Zeitgeist: Addendum and The Venus Project hoax

October 8, 2008

Category: Politics, The Venus Project Email Email    Print Print    

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

You need to have flashplayer enabled to watch this Google video

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (224 votes, average: 3.22 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

1,081 Comments »

Comment by jm
2008-10-09 01:24:14

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.

Comment by daveydave
2008-11-08 21:09:29

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.

Comment by daveydave
2008-11-08 21:24:21

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.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by n00bie_snax
2008-12-27 04:51:46

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 :(

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by me
2008-12-31 10:33:04

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.

 
Comment by n00bie_snax
2009-01-11 07:38:39

I knew you were going to mention bees (whom are becoming extinct). But we are mammals, not altruistic insect drones.

If you ever dabble in genetics there is a selfish reason why insects act the way they act (e.g. one hive will attack another hive).

And as you know, money naturally evolves from barter, any form of barter.

 
Comment by samson_gardener
2009-04-08 23:09:16

It goes to show how blind the fiat system has made you that to you “Survival of the fittest” is synonomus with “survival of the most selfish”. Selfishness ignites when a human either sees that there nececities for survival are met, or doesn’t; never the less continues to ravage and plunder for their own entertainment. To me “survival of the fitest” mean “survival of the wisest”

 
Comment by nobody
2009-07-05 20:58:59

I dont think people are naturaly greedy we are just F@#$ed in the head from the greedy jelous world we live in . . I like to belive that it is possible for us to shed our materialistic ways and in stead of power & stuff maybe we could lust for compassion and wisdom we are all in this togeather weather you like it or not .

 
Comment by Robert
2009-11-18 06:06:54

I have to agree with ‘nobody’, I believe it is extremely possible to shed our materialistic ways, plant teachings are a very good way to do this.

It is possible to create abundant power, look at the world 70% of it’s covered in water, more so if global warming continues (lol)

Water is ever flowing due to the tides, this would generate a hell of allot of power world wide, giving everyone electricity etc Thus with this continuos flow of energy, you won’t loose out on your luxuries if you feel you need them! Many of you probably own a CD player, computer, games console etc if you look after it it shouldn’t really need replacing

With this harnessed natural power (water/hydro electricity), we would eliminate the fossil fuel industry thus economy and competition between countries would become near enough obsolete.

In the case of artistic and scientific advancement if the individual desires to do it they wouldn’t need money to be the promoting tool, they would do it for the advantages of others, their own personal pleasure and learning and if it was truly good or worth sharing or beneficial or entertaining to others logic says they would distribute it for free :)

 
Comment by Alsonobody
2009-12-07 20:37:55

“Humans by nature are greedy. If we weren’t the species wouldn’t be here.”

-What? Really? Is that really what would happen if humans were not greedy? We would no longer exist? That is an interesting hypothesis.

“Survival of the fittest” is polite and scientific way of saying “survival of the most selfish.””

Absolutism is the biggest danger here.

 
 
Comment by TPK
2009-06-28 10:53:08

Mate,

You are absolutely right. I have got the same thoughts. Do we need all those hi-tech things? Our children cannot play any instrument but every one wants x-box:)I believe that the only thing that we need is happiness of our life, but who would be so brave to explain that this is not what we see around in shops or tv. Project Venus is not an utopia but a thing that is not possible to carry out with human race – virus on this planet.

Cheers,

Tom

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Ron In Charlotte
2009-08-02 10:19:18

So you live in a tent but you have Internet and a Computer! Awesome!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Sarah Osborn
2010-02-08 22:45:10

Seriously? I would say “Shill” lest you dub me as the norm “Conspiracy theorist”. Have you done ANY research on the fractional reserve monatary system that we are currently tied to before you posted such a non sensical post?! I mean, I haven’t even fully researched the zeitgeist project but I can tell that you my dear, are full of hot air due to your lack of coommon knowledge on many of the issues discussed within the zeitgeist film itself.

I have found a flaw personally (i.e. Thomas Jefferson quote) yet that doesn’t make it completely false! You have the common misunderstanding of most. That this is simply an econmic, political, social, etc. medium. When will you and others like you, understand that you must know at least SOME about all of these factors such as science, theories that science has relied on for YEARS, etc. before you understand that maybe, just possibly , their ideas are better than ANY of yours or the failed two party system?! Should you choose to reply to me, please do so at my hotmail address which I’ve provided you. I will have my own independent site up and running within the next few months and I challenge you and any liek you, to debate me on theories as well as facts. You obviously cannot tell the difference between the two.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Andreas Fox
2010-04-06 23:37:05

I am lost for words. Awesome display of mindpower,Victory to you!

 
 
Comment by Chris
2010-03-15 08:54:34

What you don’t understand is that people will simply not want 5000 square ft mansions with five cars. If we were to pool all of the Earths resources and harness them to their maximum potential through the application of the scientific method, while not worrying about monetary gain, we could totally rid the world of poverty, crime, famine, and war. Our current situation is not a political issue, but a human issue…

But to begin to understand what the future we could create would be like, it is crucial that one understand the realities of Human Nature and behavior. Many many people, including many psychologists and psychiatrists, do not understand how the brain functions. The brain functions as a highly complex computer. From the second you are born it begins to take in hundreds of trillions of information from around your nervous system. From your fingertips to your eyes to your ears. This is how you become who you are. You are simply a reflection of all of the information you take in. Even the way in which you sort the information you take in is a reflection of other stored information. This is simply an evolutionary feature in effect to support the fight or flight mechanism. ig. You see a bear tear someone apart,you store that information, and then the next time you see a bear you won’t poke it. If you understand this, you can begin to critically dismantle the current direction society is going and realize that we are only hurting our environment and ourselves, and wasting extraordinary human capabilities.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Michael A.
2010-04-09 08:25:23

To go with your first point about home size; people only want mansions because they’re taught to compete with the world, and that is a symbol of success. When that symbol is stripped of its value, what use will people have for these homes?

I’m guessing most people will spend their lives traveling in this system.

Great point on the “unknown direction” of human nature, btw.

 
Comment by explorer
2010-05-07 14:06:40

It is a HUMAN ISSUE. To me that is the biggest point. This world is hurting our people, we are all ONE kind.
Big houses do symbolize money and success! If we teach ourselves and our children not to value things only because of how much they are worth in dollars and appeal, and to appreciate things for what they are worth in evolution, love and quality of life perhaps the world’s state of mind can start to change. I love the idea of traveling. Wonder the world, seeking your ambitions. Throughout history doctors, scientists, artists and many other useful “occupations” have been born out of interest, not financial gain. Us humans, and the planet we live on, have so much more potential to offer then what we’ve been demonstrating

 
 
Comment by koi
2010-06-16 12:10:05

i agree… to me it seems the only freedom people want is the freedom to live comfortably. i also want to commend you on your lifestyle….if everyone at least tried to do this as well, we just might have a chance to save our selves by saving our place to live…earth. peace be with you and may we all have the opportunity to be truly free

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Siamak
2008-12-18 16:32:01

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.

Comment by nehedar
2009-03-09 02:53:31

well said friend.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Sue
2009-05-02 12:42:22

That’s right, the movies are already long enough as they are. I think it’s impossible to cover all questions of humanity in one movie but it was a good start for debate which will help answer a lot of questions.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by RexMundi
2008-12-21 18:37:45

remember guys, we are only as free as our purchasing power.

Comment by Truth
2009-01-28 14:40:16

Not if we eliminate money. Why is it so hard to wrap your mind around the concept of a world where there is no money? Everyone performs,learns, produces, etc. for the good of all? WE DO NOT NEED MONEY!! MONEY IS ONLY A CONCEPT! Factories will produce products even if we burn every last dollar. Understand? Money is a frame of mind. We never have, nor will we ever NEED money. I’m sorry if I seem condescending.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Jorge
2009-02-26 08:29:02

It’s only us that give anything value. Power is only valuable because WE give it value. Gandhi proved that concept with a no violence stance and he ended up making one of the biggest impacts in history.

This movie makes genuinely valid points, it’s not perfect, but like Jacque Fresco says, we will never achieve perfection, although we should always try. This movie has got my attention since I watched it. I’ve though about all the points it makes, searched the internet ad nauseum for feedback. The sad thing is that nobody offers another solution instead of The Venus Project. Instead, they criticize it for all it’s flaws (and it is a human concept, there is always flaws!). Not a single alternative. I find that extremely sad that people would rather hate this and burn the idea down than say “wait a minute, if we were to change a few fundamental ideas in this concept, it would be easier to achieve, or more realistic”.

I’m sure if we all participated in a giant information collecting project,with everybody’s input, we’d eventually get to the best possible concept of a redesign, because of we can’t all agree with this movie or it’s ideas, I’m pretty sure we can all agree that we need a well thought out change in our societies!

 
Comment by Chiara
2009-03-19 17:45:17

I agree, the problem is we are all too caught up in trying to survive and make money just to scrape by that we are missing what will really start improving the global society. Education and philosophy – then action will begin to lessen and eradicate the problems we have.
but the vast majority of people lack the vision to improve our world, expand and better concepts like the venus project, they instead just say that it wont work as it is and resist any form of change. alot of people hate change – they would rather live a familiar but more oppressed life than accept change and make the effort now in order to enjoy a more recreational lifestyle later.
change is good, education is good, thinking is good – so why does everyone hate it? honestly what percentage of school going kids do you think actively enjoy going to school for the learning opportunities they have there? not many, the main concern is getting money to get “stuff” that will improve their popularity and thus their influence and power – this is the attitude we are breeding right now, the focus needs to change, we need to stop valueing power and start valuing knowledge so that we might enjoy sharing it to improve the world.

 
Comment by Kelar
2009-03-30 09:29:50

Knowledge Is Power My Freind

 
Comment by Jason
2009-04-04 00:46:46

I agree fully. Why does our sosiety not realize the harm done when we make education boring, And reward materialism in our schools?

 
Comment by lari
2009-05-02 23:01:19

I agree that the project is not realistic for the most proximate future. But for the next hundreds of years..? I think this could certainly be A FUTURE.

Someone said here that the assumption that the Earth will always have resources for us, humankind ,no matter how much we multiply , is an absurdity.Of course we all agree. HOWEVER, if you do some research on the Zeitgeist nmovement, you will see that THEY DON’T CLAME THIS. They say something else: at the present stage of our development, we are worrying more and more about overpopulation , because our only possibility is living on land. HOWEVER,the biggest percentage of the planet is not land , but WATER. Solution : with the advance of science and technology it will become possible to construct floating cities, and cities under water. That will expand our possibilities for survival, and meanwhile ,by having access to more education , and by learning to care for Earth and our species, we will reduce our natality gradually, to a greater and greater extent. Hence, to sum up , the solutions to overpopulation proposed by Zeitgeists are simple:

1.With new technology expand human habitat to waters
2.With new technology recycle Earth’s resources in a more efficient way
3.Give access to a strong education to all
4.Diminish natality level.

So now people, why wouldn’t we give this a thought? What is the other alternative? War and disease to raise our mortality rate?!?

 
Comment by lari
2009-05-02 23:23:13

Also, i would like to comment on the need of a regulator aparatus (law, governments, police) .

If you read Hitler’s Mein Kampf , he was pretty right in his analyses of the stratification of human society, and of the mob philosophy. To simplify things , he said that the “people” were generally composed of two elements:the high intelectuals , who have superior abilities ,a sharp critical thinking ,are able to make decissions ,and are hard to manipulate,and the big mass of people, “the mob” who go with the wind of the strongest leadership and follow one another. Since of the multitude of the people only a small percentage are vigilent, and able to make responsible decisions, than you can not trust the “people” . You need to give them , Hitler thought , strong leadership, and the stronger the better, because if not in their stupidity and ignorance they would ruin the whole civilization in short time. Then , in talking about propaganda , he again sais that propaganda and control of information must be directed towards “the mob”, they are the target, and not the high thinkers(who are able to see the world for themselves and on whom this doesn’t have a big effect). So you see where I am going with this?…

The people will have a chance to really govern themselves , as the dream of democracy has been at the beginnings, when they will stop being the “blind , ignorant mob “, and start respecting themselves,and imposing themselves as a vigilent entity. When the small minority of thinkers will become the big majority, that is when our prospects will be different. The KEY here is EDUCATION !

 
Comment by lari
2009-05-02 23:55:51

To continue my last comment , education is the key. The reason why we were never able to imagine a world without a centralized government is because until today the great masses of people were always uneducated. Today ,the Western societies offer a wide spread opportunity for basic education , and this has lead certainly to progress. However , even so, the ratio of the educated to the less educated is not semnificative enough. We still have a lot of improvement to do. But today it’s starting to be possible ,for the first time , to have a realistic lead of “the people”.

And ATTENTION!! The same Western culture that facilitates people access to education facilitates them access to a couple of other stuff…Our absurd cult of celebrities (who are really only famous and rich,nothing more… Many of them are UNDER the average intelectual level , and PEOPLE , the MOBS of today take them as models ) , the “culture within a culture”, (as I called it) of our youth ,who judge and regulate each other on the concept of “cool” vs “nerd” , the tv shows that promote ignorance as opposed to critical thinking and mental progress, the extreme violent movies (by-poduct of a society that puts PROFITS above PEOPLE),pornography infecting the WWW …Should I go on? Fashion dictating women everywhere what to wear, people preffering to watch “the movie” instead of reading “the book”, the trend to conformity even when strangely naming it “noncomformism” etc etc.When they vote for their president many are so ignorant that they don’t try to analyse the programs propossed by the canditates, they in fact have no knowledge of what the agenda of their future leaders might be , but often choose to vote on criterias such as “popularity” . ETC. ETC.

The educated people of today are more numerous than in the past, but the people,you see, are still the ignorant mob. It is this mob that has he ultimate power, but it needs to wake up from its “sleep-walking” state. If we do away with the useless trash of our culture simply and firmly , and we teach the big majority to think clearly and freely, we might just get one day , in the future, a time where people will only need themselves to rule and regulate their resources and interactions.

But remember : the key is EDUCATION. Period.

 
Comment by kgosie
2009-05-06 03:26:44

perhaps u nid to re-define ur education coz coming to grips with how the current system operates has a posibility of bringing about ways to manipulate it for one’s benefit despite the destruction it may cause. what is important is what u do with ur life-long process of aquiring knowledge and skills. being cultured on benovalent intentions is the key, education is one of teeth of that key.

 
Comment by cillll
2009-07-27 10:19:17

I am fully agreeing people. Only black spot in the picture is what our current governments ( EU, USA..) are doing with our education and independent research programs/institution.
Look up on the web how many independant research labs are currently “re-organized” (= diminuished, closed, appovrished, and devaluated) all over the world, in order to give research (and through it, the future technologies) a more “applyed” (= profit oriented) dimension. In clear: research is officially re-oriented in order to work hand in hand with the industry, and through this to generate more profits, by giving the intellectual outcome brought by thousand of people originally aiming at improving general knowledge to profit generating industries, and this for free. In parallel, areas not generating profits (ex: environmental sciences, ecology, social sciences, etc, etc….) are slowly abondonned (except for highly polemic topics of course). But how do you wanna save/adapt/conserve/develop/improve/(…) things, if you do not really understand them ?(e.g., stop biodiversity erosion without understanding the relation between species, or between our actions, their consequences and the impact they will have on diversity?)

Education in our schools goes the same way, through appovrishment of the content of the programs, and unequal access to education and knowledge depending on where in the big city of your “civilsed and developped” country you grew up.
In France for example, education and research currently see their subvensions droping for the benefits of military and interior security. Less and less teacher or researcher positions are available, but there are more and more policemen in the streets (to look after the kids who could not learn and get a proper education in the overcrowed schools?). Here the current policy is repression and violence, instead of education and free knowledge.

The Key IS education, but education for everybody is becoming more threatened than ever in the frame of the current politic, with a regression of the quality of education and a limitation of the topics explored by independant researchers.
So much for educating the “mob” and developping really usefull new technologies…..

 
 
Comment by Kelar
2009-03-30 09:36:07

“Factories will produce products even if we burn every last dollar.”

No They Wont They Will Only Make Produce If They Will Make A Profit, It Dosent Matter If It’s On A Global Scale Making Billions Or Someone Fixing A Table For Half A Dozen Eggs, If You take Away Money We Revert Back To The Barter System And Where Did Money Originate From? The Barter System!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Young Biko
2009-04-17 04:07:17

I agree with on the point about incentive.however,I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the barter system does not come with interest & inflation or money created from thin air.

I watched the flim recently & it was incredible to me to realise that there are other people out there who find capitalism to have failed in reality.

My concern with the Venus project is, incentive & the wide spread-ness of the Technology.

 
Comment by Sue
2009-05-02 12:52:51

Not all people need to be motivated, only the ones that are can make a great difference as long as that is what everyone wants. There is already a lot o volunteers working on this idea. Incentive is not necessary money. You and I are writing and debating here without being paid, only because we each believe something and we want something to come out of it, we want to add our 2 cents :) If only a small part of the population is willing to donate time, which I think they will be, then the other part can just do whatever, be creative in their own way or do nothing. What would you personally do everyday if you were not working? Play golf, go to the beach then what. If you do too much of the same things then it becomes boring no matter how fun it was at first eventually you will add your little contribution to society without even trying.

 
Comment by kgosie
2009-05-06 06:04:09

sue, is thoughtful of u 2 remind us that we r nt paid for commentin and debating on this issue but we stil find the nid to kip on pushing. my worry on vp is that, we want to live as comfortable as possible, seeking technology to relief humans from the rigor of work. this wil bring about dependance on technology hence dependance on the inventors. that alone gives them “power” in a way to decide the future of our future. thats potentially dangerous. i just see the part of vp as the shift of power which wil ugur semilar chaos the millenium after next, should it prevail on the next.

 
Comment by Nelson
2009-05-23 11:22:36

Living as comfortably as possible the most important thing to you? Sounds like a weak lifestyle, your primary motivator being the avoidance of anything that might make you uncomfortable. How easy people who live like that are to manipulate.

And as for who holds the power, I’d give it to the technicians before I’d ever hand it over to the lawyers that hold it now.

 
Comment by B
2009-08-14 16:30:12

@Young Biko: “I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the barter system does not come with interest & inflation or money created from thin air.”

There’s an extraordinarily good apple harvest this year, and the world as a whole produces 2x more apples then it did last year. Assuming people are still able to communicate in this new utopia, people will know that there are more apples this year, and because of this your apple is now worth less then it used to be. That means it has less purchasing power. Oh gee, isn’t that the definition of inflation?

Things only have value if we GIVE them value, let it be money, food, raw materials, etc. It only has value because we VALUE the item.

 
 
 
Comment by me
2008-12-31 09:42:56

who needs a fucking 5000 foot square house with a private beach. Some stinking capitalist monetarist scumbag

Comment by Chiara
2009-03-19 17:49:50

i dont believe it is just a 5000 foot square house with a private beach, its a trial of a better way of doing things to see what does and doesnt work in the proposed system – its a project mate designed with the aim to improve the life of every living person in a fundamental and big way – i dont think you would criticise some one for helping a starving child – why are you criticising someone for trying to help all the starving children? and fevery one else?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by The Lyniezian
2009-05-28 08:07:05

I suppose they are not, in the Venus Project, considering this. Seems ore like they’re going for huge self-contained archologies most of the time…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by mike d
2009-02-03 03:00:49

The UNDENIABLE fact’s that AMERICA and soon to be the whole world is being decieved on a MASSIVE scale. what makes ANYONE think for a second that any government of any period has never done any harm to its people. now I believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all this. what Id like to know is who wrote this column? what is your agenda ? if anything, this zeitgeist movie is awakening people to the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with gov’t religion education and the banking system. oh yeah have you already forgotten about the bailout? rich get rich… it was very depressing being a canadian and watching the 2000 “election” if thats what you want to call it, watching a whole nation be duped like that. Then 2004. We all see it, but I guess its just a little harder to swallow when its your own guys doing it to you. Smart people have seen this coming for a long time. Just look at 1984. It was written in 1948 and was pretty much adopted by US gov’t. I dont think they even allow that book in schools anymore. But I do have a question. When we are finally at this One World Government stage, who will be the enemy then?

Comment by Lee
2009-05-16 15:24:18

Alien terrorists!! ;)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Roberto
2009-12-10 10:19:34

holy crap. you may be 100% right

 
 
Comment by justin Eatman
2009-07-15 05:07:50

actually they do allow that book i n school nowdays i know i read some of it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Graeme
2009-05-17 13:02:22

You seem to forget one important fact, everything in the universe is ENERGY, energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Thus “resources” are potentialy limitless, we just need the technology. And right now we have easily the level of technology required to produce enough electrical energy to power everything all the people in the world would need to live a life without hardship.

The only limit is space, and as you say we can’t all live in mansions on the florida coast, but who is to say we all want to? I know I wouldn’t. But there is easily enough space for everyone to have a house big enough for them to live in. We won’t need huge libraries because we can all have every book in the world readily available on an e-reader. Anything specific that people could want…say i wanted to go quad bike paintballing. I can easily travel to the nearest place designated for that because as shown in the movie maglev trains can get us places at a fraction on the time compared to current systems. We won’t all need to own everything like we have the desire to now because its all “scarse”.

And as far as who gets technology first, quite simply the first people to arrange it. If i’m starting a project and i need something in order to do it I can easily find the people who create it through the internet and tell them I need it for a project and then arrange for it to be delivered. If someone wants something but theres none of it left then they have two options, wait for someone to make more or create thier own system of producing it, afterall it won’t cost them anything and they can find out exactly how to from the systems allready in place because no one is worried about keeping corporate secrets to protect thier own “business”.

As far as people not working becaus eof lack of comensation completely ignores the fact that we evolved up to this point without ever needing financial compensation. Life didn’t form out of atoms, creating the first single cell organism, only for it to think “I could do stuff, but you know what, I won’t get paid so i’ll just float around until I die”
The world will go back to its natural order of the people who are the most outgoing and productive, experienced, wise etc are admired by other people for thier accomplishments and will be more attractive people whos genes will live on. Whereas if someone decides to do nothing with thier life because they won’t get paid any more, everything is free so theres no incentive to work, who exactly is going to want to have kids with that person?

Comment by Chuck
2010-05-04 14:21:33

I’ve been trying to figure out how to say that for a while now, I feel the same way

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by john
2009-07-07 15:39:26

All im saying is that i cant even fathom where we would be at with technology today. Zeitgeist is showing us what we’ve been blinded from this entire time. The movie affected me hard, im awake now, and everyone who reads this..wake up. are you doing what you love? do you feel you are at your best? and I’m sure a lot of you do as an individual but im talking about our society.

we are all a part of the energy.
one love.

 
Comment by Daniel Russell
2009-07-23 13:21:42

Spirituality is the next step instead of religion scientific spirituality please check out conversations with god by author neale donald walsch!

Comment by Achim
2010-02-21 11:25:05

An even more important read and very relevant is: “Sponateous Evolution” by Lipton and Bhaerman. It explains scientifically elegant why altruistic motives win over egoistic ones, why Darmin was wrong (the notion of “survival of the fittest” is outdated) and society as we know it is at a cross road with 2 possible directions: extinction or evolution. Take your pick!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Arthur McGowan
2009-08-17 18:52:24

Well I see that whoever wrote this wasn’t even willing toattach they’re name to it and is obviously a person who has already decided that they instead of finding solutions to the very problems we have created in the guise of Societies great lie would rather leave things as they are and is not willing to let go of the train of thought that we all know is true ignorance, yet do so regardless. In doing so they would rather enslave they’re children as they were forced into paid slavery.
Obviously the person who wrote this is in cohoots with the very same people who force you under duress to punch a timeclock so that you can pay them taxes, leaving them to sit on they’re ass and act like they are doing sometning great when what they really are doing is absolutely nothing but collecting your slave wages. If you want to believe the same people who do nothing but wait for you to give them money for nothing then by all means join them but I intend to seek a brighter future where your almighty dollar doesn’t exist and will do so til my dying day…
There is something terribly wrong with this society and with government and we all know it, yet do nothing to insure that it changes.
Pathetic, completely pathetic!!! you are all nothing more than cowards who fear the change we all know is needed under all the Fears they have forced upon you in the form of Lies, Yes a HUGE train of lies that are the epitome of fearmongering right down to the Lies they told about one of the wisest men in history. which is the only point of the zeitgeist movie I know is untrue (Jesus did exist and has many times he was all of these people who were born on the 25th of Dec) but if you all recall even Jesus said give unto God that which is God’s and render unto ceasar what is Ceasar’s. Yet today the church always has it’s hand out for what is Ceasar’s , yes that’s right What was Ceasar’s was money. This is an ignorant concept. The almighty can create the entirety of the multiverse but can’t balance a checkbook. If you believe that then you are naive and ignorant by choice!!!!!!
Lose your fear, If we all(the entirety of the populace) stood for what we all know is right do you honestly think they could resist the multitudes and deny us our will?
I await the day when all of humanity sets aside they’re differences and become of one mindset. Doing everything that we can do, the many wonders of our species all for the betterment of our Species and not for Ignorant greed and lining your pockets with a piece of Murdered Tree with Gren Ink.
Kind of Ironic, mankind will destoy itself in the pursuit of this money which was all started by the destuction of what keeps us breathing air in the 1st place. Yes, We murder trees to make money so that we can make more money and eventually have not enough left to provide fresh air for your children and grand children to breathe, how self-centered can you all be.
If this is the minset of you all then I will wait for the very thing that you fight against. NATURAL SELECTION.. The earth will decide that your all idiots, So Naturally it will select your for Execution.
If this is the way you want things then I will await for there to not be so many of you and it is coming sooner than you know.

 
Comment by Richimorton
2009-09-01 11:43:00

Fair play ‘jm’ – humanity has to move into a new age or epoc – Hunter/Farmer/Industrial next is the Age of Technology. Each Age requires radically different thinking which is why the Plains Indians thought the Industrial Europeans were mad – which we now know is true if we insist on sticking with Industrial Age Society & practices.

 
Comment by AJ
2009-12-23 12:41:51

WOW… it almost had be believing, but the fact of the matter is the exact people they are complaining about are the exact people pushing this agenda. An elitest society that sounds like a utopia and still have just a few at the top making all of the decisions for the masses. So when I want a nice cigar “they” will say “Oh we don’t have them here they are bad for you” then I asked for a cheesburger and “they” tell me “Oh we don’t have those here they are bad for you. so although they take aim at the concervatives the progressives seem to have this type of agenda.

