different matter.
by constantly say i want, i want, i want you are insulting your physical and emotiponal body. Do you think it is right that one man should not have a limit on what he or she can consume. Well then we are doomed and stupid.
and we only deserve extinction.
Think out of the box. stop the me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
stop flingin poo - it’s not what an enlightened human would do.
the above commentaries mostly ignore an issue not fully illuminated by the video; the crisis of conciousness in the perspective of needed fundamental alterations to human behaviour.
possibly fatal to any understanding and acceptance of what is proposed, are assumptions about how humans will act, ignoring that human perspectives and thus their behaviors, change markedly in different environments. Thus human nature - illusory for purposes of this discourse - cannot be informed or presumed by conditioned, static or hidebound perceptions such as form the premises above.
the commentaries are rife with unfounded presumptions about a static quality called human nature. from the outset i heard proponents in the video talking about a crisis of concsiouness and a fundamental change in individuals’ outlooks and behaviours. This is attainable, though the video doesn’t suggest how. I have changed fundamental outlooks and behaviours and have witnessed such change in others, from predominant self centeredness to periods of sustained altruism.
The content was fascinating; the message of hope was strong, and it’s a much more authentic pitch for change than Obama has made.
And how exactly do you plan on accomplishing that? Drugs? I’m sorry but just saying you can change human nature or behavior or whatever does not make it true or desirable. And you didn’t even mention all the other points I made in the post and comments above. This idea is nothing short of a modern concentration camp.
Indeed, a concentration camp just as existed in the USSR. Communism is devolution, any State or “society” it establishes is for the purpose of devolution, and true Communism will only work until human intelligence is devolved manifold. That’s why Communism keeps failing and failing and failing. It has failed to devolve humans and bring them to a more primitive state.
Come on do you think capitalism is working!!! Our planet is just about dead, over half of the world lack basic food and shelter, and things are just getting worse and worse. It is time to say IT’S BROKE. It is time to say let’s look around and find a solution, and dare I say it maybe a new system to live under. The Venus project people should be praised for doing just that. I have seen the videos and they do raise some good points. I don’t agree with everything they say but that’s cool. Greed is taught to us from the day we are born. It is not a normal human condition. Otherwise why do anything for no money. We cannot go on the way we are going and that is a fact. Stalinism died and so it should have. Capitalism is dieing and so it should. We don’t need either of these anymore. THEY DO NOT WORK. LET’S FIND SOMETHING THAT DOES BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!
what does capitalism have to do with poverty in the third world? Most poor countries are run by mafia-like dictatorships or suffering from endless wars and debt by international bankers. That’s hardly free market capitalism. If the planet is almost dead it’s as a result of big government, not capitalism. It’s as a result of imperialist hegemonic empires like America and their power-mad financiers. All the worst polluters are in countries with the biggest governments (China, former Soviet states, etc), because nobody would accept such destruction on their own private lands… only the government can get away with that kind of activity.
did you even watch the film?
economic hitmen anybody?
“what does capitalism have to do with poverty in the third world?”
answer: absolutely everything from its cause to continued oppression, using national debt, export of resources and any other means necessary just look at the DR CONGO at the moment western capitalist entities looting the country whilst it is at war,
oh and the commercial availability of guns of the free market? not capitalisms fault of course, problem is you people who are trained from birth it seems to worshiop the economy and see it for the technology it isnt.
capitalism always seems to take the credit for stuff but never takes the blame, people get the blame for stuff even though the people make up the capitalist system!
I think you are so deep in your ideological nonsense that you’ve lost all sense of reality. You need to lookup the definition of capitalism because apparently it’s completely lost on you. You need to separate capitalism from imperialism, they are not the same.
you are souless mr nopoint.
if you cant see how capitalism is a system within which imperialism thrives and is almost encouraged by,
leading us to a point in history where we have a successful empire once again and capitalism and war profiteering are the means by which this empire is maintained.
A RESOURCED BASED ECONOMY IS AN INEVITABILITY.
whether its a mad max style place where the currency is violence because of scarcity or a reasonably fair and peacable place where the scarcity is factored in is up to us to decide.
capitalism is based on the principles of competition at the expense of every other human philosophy, even that of cold logic and common sense that states the earth is finite in size and therefore capitalism was always going to reach a point where the expansion of economy would run into the inescapable fact that at some point we are going to run out of stuff!
a point a five yearold can probably understand.
wake up.