Comment by Bell
2010-01-01 08:53:47

Good point, but why do you assume that this system would have such a paternalistic criteria?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by James
2010-04-23 12:38:01

Wow! Would you forgo a chance to eliminate famine, violent conflicts, and the wage slave system so you can merely have your cheeseburger and cigar?

Beef is not only a strain on resources through agricultural production, but it also causes a preventable strain on the health care system. The grain used to create the beef in one Big Mac could have been used to make five loaves of bread if the grain was allocated for direct human consumption instead of bovine consumption. Heart disease is the number one killer in the U.S. today. The saturated fat and cholesterol in beef is a major factor in the heart disease epidemic. And these issues are merely the tip of the iceberg of all the issues that arise from our fast food culture.

At least the cigar does not absorb nearly as much land as beef production nor are massive amounts of antibiotics needed to sustain tobacco production, but who really needs cigars?

Are we willing to tolerate suffering that could have been easily prevented to consume things that we don’t even need? These things are only given value because people are brainwashed by continual one-sided advertising and addicted to substances in the products.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Jq92buu
2010-02-02 23:29:51

People are so neive to think that money is not a problem. I think that the venus project has a sound idea for a brighter future because the proof is there. Soon our system of debt will collapse in on itself, and what then?? What will everyone do when money is obsolete?
It may not be a perfect plan for our future culture but its a plan none the less. Everything they have to sounds quite logicall to me. Just by providing the world with sufficiant power through one of our many renewable resources (geothermal, solar, wind, or water power)it will produce a domino affect of abbundance for all of humanities needs.

 
Comment by harry elliott
2010-03-17 06:18:34

Whoever wrote this is, to put it bluntly, a sceptimistic pesimistic prick. The fact is there is more slavery and famine today than there ever has been on this planet and there IS enough energy and food to supply every human being to an acceptable standard. Its easy to be a critic of this as you are one of the small minority who can go to the cupboard and feed yourself to your hearts content. Then you sit down at your computer which over 80% of the worlds population could never hope to obtain and spread your infectious opinion to the rest of the modern world. I can categoricly guarantee that if every person in the world had their say or could even be heard there would be a landslide victory in favour of the venus project. Unfortunately people like you are all too common in the fact that you havent developed a way to overcome your sinicism, scepticism or greed. There is a small (and growing) group of advanced people however, who have learnt to not only overcome these emotions but also have come to the realisation that the greater good of our GLOBAL community is the most important thing on this planet. So if your DNA hasnt evolved enough to help you understand these things, then at least now you must realise the facts and realisation is the first stage of change. So control your selfish emotions and LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE! We are in the darkest age known to mankinds history, it has never been this bad. After all, eternal freedom costs eternal vigilance.

 
Comment by chuk
2010-05-28 07:46:37

in a utopian society, we could have discussions of importance like these. just not alone behind screens like we have exhibited here. human relations. enmity. altruism. these are given to us. fear. greed. difference. these are learned.

it seems we’re all of common threads here. we could post here until our fingers and eyes wither. the bottom line a lot of us here have touched upon is motivation. what motivates what we do? inward thinking our outward. may the force be with us.

p.s. notice how often people use “i” and “me” and “you”. these are freudian concepts of division. let’s do this together. more to follow =]

 
 
Comment by ash
2008-10-09 01:24:25

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!

Comment by jim
2008-12-21 22:10:22

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

Comment by solafidas
2009-02-16 03:50:02

Did you know that the ‘TRUTH’ anti smoking campaign is funded by big tobacco? Let me ask you what you think is more plausible. That a minority of poorly funded and out resourced scientists standing in stark contrast to the limitless wealth of those currently in power were able to cut such a seemingly vicious blow as they have with Zeitgeist. Or that instead, similar to the above mentioned relationship of TRUTH and B.T, those who seek to enslave us through intercontinental unions and debt systems, have created this lofty ideal through Zeitgeist to prey on those of us unmoved by outdated efforts of propaganda. Look at the final solution of ‘The Big Bankers’ and of project ‘Venus’…a one world government in which advertising etc, are no longer needed. The parallels between the desires of both sides far out way the differences. They are simply stated, two similar ideals painted in very different colors preaching the same message in an effort to attack several class systems at once. Akum’s razor, the simplest answer is most often the correct one, in this case… that a group of men still in power are playing both sides of the fence… and quite effectively. Think of it this way, what better way to unite all who may appose you, willingly I might add, and then to collect all of their personal information and intentions. What an ingenious way to discern what sort of a revolt you might be dealing with so close to completing something as big as the North American Union. And then to watch as the leaders of Project Venus sell their dying husk of a research center,and hightail to south Ecuador.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Maynard
2009-03-09 02:45:05

About the tabacco companies paying for the TRUTH commercials. They were ordered by the courts to do so.

 
 
 
Comment by Bell
2010-01-01 09:27:39

I feel sorry for you. you’ll endure I’ll not kill you, but you probably would kill me. That’s a pitty , but totally expected.

 
 
Comment by R&R
2008-10-09 03:19:06

(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.

Comment by point
2008-10-11 12:31:28

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.

Comment by n00bie_snax
2008-12-27 05:11:08

Point, I think you are my hero.

I like your comment on money:

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.

The problem is that most people don’t know what money realy is, and much less how it works.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Truth
2009-01-28 14:32:58

“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.”

I’m not going to touch the first statement, as I believe it contradicts statements you previously made. However, I will agree that human desire is
limitless. The question then is, what exactly do humans desire? We are conditioned from birth what we should and should not desire. Because a great deal of this conditioning is in direct conflict with our natural instincts, most of the resulting desires are twisted and unnatural. It is not natural for any animal on this planet to prefer to confine themselves to a house, or a car. The list is endless, but I digress.

The point that you are so obviously missing is that money is not the essential issue. Money is a means used by the elite to maintain control. The root of all of this mess is fear. Fear of not being loved. Fear and a lack of love. Did you not hear the quote from Bill Hicks in the movie? To paraphrase, it comes down to a choice on our part. Do we choose fear, or do we choose love?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Kelar
2009-03-30 09:40:06

Exactly People Want What They Can’t Have

 
Comment by Richimorton
2009-09-01 13:07:38

Yes ‘kelar’ – we are indeed programmed from the cradle into desiring things we really don’t need – this is the nature of our current system of consumerism. Maybe it should be as simple as having to do some work or good deeds to get things you don’t need . I think a resource based economy should only provide a certain standard of living (high enough to eliminate most of todays problems) and if you really feel the need to show off (which will probably become a social taboo anyway) then you can work your arse off & look ridiculous . People from birth should enter society on a level footing and perhaps age 18 all receive the same house/car etc. Then you can choose without any pressure at all whether to go to University (free) for 10 years or work for a special paint job on your car/house etc. Technology means that ALL cars are amazing , as is everyones wide screen TV , house etc. THIS IS THE POINT – when you already have the best because technology has reached that point and can go no further only limited artistic enhancements matter , which is a totally personal thing anyway . If you’re happy with your (good) education & stuff at age 18 then by all means sit on your front porch drinking free beer all day (which is inexpensive to produce anyway once the tax is removed) but that is your choice & people wont resent you like today , rather think you are funny not wanting to do/learn anything else. I think i would probably drink beer all night but then want to do something constructive or creative the next day and be appreciated for it – coz in the future it’s what you VOLUNTEER to do with your days that will get you the Babe .

 
Comment by Goz
2010-02-19 06:22:13

if people get an even footing at 18 all you are doing is starting the same system again as the “materially” minded individuals will collect and save and become progressively better off it is the standard of living in its self the need to always better the way in which you live that is the problem. and at the moment the only solution to the environmental crisis is to simply lower the global living standard. greed is the only real problem with today’s way of living and that is what i really like about this idea(an idea is all it will ever be) it shows us that we can find alternatives to the this corrupt system we live in today.

YOUR TV AND CAR ETC ONLY NEEDS TO DO AND BE SO MUCH WHY PARTICIPATE IN THE YUPPIE RAT RACE. i blame the “rich kids” that rule the worlds through the banks.

 
 
Comment by AD
2009-04-11 00:46:57

Please keep in mind that The Venus Project proposes that no human is in charge of making these decisions. The computer continuously processes a formula that takes into account every detail of humanity before making a decision. Every decision is made in a completely rational way. So, if you don’t get what you want, no crying like a baby. If the central computer thinks that your idea is acceptable based on all the other countless computations, then you and everyone else will be awarded with what you desire.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by kgosie
2009-05-06 07:11:04

is that the machines take over or what? aah-ah, if there is a fomula for computing and selecting the decisions then sumbady put it in place to favour him. if nt, let every human partake in the construction of the formula to ensure everyone’s representation. if this is impossible them the is purely a hoax and a pathetic one for that matter. i suggest u watch that video(ur source) critically AD.

 
Comment by Goz
2010-02-19 06:27:40

i agree, any system can be cheated, abused the internet and its abundance of viruses and other negative thinngs should be enough proof not to put all that responcibility in the hands of a machine that will never be more perfect than the floored human’s that made it

 
 
Comment by lari
2009-05-03 00:16:38

On a more humorous side , what if by creating computers that are so evolved that they can take over all unskilled human work you create artificial intelligence that will at some time start to think for itself? What if computers and robots will than raise in revolution and get out of human enslavement and turn things around? muahahahah

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by justin Eatman
2009-07-15 05:25:47

what if humans were the computers made by a advanced civilization

 
Comment by ratmonkey
2009-12-03 00:58:55

I think movies like terminator and the matrix were made to stifle the invention of AI.

 
 
Comment by The Lyniezian
2009-05-28 10:41:56

How can priveleges be traded???

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Phil Scherrens
2008-10-10 22:29:55

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)

Comment by RJR
2008-12-12 02:41:27

Dude, I think you’d do better to read the comments on this page 3 or 4 more times

 
 
Comment by Augustus Osari
2008-10-11 14:49:39

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.

Comment by point
2008-10-11 15:13:41

“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.

Comment by tim
2008-11-17 19:35:39

“(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.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by me
2008-12-31 11:04:32

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.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Miko P
2009-04-20 15:43:14

You do realize you’re rebutting a comment about NEEDS with a bunch of your WANTS, right?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Kelar
2009-03-30 09:43:05

You Don’t Actualy Trade Respect You Trade Power Which “Respect” Rises In Acordiance With

Comment by lari
2009-05-03 00:30:16

Well the ideal society proposes exactely this: to do away with the power. Of course one may question: is this an utopia? Well I would ask: isn’t it perhaps the time to readjust the concept of leadership?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by cheekyiclemonkey
2009-07-13 17:46:22

power in our society is achieved through human greed..if rational decisionals were made with latestst technology you could eliminate the greed and power and instead give birth to respect and progress which i think is the main goal. there is no need for the scale of suffering on our planet,mankind is clever enough to achieve almost anything…lets do it for the right reasons …LETS ALL WAKE UP…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by whatup
2008-10-12 06:48:36

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?

Comment by point
2008-10-12 07:52:14

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.

Comment by daveydave
2008-11-09 09:09:23

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!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by point
2008-11-09 19:03:03

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/

 
Comment by daveydave
2008-11-10 21:33:50

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.

 
Comment by Kelar
2009-03-30 09:51:31

“That, my friend, is fascim”

Technically By Definition Everyone Here (Expressing Thear Opinions) Are Fascists

We Will Never Live In This Utopian Society It Dosent Mater How Much We Complain That The Current System Dose Not Work It’s The People With The Money (Whom You All Hate So Adamantly) That Have The Power To Change Things, The Minority Will Never Change Anything

 
Comment by V
2009-05-19 00:43:45

If only 1% owns 40% of the nation’s money, then the rich are, by definition, the MINORITY. So if the MINORITY cannot change anything, the PEOPLE WITH THE MONEY would not be able to change anything, according to your logic. But you state that they are the only ones who can change things. I suggest you rework your logic.

Btw, the other 99% without the money is the MAJORITY, so, according to your logic, they are the only ones who can change things.

 
 
Comment by point or pointless
2008-11-13 16:52:55

“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.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by point
2008-11-14 07:45:25

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.

 
Comment by Ricardo Miguel
2008-11-18 18:23:39

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…

 
Comment by Indoctrinated
2008-12-16 22:19:41

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

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-16 23:14:45

who will be deciding what “the important issues” are?

 
Comment by lolahiroshima
2009-01-16 16:25:17

The point is that the important issues have already been decided for us through our collective actions up to this point in time. Quite simply, the important issue is the continued, sustainable survival of humanity and all the natural systems that sustain it.
Economics is a human invention- nature is not. Guess which one we are ultimately subservant to.

There ARE enough resources for everyone, provided they are managed efficiently, and technology is the only practical way to do this. Of course, individuals will have to evolve psychologically, and shift their priorities, values, and become mature beings, rather than selfish, self-destructive consumers.
The important thing to keep in mind is that such a system ultimately allows for greater individual freedom, provided that freedom works towards the functioning of the whole.

What must be remembered is that this is not simply about resource USE, but resource CREATION- ultimately all our products will become ‘nutrients’ for some other aspect of the process.

 
 
Comment by IvanK
2008-12-16 18:32:52

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.

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)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by point
2008-12-16 21:31:34

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.

 
Comment by lolahiroshima
2009-01-16 17:10:37

Look, you are raising valid points- from a fairly limited perspective, and i don’t mean that as an insult. It’s just that your worldview seems to be stuck in the scarcity\individualist loop. If you really begin to grasp the principles behind the concept of the VP (not necessarily its as-concieved-of execution) then you would see that most of your arguments simply don’t apply.

Let’s examine them:

1)”Will there be enough of the best quality items for everyone?”

First, the notion of superior and inferior quality will no longer be dependent upon something akin to price, ie. you get what you pay for. Quality is always a function of design in conjunction with material, and these factors are what the new production system is constantly improving upon, as a matter of its standard operating proceedure.
Second, demand will drive production, and production will be localized and individually controlled, so it is YOU who determines what you want and how much of it you need, not some monolithic central authority mass producing a constant stream of standardized toothbrushes, etc.

2)”Will everything be produced on demand or is there a lead time?”

See above. Yes, eveything will be produced on demand, provided there is enough energy and material (which is built into the system as its foundation).

3)”What if I just change my mind, am I allowed to trade my allocation?”

There are no allocations, since this pressuposes again a scarcity view. Since each and every product will be fully industrio-degradable there is essentially no waste, and you can change you mind about something as often as you like. When you are done with a product it will be broken down into its constituent parts and reformed into something new.

4)”Will there be a market or will I be prosecuted for commercialization?”

No one will prevent you from setting up a market, but what would be the point? Again, a market exists to (theoretically) efficiently distribute goods and services among producers and consumers in order to generate profit, whereas under VP once the profit aspect is eliminated we will see the undistorted principle of self-organization begin to operate, and this will most effectively distribute resources where they need to go.

5)”What happens to all the excess bananas?”

The same thing that happens in nature- they become fertilizer for other plants.

6)”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…”

This is a reflection of your limited understanding. There is no central authority, nor does there need to be one. A society of equally free individuals functions by entering into agreements with other members, not by rules, laws, or force.
You seem to operate under the assumption that the only way things can efficiently get done is either through some strong-arm dictator or else through a kind of social homogenization (as per your reference to 1984). This is simply not the case when you realize that VP represents the technological tools and operating principles that define nature, put into the hands of INDIVIDUALS- not corporations, not states or governments, but you and I.

7)”How do we handle failures in the supply chain?”

No one is saying this will be utopia- quite the opposite in fact! Utopias are by their very nature stagnant, resistant to change and therefore brittle and highly suseptible to collapse. The vision proposed under the Venus Project is as far from utopian as one can get. It is based on flexibility and adaptability, interlocking cycles of production and use, distributed through self-aware, self-organizing intelligent networks. Imagine the internet in 3-D. Failures will be adapted to when they occur, and minimized by rigorous analysis, planning, and efficient organization, not through draconian control regulations.

8)”What happens if a yield isn’t as expected and we can’t deliver on our promises?”

This basically sums up your view of the world: limitations, schedules, deadlines, bottom lines, contracts, and punishments when all doesn’t go according to plan. None of these things will realistically exist in the new system, because there simply is no NEED for them.

Anyways, hope this stimulates you thinking on the subject.

Cheers.

 
 
Comment by me
2008-12-31 11:23:23

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

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by the now
2009-04-09 13:32:50

dear point,
I keep hearing this argument that there wont be enough space on earth to feed and house everyone.
This is entirely untrue, if you don’t believe me, why don’t you just click the link below.

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/africa_in_perspective_map.jpg

also, we do have complete and utter abundance in this world. we have enough energy available and the technology available right now to power the entire united states of America off of solar power. (the world as well)

http://joewerne.com/eos/text/nmsea.html

still don’t believe me? how about this, there are 3,850 Zettajoules of energy deposited on the earth every year by the sun. thats roughly half a ZettaJoule every hour. We need .5 ZJ to power the entire world for one year.
Are you starting to see the big picture here?
once we are able to harness our energy appropriately, as in utilizing the biggest power plant known to man (the sun) and create complete energy abundance, then we can make food abundant, clean water abundant, space can become abundant as well. the real question is not “do we have the money” its “do we have the resources?”, yes, we do have the resources.

As humans, we like to think of ourselves as very smart and the most advanced species on the planet. so far in my lifetime (I am 18) I have not been seeing this “smartness” or “advanced behavior” if we were smart, would it be so hard to co exist with the plant life we evolved from/with? the fact of the matter is, we evolved after plant life, so we need them more than they need us(actually they don’t need us at all), they already figured out how to use the sun and all their resources appropriately, isn’t it about time we, the smartest and most advanced race on the planet, did the same thing?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Kelar
2009-05-01 06:45:31

Is it just me or are you missing a huge point, there is not nearly enough hospitable land for us to live in and grow enough crops for us all already and your proposing to cover up more land with solar pannels ?

Your saying humans are not smart ? You have not seen anything to prove that we are intelegent ? Do you not see the keyboard you are typing on? Are you not aware of the huge network you are connected to alowing us to have this conversation?

 
Comment by justin Eatman
2009-07-15 06:07:00

first off if you watched the movie they did speak of buildings in the water. that means the ocean. also we can go to space. going above and beyond is it not possible that with no halter of science that we could go and live in space including other planets i mean if you havent looked at any science books then you should know that they belive its very possible to live on mars.also he means more adaptable which in turn makes them smart we grew and worked away with the land and plants and animals worked with it. what your doing is using semantics if you couldent quite understand what he had to say dont comment

 
Comment by ratmonkey
2009-12-03 01:19:31

I have an idea of how we can start this with very little start up capitol. If we invent a robot that can cultivate the resources required to build factories that build robots that can build factories that build robots that can build cities we theoretically only need to build one factory. If anyone is familiar with the game “Starcraft” you’ll see where I am coming from. So all we need is the startup capitol to pay the inventors and engineers to design and build the first robot factory and then the process should do everything on its own. It shouldnt take long before we can start moving people into these selfmade cities. Then all we have to worry about is the protoss and the zerg destroying our supply depots. Its so simple. It came to me last night when I was playing video games.

 
 
Comment by lari
2009-05-03 01:02:41

ok , on the idea of population evergrowing there are several facts that we need to accept regardless.

1.The resources of Earth are not unlimitted, just as our life , and Earth’s life, and the Sun’s life are not unlimitted. Everybody agrees on this.

2. The human species , because of its incredible advances in agriculture, industry , medicine, hygiene , education(which nake it unique among the species of planet Earth) multiplied itself and continues to multiplate at mind boggling rates.

3. If the human species continues to multiplate at same pace and no external or internal factors derange this process, other species of our Mother Planet will be affected , and then, as a next stage, resources will be outnumbered by the numbers of individuals. This will lead to chaos, death , perhaps canibalism,and other spooky things.

hence the conclussion is that you need to create a way of multiplying resources, but also a way to regulate population.

4.Population can only be regulated by two factors: the rate of natality , or the rate of mortality. Hence , cold-blooded speaking , you either extermine a number of individuals to keep the numbers in check , which leads to restauration of equilibrium , either don’t give birth to too many new individuals -and than , since the old ones will at some point dye you again restore balance.

There is no turning around here. It’s sad , but true and simple. A choice at some point needs to be made between the two. death can be brought upon individuals through natural calamities, wars, diseases,privation of resources and genocides. All of these are incredbly cruel, and bring suffering and dramas of incredible complexities. No SANE society would take these as regulatory methods. However , we have the means today to regulate births very easily and without suffering. And make a note that I am in no way talking about abortion.. Medical science is very adanced and will continue to advance, and as well the cultural awareness of people that the natality rate DOES need to be in some way regulated.

Upon all we stated above, the Zeitgeists bring the following solutions(if you also read information on their website):

a.In the present human beings can not conceive living elsewhere than on land.In the future , however , with proper technology, it will be possible for them to have floating cites on water, establishments under water, and who knows, perhaps even floating cities in the air. (Our ancestors didn’t think it’s possible to fly , and yet here we are …right?)

b. Resources will be recycled and used at their best.

c. Due to increased education, people will from their will diminish their natality rates, until a harmonious balance will be achieved between our species and our host planet.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ratmonkey
2009-12-03 01:23:25

you are a crackpot.

 
Comment by James
2010-04-23 12:49:26

Generally, better educated people who live middle class lifestyles have fewer children than poverty-stricken people. Perhaps, increasing the education and standard of living for all who can benefit from it will be the least painful solution to a potential overpopulation crisis.

 
 
 
 
Comment by art fisher
2008-10-12 16:43:04

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.

Comment by point
2008-10-12 21:45:07

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.

Comment by Mackery
2008-10-16 05:36:34

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.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Frank Otis
2008-11-02 20:40:58

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!

 
Comment by point
2008-11-03 06:00:11

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.

 
Comment by daveydave
2008-11-09 09:17:51

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!

 
Comment by point
2008-11-09 18:59:58

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.

 
Comment by daveydave
2008-11-11 11:14:04

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.

 
Comment by point
2008-11-11 12:30:44

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.

 
 
Comment by daveydave
2008-11-10 21:42:05

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.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by lolahiroshima
2009-01-16 17:19:16

There is no force or compulsion involved, only the gradual individual realization that change is neccessary. This is the essence of evolution- change or go extinct. Human beings and human society is not immune from this. Your words seem very fearful, and bordering on irrational when you make statements like this being some form of modern concentration camp. I could quite convincingly argue that our current situation is much more akin to the kind of slavery that you decry than anything presented under the VP.

The point is that we ARE at a tipping point now, where we still have the chance and the choice to alter ourselves and our society, before either nature or our so called ‘leaders’ makes the decision for us.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by lari
2009-05-03 01:29:26

To point:

What we are living right now is undercover freedom. I am not free, and you are not free, and the regular worker gets small wages while big corporations are making big money, and it is all part f the system we live in .

Human mind and human society…you could compare them to the computer you type on. The computer in itself is nothing , it isn’t either good either bad, or anything else than a mechanism. Than you implement a program on it , and that program becomes the “reality” of the computer, the prism of its operations.

The program in human’s case is the system. Social, cultural, political, financial system.
What you and I live right now is nothing more or less than a system. A system that can be replaced by another , that can be made operable in its turn.

The system of capitalism is a system that revolvs around a supreme god , and that is MONEY. Money is ,in this system , the unity by which all values are measured and all hierarchies established. Money in this “reality” is the chair you seat on, the car you drive, the house you live in , the bread you eat, the work you give. It is everything. But what is money ? Everybody wants it , but nobody can exactely define it.

In the past, it was all about resources. people exchanged resources for resources.Some were more rare than others, and that made them more aluable. Hence resources started being equivalated in precious metals, lke gold and silver.Than , gold and silver at their turn started being equivalated by paper and coins(made of non-precous metals). Than…the connection between paper and gold has diminushed , and now “paper” can exist without equivalance in gold. So than isn’t money more of an ideological matter ? This is what it is : an ideology.

Money doesn’t in fact represent vital resources anymore. This equivalation is only in our minds, in our culture, a dominant trait of the system in which we operate at the moment.

The thing is that you need to see the system as a whole to understand this conceopt.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by missed the point
2008-10-16 15:20:38

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.

Comment by point
2008-10-16 18:56:03

I don’t think anybody is missing the point, I understand the vision. It’s just never going to work.

Comment by John
2008-11-06 01:38:54

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?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by point
2008-11-06 07:31:45

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.

 
Comment by daveydave
2008-11-10 21:53:40

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.

 
Comment by tim
2008-11-17 19:20:02

“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).

 
Comment by point
2008-11-19 22:44:42

“It is because of the inequality that the current global system promotes”

Ahhh… fundamental disagreement. I smell a nature vs. nurture debate. If you believe that we are all born with equal abilities then we will never come to agreement.

 
Comment by tim
2008-11-19 22:55:33

“Ahhh… fundamental disagreement. I smell a nature vs. nurture debate. If you believe that we are all born with equal abilities then we will never come to agreement.”

Well, first off, I believe you missed the ending of my post, as it read; “obviously naturally gifted individuals may prosper in certain fields, however everyone would have access to the same material”. This should show that the inequality I am referring to is one based off inequality access to information and education, not natural ability. I am an a supporter of the idea that people are culturally formed, and that their upbringing and exposure have vast impacts on their abilities down the road, however, I do acknowledge that people do seemed to be naturally inclined towards certain fields of study or abilities.

 
Comment by lari
2009-05-03 22:58:24

Mr Tim , I have to disagree with you:

“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).”

Er…I think you are missing a few points here. Creating a society that is promoting equality is NOT going to lead to us all having equal IQs (?!). But it would , ideally and hopefully, give equal chances to education to everyone. (Well, to be honest, I doubt that it will work THAT well, but I do think a better society would give education to more people than today…).The point is NOT that all people will be equal in all ways. No. The point is that by having machines do the “lower” work , you are creating a chance for humans to invest their time in science, and creation , and arts . (Like they say in that Zeitgeist brochure:putting today’s girls behind a counter to sell candies, or people to arrange products on shelves in supermarkets , when the human brain IS CAPABLE of SO MUCH MORE is such a waste of human resources! ) This , together with an education system available for free to the vast majority, would lead to a highly superiour society . People would not be equal in the sence that you understand. But the average IQ would be higher.The average level of thought and knowledge of a person would be so much higher. The standards and progress in science would be higher.In arts the same. People could really transform themselves from an ignorant mob into evolved beings , who can focus on discovering and improving the world around them. That is really the point: to rid them of the need to enslave themselves to earn bread and a shelter, and give them security and endless horizons for their minds. We all know that in fact today we ARE using SO LITTLE of our brain , just barely more than 10% .So human minds amight have a chance to get to their full abilities.

This is inspired by maslow’s pyramid ,which sais that at the very bottom are a human’s most basic needs: shelter, food, water etc. When those needs are satisfied he can start aspiring for higher needs, at higher and higher levels of the pyramide. As each level is satisfied he goes on , until in the end he reaches the abstract level . In a VP society there might be a chance that our species could become one of the most evolved and advanced in the universe.

But we’ll see. I don’t make myself illusions that it will happen in our lifetime.

 
Comment by tim
2009-05-15 10:47:40

lari,

While I think your intentions are good, I do believe you may have misunderstood my points. I was not stating that everyone would have an exactly equal IQ in the literal sense. What I was implying was essentially what you are in agreement with; that by allowing for equal access to education (and a real education, not the pathetic excuse for an education which our current system promotes), then there will a vast balancing of intelligence amongst the society. In other words, as educational access is equally distributed, we will on the large become a much more intelligent people. Certainly, there will still remain variance within the population, but the level of variance would be so minute compared to what we face today, that it would virtually – and I stress virtually in a figurative sense – cease to exist.

That was my point, and I believe it is not something we would find ourselves in disagreement on.

 
 
Comment by daveydave
2008-11-08 21:41:28

because all the greedy folk are in charge, and as long as people keep saying that we will carry on careering toward oblivion. what you want to try something new when we all live in a toxic swamp and are eating each other?
point is we have a window of oppurtunity to change this shitty state of current events and with the technology we have now we are in a position to do this or begin at least to remove the power from those who have it at the moment because if this desire for economic grwoth continues we are fucked i tells ya! so it has to work (or something similar has to), a good way to start the transition is to bring attention to the problem and offer an alternative which is what this film doesIt’s just never going to work.everybody dies, what about my flight to the medetcetcetc

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Solomon Morrison
2008-10-16 21:17:10

First off, allow me to acknowledge that those in favor as well as those not infavor for what the venus project offers all make very valid arguments. That being said i will analyze some of the previous comments.

“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?”

I believe Augustus Osari asked you to “Come up with something you could possibly need”. What all humans need merely include food, sleep, shelter, and sexual relase. One of the key objectives the venus project seeks to acheive is providing the mass majority with the essentials. What one may want at any point in time, while it may very well be of great importance, it will forever be secondary to the basic needs.

“It’s an intriguing concept, but I’m not convinced that we can eliminate all consumption of resources entirely..”

I apologize but i must disagree with you on this point. I believe that we do, and always have the availability of clean unlimited resources. A fish will never run out of water to swim in. It is simply the balance of nature. As humans we are ofcourse apart of the balance of nature. However, in our infinite “wisdom” we continue to upset that balance for the sake of the elite few.

“Do you plan on restricting the number of children people can have too?”

Very insightful point. I agree this control of power, similar to what is going on in present day china is immoral. In fact i susoect the venus project, if implemented, would eventually cause the need for this restriction. In a world where food and resources are always abundant without people having to work in any way, be it a job or simply hunting for food and resources, would lead to expanded human life-spans directly causing in an increase in human population. While long life is good, this can upset the natural balance of the world. However, this can be overcome by instead of restricting the number pregnancies, one could restrict the production and distribution of energy. In a way we do this already, for ofcourse we have the “haves” and the “have nots”. But you are right this is a transittion to a different form of control, yet with free food. However, if we get free food and free energy, is it not the lesser of two evils?

“Personally I am not enslaved by money, but many people are enslaved by many things, including money, but mostly debt.”

Forgive me, for i sincerley do not aim to insult your intelligence, but this statement strikes me as most naive. We all exist in a monetary system, therefore we are all enslaved by money. As long as you need money, your will always be its slave, as well as the slave to everything that money can buy. The system we live in is greatly fueled by money amongst other illusions of tangible importance.

“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.”

Here i find some truth a falacy within this statement. In congruence with your argument, i agree it could potentially be a bad thing to have everything in abundance, as it eleminates the value of appreciation. Also, it does not solve problems such as greed. Put two babies in a room with two identital shiny balls, and both babies will still want both for himself or herself. And last but not least, it raises the question: what will happen to incentive? However, contrary to popular belief prices are not to “..find equilibrium between producers and consumers.” For instance, everyone loves diamonds which are expensive. Many believe that things that are expensive are rare. Therefore many believe that diamonds are rare. In fact diamonds are not rare. they are expensive for the simple fact that because people natually enjoy shiny, pretty things they will buy them. Since the diamond industry is controlled by only a handful of diamond mining companies (such as Debers), it is easy to control the production and flow of diamonds. A similar scenario can be applied to oil. If something that is not rare is in demand, the protocol for capatilsm is to make it seem rare.

“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.”

very good reitteration of the video. The venus project offers many plausible answers to todays society, except on how to change the culture. The fact is, i doubt there is any way to change the culture. We are too far gone i believe. We need to litterally start fresh with an entirely new population of people. I know that sounds extreme, but mull it over and you’ll probably find that this is true. Additionally the video raised the question: human nature or human behavior. This can be held in common with the already proposed phschology delima of nurture versus nature. Obvious aspects of human nature i have already stated including food, shelter, sleep, and sexual release. However, if you put two wild men on a deserted island with limited food, what would happen? if one kills the other is just human nature–the will to survive? or is he simply reacting to his enviornment, and therfore would not kill the man if there was an abundance of food?

In the end, we must realize that todays society isnt working. We believe that we work for a means to an end, yet the reality that we don’t want to believe is that the means is the end. I don’t assert that the venus project is the answer, or even the best asnwer to our problems. I do believe however it is at least plausible to say that it is the lesser of two evils.

Comment by point
2008-10-17 11:33:29

Excellent response, much appreciated.

“What all humans need merely include food, sleep, shelter, and sexual release.”

You make it sound as though that’s a narrow range of products. I hate to break it to you, but if all that is how you describe “need” then people already only spend most of their income on “needs” today, regardless of status. Food, drinks, leisure, real estate, relationships, etc. That is what you described. There is a wide spectrum of products that can be included in those categories. My point here is the old saying, “once you agree on principle, it’s just a matter of degree”. Let’s assume we agree on the basic need categories as described above, can you really satisfy everybody’s food needs with an abundance of a few kinds of food, or will you have an abundance of every kind of food? The same goes for the others.

“It is simply the balance of nature.”

Maybe. I won’t rule it out, I just never believe people when they say “this time it will be different”. Because I know how that always ends.

“one could restrict the production and distribution of energy… if we get free food and free energy, is it not the lesser of two evils?”

That looks like a contradiction, I don’t think I understand your point.

“Forgive me, for i sincerley do not aim to insult your intelligence, but this statement strikes me as most naive. We all exist in a monetary system, therefore we are all enslaved by money.”

I completely disagree. I am only enslaved by money if I don’t have any. Ironically I would be more comfortable describing the Venus Project as a system to enslave people by money than capitalism. Money is what you trade to acquire what you want, it’s more of a concept than an object. The Venus Project reminds me of the “War on Terrorism” in that you can’t fight a tactic, and you can’t eliminate a concept.

“If something that is not rare is in demand, the protocol for capatilsm is to make it seem rare”

It just seems like such a cop-out to blame the man in the suit for all your problems. Oil is actually fairly rare, diamonds are not — fine, don’t buy them. This all goes back to people being stupid, why do we allow ourselves to be conditioned into believing that a diamond is forever? People used to pass that stuff down from generation to generation. And if diamonds are so abundant and people are so stupid, go start a diamond mine and profit instead of complaining about it on the internet…

Comment by John
2008-11-06 01:46:58

Why do you berate and insult each other to try and make your point? Knowledge is the key to deciding whether or not something will work or not… If you can’t truly conceptualize what’s going on in the world(as far as truth is concerned) then don’t make an argument…

What are you conditioned to believe? And is your life what you truly hope and dream it can be?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by tim
2008-11-17 19:12:30

“Ironically I would be more comfortable describing the Venus Project as a system to enslave people by money than capitalism. Money is what you trade to acquire what you want, it’s more of a concept than an object.”

I would have to disagree, and admit I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Since the entire Venus Project is aimed at the destruction of currency, how do you suppose this could be? Also, since you wouldn’t need to trade anything to get what you want, but would have equally free access to it, currency is, again, an unnecessary vice.

“And if diamonds are so abundant and people are so stupid, go start a diamond mine and profit instead of complaining about it on the internet…”

I don’t think you could be missing the point any more. The problem most people in these posts have is that they don’t agree with the current system in place, and are looking for ways to bring it down and start one that actually possesses some promise for the future. If you were to be someone who realized the endless flaws in the current systems and advocated for its downfall, but then used your knowledge of how it is unjust to turn a profit, you would be the worst kind of hypocrite of all. So basically, your point is about as counter-productive as could be.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by point
2008-11-19 22:35:42

My point is based on the difference between money and currency. You can take away the paper but you can’t take away the desire for people to trade other things for stuff they want, those other things are what I call money. And the less things that are available to trade as money (must have some scarcity) the more valuable they become. So by taking away currency VP will only make other forms of money much more valuable.

“you would be the worst kind of hypocrite of all”

Doesn’t anything you do by definition fill a gap or flaw in the availability of some good or service, what is your alternative? Are you saying that whoever lives within a system they disagree with should voluntarily withdraw from society and live in poverty and misery as some kind of moral protest until everyone agrees with them? A mass hunger strike? Or is there a limit on the amount of money you can earn and not be a hypocrite… So 100k is ok, but 200k makes you a hypocrite.

 
Comment by tim
2008-11-19 23:08:27

See, I do not agree, in the sense that I do not believe have a natural desire to trade goods. The only reason people have done it for so long is a direct result of the lack of resources available, and there was seemingly no alternative. But, with today’s technological possibilities, if we were to eliminate this need for a barter system I have no reason to think that humans would maintain this circumstantial desire.

As for your second point, I agree to an extent. There seems to be a very fine line between what would be considered acceptable in our current system in regards to how much is too much. However, I believe you should only attain what you need to sustain yourself in a reasonable way. Subjecting yourself to unnecessary living conditions does not solve anything. However, you can live moderately, and we both know nit-picking at this is not the point here. The issue is how our society has a seemingly unquenchable thrust for more, and people are not simply trying to sustain themselves, but are far to eager to manipulate things to their benefit in unnecessary and greedy ways. That is what I am against.

 
Comment by point
2008-11-19 23:23:48

“do not believe have a natural desire to trade goods”

Well that’s another fundamental disagreement. I think giving someone an infinite number of apples will not satisfy his libido. He will want women, even if he has to trade his apples to get them. And that’s just one example…

“eager to manipulate things to their benefit in unnecessary and greedy ways”

Just saying a VP society will change this doesn’t make it so…

 
Comment by tim
2008-11-20 00:10:36

“Well that’s another fundamental disagreement. I think giving someone an infinite number of apples will not satisfy his libido. He will want women, even if he has to trade his apples to get them. And that’s just one example…”

One thing that I continue to have an issue with is how you jump around some drastically with examples, and in doing so you make them irrelevant… You can not compare a man’s ability to be supplied with apples, and his desire for sex. That is ridiculous. As I have already said, a resource based society would provide a man with free access to necessities, education, technology, etc. It would not control anyone’s access to sex, love, emotion, or yes, happiness. Those, among many other things, would have to be created and acquired just as it would today. The difference however, is that people would all have the ability to seek those things instead of slaving themselves to the perpetual cycle of work, debt and ignorance they have now. Human’s wouldn’t be something that could be bartered for (as they sadly often are now).

“Just saying a VP society will change this doesn’t make it so…”

First of all, I have not just been saying it with no logic behind it. I have explained how I think such a society would eliminate much -if not all – of these human qualities… Greed is a result of people’s mental state. If people feel they need to constantly fight for their ability to maintain or build upon what they currently possess to sustain themselves, of course they are going to become greedy. As I said before, when you live in a society where you become vulnerable the second you stop acquiring more, then it is only natural that you will want to continue to accumulate as much as you can in an effort to solidify your well being. But if you did not have the endless pressure to hoard and hoard as much as you could, simply in an effort to maintain your current state, then there would no longer be any reason to feel threatened (as far as your sustainability would go). Thus, such widespread greed would diminish along with the removal of fears of an inability to sustain yourself.

 
Comment by point
2008-11-20 21:23:02

What! Is your argument that giving people more time to pursue sex will make them better people? If anything giving people all that free time will increase crime, there’s a reason why cities build community centers for urban kids. But that’s besides the point, if people still want something that’s not in abundance (ie. Jessica Alba) they will be willing to trade something they want less (apples) for something they want more (sex). Now of course that’s just an analogy here, so I don’t LITERALLY mean apples for sex, I mean something you have for something you don’t. That’s just basic human nature, I can’t believe you would argue with that. Taking away currency will never take away money, that’s just a bunch of hogwash. People don’t use money only to acquire physical items that can be made abundant by supercomputer fiat. People will trade, you can’t stop that. I used to trade baseball cards when I was a kid, that had nothing to do with money. I wanted the other cards more than the ones I had an abundance of.

“there would no longer be any reason to feel threatened”

Go talk to anybody living in a socialist or communist state, ask them how secure they feel when they are completely dependent on some government beaurocrat to provide them with food and shelter and everything else. I will take the exact opposite position, the more control you take away from people to determine their own destiny the LESS secure they will feel and the MORE likely they will be to hoard everything they get their hands on. One of my biggest gripes with the VP society is that it takes away people’s ability to save. Savings is security, not government programs. This all goes back to the de-centralizing theme… See there is a method to my madness.

 
Comment by tim
2008-11-21 18:43:18

“they will be willing to trade something they want less (apples) for something they want more (sex)… I mean something you have for something you don’t. That’s just basic human nature”

Now I know you said I shouldn’t take you literally, but since it is in fact the argument you chose to use, I have no other choice but to refute it as it stands. And trust me, I do not, and have not throughout any of my posts, aimed at trying to misrepresent any of you arguments in order to more easily refute them (in short, I am not trying to ‘straw man’ you). Now, back to the good stuff. This is the problem I have with this argument; you are trying to put objects (or anything else that could be ‘traded’ in the most literal sense)on the same level as an action which connects deeply with human emotion and choice (sex). I do not believe this is a viable comparison. If you refer to the action of sex as nothing more than a means of currency to trade – which you indeed currently are – then you are detaching the human emotions from the person how is supplying the action in regards to the situation, and are making them no better than an object; a prostitute. However, such a society would not promote, or even allow for such a thing to happen. Those types of actions occur in our current world out of necessity. Do you honestly believe that woman who act as prostitutes, do it so that they can trade themselves like a piece of meat for something which they already have? No, of course not. They do it because they are desperate in the situation they are in, and have no better means of acquiring the necessities. However, this is exactly what you are claiming. You are saying that you can trade an object for sex, yet as I have just shown you, sex is only traded when access to the desired objects is otherwise unattainable. However, in a society where people have access to all of those objects of necessity, they would no longer be subjected to such an action, therefore nullifying anyone’s need to trade their morals for survival. Thus, such type of bartering would cease to exist.

“Go talk to anybody living in a socialist or communist state, ask them how secure they feel when they are completely dependent on some government beaurocrat to provide them with food and shelter and everything else.”

Again, you miss the point. Not only that, but you make a comparison that is not legitimate. You can not use current communist or socialist states as a away to prove that people don’t like equality, because all of those states are driven by the same things American society is; corruption, greed and power. The reason no communist country has ever succeed is because they are founded upon money, just like every other government that has existed. They are ruled by a few, as is our country, and those few don’t care about the general public at all. So please, stop referring to current corrupt systems as legitimate examples of my views in the real world, because they simply are not even close and I would hope you are smarter than that.

Also, as I have said NUMEROUS times, I do not – I repeat, do NOT – support a centralized power or government. I have told you many times before, that I stand behind a true democracy; a government controlled by votes of equally informed citizens, where each vote is weighted equally among them. That is why people in such a society would not have to listen to ‘the man’ tell them how many bananas they can eat (I know you love that expression). Rules and regulations – if there needed to be some – would come from a true majority vote of all informed citizens. therefore, the society itself could decide what is best for it. And if that means that food has to begin to be rationed becuase of a lack of supply (which I dont think it would, but will use it as an extreme example), then everyone will receive the same rations. Thus equality will remain. And please don’t use your idea that people are naturally not equal argument, because it is weak. Even if people are not naturally equal in intelligence, that does not take away from the fact that they are equal when it comes to what kind of, and how many resources they need to survive.

 
Comment by point
2008-11-21 20:53:51

“such a society would not promote, or even allow for such a thing to happen.”

You know tim, I think we’re reaching the point where we will simply never agree. I laughed out loud several times while reading your comment, not because I’m trying to make fun of you, but because what you write is as ridiculous to me as what I write (I assume) is to you… and yes I’m getting a bit frustrated trying to explain things that seem _so_ obvious to me, so be patient with me as I vent a little below.

I selected that quote above for a reason, because you are dead wrong. Not all prostitution is a result of desperation. That’s a point which quite frankly shouldn’t even need to be debated because it’s so obvious. And it’s just _one_ example of people trading things other than objects that can be provided by VP. Let me ask you this — how will you prevent people from growing illegal drugs in their homes or on their property, and trading them on the streets to addicts in exchange for favours? (My wife cheated on me, teach her a lesson… my teacher is racist, teach him a lesson… the guy that runs the shop that fixes my robot put my neighbour at the front of the line, I’ve been waiting for 6 months, teach him a lesson…) People are people, they are not machines. You can’t simplify the world into tiny little neat Platonic categories that have rational boundaries and simple narratives. This whole topic is just so absurd.

“The reason no communist country has ever succeed is because they are founded upon money”

You know what came to mind when I read this… Imagine somebody telling you the reason they don’t like basketball is because it has points. It needs more sharing. We need to train them to love each other. If only they removed the baskets and let everyone play together on one team it would be so much better for the league.

No, I’m not comparing life to basketball, I’m simply saying there is no such thing as basketball without baskets… that’s just a ball. Similarly, there’s no such thing as life without money… that’s just machines. We are not machines. You seriously need to get over this because it’s ruining your whole world outlook, you can not train all people to feel and do whatever you tell them just because you think it’s in their best interest. If you insist on believing you can create a new man without flaws than that’s another fundamental disagreement.

“do NOT – support a centralized power or government”

Tim, VP is the most centralized power system I have ever heard of. You have a master computer that you trust to govern every aspect of your life. It tells you the optimal speed limits, the optimal number of children you’re allowed to have, the optimal capital allocation for housing, food, clothes, education, medicine, transportation, etc. It’s downright terrifying.

“equally informed citizens”

You know what came to mind when I read this, remember that Apple commercial parody of the movie edition of 1984? (link below). How exactly will you determine that your citizens are equally informed? Will you have mandatory 1 hour news absorption lectures with a quiz to make sure everyone understands? Who will write the news? I strongly suggest you read that book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

“would not have to listen to ‘the man’ tell them how many bananas they can eat”

What, you made a huge leap there… news and voting will stop people from being ruled by ‘the man’? We have that today. Again, you are assuming that people understand all the issues they are faced with, they don’t, because they’re stupid. Never forget that. That won’t be changed by more news. That argument is so weak.

“Rules and regulations”

VP has no laws.

“the society itself could decide what is best for it.”

I’m glad you said that, because this is the *EXACT* point that I disagree with the very most. First of all, society can’t make decisions and impose them on people unless the system has a central point from which these decisions will be governed. You are contradicting yourself all over the place. How can society decide to pursue electric vehicles unless somebody decides to forcefully divert capital towards electric vehicles? Secondly, society will NEVER know what is “best” for it. There is absolutely no evidence that people have the slightest clue what needs to be done today to prevent tomorrow’s problems. We have a history of failure in this regard. We are INCAPABLE of planning our economy. If I could say it 1000 times and still have you read through the end of this comment I would. Remember the idiots with their models… idiots with models. Repeat after me… idiots with models.

“Even if people are not naturally equal in intelligence, that does not take away from the fact that they are equal when it comes to what kind of, and how many resources they need to survive.”

WE ARE NOT MACHINES. We are not equal in more than intelligence. We are not equal in what is required for us to be satisfied, happy, challenged, excited, angry, enlightened, inspired… We need all those things to survive. Not to mention the obvious physical differences. We are not equal. We will never be equal. There is no program you can impose which will have equal impact on everyone. I mean this is one of those things that if you can’t see then there’s no point continuing this discussion frankly.

 
Comment by G-Bus
2008-12-15 08:02:00

Wow. I’m not sure I really wanted to bother commenting. “point” – you seem like you’ve made your decision. Not all can be expected to care about their fellow man.

“Again, you are assuming that people understand all the issues they are faced with, they don’t, because they’re stupid.”

One of the largest points which the VP seeks is to increase educational options for individuals globally – to reduce the amount of these ‘stupid’ people you seem to think surround you. I’ve got to admit, the growth of blissful ignorance in our generation is shocking in many ways. Education is our most viable hope at solving some of the biggest issues our world will face.

Also, people who ‘fix’ or ‘make’ the machines will not need this ‘monetary’ repayment – they will be driven by their passions and skills. A lot of people LIKE to make stuff – and ENJOY fixing things. Some people like to garden – others like to clean. We can pursue are true passions while enhancing the world around us.

I’ll leave you with one parting remark or example as it may be.

Did Captain Kirk get paid to explore the universe? I think he just did it because it was a great freaking adventure and a large challenge – he didn’t do it for the cash ;) .

But, I’m sure you’ll come back with arguments that attack my ideological stance or something.

The Venus Project does seem to be a step in the right direction, hopefully we can pursue it before it is too late. We won’t have a chance to regret it.

 
Comment by Gravletongue
2009-02-19 05:48:07

Flabbergahsted. Your negativity beggars belief point! You state ‘There is absolutely no evidence that people have the slightest clue what needs to be done today to prevent tommorows problems.’ Can you even begin to grasp the enormity of your blinkered stupidity. Your opinion is truly terrifying.

 
 
 
Comment by alight
2008-12-07 01:28:10

very good points you make,and i also agree on the population control-part beeing an evil we can not endure.

“I agree this control of power, similar to what is going on in present day china is immoral. In fact i susoect the venus project, if implemented, would eventually cause the need for this restriction.”

In a society thats sincere with regards to education and understanding, we would face the world and its problems realisticly and not only feel a connection with nature, but understand it as well. Having an understanding of resourcecapabilities vs. human growth is essential to our survival anyways, so why is this a bad thing? A society that produces thinking people, (smart people that come up with smart solutions), would handle these and other problems in smart ways (e.i. colonizing the oceans,as purposed på VP, or even further: space.) The only limit is the human mind, wich when tapped properly, is infinite. If we understand the cause of problems, we might see how we can be part of the solution.

This would then again lead to people taking responsibility for their actions,based on knowledge. This would also work for the aspect of drugs, for example. Education and understanding is the key.

Freedom is not doing and having what you want when you want it. Freedom is responsibility.

Responsibility for yourself is noble,and an absolute. Responsibility for yourself, seen in a larger context is the very definition of freedom. There is no freedom unless it is freedom for all. All things connect. We cannot avoid this point.

This is not communism. This is a society aware of its “one-ness”, but stil promoting the individual.

We make people on this earth good only by setting good examples. Not indoctrination.

With the monetarysystem gone,the banks,the marketing,the commercials,they all dissapear.No need for the constant propagation of consumerism. This will in turn curb the drive (wich I, like they say in Z, believe is human behavior caused by environmental influence) for the constant urging for material goods.

We do not solve problems with endless negative statements as “this will never work!”, “this is fascism!” and “what about all the suff that i want for myself?!”. Instead, point out what you think is wrong and ask if there is a possible solution to the problem, or even better; endulge us for a few minutes (i know you have some to spare,hence your posts) and try to come up with a solution yourself!

I think we need to reconsider human conduct as it is today and remove powerstructures. The best way to do that is to come up with a better solution and start waking people up.

Work together. Use your brains. Or we all perish as a failed human race. Peak oil is coming, and noone is taking actions as how to implement new energysources in our societies. this could get ugly folks. But maybe this is what its all about. Our final test. That ol’ 2012-age-of-aquarius-legend-type-of-shit.. Just not in the way people thougth. A spiritual understanding of our connection to this planet, and a realistic view on the worlds current affairs is what is needed. The way to a new society could be troublesome. But we can focus on solutions. Then we eventually win. Wake up and make a difference while we still can.

-A

(26 yrs,Oslo,Norway)

P.S. I am very happy to see that these debates actually contain words and thoughts of intelligent people in contrast of alot of other followers of movements revolving around “conspiracies” these days. That itself is a measure of value as to the importance of the topic. D.S.

 
 
Comment by Solomon Morrison
2008-10-16 21:34:34

also thanks for the google tid bits. i look forward to reading them over.

 
Comment by belief system
2008-10-16 23:31:54

Any medium has limitations in how it gets across its message. You call out those weaknesses in the film, which requires a level of focus, bravo, but miss its central message.

Your article reads like the film offended your belief system, which is a call out in the film. Fresco states that The Venus Project won’t be perfect but he is reaching for something better. Dream a little.

 
Comment by Solomon Morrison
2008-10-17 17:26:13

“It just seems like such a cop-out to blame the man in the suit for all your problems.”

I didn’t mean to come across as blaming “the man” for any of my problems. in fact, my own personal problems at this point in my life are mundane enough that they don’t need to be solved by any reform within any social system or economic system within out government. However, i do assert that much of the social and economic problems of the war can be blamed on “the man” to a great affect (i.e. war, uneven distribution of world wealth and health care, pollution, etc.) I suspect that we can both agree on the fact that we can probably define the man to a great extent as the federal reserve bank in league with the united states government. Here in lies the problem of the monetary system that i think fresco was trying to tackle.

“completely disagree. I am only enslaved by money if I don’t have any.”

Are you not also enslaved by money by trying to keep as much as you can when you do have it? I think we are all enslaved by money wether we know it or not. At this point, it’s not sumthing we can really control unless we walk the path of budah so to speak.

“Let’s assume we agree on the basic need categories as described above, can you really satisfy everybody’s food needs with an abundance of a few kinds of food, or will you have an abundance of every kind of food?”

if i am correct, i suspect that what you are saying here is that the same problems of social heirchy will still exists in this “better” world fresco advocates if there are still varying qualities of products that are limited to only a few people, which over shadow the abundunce of products. If so, then i agree this is a problem that the venus project does not address. but once again, is that not a better alternative to uneven distribution of products AND uneven distribution of the quality of products?