Well you made me laugh, so congrats for that. Imperialism thrives within any system, if you think you can impose a VP style autocratic religion on the entire planet without some coercion or force, you’re deluding yourself. You can remain in the realm of fantasy or you can pay a visit to planet earth at least once in a while. Every economy is resource based already, you need inputs to every manufacturing process, and those inputs are limited (obviously) and that’s why we use prices. Prices for materials, labor, capital, everything. It’s how the “ether” organizes its priorities based on what the people want. If you remove that system you will have a form of communism, not paradise. There will still be people at the top making decisions and abusing power. You will have solved nothing. Capitalism is not incompatible with a finite earth, capitalism does not require constant growth, capitalism is simply maintaining the means of production in private hands. It’s the financial system that is in conflict with these things, you need a little more sophistication when dealing with complex matters. Economic growth is deflationary, not inflationary, it’s the banking system can has brainwashed you and everyone else into believing otherwise.
we already have those- they are called psychiatric hospitals $79 billion dollar industry that invents a new disease whenever they have a new drug to peddle, containing many people whose heads cant cope with the way the world is circling the drain.
i think some people here have missed the point and are arguing on irellavant issues, all the points that the people who doubt this article are missing the important point and objective.first off it is assumed the resource of energy is unlimited. Secondly everyone has what they need and equally (you could even say in excess), previously this was flawed in comunisum, but in comunisum everyone is still enslaved and working repetitve jobs. Technology enables us to do this, THINK ABOUT IT, everyone will get a new and upcoming technology very quicky due to MACHINES producing them at massive quanitities. anyone can do ANYTHING they want, sit on the beach, get drunk, who gives a damn. Technology will enable us to do this and its not unrealistic at all, this isnt some crazy futuristic idea its happening today. I myself am losing my job to automation. But thats not the point, in this system people do what they want, what their passion drives them to do. Be it building a city, constructing a space ship, or playing video games all day. Passion drives the people, and no-one works hard, because we all do what we love and we have machines to do the repetitve boring things. So yes everyone will buy into this society, who wouldent want everything to be done for them, and there are people whos passion is to construct machines of such huge capabilites. Juyst because its not yours doesnt mean its not someone elses.
I don’t think anybody is missing the point, I understand the vision. It’s just never going to work.
If you understand the vision, then why wouldn’t you want it to work??? Obviously there’s a lot of room for improvement in the world… What’s your idea?
Well you asked the wrong question, it’s not why I wouldn’t want it to work, it’s why it wouldn’t work regardless of what I want. I don’t believe VP enhances freedom because it concentrates even more power in the hands of people who we know are not trustworthy. People with high IQ tend to be idealistic by nature and the biggest mistake we can make is to project our idealism on a very average species. You have to remember that half the human race has less than 100 IQ. If you believe the VP world would benefit you by all means work hard, save your money, retire young, then spend the rest of your days staring at the stars or whatever. But don’t impose your idealism on people who are not capable of handling it. The people are not capable, the decision makers are not capable, nobody is capable. We aren’t robots.
nobody is capable, were all gonna die, there is no hope, cheer up will you,
It seems indoctrinated pessimism and the cynical points of view are going to be the biggest stumbling blocks if we are to succeed in changing the current economic method,
If we dont we will end up being forced to change when the situation forces us to do so, your cynicism will be self-fulfilling and it will be environmental disaster and self imposed scarcity, over demand for resource and that old favourite companion of human history- war that eventually wake us up to the importance of continued human existence and the planet over individual gain and wealth.
wake up and smell the coffee, believe it or not its sustainable and doesnt actually need a plastic wrapper, or an advert,or shareholders, or a fancy machine to make it.
“I don’t believe VP enhances freedom because it concentrates even more power in the hands of people who we know are not trustworthy. People with high IQ tend to be idealistic by nature and the biggest mistake we can make it to project our idealism on a very average species. You have to remember that half the human race has less than 100 IQ.”
First off, people with a high IQ would prosper no more than those without such an IQ, because the system would not discriminate against anyone’s right to equality. Second, why do you think half the human race only has an IQ below 100? It is because of the inequality that the current global system promotes. Only those who have the means have access. However, in a society which promotes equality among all, everyone would have that access, and therefore would be of virtually equal intelligence (obviously naturally gifted individuals may prosper in certain fields, however everyone would have access to the same material).
“It is because of the inequality that the current glob