“And if diamonds are so abundant and people are so stupid, go start a diamond mine and profit instead of complaining about it on the internet…”

Well the answer to this is the same reason why “we allow ourselves to be conditioned into believing that a diamond is forever”. Misdirection. As for me personally, my passion is making and editing movies, not mining for minerals…

Comment by point
2008-10-17 19:40:39

“the man to a great extent as the federal reserve bank in league with the united states government.”

Yes, some call that fascism. I call it a disgrace.

“Are you not also enslaved by money by trying to keep as much as you can when you do have it? ”

Of course not. I work to write articles for this blog, I don’t do it for the tiny trickle of advertising revenue, but I cash the checks nonetheless. The fact that I get paid for doing something I enjoy doesn’t by definition make it slavery. Don’t get me wrong, most people are slaves, but that’s more of a mental condition than a physical one. Their minds are trapped by convention. I am interested in what I learn and I want other people to access the same knowledge. My mind is liberated, and as a result I have been able to free myself from the normal patterns that constitute accepted financial wisdom.

“…is that not a better alternative to uneven distribution of products AND uneven distribution of the quality of products?”

Either you create an abundance of everything or you don’t. If you only create an abundance of what most people want most of the time then you still have scarcity and you haven’t solved any problems. And remember I’m not just talking about food. I’m talking about real estate (not all climates are equal, not all waterfronts are equal, etc) and relationships (short of the stepford wives people will always be willing to trade something for sex) and so on. The scarce “higher-quality commodities” will trade like money.

No, absolutely not, that isn’t more desirable. I am reminded of prohibition. I am not a fan of alcohol, but I recognize that driving the production of products people want underground will create even more problems, even if those people are a minority, regardless of what the authorities believe is in the best interest of the collective. The best thing you can do is leave people alone, not force everyone to surrender the world’s resources and productive capacity for allocation by committee. I don’t believe equal distribution of everything should be our objective. Equal and fair are not the same.

Comment by John
2008-11-06 02:16:06

“Equal and fair are not the same.”

Define that for me please…

Are you saying that you, or any other person should have more than anyone else? Because “Equal and fair are not the same.”

Or, that you’re separate from everyone else, and you deserve more because voicing your opinion against someone’s humanitarian vision is for the “greater” good?

Or, do you dislike the idea of true peace because it would put someone like you out of business?

I’m not sure I really understand your motive for starting this blog…

“The scarce “higher-quality commodities” will trade like money.” ???

Name one “commodity”, that would actually be a “commodity”(according to you) in the proposed Venus Project. I’m curious as to your true argument here.

Also, did you merely watch the Zeitgeist movie, or have you researched everything that this man actually has to say? Have you met and interviewed him? Or are you basing your entire argument on here-say?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by point
2008-11-06 07:46:51

It’s possible to theoretically envision a state in which equal and fair are the same for some things, but it’s just as possible to have situations where an equal distribution is not fair or a fair distribution is not equal, therefore equal and fair are by definition not the same. Would it be fair to impose equal health care, given that some people are genetically predisposed to certain conditions? Would it be fair to impose equal quantity of food, given that normal humans can vary dramatically in the amount of calories required to function normally? The world is much more complicated than you think, it requires a certain level of sophistication that just isn’t found in the VP religion.

“you deserve more because voicing your opinion…”

I’ve noticed a pattern, you are infusing your assumptions into every question. Some people could deserve more for any number of reasons, I don’t know what voicing an opinion has to do with anything.

“do you dislike the idea of true peace because it would put someone like you out of business”

What does equal distribution of everything have to do with peace? The basic flaw in your thinking is an assumption that conflict arises from a desire to acquire money… that’s total nonsense in my opinion. That’s the basis for our disagreement. And yes I wouldn’t want VP to put me out of business, I enjoy my business. I study hard, I work hard, I take my business seriously, and it wouldn’t be fair for someone else to profit off my labour more than me.

“Name one “commodity”, that would actually be a “commodity”(according to you) in the proposed Venus Project. ”

I named many in the post and various comments, I know it’s tough to find them with all these comments. So to help you out a bit… whatever you give the contributors in excess of the non-contributors would trade, the privileges given to whoever decides which projects to pursue would trade, access to the latest technology first would trade, beautiful women would still be coveted by most men, prostitution would thrive, the most desirable property in the most desirable climates, the higher quality products that can’t be mass produced that are still scarce because so few people have a taste for them so the committee decided it wasn’t important and focused attention on other things, and so on.

“have you researched everything that this man actually has to say”

I have read a bit from his website, but not exhaustively.

 
Comment by lolahiroshima
2009-01-16 18:18:09

I think that here you are making your most poignant and incisive critiques, and i would like to try to address some of them.

Regarding this idea of fairness and equality- you are right on the money(no pun intended) when you say that these two terms cannot be conflated. Your examples of food and medical care are perfect illustrations of this precept. What i would like to put forward, and which i feel the ideals behind the VP is advocating, is moreso the notion of equality of access, rather than equality of service. I think we can agree, hopefully, that all people deserve equal access to medical care, even though how they will be treated (fairness) depends on their direct needs. The same would hold true for food. Any system which provides equal access to foodstuffs, regardless of differing needs, can be considered fair.
So how then do these disequalities between people across a whole range of factors, such as intelligence, aptitude, and the like, realistically achieve equilibrium under VP?
This is indeed the flaw behind all previous attempts to engineer so-called ‘perfect’ societies. Keep in mind that VP is not an end point, but simply a structural readjustment that will continuously evolve in concert with human needs, since it is driven by them.
My reading of the VP paradigm is that we are equal in our humanity and our freedom, our ability to make the most of ourselves should we choose to do so. Any other try at making all people ‘equal’ destroys both freedom and individuality. This is something that i cannot possibly support, and yet i think that the VP will protect these values, rather than threaten them, as you feel it would.
There will always be people who work harder than others, do they not deserve more, or deserve first share of the resources? This goes to the heart of the social engineering question- in a society where everything is available, how is exceptionalism rewarded? Ultimately, i think that human beings, absent monetary rewards or incentives, will redefine their concepts of reward and fulfillment. Again it comes back to doing what most satifies your sense of individual self. A human who evolves consciously will no longer ask ‘what’s in this for me?’, but will instead ask ‘what will this make possible for others to achieve?’.

The Venus Project, or anything like it can never work without people shifting their values, and as i said in an earlier post, this is not something that can or should be forced on people. For to do so would betray the very foundations and principles upon which the VP seeks to act, that being, our desire to be better than we currently are.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Solomon Morrison
2008-10-17 22:55:13

“Equal and fair are not the same.”

No objections here. however, in this current state we are NIETHER equal NOR fair. The present economic crisis is ofcourse increasing the dispartiy of equality and fairness even further, as the rich most likley plan to drain the cash cow for all that its worth until it dies, while the average american, who is say–a blogger, files for bankrupty. And as we both know, the trend since the inception of the Fed. will make this continue until it collapses on itself, and then who knows what new evil will occur then. The point im making is that we are in a self-destructive pattern which has increased in rate dramatically since the funding of this “war on terror” which is designed to be sustained not necesarrily “won”.

At least in the venus project we can solve the equality problem, and work out the fairness later. Contrastingly in todays present system, the lack of reform is only adding more fuel to the fire.

Comment by point
2008-10-17 23:09:58

Well I think we are almost coming to agreement. I won’t even attempt to defend the current system, I agree it’s a mess. I just disagree with the idea we need more of what caused the problem (government planning) in order to solve it. I firmly believe (and have not seen any evidence to the contrary) that people are simply not capable of managing these sorts of things. Nobody is smart enough and honest enough to do it right. Remember, whenever somebody tells you, “this time it will be different” just walk away.

And of course I disagree that the Venus Project will even resolve the equality issue for all the reasons stated in my article and comments above, I just don’t believe any of it… and even if we could achieve equality I’m not convinced I would want it. That was just totally skipped over in the video. They just begun with the assumption that everybody believes such a society would be more healthy. Don’t you think we should agree on the goal before we agree on the implementation?

Comment by tim
2008-11-17 18:54:02

what do you pose as a healthier form of society than one based off equality for all? I am genuinely very interested to hear your response.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by point
2008-11-19 22:22:53

That’s such a difficult question tim. I think the only honest answer I can give you is “I don’t know”. And frankly, I tend to disregard anybody who believes they do know with certainty. I have opinions, I have suggestions, I think there are always things we can do better, but we must temper our ideas with some humility. What people fail to realize, especially the most intelligent people, is the extent to which humans are truly incapable of intelligently managing anything. I bet the creators of this film, who want us to manage all the resources of the earth by committee or whatever, have all sorts of personal problems in their own lives. I don’t say that to insult them, but to point out the obvious, we are simply not smart enough to understand and control all the variables that govern our lives. If we can’t do it for 1 person, what makes you think the problem gets easier for 1 billion? It’s a cop out to blame everything on everyone else, which is essentially what they are doing… They are saying all these problems are a result of all you idiots out there who don’t want what I want, who don’t think like I think, who don’t feel like I feel, who don’t make the same decisions I make, you are all to blame… To me, these people sound like children, not great philosophers. Any philosophy that requires everyone to do anything will fail.

You know I’m reading this fantastic book right now called the Black Swan (Nassim Taleb) and he tells this story, imagine a billiards game with 10 balls on the table, the player strikes one ball and it hits the second, then the third, fourth, and so on. Ask a mathematician what sort of measurements and calculations you would need to determine with 100% certainly how the 10th billiard ball in the chain will react (keeping in mind that a tiny nano error at any stage will have wild impacts on the end result, like the famous butterfly in China causing a hurricane in Florida). Then ask about the 100th ball, then the 1 millionth ball, then assume each ball had free will and didn’t necessarily have to move in a straight line… Welcome to planet earth. The conclusion of course is that you would need infinite knowledge to predict with certainty. You need to know every detail about every atom in the universe, and even if we could know all that, we would never be able to understand it. It’s just not realistic.

That’s why my tendency is always to de-centralize power. I say power to the people. If you want to study philosophy (which I would love to do) then do it, write a book, or go teach. I couldn’t care less about fashion but if that’s your thing, go for it. I lean strongly to the libertarian society. I lean strongly to the Austrian school of economics. I’m not ideological about it, but that’s my bias.

 
Comment by tim
2008-11-19 23:36:15

I do in fact study philosophy (although I am only 21 years of age and have yet to even begin to acquire anything even close to knowledge), but just because I tend to look at things ideologically, does not mean that I do not see how they must be tampered down to be molded to the reality of human nature. And I don’t think anyone is trying to predict anything with certainty. It is rather imposing possible solutions to a problem that direly needs to be addressed. Again, the VP doesn’t claim that it will fix everything, and make everyone happy. It is just one of many ideas that propose a way to generate a society that is indeed based off equality, which in turn gives everyone the best shot at happiness and longevity. There is no way to predict how certain individuals will act, but if our entire society was structured in a way that promoted certain things over others, I truly believe that it would vastly improve the current situation. With billions of people struggling each day to find the bare necessities to survive, I think anyone who would claim that things could not be better would be nothing short of ignorant (not saying you are, just in general).

As for de-centralized power, I totally agree. A true democracy where all informed citizens could vote on issues with equal impact would be the world’s best form of government (look to my 11-16 post for more details on how this could be).

 
Comment by point
2008-11-20 21:04:06

The VP system doesn’t make sense unless you begin from the end (ie. start from a point at which everything is abundant). I really don’t see how you could transition into it or incorporate only half of it. I mean you either have laws and police or you don’t, right? It sounds like you’re not sold on the idea. Great, so lets at least agree about that.

But let’s disagree about this — equality. I keep hearing that over and over again as if it’s self-evident how advantageous it would be. We are not born equal and thus giving people equal opportunity requires unequal division of resources (ie. the only way you can make people equal is by suppressing the gifted, and I’m sure that’s not your objective). So you have a choice to make, you have to draw the line somewhere… For example, at some point people no longer become salvageable by the education system, they can no longer advance, and they must do something else. I want to hear your ideas about that, what should average or below average people be doing with their days, if not working?

“There is no way to predict how certain individuals will act, but if our entire society was structured in a way that promoted certain things over others, I truly believe that it would vastly improve the current situation.”

That started promising! You can’t predict how individuals will act, that’s why central planning doesn’t work. People will never be able to coordinate such complicated things, not even with their computer models… that’s how we get into every financial crash… idiots and their models. And thus I conclude any society that is dependent on idiots with models deciding which behaviours are better than others will ultimately fail (perhaps not right away, but some things take time). What we need is to de-centralize knowledge and power. That doesn’t mean you should never learn from others, but it shouldn’t be a top down brainwashing like VP.

Of course there are better ways to manage our affairs than our current system, that’s called a straw man. You are misrepresenting my position to make it easier to refute. By attacking VP I’m not endorsing the current system.

 
Comment by Babydayliner
2010-05-27 23:47:14

The VP advocates leadership by committee. If someone has an idea, they would enter their idea on their computer and send it to the VP central computer (super computer). the computer would interprete the data. If the computer determines the idea to be a valid project it will give you all the results of data and materials, resources needed to move foward. You have the option to bring in more people to help with the effort. This collaborative effort of teams will go on and produce their project, whatever it may be. The incentive here is people working together for one common goal to help make people’s lives better. In this society there can be countless teams working on projects that are deemed valid my the central computer. Valid meaning, something that can help or advance people’s lives. Money is no longer an obstacle. I know what you are saying who programs the computers? People do of course but under the guidlines of the VP. Computers have no bias, they can’t be bribed, they don’t care if you are good looking, they are programmed to supervise, maintain and distribute accordingly the Earth’s resources. This is one aspect of the Venus Project that I hope people would understand.

 
 
Comment by lolahiroshima
2009-01-16 18:40:13

I think i see the root of your misconception regarding the Venus Project. You seem to believe that it can only operate as a kind of governmental beauracratic system, determining who recieves what and when. This is just not an accurate reflection of it, and i think you are doing yourself a great disservice in maintaining such a view.
The Venus Project has advocated abandonning a monetary-based economic system in favor of a resource-based economic system, wherein the relevant question is not how much does a given project cost, but do we have the resources for it?
The second point the VP makes is that, yes, we do have the resources, and that the mentality of scarcity which drives the monetary system is not an accurate reflection of reality given our current level of technological sophistication. It was an accurate reflection up until the second half of the 20th century, but now it is a limiting, self-destructive pattern that humanity has to grow beyond or else face extinction.
The state of technology now is sufficient to allow us- groups of human beings, not governments or elites- to generate a virtually limitless amount of clean, renewable FREE energy from the sun and the earth. This energy can be used to power all aspects of our society, from food production to indistrial processes. And by constantly increasing efficiency in the use of these resources, and by making them the basis of all economic transactions, we can create a sustainable, fair society for every member.

The consequences of the technologies that make this possible act as buffers against the very things you fear, ie. their centralization and control by a group of elites. No one can own the sun, or restric access to its energy- Monty Burns excepted. This puts the power into the hands of individuals, to do with it as they wish.

The Venus Project is merely a roadmap- it is most emphatically not an ideology or a religion. The truth of the matter is, the present trends in mass technology are making such a vision of the future inevitable, from thin film photovoltaics that can be painted onto any surface, to self-assembling desktop factories and digital manufacturing- making matter computational. These things are real, and they are here now, and spreading beyond the ability of any corporation or government to control. All we as individual citizen have to do is grasp them and engineer our own liberation.
Will this be a messy process? Yes. Will things become perfect? Hardly. Will people gain the freedom to make the choice regarding what to do with their own lives, free from coercion, force, or servitude to dead ideologies or financial systems? ABSOLUTELY!

So why not open your mind a bit and join the R(evolution)?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Jill
2009-03-28 16:36:36

I have very much enjoyed reading some of these comments; I have not read them all, but I get the gist. I do lean towards Points pov. in that we know so little. Here is a site which I found most interesting: http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/RealityFrame1.html

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by alice
2009-03-29 09:08:51

Yes, Jill, that is a great link. Thanks

 
 
 
 
Comment by Solomon Morrison
2008-10-18 01:48:30

Well, who can argue with logic? I guess this is just a problem which has no “better” solutions in sight, becuase frankly the current proposed “reforms” are really just bandades that aren’t healing anything.

Sorta depressing. I guess its just the hope that the venus project sells gives people solace in the theory that maybe its not true “Nobody is smart enough and honest enough to do it right.” We all just wish “this time it will be different”…

My email: solomondesupra@yahoo.com

i like to converse with intelligent minds

Comment by tim
2008-11-17 18:56:20

feel free to read my post from 11-16, and lets talk. I too enjoy an intellectual conversation.

 
 
Comment by chris farley
2008-10-20 03:04:01

you learned absolutely nothing from that movie. you’re still thinking selfishly, and the whole thing about who does what is ridiculous in a resource based economy. everyone simply pulls their own weight when it comes to what ever work, rarely any, has to be done. get YOUR facts straight before you post what you think is intelligent information. the venus project is about EVERYONE treated equal, with no arbitrary labels. no one would have any more power than any one else. if everyone is allowed access to everything, how can a power elite even exist? can you refute the FACT that we have enough resources on this planet for everyone on it to live in a comfortable HOUSE and not have to worry about food and clothing. the resources are there, we just have to be efficient with it, and that’s where technology comes in, to make everything as efficient as possible, even down to nano tech self repair. it may sound a little bit sci-fi, but so was men on the moon at one point in history. given a long enough time line, all sci-fi eventually becomes sci-fact. i think this idea is just so unfathomable to you because of your dependence on the system that you simply just can’t and won’t comprehend it no matter what i say.

Comment by point
2008-10-20 10:10:37

“i think this idea is just so unfathomable to you because of your dependence on the system that you simply just can’t and won’t comprehend it no matter what i say.”

That’s the classical elitist argument — “you don’t understand because you’re too stupid.” or “you don’t understand because you’re not as enlightened and compassionate as I am”. As opposed to, “you have legitimate concerns and I respect your opinion, let me tell you how I will address them.” You didn’t even respond to a single point I made in the post or the comments, just regurgitated the same Venus Project religious beliefs. Believe me, I understand the movie, I just disagree with it. I know it blows your mind, but that’s how it is.

Comment by tim
2008-11-20 18:56:38

“That’s the classical elitist argument — “you don’t understand because you’re too stupid.” or “you don’t understand because you’re not as enlightened and compassionate as I am”

Well since you have referred to the average citizen as completely stupid, and incapable of understanding many of the ideas proposed on multiple occasions in this thread, then I assume you consider yourself to be apart the elitist class?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by point
2008-11-20 21:39:20

Sigh, I need footnotes with all my comments. I didn’t use the elitist argument, I didn’t blame the fact that you disagree with me on your stupidity, I am debating the points with you, that’s what I wanted him to do.

But to answer your question more broadly, I have never met a person I wouldn’t consider an idiot, including myself. How can you define a stupid person better than a person who does stupid things? Name me one person who has never done a stupid thing. That’s why I don’t trust anyone with inordinate power, we need to reduce the collateral damage on society when people screw up, because they will. That’s why I like de-centralized power.

 
 
Comment by Bruno
2009-01-27 15:11:27

First of all..sorry about my BAD english)

I know what you want! A better car then your neighbor, a better house, a better wife..and you don´t care if there are millions of people starving to death. I think that just the fact that 1 simple children dies because the lack of food..is a suficient reason to stop the world for 1 single day and think why that happends and what we are doing wrong. I don´t know if venus project works or if it is the right answer to world problems and i DON´T CARE!! One thing i know and makes me happy is the fact that someone are thinking globaly and thinking in a better way to live..and that gives me hope. You and your “cause” are so wrong!! You prefer stay in this system and that children around the world die every day, and the war continues just because someone want to have more money and more power. What is power?? Buy everything you want? Fuck anyone you want? Kill anyone you want? Lock from up to most of the poor people? What the fuck is power? Why do you need that?
Why are you discussing the wrong point? If you live in africa i bet you wont think like that!
People like you makes me sick!! You dont give answers or help find a better way..you just criticise who does!! And i know that someday will be ritten in history that people like you almost destroy the world and human kind!! Do a big favor to all of us..SHUTT A FUCK UP AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING NICE!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by alice
2009-01-27 22:04:44

Whoaaa! that’s an angry man.

I do think about Africa quite a little bit and it is unspeakably disturbing the way those people are forced to live.

As for why? Take a look at Zimbabwe. They suffer because their leader is a completely
corrupt idiot who refuses to give up power even though his people are in terrible shape.

Is that our fault? Should we do something? Should the impotent UN do something? What would you have us do? Look how great getting rid of Saddam Hussein turned out.

Dismantling our system won’t do anything to improve the lives of Zimbabweans or Africans in general. It will take the will of those people to defeat their corrupt leaders and build a better world for themselves.

It’s coming, but it’s going to take some more time.

 
 
 
 
Comment by trudodyr
2008-10-22 00:28:15

Excellent criticism, I completely agree that this is just another utopia and am somewhat baffled that quite are few people are obviously falling for this scam – even if the men and women behind the Venus Project are of good intention, it will feel like imposture would there ever be the attempt to implement it.

 
Comment by Cat Lever
2008-10-22 08:47:51

You make a lot of good points (in original post) and everyone else does too. I am not an economist, I am just a writer so I can’t speak with any authority on the ins and outs of economic structures. However, I think it is incredibly narrow-minded to completely discount everything the Venus Project has to say, and in my opinion, a lot of the criticism of it comes from scared people who are afraid of change and afraid that there might, just might, be another way of living. Sure there might be flaws with Fresco’s ‘vision’ but he himself says that nothing is ever perfect, things must always change and evolve and there are problems that we must overcome together if we are to live in a better society.
Capitalists are not friends of the people, they do not have the peoples’ best interests at heart and it is not a system that works for the people, the billions of starving people across the world tell you that much. I think anything is possible it just requires a little belief and imagination…it can’t possibly be any worse than what we have already…war, famine, disease, disinformation, exploitation…can it?

I am trying to keep an open mind and trying to learn as much as possible and trying my hardest not to believe all the bullshit we are all fed from so many directions. I think completely writing off anyone’s alternative theories given the current economic and cultural position we’re all in is just a desire to bury our heads in the sand.

Comment by Stewart Griffin
2008-12-03 21:15:49

He’s not discounting the Venus project out of narrow-mindedness or fear. I am certain (correct me if I am wrong) that if he believed it could work then he would sign up.

He’s against it because he thinks its fundamentally flawed. He does not believe that they have a model of resource allocation that makes any sense.

On top of that he believe that there system would amount to centralised planning of when, what and to who everything is given and that this would be a great destruction of his liberty (I agree).

Secondly, the fact that some people do not have other people’s best interests at heart is why the poster would want to tear down the current system, controlled by central bankers and allow it to be replaced by monetary systems created in a free market: i.e. get rid of central banks and remove the government enacted legal tender laws that prevent ordinary people from creating their own money. This would prevent government privileged cartels, whose intent could be nefarious, from harming you in any significant way.

You say all it takes is belief and imagination. Well belief is religion and it’s up to you if that’s a good reason to restructure your entire society. Imagination; that’s lovely, but when you are trying to decide how much food to grow, how many houses to build or which labour saving devices to build you need a little more detail and substance.

One key point to remember; in a free market, with out central banking causing national enslavement through debt (that must be paid off in taxes and inflation) there would be little stopping you from gathering with like minded individuals into a collective that ran itself on the venus project ideal. If it works more people will join and eventually it will dominate the entire world. This would be the free market at work.

The current system is not a free market. Consider: the central banks control the money supply through government mandate and no one can freely choose to not follow the legal tender laws (state has monopoly on violence and will use it to enforce these laws). Hence; it is not a free market.

As a side note: Central banking is one of the key planks of the communist manifesto written by Engels and Marx. Many other parts of the communist manifesto are currently in operation in modern societies around the globe. Most if not all of them in the America and Europe.

It you were wanting to look further into these ideas I would advise studying how the central banking system and fractional reserve banking work.

Comment by lolahiroshima
2009-01-16 18:55:53

This is an excellent point, and i think demonstrates exactly the kind of steps needed to be taken before we can have a completely de-monetized economy. After-all, if resources can act as a form of currency, then who needs an intermediary in the form of money?
But then how do we determine the value of resources relative to each other? Value, when considered apart from the limiting financial artifice of cost, is a function of use. Something has a value dependent on who can use it and for what.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by alice
2009-01-17 13:39:10

“After-all, if resources can act as a form of currency, then who needs an intermediary in the form of money?”

You are talking about barter. It was used successfully for thousands of years, but it grew too cumbersome for a larger society.

Maybe if we have some kind of nuclear holocaust and the population dwindles to thousands not the billions who currently inhabit the planet, barter may come back along with a whole lot of other unsavory things. Otherwise, money is here to stay.

 
 
 
 
Comment by John Alvarado
2008-10-23 04:44:04

I’ve have seen this movie and I could speak infinitely why this system would never work as it is promising, the idea of never having to work and everything being provided for you by machines its really one of the most absurds things I have ever heard, not because it is impossible because it can be, but our depency on money would have turn to machines but that really is not the point. I agree 100% with the film’s point of view of MONETARISM this is true and how our world has been truly dependant on this, but first I must say very clear that whoever had no idea our world is controlled by a higher class of individuals or rich people whichever you may want to call it, truly is not aware of their own surroundings. This has been know throughout history since the first human civilizations such as Greek and Roman, just the only difference was really land. Human society can never ever truly function without some form of government, it would not make us different then chimpazees only with higher intelligence. The idea that people can govern themselves its absurd it has never happen and it will never happen. the Venus Project is not only a fantasy, but is dangerous, it really is no different than our society today, whoever is in control of providing anything for us whatever it may be, housing, food, human pleasures, or clothes its going to have direct control over us. What happens when you disagree that you may not want to wear what they give you?or eat the food they serve you? or live whereever they place you? are they going to provide with whatever necessity you want? or are you going to be satisfy with what you receive? yea right, you and 6 billion other individuals will get whatever they desire, just by listining to this promises make our political candidates sound truthful. This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. First you must understand why every society has had some type or form of government, without it we would never survive. Not everyone have the same ideas, the same values, the same beliefs, the same history, this is why this it would never work. You may think that this project is the answer to our problems and peace at last, please don’t tell me that you people are so naive. This is not going to stop crime or inhumanity first you must understand why do people commit murders, why do we have “ethnic cleansing” in our world creating genocide and annihalation of humans? Why do we have dictatorships? Is it really money the cause of this? Ladies and Gentlemen this is a cause that’s been in existence since the creation of man, the desire for POWER. Why would civilizations wanted to expand their kingdoms and be the supreme culture or power in the world? It is in our human nature to destroy each other, and this ridiculous thoughts of having this wonderful and unique society because of technology its just never going to be accomplished. You people act like whatever is happening in the world today is something new, NO its in our history because its our human nature to destroy ourselves. Why do you think we need a military and we always had one? Because we cannot live with ourselves pretending everyone is going to want peace and prosperity. Forgive me when I say this but people are just stupid to believe everything they tell them because it sounds good. Of course some of us want peace and equality but the idea that is going to happen it is not possible no matter what society that we have. Ambition, hate, jealousy, envy those are human characteristics that no society can take from us is our nature. The Venus Project talks about having a society without laws, please I beg you don’t tell me that you believe this. Why do you think we have laws in the first place? you people should really study ancient civilizations to understand the fundamentals of law in a society. You expect to believe everyone is going to respect each other and agree on everything, that sounds like brainwashing to me. So tell me what happens when you get assaulted by another individual, or get your property destroyed? what will protect you then. There are no laws, what does not allow just anyone to come into your home without your permission, or sexually assault your daughter? now dont tell this “NEW” society is also going to disappear the use of alcohol because last time we tried that crime rose immensely during the prohibition era. And do you think because we have everything we need people are not going to commit murder? what if is a love affair,? what we are going to teach this new society to be faithful too?
The thought of people behaving a perfect God-like community is IMPOSSIBLE no matter what best technology there is, there has to be some form of control over our own behavior. Having said all of this and I honestly could go on, I can honestly say that the Venus Project have very good intentions and ideas, it just sounds like a sci-fi movie honestly, whoever believes of this type of society is really out of touch of what is going on with the world today and why people behave the way they do. Now Im not saying the technology that is being spoken about is impossible, most of the technological advances that they speak about in this film is already being put to practice, but I think that the Venus Project and Peter Joseph are being manipulative and use irrational ideas that make people think or believe that we live in some kind of tyranny when this is not the CASE!! yes there are major flaws in our government and they are not the most honest individuals you’ll ever meet, yea big coorporations are big players in our world today and have some type of control, I was in favor of this film and agreed with everything it was presented to me because Peter Joseph is partially right, but then he was practically advertising for the Venus Project, he is not truly want to make a difference, he is just another propagandist with great directing skills to mislead the public to overthrow not just our government but worldwide governments just for the sole purpose of the Venus Project, he is just the same trying to make PROFIT the same thing he is so much against about. Honestly can you tell me that you would open a business just so you can give things for free or less than what you paid for, I am not denying the fact that there some coorporations that do take advantage of this but this is business and if that’s your type of thing then that’s how you will earn your money. you want free education, who is going to pay for the building maintanance, energy, water, heat, teachers, books, pencils, computers, desks, and etc? you want free food who is going to buy from every fruit, vegetable, juice, bread, rice, corn, o i guess if you were a farmer you are going to work hard growing crops for free right? people complain because they are not satify with anything they just dont want to do anything period and this illusion of being provided with everything is the solution to the problem. It is time to truly take action in our way of life, our society, and our government but with this stupid and ridiculous idea of “Perfect society because of machines and technology” and all of these boycott are just going to create more problems then solving any. I know that you may disagree with me but please I implore you think about what the Venus Project is telling you and you’ll just realize that you are living in a world of fantasy, is manipulating you into thinking something that it is not possible, just because it sounds good. Do not be mislead there different ways to handle our problems and this is just a dream with a touch of technological fanatism.

Comment by philbert
2008-10-26 16:16:44

“What happens when you disagree that you may not want to wear what they give you?or eat the food they serve you”

Who is to say you would be required to wear any particular type of clothing? Is it technically possible to create a system/machine to make any fashion of clothing you wish? I would think so. Why not. Or, you could make you own clothing. Who is to say there still wouldn’t be clothing shops?

Same goes for food. Why would we be limited to what “they” serve us? Could there still be many restaurants with varied menus? Or, could you get you own ingredients and make what you wish? I don’t see why not.

Point is, I’m not so sure we would have to think with such limitations.

 
 
Comment by Noh Fuckurself
2008-10-23 14:19:18

I think the point is being missed. The point is that a world without corruption and greed can be possible, but no one can truly believe this because we have lived in a monetary society all our lives and can’t imagine a world like that.
You cannot disagree that life would be much better the way it was described by the venus project, but society won’t let it happen because we love being miserable.

Comment by Juan
2008-10-24 16:47:39

sigh….
Let me tell you something, the venus project life would be better, like if i would tell you life would be better if we all could hold hands and sing Kumbaya next to a bon fire, please are you seriously that naive to believe this, of course life would be bette if we IMAGINE a place with happiness and prosperity, but are you seriously going to tell me this will happen just because Jacque Fresco tells you it is because he knows this will work, who the hell is he GOD, and that’s if you believe in GOD. I don’t miss th point, is that the point insults my intelligence to believe something like this would ever be possibly. We as humanity have made great progress since the ancient times, but you expect me to believe that this project wil change HUMAN NATURAL BEHAVIOR, what is there a machine also that will not make us hate, be jeolous, or anger, come on, you can’t be serious.
What is the difference of jacques fresco idea wih the belief in heaven and everyone will live in harmony? where the hell have you people been throught your lives, thinking that money has been the foundation of human evil insticts, its in us regardless we are living as kings, regardless we are all equal. we were equal when humans began until someone wanted control and power ITS IN OUR NATURE and there is nothing that will ever change that. Life would be much better like the venus project says, just like life would much better in heaven.

Comment by Truth disguised
2008-10-24 18:51:40

Ha! That’s funny people try to say its not the monetary system, but it’s the corrupt people of power who strive for more money/ power. That just reiterates the same point that all these problems of corruption trace back to MONEY! The previous post by Juan seems to agree with the movie, but then interjects the idea that corruption is human nature. Its not hard to grasp since you can trace every unethical action taken by businesspeople and politicians came from keeping profits high, once again money. Then again, it is hard to see truth if you have been living a lie your whole life. How would you know anything else?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by ihatestupidunreasonablepeople
2008-10-24 23:25:47

you are absolutely right corruption is the great evil of our sociey, who doesnt know this, what you have to understand is that money is just a piece of paper my friend, you cannot do anything with a piece of paper, but you can buy whatever you please with money right, so keeping profits high for what money or what money can allow corrupt people to have, regardless if you were to make the monetary system disappear corruption will somehow be illustrated in a different type of way, dont be naive and study history, have the monetary always existed no, but corruption has because it is part of human nature. Back in ancient civilization the powerful rich people were considered to be the landowners that controlled all the products that was produced, cattle etc. corruption was there too. This is how humans treat each other. So dont tell me cause of technology this is going to change, answer a couple of questions then, according to Jacque Fresco with the Venus Project it will end crime and corruption, so who is goin to build all of those machines that is he promising you? who is going to give him all of those materials, equipment, personnel to work on these projects, you? Let us believe someone is able to provide with all of these wonderful gifts so wouldnt that put that individual and jacque fresco in control and power over everything? o that’s right they are wonderful people that care for you and me and are willing to give us everything we need, dont you get it jacque fresco is just the same as those cooporations you complain so much about, he is a man with a project with a sole purpose the want for POWER screw money, the only reason people aim for money is because it gives them power, and you are rigt about the monetary system, but regarless that system or not human like jacque fresco will just find some other ways to gain that power he will be in control all of the machines that would provide for your happily living, o wait that’s right he is going to put you in charge right, please dont be naive and if you really believe then maybe you can move down with fresco and he could start by providing for you now!

 
 
Comment by philbert
2008-10-26 16:30:33

“We as humanity have made great progress since the ancient times, but you expect me to believe that this project wil change HUMAN NATURAL BEHAVIOR, what is there a machine also that will not make us hate, be jeolous, or anger, come on, you can’t be serious”

Where was it mentioned that nobody would ever experience hate, jeolousy or anger? Didn’t notice that claimed anywhere in the film. But maybe I missed it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by James
2010-04-23 13:16:26

They do mention it. Most if not all hate, jealousy, and anger is rooted in inequality. How could one be jealous of one’s equal?

 
 
 
Comment by Noh Fuckurself
2008-10-25 22:28:45

haha, nope

 
 
Comment by diego
2008-10-27 18:49:10

I think all the comments have some good point.
I agree with the idea that IF, such thing like the Project Venus works, needs to start from scratch, from a FRESH BORN society.
If this is possible? I dont know…

My opinion, such thing as the PV is doable, BUT, this will ONLY happen after the world as we know today is gone.

Nuclear war to finish everything ? maybe, why not.
I think only after such a big thing happens on earth, people will “may” start to change minds…
History tells this…

So, in other words…this idea of the PV is something for 500 years from now…if not more…

Just go back 500 years, and see what were the kind of “present” values/behaviors and “expectations” about the future…

 
Comment by KillTheConcept
2008-10-29 17:29:15

I’m happy reading minds at work…
I would appreciate comments on the short terms “solutions” proposed at the end of the movie.
And also about that one : Free money?,, reestablishing the green-backs or better like “Ithaca hours”?
I know about some classified ads web site who offers some “exchange utilities” for their users to accommodate indirect trade.
I see the “Venus Project” as an idealistic view of some relative near future, but for the immediate next generations, tools like “free money” will permit the transition without collapsing the established present structures.

 
Comment by James
2008-10-29 22:35:21

Wow. Much like every one else who commented (yeah I know they all said that as their first line too), this was a great, thought out post that really takes the movie i just spent TWO HOURS watching and points out the real flaws in it. Money is not the problem, power is. So how can you eliminate power from society? haha.. yeah right.

This movie is pushing for “true democracy” and a technological communistic way of life. The sad truth is, communism is way too idealistic to be pratically and successfully implemented on a global scale.

This movie assumes that people are NOT naturally competitive and that people are all equal and should share everything. Unfortunately, this cannot be true. Competition is a key part of nature. If we were all equal then how does competitions and contests today work? Why does a game of anything end up with the better person winning?

Some people are just better than others (at least in some aspect of life), and those that are better (at zeitgeist calls the “elite”) will not share willingly because they deserve not to.

One can see competition all around in nature. Lions fighting for their mate. Big fish eats he little fish. Competition is the basis of evolution, and evolution is the way in which we understand how nature grows.

In conclusion, I believe VP is way too idealistic to ever become a reality.

Although it was entertaing and very fun to think about.

If the author of this ever reads this comment(just one of the 6 million others) please hit me back about what you think about what I think about this.

Comment by John
2008-11-06 11:21:46

You’re comparing US to animals??? WOW!!! Moving on…

Comment by StupdiCommies
2009-03-14 22:26:26

Humans are intelligent animals. Well not all of us are “intelligent” judging by your post. You don’t understand human nature, and you’re an idiot.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by James
2010-04-23 13:11:54

The greatest advancements in our standards of living have come from cooperation, not competition. Competition creates a cost for everyone. If we did not have to factor competition into every decision that we make, the collective result would be a higher standard of living for everybody.

How do you think competing for money affects medical care? Are you concerned that drug corporations and others in the “health”-for-profit business might be more concerned with competing for a chunk of the money supply with you than promoting your good health?

 
 
Comment by Audge
2008-11-01 14:40:43

I strongly believe the real point of this film is washing over many of you who are attempting to dissect every facet of The Venus Project and how it could provide for humans a better way forward. The discussion over human nature and human behavior that was put forward in the film described in a general sense that human “nature” or “behavior” (whatever you want to call it) is dictated in large part by necessity and excacerbated by scarcity of those necessities. In the majority of our current societies human behavior in all of its negative forms has become attached to mindless, consumer goods and services. That is a by-product of the current system we live in, the monetary system, we are provided with a wealth of choice in all the things that don’t matter. Choose from 30 different types of toothpaste or chips. Yet when it comes to the truly important aspects of progressive insight and understanding in the world in which we live and how we can make it better is supressed by the same institutions that might give us dozens of choices of un-necessary goods, but only 2 realistic choices for a president.
I looked on the film, and am hopeful others will do as informative and thought provoking. Yes, it does seem as though the venus project was being “pushed” on the viewer a tad pervasively, but maybe it would be safer to look at such a thing as an “idea” and not a reality. Ideas are not born perfect, and nothing ever becomes perfect. If you believe the monetary system breeds extreme polarization between power and the majority of the people, something that is explained in each Zeitgeist film quite clearly, than you might be looking for better ideas forward for mankind, both macro and micro, in your own lives and in those of others. This is what is truly important about, that we do not accept things for the way they are, the world is a nightmare, we have reached a technological and intellectual level that is far above how we currently carry out sustaining our elected power, and in essence our own.
If the world is ever to be free, if a child in Ethiopia and the United States have equal opportunity it will only be because humans have at last understood that our planet and universe is far more important for our kind than the needs of the individual. And humans for once, and we will be taken there some day, either by catastrophe or enlightenment, through the experience of unconditional love.
In the meantime, let us not denegrate and step on each others words, we are all the people. I don’t expect “the Elite” to be posting blogs and articles ( a frightful thought ). It is up to the people to decide if we want these systems of corruption to continue raping and pillaging the people and environment of our planet, it is up to us to decide what we want to pass on to the future generations. There is no future without today, the present dictates the future. The history of mankind has been forever changed by the opinions of enlightened thinkers, whose ideas are most often shunned at the time. Just as many have and will state that part of human nature is greed, if so, surely love is too ? Our planet has been treated unethically, dictated by the greed of nations, allowed by the people of the power sources. We should not and can not treat our planet this way, we must be caretakers and not pillagers. The facts about wind, solar, tidal, wave and geothermal energy in the film are all true and these means of energy will only become more available. It must be the people that demand the change though, unfortunately so often these incredibly clean, efficient and modern techniques of energy capture are hidden in the mainstream, if you didn’t know why before you do now, profit. Ask for it, if they won’t give it to you then go about it in your own way independently, not only is it good environmental ethics but will most likely pay itself off rather quickly.
Our primary focus should be on the environment, we need it to survive and we cannot continue treating it in such a way, for the profit of a few.
Cheers

 
Comment by bkind
2008-11-02 01:54:56

If the zeitgeist addendum is bs then why do most people that “make it” in our current system turn to philanthropy??

 
Comment by Foolonthehill
2008-11-03 12:46:15

This is the future or you will be fighting your children for resources (though some posters are probably quite happy to do that)

 
Comment by Kyryacos
2008-11-03 14:30:43

My friend. Don’t get so hectic criticizing this new idea. At least accept one thing. Is better than what we have right now. And don’t say too much. Is not a Utopia, neither everyone would have a Florida beach house. Nobody said or assumed that. That was merely shown to reflect the process of achieving a new society, new design, more stable house, more ergonomic. All in the process, a glimpse, a draft not the actual thing. Why as humans always attack on our own specie just to seek what makes as different, wrong or wright instead of looking how to be better all together? Is people like you that move things backwards. Be intelligent and logic and think about the possibilities of both an integration of monetary and resource base system like i do! Don’t throw everything down the drain. We all have to work together on this one.
Zeitgeist states a lot of truths about our current society after all. Yes my friend. We are not civilized. If we have crime, greed, prisons, wars we are not civilized yet…we are just moving in veru small steps away from the cave.
Your critisism is not wrong based on the society you grew up upon. Is absolutely normal. Is not your fault to act so angry, direct and ruthlessly trying to support the current system because this system made you this way. Maybe 3-4 people along with Fresko thought about a great possibility. Imagine if we all stop a think. …A thousand of us..or a million of solutions how much better this documentary view could be more clear and concrete.
So unless you have a better solution for all the hunger, war, abuse, crime, false perceptions and distorted reality that we are fed then join us to create something better.

Thank you,

Kyriacos Papaspyrou

Comment by point
2008-11-03 18:55:41

I disagree therefore I am flawed? I am broken by the current system and I can’t think correctly like you? For someone advocating more civilized behaviour that’s a very uncivilized argument.

 
 
Comment by stefaan
2008-11-03 20:08:21

this is a verry intresting arguement
and i love the critesism from both party’s. it reminds me of my first and last philosofy class i had a few years ago .
when i saw the movie i whas stunned and verry entertained because well i just love conspiacy theories but i love critisim on conspiracy theories even more. in my oppinion this is the perfect way to understand our place in society
yes we are slaves of the monetary system but look at what we have achieved trough it
isnt technology a product of the montary consumtion society/system ? and offcourse that of science. when you think possitive of it whe should even thank the creators of the system for ouwer more or less stable society we live in .
sure its ugly and far from perfect but its better than anything we had before. we must always take in acount or animal behaviour when it comes to ideas about changing our society.after all we are nothing less than competing for resources and reproducing apes in our by evolution shaped minds right. that being said we should shape our society acordenly .and this system has done a pretty good job at it.the more we compeet the more productive we are as a spiecies and the more we could accomplish in our time.and dont forget our time will go in history as the time of the great leap forward.where we can even dream of utopia’s without compeeting against one another what is
sadly but ofcours bullshit .

sorry for my bad english guys :/

 
Comment by Ben Keats
2008-11-04 00:57:54

‘Unarmed truth and unconditional love’…if we can unmask these qualities that we have within ourselves then the future of mankind is bright indeed…if we cannot then the planet earth will soon be free of the pestering plague of people.
Positive* technological advancements and renewable/sustainable living…are ideals that will only be supported by positive-minded-people. Positive-minded-people are the underlying basis for positive change in the world…so while working with technology, working with economies, working with sustainable designs…it is essential that we work on creating a positive mind within ourselves (in other words, develop our own understanding and love). For it is only by transforming our minds that we can bring about positive change.

The VP contains a very positive outlook…and even just the idea of creating a more positive society, is itself a sign of positive forward thinking.

By the way it’s great to see the passion involved in the discussions on the various issues, debate tends to lead towards deeper understanding.

Smiles to all…Ben =)

*Positive = helping others and oneself to be free of suffering or dissatisfaction

 
Comment by dirk
2008-11-04 03:20:40

The point being missed here is that VP isn’t the be all end all, the ultimate solution.
like the multiple faiths that evolve, or the diverse countries that operate on variations of historical rule of law based societies a system not based on our current assumptions can be experimented with.

It is somewhat reminiscient of Ayn Rand’S utopian society in Atlas shrugged, try to imagine VP like that a small experimental commune populated by luminaries inventors, tinkerers, the difference between now and the 50s when Rand was writting is that we have the internet, social networks 2nd life, the people dont need to start in a country of their own they can decide whether they want to emigrate to the physical place where VP exists at a time in the future, in the mean time they can interact virtually with them from without. Then by adding a couple of trilionaire philantropists to the mix the physical manifestation of this experiment can be started. I simplify of course but my point is why not start an experiment and see if it can thrive ?

Dirk

Comment by point
2008-11-04 07:11:54

I’m really getting tired of people claiming I don’t get “the point”. I’m learning something about the psychology of VP supporters, you are incapable of believing that someone can understand your project and disagree with it, there is some kind of mental block. Listen, anything can work if it’s confined to a small set of radical ideologues, that wouldn’t prove anything. Look up the “summer of love” and see what happens when the real world strikes back. And we already have little communist communities in Israel, it’s called a kibbutz. Now of course they don’t have all the technology that VP describes, but if some billionaire philanthropist could develop that kind of technology “for fun” then I’m sure he would have already done so “for profit”, which means that ain’t gonna happen. Just giving people charity for a few years so they can sit and think is not exactly a scalable model for all humanity (that’s called a University).

 
 
Comment by Mihai
2008-11-04 11:24:19

I agree with this article entirely. I have lived during communism and have from that perspective a very sceptic view of such a social engineering project. I regard Zeitgeist as a decent form of entertainment but as a guide and source of information it is clearly aimed at people with next to no life experience. Let’s for the sake of this argument sink at a lower level of human existence and desires: I have a beautiful daughter and a person of greater respect in this society want’s to have sexual intercourse with her against her will. How will this system solve that problem? How will I solve the scarcity of my children? Just make them more abundant? This projects omits a facet of life that religion (mine is orthodox christian) addresses and that is morality. Morality won’t become obsolete only by having no electricity bills to pay. People will still want something. Morality tries to manage these urges and Law enforces them. Zeitgeist is right: religion is definetely a form of control but it is subtle and is interwoven with the human spirit – that’s why it has existed since the beginning and will endure until the end of human kind.
I am an architect and only one the houses shown in the Venus project is worth quite a lot. How will they become abundant when production capacity is limited by the number of people willing and having the knowledge to build them? There can be millions of million dollars houses but that requires billions of people building them and these people require billions of tv’s, billions of cars, billions of clothes, billions of doctors to take care of them, billions of teachers to teach them….etc. The movie and the project starts from the fact that our resources are limited, how can out of limited resources result an abundant amount of things. Abundant means, by the movie’s explanation means TO SPARE. Overall adding everything up this project requires next to infinite resources. And my daughter still won’t make it.
I am very gratefull if you made it reading so far and further I will try to end my post in a more entertaining way:
We have for the better or worse made it so far and this mumbo jumbo denies everything we accomplished, WE, the sheep of the capitalist and religious wolf. This crap vision still needs us, the sheep, the gullable and the unhappy slaves. It aims you buddy and it want’s your money. The Venus Project website hase a big “DONATE” button and it want’s that filthy dept you call in your infinite ingnorance: money. It’s your debt and you slavery so buy a TV and enslave yourself even more because I am shure the old dude who runs the Venus Project will if you don’t. If by a miracle you will enter such a society don’t forget to take aside your philosophy books your shotgun and your Bible, because it won’t be long before these Star Trek guys will come for your ass and if the first item doesn’t help the second one surely will.
How is that for an intelectual ending?

 
Comment by caryn
2008-11-04 16:08:40

I do hope that there is a big, open mind beyond your opinion. I for one, have doubts about the Venus Project as well, and have thought long and hard beyond the hysterical paranoia within Addendum.

In fact, my natural first reaction was to fall in love with the Venus Project, and personally my natural reaction to that initial reaction (because I am a woman) is to strongly doubt and question it.

It is not a perfect plan. There are faults with it. I think the more people who question is the better, as long as they help come up with answers instead of just brushing the idea off.

The bottom line is this: our world is a mess. There are two kinds of people right now. Those who benefit from the existence of money and those who are completely screwed over by it. So when it comes down to it, there are those who will fall in love with the idea of equality for everyone, and there are those who will detest the concept of not being better than other people.

So making the transition is damn near impossible, but it does give “real” people something to fantasize about and maybe even hope for, if not for themselves for their children.

There is no way to bring everybody together to contribute, because people like to criticize and doubt and question things with tunnel vision. You can’t just dream, you have to do. People have to take action.

The most important thing out of all of what I am saying is that whatever dounts you may have… it is a valid idea. It poses a real solution, something that nobody else seems to be coming up with. You may doubt this concept because it is “outside of the box” but what idea do you have to fix the problems of the world? I’ll tell you what, the Venus Project is definitely a better idea than what’s going on now! Even if it doesn’t work, neither does the world as we know it now.

 
Comment by Hackerofthesystem
2008-11-05 03:20:58

@Point: You’ve some good points here. I completely agree with you, but thats not why I am commenting.

@Others upholding TVP: Wake up! The world is beyond US, Europe and other first world countries. It consists of people struggling to make their ends meet, don’t have education, wake up every morning praying they won’t be dead by the night. Do you really think they are ready for this ideal world which thinks that human mind is free when its free of drudgery? I highly recommend Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. Its because Jacques Fresco is at the top or somewhere near it, that he feels this necessary. Where I live, if things were free and humans won’t have to work for money, there would be riot. Remember even God hasn’t created everyone equal!

 
Comment by GSF
2008-11-06 01:09:22

Both sides to this conversation produce truthful visions of VP’s merit and of its flaws; this is inherently an argument of philosophy, using facts or ideals either expressed (in point’s case) from the confines of modern day thinking, or from idealistic thinking that can be neither proven nor disproven (VP proponents). The point is, just as is discussed in Zeitgeist, we cannot fathom the world that may exist in the future, as we have not experienced the evolution of technology/mentality necessary to fully envision the VP concept, similar to prior generations not able to envision our current society. Both points arguments and his opponents are trying to explain a future we haven’t the science to explain yet, and as such the arguments will reciprocate without any linear direction- in short, any piece of information in this debate can support or attack the argument of either side.

Point is quite valid in many areas- abundance of everything is not possible at this juncture, however in defense of his attackers, it is impossible to disregard the possibility of removing the requirement for objects in a future seeing man with a modified mindset. For example, in a world where man understands a diamond ring is unnecessary to attain status through fashion, or show his love for his mate, diamonds become useless except within technological function. As a result, items in many other arenas may experience an abundance when the traditional usage is exposed as unnecessary (who will classify it so is another argument entirely), greatly enhancing their use in the improvement of life. While the above argument is debatable, the entry of governance and inevitably the possibility for corruption enters with the subliminal message of job: who would perform all the tasks not yet handled by machines? If 75% of the world wanted to develop the space program, yet 0% wanted to remove garbage or maintain sewers, than we bear the necessity of a governing body to mandate the performance of this job. Free market capitalism already fulfills this necessity: If no man wants to do this filthy job, the wages increase to such an extent that the jobs compensation outweighs its undesirable working conditions. In VP, where everything is free and absent of monetary motivation, either the whole would suffer from proper disposal of sewage, or governance would mandate someone to perform the job or develop the technology to perform the job, inevitably removing his freedom. Of course, if mankind developed the mentality of service to fellow man, than one would gladly perform that job, but also would create a situation of potential abuse for his willingness to serve if officials were so inclined to exploit it.

In defense of VP supporters and point’s critics, this exploitation has already occurred in the system of capitalism, or at least has been allowed to form itself as an entity above capitalism, independently controlling the public for agendas Trojan in nature. One need to look no farther than the war on terror or the war in Iraq. The manipulation of american pride would be no more extreme than the potential for manipulation in the servitude of the human race.

In short, I think both camps have valid points, and assuming one right or wrong deprives both of valid issues necessary for a truthful light on the possibility of VP, and the potential of its failings. I think we can all agree a world where everyone can eat, everyone can pursue their dreams equally, and everyone benefits from the fruits of technology is desirable (even point), but the possibility of it being possible is another thing entirely.

Comment by John
2008-11-06 02:59:02

“I think we can all agree a world where everyone can eat, everyone can pursue their dreams equally, and everyone benefits from the fruits of technology is desirable (even point), but the possibility of it being possible is another thing entirely.”

Are you the authority on what’s possible and what’s not possible? Are you a limited Being?

I’m relieved that I don’t live in your mind, because it’s obviously limited in its capabilities just by saying that…

Conceptual thought is an ability that few of us have “at this juncture” and needs to be cultivated…

Limiting thoughts are like a vampire… they suck the lifeblood out of the human race within the shadows of darkness.

Comment by GSF
2008-11-06 04:19:49

I think your response is directed for what you assume to be my rebuttal of the VP theory in the sense that I questioned the possibility. In fact, I find more arguments in favor of VP than I do against it. Its amazing you literally attack and degrade me and therefore my argument, strictly on the basis that you percieve me as disagreeing with you or your concept of this subject. Isnt this kind of attack exactly what a VP society would strive to avoid?

Is it possible for me to go to another galaxy within 5 years time? Yes, anything is possible. How likely is it? We can agree that the possibility is slim to none. I think, or would at least hope, that everyone correctly understood what my intentions were in that statement, as you apparantly failed to do. All I was merely saying is that “while it may be possible, it may not happen.” This is to say, many noble systems in the past have failed even though the message and intention was good, and had possibility. The constitution of the United States comes to mind. It was entirely possible for that idea to work, unless you disagree with yourself and your earlier stated phrase, yet the result is a corrupted system that operates entirely independent of the values or rules in ink.

Please, dont attack anyone in the future by insulting them in such a way- it exposes that which you yourself need to develop in your mind. Im fairly positive that if a VP scenario of society were successful, people would not be encouraged to respond in such a way.

If you had an issue with my comment, why couldnt you simply have challenged it? “I disagree. How can you argue the possibility of a possibility?” Immediately, I would have realized the misunderstanding and made my message clear. Even your statement before the trite and overused insults of today would have been perfectly fine.

The point of communication is to paint a vivid picture of positions, and in the case of discussions such as these, expose ideas threatening and supporting the central subject. Attack in words, at least in such a manner, accomplishes none of this.

Now that that’s out of the way, lets move on…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by point
2008-11-06 07:21:37

“The manipulation of american pride would be no more extreme than the potential for manipulation in the servitude of the human race.”

And in your experience, was that manipulation successful? What do you think those millions of protesters would have done in a VP world, where some committee has a monopoly on everything, to express their opposition? You know the basic ideology of communism is exactly that, using propaganda to convince people to work in the service of the state. My argument is not that theoretically it can’t work, my argument is that practically it can’t work. And in my heart I wouldn’t want it to work, the type of human being you describe conjures images of zombies and robots in my mind. I would rather get rid of the propaganda machine than refine its use. People were meant to be free.

Comment by GSF
2008-11-06 12:07:08

“And in your experience, was that manipulation successful?” Absolutely. The American people bought it, and its lead us to where we are today. Thousands or potentially even millions of people have died through that manipulation. Perhaps I should rephrase and say “the manipulation of American pride is an example of what manipulation could occur in a VP society.” I should not have placed “would be no more extreme” in the statement.

“You know the basic ideology of communism is exactly that, using propaganda to convince people to work in the service of the state.” For some, this is exactly what existence should be. For others, you as well as I, this is a scary premonition. You see, one must ask where the line is drawn- in order for a VP society to work, even the leaders would need to GENUINELY have the interests of the people in mind, and I mean of both their existence and of their freedom. Otherwise, manipulation of this state of mind would create the possibility for oppression much as we have today through the monetary system. Admittedly, I think the potential for abuse is more extreme…

“And in my heart I wouldn’t want it to work, the type of human being you describe conjures images of zombies and robots in my mind.” Well, this immediately shows your bias, for which im sure noone faults you (we all share the bias to feel). Reminds me of the movie “Equilibrium.” Sense offenders threatened, in the words of the state, the greater good of mankind. In their system, man was void of any purpose other than to exist. This was accomplished through drugs in the movie, but could be achieved by brainwashing as well.

While being told forcefully to do this job, or to do it willingly in a blind servitude for man might be an ugly model, what can you say in defense of the current system and its inherent flaws? A system where politicians like Ron Paul incur substantial resistance and propaganda attempting to discredit them/him.. A system that has failure of some built in, and constantly puts greed at the forefront of human direction.. A system that guides the masses into the belief of freedom, when in fact, they are all enslaved to continually be in service of the top elite of society and to the capitialist agenda in general. Are we really free? You MUST provide LABOR to your MASTERS or you will STARVE. And, if your country possesses that which the masters want, your nation and its people will owe them- your people will starve and you will follow the agenda, or you will be removed for someone else corruptible to take your place…

Once again, im not really taking a side here- im trying to make both sides clear. Modern day capitalism is slavery- not everyone is free, and in fact, the majority are not free. While the VP is generally a noble concept as perpetrated by its followers, and certainly inspires more efficient use of resources than our current system, it could arguably be worse in terms of control. It also could prove otherwise…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by point
2008-11-06 13:29:26

“Absolutely. The American people bought it”. I’m going to disagree with that, the American people did not buy it because there is no such monolith called “the American people” there are only people in America. There were millions of people marching in the streets, the war was never that popular. Definitely not popular enough to claim this type of propaganda could sell communism (or VPism).

“this immediately shows your bias”. Yes, I never claimed I didn’t have a bias. Search for the post called “Open minds are closed”.

“what can you say in defense of the current system and its inherent flaws”. Straw man, I’m not defending the current system.

“Modern day capitalism is slavery”. No, fascism (which is what we have) is slavery. We don’t have a capitalist system.

 
Comment by GSF
2008-11-06 19:22:07

“Absolutely. The American people bought it”. I’m going to disagree with that, the American people did not buy it because there is no such monolith called “the American people” there are only people in America. There were millions of people marching in the streets, the war was never that popular.”

Fair enough- I think the general mass supported the war through a false premise, but you are absolutely right- not all of Americans were in support of it, including myself. I wish more people would have investigated the truth of this war…

“this immediately shows your bias”. Yes, I never claimed I didn’t have a bias. Search for the post called “Open minds are closed”.”

Agreed, and as I said, I wasnt holding it against you. I have the same bias.

“Modern day capitalism is slavery”. No, fascism (which is what we have) is slavery. We don’t have a capitalist system.”

Agreed- hence the distinction of “modern day” before capitilism. Unfortunately, the fascism we experience today is one of many possible failures in the system of capitalism. This is not to say capitalism is this way by design, just that the methods utilized today in the American Empire show its potential weaknesses and potential evolution to fascism.

“what can you say in defense of the current system and its inherent flaws”. Straw man, I’m not defending the current system.”

Umm.. this makes me want to forget about having an intelligent debate on this thread. I apologize if I misinterpret “straw man,” but the only thing that comes to mind is the wizard of oz, and therefore “If I only had a brain.” Once again, forgive me if this is a misconception, but this alludes to my being stupid. I know you dont support the system- Ive looked at other articles on this page, and I agree with you on many of those articles. My argument is generalized for those who support the system we have, or state it better than the potential for VP. I feel I have been neutral and havent attacked anyone, and im trying to approach this as open to both sides as possible. Obviously I have bias as you do, so I may be close minded in some areas. A friendly exposure to these areas is enough. If I am in fact stupid, why not try to educate me? Thats what im here for…

Back to the subject hopefully?

 
Comment by point
2008-11-06 19:52:49

“Umm.. this makes me want to forget about having an intelligent debate on this thread. ”

I read this comment and I didn’t understand why you were so offended then it just occurred to me — did you think I called you a straw man? HA! Thank you for putting a smile on my face, I needed that. Straw man is a type of argument where you misrepresent your opponents position to something that is easier to argue against, you can look it up on wikipedia. My point is simply that I am not in favour of the current system and arguing against it doesn’t invalidate my anti-VP arguments.

 
Comment by GSF
2008-11-06 20:35:11

“Straw man is a type of argument where you misrepresent your opponents position to something that is easier to argue against, you can look it up on wikipedia.”

I have never formally studied argument, so I didnt know that. This is why I told you to correct me if I was wrong :) . I dealt with attcks from others, so I was anticipating it from you.. Now that weve cleared that up, I was more or less trying to bring to mind the faults of the capitalist system. Neither one of these systems are perfect (as you agree), and this goes back to it being beyond our comprehension at this time.

 
 
 
 
Comment by miss understood
2008-11-06 10:17:21

People, go back to the wise words of the Beatles..”all you need is love” and the rest shall fall into place, be go the world and it’ll be good to you. Be good to others (humans and flora and fauna) and they’ll be good to you…Te energy you put out will be what you gain back. The world has bucome such a mess because of greed, negligence, hate, all these negative feelings…here are a few quotes from Addendum to remind you all of what it’s really coming from and only trying to bring a concept to surface of an option to improve and change like all human existence is ever trying to do- but for all and not just ourselves. We are all; start thinking this way!

“When it really comes down to what’s really actually important, the institution of politics…have absolutely true relevance. Politics have no true relevance that help our world. They don’t know how to solve problems.. It’s the technicians, technology that solves problems. Politicians cannot solve problem because aren’t trained to solve problems.”

“Very few people stop and consider what it is that actually improves their lives. Is it money? Obviously not. One cannot eat money or stuff it into their cars to get it to run. Is it politics? All politicians can do is create laws, establish budgets, and declare war. Is it religion. Of course not. Religion creates nothing but intanglible emotional solice for those who reuqire it. The true gift that has been solely responsible that has improves our lives is technology. What is technology? Automobiles, eye glasses, Applied technology itself is merely an extension of human attributes which reduces human effort freeing humans from a particular chore or problem. Telephones, ovens, computers, aeroplanes, door bells, tables, dishwashers; is technology, generated from the creative, scientific ingenuity of human technicians . Not money, or politcs or religion, these are false institutions.”

“The question is not how much will it cost. It is do we have the resources?” We would have to go on to find out…but belive in each other and our human research, our elders and scientists and go step by step..

They talk of technology ruling out human jobs. But machines always need upkeep and checking too, creation, upkeep and adaption would be the human jobs then, everyone working more so in technology rather than repetitive, small, ignorant jobs. It would free people more instead of have them working in slave labour jobs(sweatshops etc). The extreme changes Venus Project is talking about would happene evenutally over time, with chance to adjust, go through trial and error like all new systems. It looks bizarre on the movie, yes, but it’s a simluation like all proposals, not exact!

“My country is the world and my religion is to do good.”- Thomas Paine 1737-1809

“It is the insight of the emergence of all systems we must recognize. This means we must be open to new information at all times, even if it threatens our current belief systems and hence identities.”

“Being wrong is erroneously associated with failure. When to be proven wrong is to be celebrated. For it is elevating someone to a new level of understanding, furthering awareness.”

“I belives that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final say in reality” –Martin Luther King 1929-1968

“Once we understand that the integrity of our personal extistences are completely dependant on the integrity of everything else in our world,we have truelyunderstand the idea of unconditional love. For love is extensionality and seeing everything as you and you are everything For we are all everything at once.”

 
Comment by Dave
2008-11-07 14:16:19

So, TVP has took off, old cities have been replaced by swish new cities, we’ve got flying cars, If I want one I just toddle down the the plant and pick up the keys. I’ve got everything I ever wanted, but….

I get out of bed in the morning, what do I do? I’m free right? If I was a cable repair man in the monetary system would I really want to spend my days waiting for someones local cable to go down? Or do I sit back and chill in my free condo, listening to music in my underwear. I’ll bother to get dressed for lunch and jump the mag-train to hong-kong for some noodles.

Wouldn’t everyone just do the same? Our first real taste of freedom, not being dictated to by “the man” We can do what we like without fear of having our utilities disconnected as there’s no bill, we don’t need to buy food so we won’t starve. But someone has to grow that food with their own FREE time, someone has to mend the roads, keep a check on the geothermal generators, and umpteen trillion other things. Would you be arsed? We’re free right?

If there were no slaves, nothing would ever get done.

 
Comment by willie
2008-11-08 13:46:40

First of all, my apologies in case of english-writing mistakes and if some will feel offended, I’m not an english-speaking native. Haven’t read all, cause nothing new. You are among the 20% of people consuming 80% of the resources of the planet. Still wanna to point the finger at the “men behind the curtains”? And you what are you? You are all greedy. Just in various ways. If I were you, I will seriously start to consider becoming more humble. You play clever and sincere (believe me, not truly, you need your silly ego). So you are “educated”. Perfect. That’s the point: “educated”. Changing education changes the way of seeing things, whatever the “thing” is, concrete or abstract. The objectives: get a profound conscience that we all die and accept it (yes, we make as if we know but fear it), so we don’t need any god, paradies and whatever bullshit (let’s call a cat a cat) to comfort us and accept the idea of disappearing one day. It’s time that the arrogant “man” accepts something so simple!!!! Our fear of death makes us (the 20% of greedy men on earth) run like stupid and always want more than what is really needed. Don’t believe it? Think deep, very deep, you’ll see. I saw somewhere in this thread someone talking about the main needed things and someone else immediately broadening them into categories: this foreverlasting “more and allways more”? Come on!. And “marrying jessica alba”, I saw as an example, what an example!! Do we need more? What a social-robot! Changing education to make us all more conscient of the fact that it is pointless to always want to perform better than the neighbour, want more than the other, and to stop believing in conceptualisations that make us take “knowledge” for intelligence and pride ourself to become the arrogant idiots we all are (EGO=sickness and not what we learn it is), etc… ALL the “this more and more of this” lead us into living as stupid excessive consumers, unbalanced, arrogant when just “totally” educated/conditioned/conceptualized social robots, BOXED to such an INSANELY extend by the overestimated concepts of family, nation and what WE are. Result? Easy to be manipulated. And you are totally manipulated. Just a “carrot” in front of your eyes is needed. Incredible, isn’t it? We need to change our vision of life, we are idiots. In case some miss the point, I’m criticizing an “excessively conceptualized way of thinking” as opposed to “free thinking” –and before the same “intelligent” guy comes up, I mean “free” in the meaning of a “way of thinking” only attainable by someone who recovered a true natural spirit, who cleaned himself from all unbalanced and unbalancing poisonous “incentives” or whatever excessive ideas promoting a stupid “wonderful self” and deserved “happyness” based on the “reification” (or thing-ization) of all elements of life, or by someone educated since childhood so that he lives with the consciousness of what balance is. With another way of seing our life, ourselves and our primary resources, then, and only then, we’ll be able to achieve what we seek. Otherwise, no need to discuss about any project with the same stupid way of running like slave. And YOU, yes YOU, you are a slave, even more thant the other when I read YOU. We need to not only change our habits but to educate our children. We all want to make babies (not everyone, thanks to the wise persons)–I need MINE, MINE, MINE!!! silly!– but live as if we were the last generation on earth. You make babies and are not ready to live something on earth for them to live. Go to church, make babies, BUT mutually eat yourself and all the resources on earth!!! YOU are nothing, your name is nothing, and all you believe is nothing. You haven’t begun to understand the most important thing. Look at you, you and your ego, you and your offspring. You talk in threads, play intelligent, but when talking to your kids, sure that all you tell them boils down to “be stronger”.

 
Comment by rainbow warrior
2008-11-08 22:27:33

i agree with miss understood- bring on the love people! and dave some people enjoy cropping and growing things ad there wud be new technology helping also, machines doing alot of the work for us. People always need enriching, rewarding things in our lives and helping the good of the world is one of them that will never stop. It’s wrong to call them “slaves”. There would always be social, community prjects to keep people motivated and working together, to meet people and keep enhancing our lives. Live wouldn’t be alien from what it is now, still jobs, still work to do, but improvements would minimise treacherous tasks and slave labour ike sweatshops. Stop buying evil brand names and absorbing ourselves in things that add to the detrimet of others. Encourage and support the good.

 
Comment by miss understood
2008-11-08 22:39:12

can i remind people to go and watch (now a 3 yr old movie..so contemplate that..) an inconvenient truth again if u have already and what have you been doing thats more important if u havnt? rethink ur xmas presents, buy people energy saving lightbulbs instead of more crap for xmas, help awareness of a world in need. we are the only thing that can help it as we are the ones who have done the damage and KNOW how to undo it. let’s move. As they say in africa; let’s move our feet as we pray. Actions speak louder than words. So let’s get off this chat, our bit is done here, and go and do something to help our progress instead of our diminish in this world.
visit http://www.climatecrisis.net for more info on “An Inconvenient Truth”.
And to simplify things in short;
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/pdf/10things.pdf

It’s time to act and be the one world that we are, more than ever. Stop arguing, spliting from each other and let’s see eye to eye.
I belive the Venus Project will help us towards this goal in utilising more efficiet ways of power, looking at populations and helping us take part in a happier and more livable world. Let’s not live in fear and doubt. When has it ever been so important to try new things. Not dangerous, ludicrous ideas, but measured, calculated, judged ideas that will bring us forward and hopefully bind us together as people not “nations” and “races”. We are one world, let’s start acting like one.

 
Comment by Adrik
2008-11-10 17:54:36

You are just applying the old ideas to the new concept. It was hillarious to see the attempt to explain the new concept with the old one!

 
Comment by daveydave
2008-11-10 22:23:42

Healthy economy = Economic growth,

Economic growth = Population growth,

Population growth = Growth in demand for resources,

Growth in demand for resources + Finite size of planet earth
= Environmental unsustainability + Ecosystem collapse.

Surprise, surprise!

We will either be forced to accept a resource based economy through necessity AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM-

or

WE CAN RESPOND SOON whilst its implementation would be easier and resources could be allocated with sustainability in mind.

The venus project began way back in a cave somewhere when three babies survived to adulthood rather than two.

(This logic reasoning assumes that humans are not inherently nihilistic, which i could never disprove)

 
Comment by Bonny
2008-11-11 03:39:45

This is a fascinating thread. I have not studied economics but this might be an advantage. I have thought about resources a lot and found only one truly EVENLY distributed resource that is exactly the same for every person on this planet.

Time.

We all have 24 hours per day. An hour lost is lost forever. I haven’t figured out the issue that time is worth more to some than others (terminally ill etc.) but essentially time is the ultimate resource.
A currency based on time as the asset would level the playing field.
An hour for an hour. When I give up an hour of my life for something society needs I get credited 1 hour and earn the right to spend that credit towards that took somebody else an hour. Anything made by machines becomes virtually free. This would still not stop the exploitation of natural resources but I can’t think of a ‘silver bullet’ to solve this. Can anybody out there contribute to this thought?
How about a wiki of new world order?

Comment by point
2008-11-14 07:48:46

Would 1 hour of all professions be equal? I can see many problems with that.

Comment by Bonny
2008-11-15 02:26:09

Hi Point

Good question. I’d say ‘yes’ becaue giving away one’s life hours is essentially the same for all of us, regardless of intelligence or profession.
But be a doctor that cures my tooth ache equal to a guy that sweeps the road? In terms of life time yes BUT the doctor would have spent many, many years developing his/her skills. These hours should be reflected in the equation. A 1 hour operation would be actually 1 hour work plus 10 hour study time or similar?
This system would reward effort more than talent, granted but wouldn’t it be nice if people couldn’t accumulate obscene amounts of wealth for very little effort? Is an actor actually worth to be rewarded with great wealth?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by point
2008-11-15 10:35:40

“wouldn’t it be nice if people couldn’t accumulate obscene amounts of wealth for very little effort?”

I understand your perspective, but I don’t think that’s workable. The fact is most good ideas happen as random flashes of brilliance, they almost never require years of studying or whatever. Almost every great invention was discovered accidentally or created to do something other than what it ended up being used for. If people were compensated for time, as opposed to the benefit the result of that time yielded for themselves or society, that would be a monster negative incentive and progress would pretty much end in its tracks. It’s not realistic to say the time of every inventor is equal regardless of the value of their inventions or that the time of a burger flipper is equal to the time of a doctor…

 
Comment by bonny
2008-11-16 02:21:42

Hi Point
I’m glad you agree on the perspective and that is probably all I want. I do not want to be right about anything. I find there are to many answers out there and way to few questions. It’s great questions that the world needs. I am tired of centuries filled with answers…sorry got a bit heated here… :-)
Yes you sound right about the sparks of invention. When flipping through history books it does however, already seem to be the case that the people with the spark don’t necessarily get rewarded but some clever person further down the track…
It also seems that money wasn’t necessarily th driver for those people either. Mozart could not help it…he HAD to make music.
My premie probably stipulates that we are all worth the same. A human life. Roamantic? Perhaps. Maybe it’s time though.

 
Comment by point
2008-11-16 08:50:30

“that money wasn’t necessarily th driver for those people”

That’s true for some people, which means removing currency won’t make a difference to those who would have been exceptional regardless… but it could prevent others who are motivated by financial rewards to work as hard as they otherwise would have. So it could be a net loss.

 
Comment by Mahesh
2008-11-28 14:35:45

OK !

I agree with this !

I would only add that sometimes the result of some process happens some time after it was started, and so the creations of some genius may seem to happen out of nothing, when the process was started outside of what we know. But these creations emanate from the person (say, the “genius”), and what has that person done before the point of expression (of creation) has been reached?
Some children seem to have been born with many special gifts. I would say that there is a reason or cause of everything that happens in this universe.

About the question of stimulation or incentive, it is clear that some people advance even despite of strong opposition, while others have to be helped, like a delicate flower that has to be protected from an hostile environment. Some people even consider external opposition as an incentive. This is linked to the so called “warrior” mentality, which gets pleasure from overcoming difficulties.

Some people also have the impulse to do something for others for no reward. This is the spirit of sacrifice. These people do what they think should be done, regardless of internal or external difficulties. Sometimes they endure pain and hardship for some cause they consider valuable or worthy.

The psycology of material incentive is interesting. If all people have the right and access to all basic necessities of like, some of them will do no further effort. They will be content with this. But other people not, they want to do something else, something more. They don´t want to simply eat and sleep and have a nice house. So, when there is reward for people who work harder, and specially for those who do more work for the benefit of society (and not for its destruction), other people who normally would remain idle after doing some basic things, can be influenced by this example. They can think something like, “If I work more for the good of society, then I will earn something more than just the basic necessities. These are all right, but I would be nice to have some more. Social recognition is also a nice thing…” More or less like this.

This material reward can come in a variety of forms, not just money or cash.

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-04 01:06:44

“This material reward can come in a variety of forms, not just money or cash.”

but it is those individual material rewards that act to cause status and separation among citizens, which in turn acts as the cause of jealousy and envy. Once jealousy and envy become apart of society, then greed takes over, and the whole process becomes doomed. I am not saying I have an answer, just that this does not seem sufficient either.

“Some people also have the impulse to do something for others for no reward. This is the spirit of sacrifice. These people do what they think should be done, regardless of internal or external difficulties. Sometimes they endure pain and hardship for some cause they consider valuable or worthy.”

I agree, and it is that very impulse that an entire society would need to share in common to ever have an egalitarianism that would ever work. People would need to want to make minor personal sacrifices for the good of the whole, and as a means to keep an equality based society a possibility. You can not put yourself first in such a society. It is contradictory to the system. However, you must acknowledge that by putting the system first, equally with everyone else, you would actually be helping yourself. By this I mean that if everyone gives back to the system, and has a desire to help the others within it, they are going to be making everyone else lives easier, which makes it easier for them to give back to you… hopefully this makes sense to someone else and I am not simply rambling haha.

and i am not promoting a way to put such and ideology into play in the modern times, but if we could start from scratch with society i think it would be an idea that should be considered.

 
Comment by Mahesh
2008-12-11 10:10:15

Hello Tim!

First, thank you for your message.

I will aswer it expressing the best understanding I have.

It is an empirical fact that people are different from one another. I have already tried to explain very directly the “psychology of material incentive” in my previous message. So, I will not explain it again here, just for the sake of saving time. But if it seems unclear, confused, or if questions arise, please let me know, so that I can write something else.

I think you are quite right in saying that “individual material rewards [...] act to cause status [...] among citizens”. Precisely this differente in status is the motor for dynamism in economy. What if all people, no matter how indolent or how self-sacrifing and laborious they where, would all have the same status and recognition in society ?

So it seems to me that differences among peolple doesn´t necessarily imply in separation, jealousy and envy. These feelings or sentiments depend on the particular psychology of every individual. For example: some people, seeing that other people are better than themselves in some respect, take this as an incentive to better themselves in that respect – I think this is called “benchmarking” in enterpreneural thinking. This means that this difference acts in the minds of these people as an incentive for them to diminish that external difference by changing themselves. Other people can have a different approach: diminishing that external difference by changing the others. Possibly this could be tried by belittling others. But to which of these two types of “strategies” belong jealousy and envy? For me there is no direct answer to this question. Motivated by any of these sentiments, and by greed also, one person can kill other person, or it can suffer a lot without even expressing these sentiments externally. Of course that, out of greed, big capitalists are even looking after wars where businesses can be made.

But it seems to me that we cannot conceive any socio-economic system where jealousy, envy, greed, fear, shyness etc. do not arise, simply because, according to the new science of biopsychology, these feelings or sentiments or “mental propensities” are latent in human beings. Biopsychology even explains that specific subglands of the endocrine system are responsible for each of the 50 basic mental propensities of human beings.

Anyway, it is not difficult to recognize that human beings express these feelings in very different forms. For example: a person dares and likes to climb the Himalaya, while other is afraid even to climb a chair or a tree.

So, it seems to me that we cannot accept equality among people as a proper ground upon which to build a new society. Simply because it is not real, and how could it be? Communists tried this, but instead of equality there emerged an elite that forced others to live in equality. I saw this with my own eyes. Can you imagine a supermarket where there exists only one brand of milk, one of cheese, only one brand of everything available…? This was particularly the situation of Communist Germany in 1989 (just before the fall of the Wall of Berlim). This is because competition, rather, mere existende of differenr enterprises, was not allowed by the communist state. All factories where owned by the state, and this is the essence of state capitalism, because communism was based on this kind of hipocrisy: preaching equality, when actually people are not equal, people have not all the same desires, feelings, and so on…

But differences among people can imply not only competition, but also cooperation and unilateral and disinterested help. This happens anywhere, even where capitalism and its ideology of individualism most flourishes. If there is a fallen person on the ground, say of a big metropolis, maybe it may take some minutes until another person stops walking, having decided to know was is going on and maybe even to help the other person, help to put him or her on his or hers feet, etc. If not, then we could say that there exists no solidarity in that place. This could mean that no person expressed the feeling of altruism at that moment, in that place, towards that person on the ground. But this should not be understood as implying that some human feelings are not expressed in connection with that particular place. By the other hand, to deny altruism altogether in human society is something radically different. I think this would be a gross mistake. We need only one single “successful” experiment (with positive outcome) to disprove this. We can do this experiment in our daily lifes, we have just to wait for the proper opportunity to show up. And there is no need that it should be a fallen person. Usually feeelings can be expressed in a vast variety of circumstances.

It seems to me that the capitalist socio-economic systems emphasizes egoism and competition among people, but it is also said that as we sow, so we harvest. Of course we can find many faults in this kind of thinking, but is it not true that it is more difficult to expect to get some beans if we plant lettuces, or the otherway round, than it we expected to harvest what we have sown? Is it not sort of logic or coherence to expect egoism and competition among people when the persons that control the social system act mainly that way? But this doesn´t means that there is no exception to the “social rule”. Many people are surely happy, proud and so on to be living exceptions, rather, living examples that other ways of living and coexisting are possible.

It is said that humanity is waiting for the day to come, when some of these people may succed in changing the social system to a new system where people are not subjected to unnecessary famine, social insecurity, etc. anymore. It is said that the main driving force being all living beings is the search for happiness.

Last, but not least, if we try to do something and we fail in the first attempt to turn that desire into reality, this doesn´t mean that that something is impossible to achieve…

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-16 13:18:24

Hey Mahesh,

First, thanks for the comment.

Second, sorry for the late response.

I regards to what you mentioned about jealous, envy and the like, I think that you raise a quality question. It is hard to determine which situation breeds these emotions for sure, but I am inclined to believe that your first strategy – ‘benchmarking’ as you put it – could be structured in a way as to not create the same levels of these emotions as the alternative situations would. By this I mean that people can use the achievements of those who have been successful in their respective fields as a means of benchmarking, or setting the bar of success for themselves without necessarily feeling any animosity towards the bar setters. As I see it, in today’s world when somebody invents something revolutionary (i.e. a tool, a theory, an improvement upon an existing item, etc.), there is always some sort of personal accreditation to its inventor. Then you have to ask yourself why there is this personal accreditation. As it stands, it is there so that the individual can be sure that they will reap the benefits of their work personally (namely in a monetary way, which is what patents and the like are for). Personally, it is from this that I believe emotions like jealousy and envy stem. Those who were unable to achieve the same amount of success as their competitors now feel like they wasted their money and efforts in failing to try to achieve the same invention first. As a result of being out-done by their competitor, they are now suffering financially which will undoubtedly create personal hardship, and may even become sever enough to threaten their livelihood. Thus, they become jealous and envious of the individual for no other reasons than the fact that the other person is now more successful, and has the ability to generate more money. As things like this happen on a daily basis at varying levels of severity across the world, these negative emotions continue to emerge and spread like a disease amongst humanity.

But what if we lived in a resource based society, and the situation was approached this way: when somebody made an achievement in a field, instead of giving them personal accreditation for their success, there was no name attached to the achievement. It was looked at as an achievement of humanity as a whole, and an individual one. And given the fact that there is no need for anyone to want to be able to acquire more money or personal wealth of any kind (because everyone has equal access to any materials they would ever need or want), there would be no reason anyone would even want personal accreditation. As a result, when someone made a revolutionary stride in any given field, their contemporaries (notice how I am not using the word competitors anymore, because competition is something that would cease to exist and unified efforts would become to norm) would no longer have a desire to outdo them. Instead, the achievement would be celebrated by all as something that will benefit everyone. People will focus their energies on means to improve upon what is already in place, in efforts of continuing to improve the lives of everyone, as well as themselves. Thus, there is no environmental creator of jealousy. There is no environmental creator of envy.

When it comes to your reference of communism, I think the flaw with those situations is that, even though they claimed to be supporting equality, it is obvious that they were corruptly organized and maintained. Those who put such social institutions into place didn’t truly care about the people. They wanted to manipulate the system from the beginning. Not to mention that the way the systems were created (extremely limited options that are strictly distributed by a select few, so that everyone was struggling and suppressed ‘equally’) is not the same type of equality that the VP suggests.

I am not denying that there are still altruistic acts being made. There most certainly is. But at the same time, I feel those acts are far out weighed by selfish ones, and that is a result of the individualized and self-sufficient society we live in. Imagine a time when selfish acts were the minority though; a time when people had to talk about trying to prove that they indeed did still exist. Personally, that seems like a time and place that would much rather be apart of.

I agree, it is a search for happiness that needs to be the driving force behind any monumental change in society. However, that happiness needs to a universal happiness throughout the human species; not a solely individualized one that is deigned to make people feel the need to fight other to get ahead. There needs to a mutual dependence on both western and eastern philosophies in the sense that both the individual and the whole are equally important to any cohesive survival. Our mentality should reflect a more mutually dependent idea; without the individual the whole can not succeed, but equally so, without the whole the individual can not succeed either.

I will stop here for now.

Thanks for your time.

 
Comment by Mahesh
2008-12-24 16:23:21

OK, Tim.
Thank you for your message and also for your attention !!
I have read it thoroughly, entirely.
I would like to present some points regarding this message of yours:

(1) I will take one example, that of Albert Einstein, who “made a revolutionary stride”, or rather, some revolutionary strides, in the restricted field of physical science. But he lived not “in a resource based society”, but in capitalistic EUA, or rather, in the capitalistic western civilization. There is no patent directly associated with the theories he developed. Instead, “his” theories are teached everywhere where people learn physics at university level. We could say that those theories now belong to the intellectual, or scientific capital of whole humanity. So, my conclusion is that there are diversities coexisting even inside this system of capitalism – that is, it is not homogeneous throughout the entire human society. Capitalism has not the monopoly over our thinking and our minds, despite some capitalists are sincerely trying to reach this point. That is why there are also altruist people inside this system, which is surely dominant in our society. But, as it seems to me, the “collective psychology” of a society cannot directly determine the thinking, or even the actions, of their individual members – it can at most influence individuals, and because a possible majority of them thinks and acts in accordance to that influence – or let´s say, in the same direction, reinforcing it – it also precisely maintains, say, its dominant socio-economic system, or more broadly, its collective psychology. It is a kind of self-reinforcing relation between collective psychology and individual psychology, because every collective or group is composed of individuals (I see you have pointed to this very clearly at the end of your message, so I am here just emphasizing what you already know), and a majority of individuals thinking and acting in unison conform a collective psychology and also a social system. But history shows us clearly that both this things can be changed, and have indeed changed throughout history. This is due to non-conforming individuals that, through the creation of strong mental waves and correspondent actions of their own, can influence a much bigger number of individuals. As I see it, the most interesting question here is, how can these innovative, individual mental waves be created, and then propagated?

The theory of PROUT offers an answer for this, and I think it is quite satisfactory and also relevant to our present discussion. The role of the individual is fundamental for social change, according to PROUT (PROgressive Utilization Theory). This implies that nobody can be neglected, every one has some importance and significance. Say, every exception to the rule is noteworthy. But PROUT goes further. It exorts us to take responsibility for changing society and for shaping it for the benefit of all. PROUT declares that this is factible, possible, and even more, that it should be done. More or less at this point PROUT touches the ancient, innovative science of Tantra Yoga, which is fundamental for individual change. It points to a much neglected empirical field of “spirituality”, of which I have spoken in some of my other posts in this thread.

(2) I will add some more things that are derived from Tantra Yoga. The search for happiness is the main driving force of every living being. But human beings also have something called free will. So, they can choose between two fundamentally different ways of living: one that goes against human nature, and tries to derive pleasure and happiness from more superficial, usually external, material things that can only give some very temporary pleasure; and the other follows human nature, and searches for happiness in its more profound and permanent aspects. This last one is tipically an internal search, but it can imply a change of perpective regarding the objective, external world, through which the necessary relation of the individual with it is not denied, but focused to enhance the individual, internal development. PROUT uses this knowledge to offer a solution to social systems based on the first outlook of life. Material resources are limited, so humans should not trust on any human development that is based exclusively on these resources. Surely the productivity and efficiency of material processes can be increased, say, through development and application of material science and technology. But humans cannot be satisfied exclusively by this way. They have to develop their inner resources also, so as to be more happy, say, through the development of more subtle aspects of human life, like arts, music, intellectuality, and spirituality. Human beings have immense potentialities in this regard, and according to PROUT, they need to be developed along with the material development. No potentialities and resources should be left unexplored or neglected, so there needs to be simultaneous development in the physical, psychical, and spiritual spheres of life. There are some more specificities about this in PROUT, but I hope the main idea can be understood well enough.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Monica
2008-11-13 15:00:02

Im interested were there any other projects like Project Venus before ???

Also is there any good comunity about this project.
As I can see the forum on offcial sites are stil in construction faze

btw, excelent spot! :)

Comment by Mahesh
2008-11-28 14:05:29

One such project is called PROUT. It stands for “PROgressive Utilization Theory”. PROUT has a very special concept of progress, linked to an holistic concept of human nature. If we don´t know something about human nature, how can we expect to create any nice project for human society ? The concept of society is also important to be considered, and it has special consideration in PROUT. You can search for PROUT in the internet. There are some good websites about it, with lots of articles explaining the various specialities of this system.

I will take the freedom to write some more things, OK ?!

In the Zeitgeist Addendum, they say something like that there is no human nature, there is only human behaviour. My opinion is that this proposition should be questioned. Even a computer has some nature. It has some internal structure which is responsible for the ways it can behave. It think this is very much obvious, if we think on it. Likewise, we can observe that humans have some traces equal for all. They have emotions, and they have ways of expressing their emotions. These emotions are not something random, they have a base on the functioning of the human body, and specially on the endocrine system, releasing endocrine hormones like cortisone. Cortisone is the hormone of stress. There are many other hormones, as there are many other emotions, like anger, fear, jealousy, compassion etc. This is very well explained in the new science of biopsicology.

The Zeitgeist Addendum affirms that what solves problems is technology, and that it also liberates human beings. I don´t agree with this bold proposition also. Behing technology there is always some kind of knowledge. I am a mechanical engineer. Good technology needs good science or some kind of good knowledge, that is, some implicit science of how things work and how to use them to some end or advantage. According to PROUT, science and technology should be used to advance the development of human nature, to help develop themselves individually and collectivelly more and more. This development is in no ways limited to material development, and not even to psychic development, because this ultimately means acquiring more and more knowledge. But what is the use of so much knowledge?

Someone in this thread said that the desires or aspirations of human beings have no limitation. I agree with this. We can always think of something else that we don´t have or don´t know yet. It can be a car, or it can be a theory of everything, or the smile of a friend. Whatever.

Humans have a thirst for infinity. According to PROUT, this is characteristic of human nature. We can observe this by seeing so much human cultures, addapted to so many places, and the development of scientific knowledge, which seems to have no end, because there are so many things and processes in this vast, enormous universe.

Well, I will stop here.

With best wishes !

Comment by alice
2008-11-29 12:30:10

Mahesh,

I agree that what Zeitgeist states about human nature is incorrect. The jury is still out about what “percentages” can be attributed to nature and what to nurture. But one need look only as far as Donald Brown’s list of human universals to understand that we humans are born with certain traits.

It would behoove us to acknowledge this before we launch any projects which ignore the facts of nature.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Mahesh
2008-12-01 20:44:13

Interesting, Alice !
Now I am learning something else, about this “new” thinker (at least for me). Thank you !
The original and main author of PROUT, P. R. Sarkar, has also discussed about something like this distinction of “nature versus nurture”. He used for this discussion a concept called “samskara”, that has roughly the same meaning that the word “karma” has, when people use it referring to something that happens or seems to be bound to happen (maybe again and again) without them being able to interfere or decide over it.
Sarkar distinguishes between 3 basic types of samskaras: inherited, imposed (by family, other people, or the environment in general – I think this is the equivalent to “nurture” or, say, “culture”), and acquired — this last type dependending upon previous decisions of the individual himself or herself.
But, human nature is something else than samskaras. It has to do with the biological structure of the human body, with the singularity of the human mind, and also with the biopsychological structure of human beings (which has to do with the 50 mental propensities of humans, called vrtiis, in sanskrit language).
(Please let me write without having to mention hypotheses, pressupositions, and the like. I mean, you don´t have to accept anything I am saying, I am just exposing what I understand, OK ?! Of course we can latter discuss anything of this…)
But the most distinguishing aspect of human beings is their capacity to come in contact with the “essence” of the universe (also their own essence). This has to do with the refered “thirst for infinity” that humans have. This essence is common not just to all humans, but to everything in the universe. So, when physicists are searching for the origin of the universe, they are searching for this essence. In ancient times, some people learned that this realization or experience is possible when one searches internally, not externally. Because in the external world, what we perceive are many different objects and beings, and their most basic aspect, apart from that “essence”, is their transitory nature. Heraclitus said, “everything flows”, because he was looking outside. People that (supposedly) realized that essence, teached that we should search inside to come in contact with it, with this essence of ourselves and also of the universe. It is the search for a permanent and infinit object, or, as they say, the supreme subject.
What this has to do with PROUT ?
We cannot rely on a superficial knowledge of ourselves or of our human nature, if we are willing to help build a really strong society. For example, if we don´t want to know something hard or unpleasant about ourselves, it means that we have a superficial knowledge of ourselves up to that point. The effort to know ourselves, or the adventure to investigate and deeply transform our minds, is a real war, an internal war. Our enemies are not visible in this war, they are internal enemies, like anger, fear, etc. To overcome these enemies is therefore not so simple. What should be the weapons to succeed in this war?
So, my opinion is that, if we want to bring peace to our world and to our human society, we have to establish peace also inside ourselves. We cannot accept our internal enemies having control over our minds and, therefore, our actions. But we cannot kill these internal enemies. So this is a constant war, where constant vigilance and effort are necessary to maintain an always impermanent peace. Peace cannot be maintained once and for all, because this universe is not something static, it is dynamic.
Bringing dynamism to a society dominanted by inertia, alienation, and stagnation is imperative, according to PROUT. And to do this, we should break our own inertia to do good things, to fight against injustice, to unite with other good people, to have iniative in being altruist, and so on. That is, we should bring dynamism to our own lifes first.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-02 02:18:47

Mahesh, it looks like you took the time to look up Donald Brown’s list of Human Universals. But for those who are interested, here’s a link which spells them out.
http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm

They are used by evolutionary psychologists to buttress the idea that we are born with certain traits….that we are not blank slates when we are born as some western philosophers have stated…..that certain aspects of being human are “hard-wired”. It is almost impossible, however, to tease apart those things which are influenced by our upbringing and those things we are predestined to “be”.

I love what you say about constant vigilance and impermanent peace. And that that is because the universe is not static but dynamic. We must be free to experience that. But humans like stability and we don’t want to have to work that hard. Give us easy, permanent solutions.

I am an atheist but I do continue to seek the essence. Perhaps I would say I am in search of truth….always aware that I will never be able to nail it down or say “look! I found it”.

I guess it’s not about the destination….it’s about the journey.

 
Comment by Mahesh
2008-12-03 21:18:28

Hello Alice !

This dialogue is being a pleasure, for me at least !

About stability and permanent solutions, I think people are justified in searching for these things. But I also think that many are searching for them in a direction which cannot guarantee them these things. The world is in permanent change, so how can people find permanence in this direction, that is, acquiring material wealth, etc.? My grandmother had a saying in german that goes like this: “The last shirt has no pocket…”

It seems to me that there is very very much distrust and lack of confidence between people in the world nowadays, generally speaking. In particular, people distrust leaders — and certainly for good reasons !!! The point is, that guidance is very important for people in general. Maybe people don´t like this idea, maybe they confound it with authoritarism, manipulation, etc. So, it can be popular to say, “be your own master”. Because so a person needs not to submit to another person or learn from another person. Like there may exist a confusion between humility and humiliation. But what would we do without parents, without teachers, etc.? Of course we can be revolted with our parents, teachers, whoever, because maybe they have not given us sufficient tools or weapons, so that we could deal with this caotic society in which we live in the most proper and constructive way. Anyway, not much time ago I have learned that “as we think, so we become” (maybe my english is incorrect, so please forgive me when I don´t write things correctly). This teaching comes from an ancient science, called Tantra Yoga, supposedly the science for the supreme realization of human beings. It means that when we think with sufficient energy or determination on something that we don´t know or don´t are yet, we can know that or become that. For example, I don´t know how to play guitar, but if I would concentrate enough on playing guitar, my mind would direct me and my actions to that. Also, I would be more receptive to external events and maybe also thoughts and intuitions that would help me to achieve that end, because I would always be alert about something that would help me in that direction. Consistently thinking about something is like creating a strong desire for that. When we create a mental image of what we want, it´s easier to recognize what is lacking in our reality to make that image become true or real. Etc. This is to say, that the goal is maybe more important than the means. If we don´t know where we want to go, how will we know how we can get there? There is a saying in my native language, that I will translate as, “there is no favourable wind if you don´t know where you are going”.
I remember also of another saying, that one should be careful about what one desires, because desires can become real !
So I understand that in the journey of our lifes, there is something like a challenge, that we must select carefully our goals, our objectives. Because of this, there are some people who ask for wisdom. Without wisdom, with our minds full of limitations, preconceptions, mediocrity, ignorance, narrow sentiments, and so on, how can we choose proper goals? But in spite of this difficulty, we keep on choosing inumerous goals, like: now I want to eat; now, let´s rest; now walk, now talk, now buy something, and so on and so on… And so we can learn, what is worth running after, and what is not, and what could be. The interesting thing in all this, for me, is that the universe is guiding us in all this, through all our ups and downs, so that maybe we can learn that permanent happiness is not obtained from any of these finite things we may desire and get and enjoy. At least now I have this opinion, so to speak.
As with all sciences, we must learn from practice, and with this practice and learning, our mind changes somewhat. But in the science of Tantra Yoga, the focus of practices is on our interior, our mind. It is a science for the expansion of mind to infinity. Or, let´s assume that at least this is what it proposes. Because, knowing this, its declared goal, we can more easily judge its methods to achieve it.
Let me share something in a more personal or direct manner: I am also a seeker of truth. Because of this search, there was a time when I decided it would be more coherent to call myself an atheist. Because I was asking, “What is God?” And thinking that God was some kind of energy, something like this, was too vague to me. It was not satisfactory. Now I already found some good answer to that question, or at least I think it is a good answer, but the best part of the answer is really inside me, or inside my mind; it is not something that I can distribute, and it´s not even an experience which I can explain or tell so as to hope to convince others. But, anyway, let me say something I find interesting on the rational level. I learned that God stands for G-O-D: Generator, Operator, Destroyer. “It” is the essence behind all creations, all existences, and all transformations. And surely “it” is not something stupid, some inert essence. The universe has so much regularities in its working, so many “laws of nature”… There are systems for everything: for eating, walking, sitting, sleeping, etc. If we don´t walk or eat in a proper way, surely we will have problems, sooner or latter. This universe has not only a huge intelligence or wisdom (where does our own intelligence or wisdom comes from???), but infinite love also. Human beings have so much freedom, so much that they can be ignorant and stupid and destroy each others. Is this not an evidence that “God” is not a tyrant? Because a tyrant would give its people no liberty to do anything that he/she would not like them to do. Of course such stupidity will not help us to survive collectively, and also not to live in harmony. So this Supreme Intelligence of the universe has subtle ways to teach us how we can live better. At least that is what I now understand…
I think there are so much dogmas and misunderstandings about this essence of the universe, of everything, but I have the opinion that we should not be limited to them, but instead open our minds and try to experience that essence for ourselves. I think that ancient science of self-knowledge or self-realization has some hints of how we could do that in a more systematic way, without risking so much to lose ourselves in some labyrinth. If that “X” is the supreme goal of our lifes, why let others say so much things about it, while we remain far from it? Let us get in touch with that essence, let´s feel it ourselves!!! How long can we remain strangers to our own essence, to our most intimate self?

We were speaking of the Zeitgeist film.

Society, that is, the collective body of human beings, is also trying to find its way through the labyrinth created by capitalism and by others socioeconomic systems that promise to make our lifes better. But how can we trust in a system were so big inequalities are maintained over so much time? Were thousands of people die from hunger, while other people die from excess of consumption… When we are lost, practice is our guide, and we cannot ignore our own minds and feelings and thoughts and intuitions, given we are looking for something better — not what others tell us is better, but what we feel or understand is better. How we feel, or what we think, when people die unnecessarily ? There should be another way, a better way… So we are searching for it. And we can find a solution. In the socioeconomic field, for example, let me suggest that PROUT represents a really good solution or system (that should be studied and tested by everyone who is searching for some solution in that field).

It was nice to write these lines. I hope you enjoy some of them !!!

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-04 00:53:42

Alice, I looked at the link you provided in regards to Donald Brown’s list of Human Universals. I must however disagree with most of them. For a majority of them, I would ahve to argue that they are not universal knowledge, but rather knowledge which is a result of experience. Although, I agree that humans are born with things like basic emotion,natural sense perception and a mind that is able to develop and mold itself uniquely and impressively to its surroundings, I would argue that most everything else is a result of human’s ability to retain memory and therefore build upon the experiences they have had prior. Not sure if this is really where you all were going with it, but just thought I would toss my opinions out there.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-04 21:23:25

Tim,
Thanks for taking the time to read the link.

The debate about Nurture vs Nature is an esoteric one engaged in by psychologists,cognitive scientists, sociologists and philosophers. It becomes relevant for us mere mortals when we are asked to consider Peter Joseph’s scheme for a new world.

I would have to go back and watch the film, but I don’t think I’m incorrect that he thinks human nature is some small percent a result of our genetic, inherited make-up and that it is our environment that has the most influence on who we become.

This thinking is of course is not new. Even one of the most influential figures in our democratic thinking, John Locke, said that the mind of man when born is a tabula rasa, blank slate.

But what evolutionary psychologists are saying is that if our minds were blank slates at birth, they would remain blank slates.In other words, the mechanisms which allow and encourage language, fear, competition, cooperation, status seeking, peacemaking, differences between the sexes, etc, etc, etc, are all there at birth.These things are not learned by inherited. It is the idea that natural selection has endowed humans with a universal complex mind.

Donald Brown’s list shows that despite the endless possibilities for human personality,certain traits show up in every culture. These cultures often have never had contact with each other. This seems to be some proof that all humans are born to be the way they are….that we have a huge list of preferences and that we are not endlessly malleable.

It was my main point that anyone who is considering a new society should take innate human nature into consideration and not assume people can become something they simply are not made to be.

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-05 19:37:54

I definitely see where you are coming from. And your right about Locke, he was very influential in the realm of imperialism.

But personally (and at this point), I believe that human nature goes as follows: the only thing about humans that is inherent is that they must follows certain universal laws of nature that are determined by their physical make up, as well as the physical world in which they reside. These universal laws dictate to a large extent why we interact with each other objects, and the way in which we do. At the same time these universals are things that we do not have control over (in the sense that they will restrict all of us and will be embedded in us regardless of whether we want them to or not) such as our desire to eat, that we must breath air, that we defecate, that we are thinking things, etc. On top of that, I believe that the fact that we are able to retain memory and have some kind of mental ability to interpret information are also things that would fall under these universal laws. However, beyond this, everything else is relative to the individual as we all are uniquely different from on another (even if that difference is an extremely small or seemingly unnoticeable thing), and are a result of experience.

But importantly, the way we deal with the universal laws stated above is also relative to the individual. How much I want to, or even need to, eat is relative to me, and may be different than you. Yet, regardless, we both possess this same necessity to some extent, which makes it universal, yet relative.

Now when it comes to the things that Donald Brown includes in his list, I believe that a majority of them would fall into the relative category, as opposed to the innate one as you seem to believe. For example (and mind you I selected these at random, but the argument should apply to most), ideas like containers, fear of death and rhythm are not ideas that we are supplied with at birth. They are a result of (as stated before) the universal laws such as memory and an ability to interpret information. When man first saw water collecting in a whole, or a a cupped lief, and they were able to attribute the result (water was able to be collect and contained for long periods of time) from the action (water falling into one of these things) they were able to interpret this information, and come up with the idea of a container in a general, yet unique, yet relative, manor. Also, this originally would have taken many similar experiences, but eventually man used his memory (a universal yet relevant law) to make a container which was unique to his personal perspective. The same can be said about a fear of death and rhythm. Over time, and after experiencing that eventually everything dies, people began to remember and interpret the idea. with rhythm, people used their ability to interpret information and memory (as well as their sense perception) to see rhythm in nature or around them, and mimic it. However, none of these are ideas that are with us innately, which is why I would disagree with you.

So to conclude (for now at least, because I have a hunch this conversation will continue), I do not believe that we are ‘blank slates’ in the most basic sense. I believe we possess universal laws that guide all humans, and makes them unique from all other animals (just as all other animals contain their own similar yet unique laws), how we each interpret those laws are individually relative and are a result of our own personal experiences (this is where culture plays a large role).

I would like to note, that I am still working on perfecting my ideas to the best of my ability, and am only telling you what I concluded so far. Also, I have left out a lot that was not relevant to this discussion. I am not basing these thoughts off any one philosopher or psychologist I have read, but rather am trying to interpret everything I have learned in my own way based off what I believe to be true. But I definitely am interested in feedback, as it will hopefully help me continue to refine my ideas.

alright, I have to run. hope you enjoy reading this.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-05 20:50:57

Yeah, I enjoyed it, but I think we are talking past each other and maybe talking about different things.

Let’s take language for example. Do you think a human baby is born with the ability to understand language or that language is something he learns only after he is born?

I would say that the human child has the ability to understand language before and right at birth. His brain is wired that way and his body has evolved to be able to articulate language. It is the exposure to the outside world in which it will live that inputs the information that the baby needs to be able to understand it’s culture’s particular dialect and ultimately communicate with those other humans around him.

All humans have language. What Brown’s universals try to assert that there are other things/ traits which humans are born with. He asserts this because throughout his research he has found that ALL cultures have these traits. How can this be unless the human brain is wired to understand and think in a certain way?

This is true, as you have noted, for all living creatures. Of course we humans like to think we are endlessly able to change and become whatever we want to be….but thinking doesn’t make it so.

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-05 23:28:50

yeah, that is a really good question. Language is a really interest human quality.

First I would like to clarify what you consider language to be though. So answer me this; what would you define language as? Is it the recognition of specific sounds projected by the vocal cords? do you think that it is limited to a preset amount of unique sounds that are not susceptible to change? If you believe the prior, it would seem that such a system solely depends on the repetition and memorization of sounds through experience (those very experiences then become unique and relative to the group who practices them which explains the vast differences in language). If you side with the latter, then it would seem all language is predestined to only contain a certain and limited amount of variety. Although then how would you explain all the different languages?

For me, I would stand behind the first proposition. As a result, I would say that humans are born with an ability to learn language as well as we are able to learn anything else we know, but not that we are born with some preconceived language in mind. By this I mean that humans are born with an ability to retain memory and impressively interpret information (as I was saying in the last post). I think that with these two universal yet relative abilities, and with the guidance of their environmental upbringing, they learn language through repetitive experience. I do not believe that the knowledge of language however is innate.

Just because all current cultures have language, however, does not seem like a universal truth about the human race. I believe that we slowly acquired this over time. Of course everyone speaks language these days though, because it has been a process that has been in existence and has spread to all cultures over thousands of years. language is one of the first things that we are taught from infancy because it allows for efficient communication, but I wouldn’t say that is why we can effectively learn it. On the contrary, I would say we developed language as a result of trying to over-come an inability to communicate efficiently, which would seem to be another example of humans interpreting information, and utilizing memory to establish a consistent base to follow. Once that base was established (which of course was unique and relative to the different areas)then it was simply built and improved upon, but it is still something that must be taught to babies through experience, not that they simply know it innately.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-06 12:02:39

Tim, you said, “Just because all current cultures have language, however, does not seem like a universal truth about the human race.”

Language is universal to all humans. The ability to produce language is universal to all humans and unique from any other species on the planet.

The reasons we have language include the physical ability to produce and hear the sounds which make up language. Then there are the connections in the brain which make the interpretation of those sounds possible.

According to natural selection, something I believe in, those who had the greatest faculty for producing and interpreting the sounds which made up language, survived long enough to reproduce and therefore passed that trait down. There was no “trying” involved.

The facility of language was selected (by nature) and then transmitted. But in order to grasp this thing you must realize these changes and evolutions took place over millions of years.

I think it is very difficult for humans to grasp that we are really a product of evolution. It seems so impersonal and “other” directed. We don’t seem to have much say in it. But look around you and you will realize that all life is that way.

We’re all bozos on this bus.

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-06 17:12:55

I should have said something along the lines of “an innate universal knowledge”. Maybe that would have been more appropriate, as that seems to be something you stand behind, and that I do not.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you say the brain is hardwired to know language from birth, and that every human has some knowledge of language from the beginning. If this is true then, do you believe that a baby who is never exposed to any language would still know how to speak?

“Language is universal to all humans. The ability to produce language is universal to all humans and unique from any other species on the planet.”

Do you not believe that animals as well display language of their own kind? It may be more simplex, but does it still not act as a means of communication (which is what our varying languages also serve as)? If that is the case, then this must be a universal that is had by all living animals, and not just humans.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-06 20:23:42

“do you believe that a baby who is never exposed to any language would still know how to speak?”

I am not sure if that is possible unless the baby is abandoned in which case it would die. But let’s imagine Tarzan being raised by apes. I’m sure that Tarzan would be able to “speak” in some way which could get him what he wanted. And because apes are so closely related to us, he would probably fit quite well. Now if he was raised by lions, he might have a bit of a problem.

“If that is the case, then this must be a universal that is had by all living animals, and not just humans.”

I was particularly thinking about the human language. But I suppose I could also say that birds are born with the ability to sing their particular song. There’s a great book by Steven Pinker called “The Language Instinct”. I highly recommend all of his books if you are interested in this sort of thing.

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-06 23:19:36

“I am not sure if that is possible unless the baby is abandoned in which case it would die.”

Well obviously this is hypothetical, but the point is if we were not exposed to the use of language through experience with it, we would not know it. That seems enough to prove that it is more based of nurture than nature. in this case I consider nurture any kind of experience with something, or being exposed repetitively. Nature, of course is the innate knowledge or ability we are born with.

“Now if he was raised by lions, he might have a bit of a problem.”

would he not be able to being to understand their use of growls and groans, as well as gestures and movements to establish some kind of understanding of time and through experience? if so, wouldn’t this be some type of language?

and you still need to define what you consider language to be, so I can properly understand your perspective.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-07 15:15:18

The lion thing was a joke. Like…
“they would probably eat him”.

Language is a slippery concept.

Language is much more than words and sounds and symbols, although each of those is very important. I am talking about the ability to understand language for instance.

Some would say that that ability comes after birth and after exposure to the sounds, gestures, etc that the baby sees displayed around him.

I say that that ability exists well before birth and if it didn’t exist before birth it would never exist at all.

We’re talking hardware here.

Then there is the ability to produce language as separate from understanding it.

Did you know that the way the human mouth and throat are formed is much different than an ape’s or any other animal for that matter. It is only by virtue of the way they are formed that we are able to articulate as many different sounds as we are. That didn’t happen because one day someone decided that he wanted to say “supercalifragilisticexpealidocious”(I hope I spelled that right :-) There are no decisions here. We use the hardware we are given.

And don’t misinterpret what I’m saying. I know that we need input from the culture we live in. We are nothing if not social. In fact that sociability is shown in all of our ways of communicating. We love to talk. It is essential.

I said this in another post….it is impossible to tease apart nature and nurture….to draw a bright line between what we learn and what we are. I just have the impression that people don’t take innate human nature into account enough or are even aware of what it really entails.

Do you believe in natural selection?

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-07 19:57:34

“I say that that ability exists well before birth and if it didn’t exist before birth it would never exist at all.”

I am not trying to be repetitive, but I still don’t believe you are saying exactly what you believe we know innately. You have said multiple times that we are hardwired, but have yet to explain in what light you mean, and it is genuinely making it hard for me to grasp your reasoning.

“Did you know that the way the human mouth and throat are formed is much different than an ape’s or any other animal for that matter.”

Yes, of course I do. But what does that prove?… it seems to simply prove that we communicate with different sounds than they dog, and visa verse. How does that prove that we innately know language? It just shows that we create different sounds to understand the world – an understanding that comes through experience.

“And don’t misinterpret what I’m saying.”

I truly hope you do not think I am purposely trying to misinterpret or represent your ideas, because I am absolutely not. I just wish to complete grasp your stance.

“I just have the impression that people don’t take innate human nature into account enough or are even aware of what it really entails.”

I have already stated that I do indeed believe in a set human ability from birth, however, I do not believe that such ability infers that we have any innate knowledge of the world, nor of how we perceive it or interact with it mentally. Rather, our bodies are designed physically to interact with the world as a result in part by natural selection (which I do believe in to an extent). However, it is not until we begin to interact with the our environment that we begin to learn and decipher ways to properly understand and utilize our senses and physical body in effective and efficient ways.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-07 20:37:19

Yeah, I’m sorry to have been so hard to understand.

I’m actually not quite sure what the point of all this has been. I do think your
ideas slide around a bit and you probably think that of mine. So I think we should probably end this discussion because I am not making myself clear enough.

I still think you would find Steven Pinker’s books very interesting.

Thanks for the chat.

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-07 23:09:24

well, I hate to simply give up because we don’t see eye to eye. But if you do not wish to continue to discuss human nature, and how we acquire knowledge, I suppose that is your prerogative. I can’t force you to have a discussion with me, so i guess it will have to end here.

thanks nonetheless

 
Comment by Mahesh
2008-12-11 05:46:23

Alice, I saw you have stressed again and again that it is important to base any project for society on a proper understanding of human nature — of couse you used not these same words, I just put the essence of what you said, as I got it, in my own words. Well, I agree with you on this. So I will try to build upon this, adding more to that, ok ?

One interesting thing about human nature is how we get where we are — for example, how we learn a language, etc. Other thing is: where are we going? What is our destination in this universe? In this regard, I would like to remember the “unlimited thirst” of human beings. It means that humans are not satisfied by anything limited. For example, if anyone has 1 million or 1 billion dollars, eventually one will ask “why I don´t have more?” And, in the mental or intellectual sphere, where is the end for the thirst for knowledge? And so on… But of course, we can also ask, what is the purpose of accumulating more and more wealth, or more and more knowledge?
So it is said that only a truly unlimited or infinite object can satisfy our thirst for infinity…
It is also said that people who know the goal of human life, and do their best and make sincere efforts to reach that goal, can be termed “devotees”. How can anyone in good sense be a devotee of money, or of something material, that is transitory by nature? Things that are external to human beings are transitory by nature. This is why Heraclitus said that “Everything flows” — that is, every material thing has a beginning, a duration or transitory existence (not a permanent existence), and an end. Heraclitus said that because he was looking at that kind of things — he was looking at his exterior. Scientific knowledge is also in constant change — what is the definitive theory in this universe? Sure that some scientists are looking for that, they are searching for some knowledge that is not transient, not suject to changes and circumstances. So how can anyone be a devotee of scientific knowledge? By the way, it seems to me that for scientists (in general) it is regarded best to be considered a sceptic than a devotee. Of course anyone can consider himself or herself to be a devotee of something limited, but is this the goal of human life?
I am not speaking of some very limited goal that people could reach and then say “This is the maximum realization, the pinnacle of my life!” This would be an insult to human beings, because in general they want their lifes to be meaningful, they want to do something great or important with their lifes, something they can feel gives some real sense to their lifes.
There is a story about a tree full of ripe mangos. Some devotees, seing this tree, climbed to it immediately and started to eat the mangos. Some intellectuals saw the same, but began discussing about the mangos instead — how to know that they are ripe, their colour, size, shape and so on and so on….
Of course that the goal of human life is not merely to eat some delicious mangos… But to experience good things can surely be a part of the path to that goal. But humans can also reach a stage of their lifes when it doesn´t matter if it feels like pleasure or like pain, they just want to move ahead to their desired goal. This is part of the psychology of human beings. There may be a tendency to regard this people as fanatic, but let me note that to be determined is not always a bad thing.
Humans have a thirst for infinity. It is indirectly because of this, and directly because of this thirst being directed to material objects by some people, that our world is in big problems these days. So it seems necessary for other people to speak loudly that the resources of our planet are not unlimited, that our Earth is big but nonetheless finite, etc. But this is just good sense, and if some people cannot see this, it means to me that they are in big trouble (they lost their good sense) — and therefore we are also (because that Earth is the same for them and for us) –, so what´s the use of speaking good sense to them? Directing the thirst for infinity to knowledge is surely a better idea. In the sense that it doesn´t matter how much intellectual wealth anyone can acquire, it doesn´t directly reduces the oportunity of other people doing the same. Supposedly, our minds can expand to infinity ! And we can do this collectively ! Or, has anyone an idea of something, that his or her mind or the minds of other people could not think about at same time? Anyway, to try to acquire infinite knowledge has some known bad side-effects, like increasing physical lethargy, and so on…
Because of this kind of thing, it is said that human integral development should be done with some sort of dynamic equilibrium between the development in every human sphere (physical, psychic, etc.)

Well, I will leave any conclusions of all this to the readers, remembering that I tried to deal mainly with the question, “where are we going?”, rather than with the other question, “what brought us to the point we have now reached?”, trying to show that this is a question or perspective that should not be ignored when we are thinking about human nature.

I will also observe that when thinking in terms of goals, the question of (past) experience is not the only important factor in deciding the course of future events. We may acquire new experience according to the goals set by us. This is very clear in science.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-11 19:27:55

Mahesh, Thanks for your post. I am not sure how to react to what you are saying. In fact I must admit, I am not exactly sure what you are saying.

If you are saying that humans have an infinite thirst I would say that describes humanity quite well.

You also say that infinite thirst for material goods will ultimately lead to the depletion of the earth’s resources. I am guessing this is correct.

And you suggest that intellectual thirst takes nothing from others, but may lead to physical decay. I guess I agree with that, too.

Personally, I think intellectual thirst is a good way to go and be conservative in your desire for “things”.

 
Comment by Mahesh
2008-12-15 04:06:35

Hello Alice !
I hope you are well !
It seems that you got what I tried to express.
Yes, I agree with you in saying that “humans have an infinite thirst”. (I will try to explain this in more detail, so that there is no doubt about was is being meant by this.) We have many desires, but usually these are directed to, they are about, finite or limited things. Say, one wants to know the name of another person, or wants to eat something, etc. These desires may be satisfied or not; when they are, other desires may appear in ones mind, and when they are not, there will also appear other desires in ones mind. An infinite thirst means that human desires are without limit. Once humans wanted to fly. When they arranged themselves to fly, they where not satisfied. Next came the outer space, then the Moon, artificial sattelites or spaceships flying through the space, to see other planets, and so on and so on… Suppose that humans found a wall on the limit of the universe. Of course they will like to know or see what’s on the other side. Human curiosity has no limits. Even at a time when humans could not fly, they already imagined what it would be like, to stand near the limit of the universe and throw a spear over the limit. This is like Einstein making mental experiments, imagining how would it be to travel at the velocity of light, and then to look at a beam of light travelling by his side.

In the first message of this long thread, our friend Point already remarked that, “…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.”
Let´s say that humans have a physical body and also a mind (which is also something physical, in some sense). What´s beyond our mind? What´s the origin of our mind? Where came it from?
I was writing some more things, but I have not finished yet. So, I will send a second message latter on, in consideration and in response to your whole message.

 
Comment by Mahesh
2008-12-15 12:47:10

I think that the intellectual thirst is OK. But, at least personally, it was not sufficient to me. I wanted to go more and more deeper. Once I knew a scientist named Gregory Bateson, maybe you know him also. I knew him only through books, but anyway I was very interested on what he wrote. Nowadays I can see some limitations of his thinking. But at that time, he inspired me to ask deep questions and to try to answer them. He developed an interesting, clear concept of mind; he was also trying to understand what is consciousness, and what is (the) “sacred”.

I already mentioned the ancient science of Tantra Yoga. This science points to an interesting distinction: between external science and internal science. The philosopher of science Karl Popper seemed to be more interested in the first type or science, because he emphasized so much the “objective knowledge”. (He even declared, in this respect, that his focus would not be on the process of generation of knowledge, or, in other words, would not be on its psychological aspects.) “Internal” refers to an human individual, and is the same as “subjective”. But subjective science is not altogether different from objective or external science, in the sense that both try to reach some truth. Even when somebody discovers something new outside of himself or herself, the subjective science was involved, in some way or another. Because we have to break some internal limitations to have access to new aspects of reality, like our old habits, our preconceptions, etc. And, to break these limitations, we need something else, knowingly or unknowingly. Subjective science is as much an empirical science as is the external science. The main difference is that usually no other person except ourselves has access to our minds. So we can know what´s inside our mind, but another person cannot. If we are not sincere or truthful, we may not tell others what we were actually thinking, and so it may be all spoken lies. (Of course, we have first to think on these lies, so as to speak them.) But surely this is not the object or goal of subjective science.

Tantra Yoga recognizes that our minds have five layers. The first one is the objective mind, the most external layer of our minds, the one which deals with our common external world. It is intimately connected with the operations of our sensory and motor organs. People who are too much focused on this layer tend to live more like animals; they tend to be more reactive and defensive, and less thoughtful, proactive. This objective layer is the one through which we perceive our external world, that is, visual images, feelings of sound, smell, etc. All this is done through the medium of a mental substance, called “citta” in sanskrit. The second next layer is the intelectual mind. That is where our memories appear, where our reflections and all our logic occur (the thinking process, so to speak). And because it is so near the objective mind, and in contact with the external world of perceptions, through the objective mind, it tends to focus on so many diverse things that our senses show us – that is, it tends to have an analytical character.

Most people live their lifes basically within these two external layers of our human mind. The other layers deal with other aspects, like intuition, creativity, deep memories of our evolutionary past, etc.

We could now ask some questions: how is there a possibility of a science whose knowledge is not externally verifiable?, and, what´s the use of a subjective science? The answers for both questions have one common, central point: Sure that individuals, and particularly human beings, are externally different from one another. And even their minds are not equal: individual histories are not the same, so their memories are different, unfulfilled desires are different, and so on. But all human beings belong to one and the same species (this should not be viewed as a sort of “petitio principii” argument) – this has some very special implications, particularly because humanity has some singular characteristics of its own, that is, human beings have singular characteristics which differentiate them from other living beings in a special way. The supramentioned “infinite thirst” is surely one of them, but it is decorrent from the singular characteristics of human mind.

It is to be taken as an empirical fact that some humans have reached into the deeper layers of human mind, and also beyond, and so this should be taken as implying a human potentiality open for everyone. Like humans have got to the Moon, so why should this not be an open possibility for everyone? Of course there are some practical difficulties in this respect, like the training required for one to become an astronaut, etc. But even the question of limited available material resources doesn´t arises in regard to the inner quest. Because we are speaking of an internal, subjective science, and this means that our own body is our laboratory. So we don´t need a special place for this inner development also. It should be understood that these considerations have very important, practical implications, in the sense of self-empowerment, real democracy, and so on. Many religions have sacred places and such things like churches and mosques, but nothing like this is necessary for our inner development, according to the subjective science.

As already pointed, subjective science is relevant anytime that objective science is expanding, because this means that the mind of scientists are expanding. But it doesn´t mean that the mind is expanding progressively in the inward direction – this is peculiar to persons who aim at their inner development and which try to follow the subjective science to its final aim. But when objective scientists make some important discovery about the external world, normally they are accessing some more profound layer of their minds, beyond both the objective and the intellectual layers. The three innermost layers of the human mind are collectivelly called “subtle mind”, and one of these three layers is the “subtle causal mind”, which is linked to the inner causal mechanisms of the external world, particularly. That is, to it´s ways of functioning, of how causes and effects are related to each other. So, when Isaac Newton discovered his laws of motion, these laws were an expression of how the universe functions particularly in the objective world on which Newton focused his objective mind. Einstein said something about all this. He explained that he could not express all that he “saw”, and also that his findings where not purely rational. This rationality which Einsten speaked of is related to the intellectual mind. All this means that the “laws of nature” that scientists discover from time to time are like portions of what humans beings can grasp when they access their subtle causal minds. The philosophers of science already noted that no theory is derived in any simple way from empirical facts or observations. This only means that theories are not obtained from just being objective and focusing on the objective mind. Eistein said something else, which can be put this way: neither can theories be obtained from focusing on the intelectual mind.

Newton, Einstein, and other great scientists, usually all of them spoke of “God”. According to the science of Tantra Yoga, this is not necessarily an expression of some religious affiliation from the part of these persons. Because what many people mean when the speak of God, is just what is beyond the subtle mind. That is, “something” that is subtler still. The portion of this Entity that can be reflected on our individual minds is our individual consciousness, and so that consciousness which is beyond our individual minds, and common to all beings, is a Cosmic, or Supreme, Consciousness. Everything in this universe has an origin, even atoms and subatomic particles. And what is the common origin of everything?

Scientists already know that our seemingly solid matter is not really solid; in fact, it is full of some seemingly empty space, and the subatomic particles of the atoms that compose every portion of matter, solid or not, are not precisely “particles”. In some circumstances, they behave and interact like waves, not like little solid balls. However, when we look to things like a table, chair and so on, they look very differently. This difference is partly because we are using our objective minds when we are seeing tables, clouds and the like, even when we are seing traces of subatomic particles in some bubble chamber or in any other device used to detect and present us visually those very tiny, normally invisible entities. But how can we make the invisible to become visible to our sensory organs? This is basically because our minds are subtler than any other matter. Even our objective mind is subtler than what it sees. Note for example that the visual images that we form in our objective minds with help of our eyes, brain, etc. are normally very refined, so that we can compare the sharpness of the images generated by other devices, like an analogic TV, a digital TV, etc. But we have reached to the subatomic realm not just through our objective and intellectual minds, as already explained, but with use of our even more subtle layers of mind, so that we can know how otherwise invisible things work, and so, how to make them appear visible to us. Because to do this, it is required some understanding of how the world functions, at least in that realm. This understanding is reached at not objectively, but searching inwardly. The order of the world is knowable to us internally, not externally.

I think this is a very revolutionary statement, at least potentially. Many scientists think and say that life emerged from non-living matter through random combinations of chemical reactions, or something like that. But they cannot explain the appearence of mind in the same manner. If they deny the existence of mind from the outset, how can they expect to explain the origin of mind out of more “crude” matter? More or less the same happens when we want to understand the Cosmic Consciousness: we have to meditate deeply on it. But intelectually, we can say that the Cosmic Consciousness is the supreme intelligence wherefrom our own intelligence comes from. Our intelligence comes not from a stupid, mechanical world, a world without intelligence.

When one thinks more deeply on some object, say, the Cosmic Consciousness, one tends more and more to assume qualities of that object. Because the mind tends to assume the “form” of its object of ideation, the object on which it is thinking. There is some mistery in the way by which the mind can go beyond itself and merge with that Cosmic Consciousness — which is said to be the highest stance that human beings can attain. Anyway, this is called the psycho-spiritual movement of the mind. This is the movement which tends to fulfill the infinite thirst of humans, because it is the way for the mind to come in contact with the only truly infinite object, which is the source of all beings, of the universe itself. On this way, an individual human being begins to develop his or her intuition, among other potentialities. The potentiality for intuition lies in the subtle mind. Usually ordinary people have lapses of intuition, which is easily confused with any other thinking when it is expressed in the intelectual mind. These moments of intuition happen even unkwowingly, because we naturally tend to come in contact with consciouness.

Without the development of our potentialities in all spheres — we may simply say, the physical, psychic, and spiritual spheres –, one may feel that life loses its meaning. So we may say that it is part of our nature to develop ourselves fully, keeping balance between body, mind, and Supreme Consciousness. This is the meaning of a very ancient teaching of the first master of Tantra Yoga, the legendary man called Sada Shiva: “subjective development with objective adjustment”. Remembering that, if our body is not well, we will find it rather difficult to concentrate our minds on anything.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-15 22:53:45

Mahesh, you wrote such a long post….

But a couple of things jumped out at me so I guess I’ll begin my reply this way.

You said, “It is to be taken as an empirical fact that some humans have reached into the deeper layers of human mind, and also beyond, and so this should be taken as implying a human potentiality open for everyone.”

This is not an empirical fact as I know empirical facts to be. This is an anecdotal opinion. It may or may not be true

“The order of the world is knowable to us internally, not externally.”

This is yet another opinion. It would be inpossible to prove such a statement. But I suppose if someone thinks they know…well maybe they do, but that doesn’t help me or anyone else much.

Alice

 
Comment by Mahesh
2008-12-16 08:50:49

Hello Alice !

Thank you for your answer and for your sincerity. I liked your answer, I think it is very good. I can agree with you, that all this that you are rather rightly questioning is not anything easy to prove, to accept, etc. Of course it depends on what proofs you are looking for. I think we are speaking of our progress as individuals, and not simply as a mainstream of western science, logic, or philosophy. Every time we want to expand our minds or our sciences from no paradigm, or from an existing paradigm, to a new paradigm, we must at least let our minds be open to new things, but this is not sufficient, we must also be open to look at old facts from a new point of view. Not only objective facts, of course, because, as I tried to point out, scientific theories are not made just of objective facts. They are not just a bunch or aggregate of many facts. Based in the knowledge of how our theories look like, if think that the statement you mentioned as impossible to prove looks like evident to me. For example, where in the objective world would we find such a statement as “F = m.a” ? (Of course that what Newton said is more like “F=dq/dt” – but he himself never wrote such a law, even less this way, he just expressed it his own words — but this is not the point of discussion here.) Just the PRACTICE of aplying Newton’s ideas to the objective world proved to other people the corretness of his ideas — so nowadays we are still learning and applying his ideas – to build huge buildings, and so on…

In regard to the first statement you cited, I agree that things may seem much more obscure. “It may or may not be true.” Right !!! I agree. I remember that the answer to this problem is to be practical, that is, to search for answers in a practical way — but by practicing some practice with the aim of elevation, of reaching a subtler existence, or say, a better existence. Surely never abandoning our rationality, as you are just demonstrating. It is said that it is not good for the preservation and practice of our human nature (the name for this is “dharma” in sanskrit) to acccept anything just because someone has said it. If someone demands blind obbedience from other people, it is said that this is against dharma. There is some logic behind this saying, and it is that, as we are trying to promote our internal, individual progress, that is, as we are trying to take our minds to the highest stance achievable by human beings — so, our individual minds are to be fully involved in this process. To let other people everytime think in our places, and to say and decide what is good and what´s not for ourselves, is like accepting to become mentally crippled. Surely this doesn´t sound as a good thing, and indeed it is meant to be something bad, that is, something that is against our human dharma. Unfortunately, when people watch so much TV, when they read and listen to so much capitalist propaganda, without thinking on what they are receiving in their minds all this time, this is surely a process to become mentally crippled. Fortunately this may not be permanent, but this also depends on every individual. Our individual progress depends foremost on what we want for our lifes — so we have to be very sincere with ourselves.

 
 
 
 
Comment by cashew
2008-11-13 15:39:31

….Speaking of time – this struck me most about the idea of basing the human culture/ society on the efficient and intelligent use of resources. Research scientists and brilliant minds all over the world instead of working on solutions to urgent problems (cancer, HIV to name a few) have to spent massive amounts of TIME applying and trying to get funding for their research. Resources in the field are truly abundant , money however is not. This in turn leads to competition for allocated funding between different research groups. rather then working together for the objective. In addition some equipment supplied by companies is very expensive, this is not because of the material, but for profit and to fund development of further advances. This monetary way seems like a real obstacle to getting the important work done.
Another example is nurses in hospitals, overworked and under-payed. There would be enough nurses (and many ppl feel the wish to become a nurse, but choose other careers for economic reasons) to share the workload, but the hospitals have not enough money allocated to them in order to employ them. The same is true for doctors. This is a crime in the name of economy, as hospitals are run as economic units and spending is based on allocated budget. The basic needs for people, the need for a safe, warm, appropriate size (for example family) home to live in, and the need for fresh good quality food (not cheaply produced or stored food-economic shortcuts in order to maximise profit -) has to be met. This is very basic but can form furtile soil from which meaningful life can come, as the human spirit is freed from the idea of “making a living” surviving”, behaviour will reflect this. Therefore lets get rid of money, and get on with the important stuff. Money its a distraction, it draws the attention away from what matters. Many lives are wasted in banks and admin offices for big companies, even as top dogs, protecting things that are not ours to keep anyway… PEACE & LOVE

 
Comment by Lew Orban
2008-11-15 21:29:11

Nice comeback and yes the resource based society will work and abundance comes from caring for what resources you have and or will create with new technology. Life is emergent and therefore constantly recreating mass and the atoms of resources…therefore through proper care they are unlimited.

The resource may change form as the technology unlocks the potential of and the emergence of such. Clearly any system that unfetters the creativity of man and allows the goodness of spirit to blossom on its own would be far better than the separatist brainwashing experienced by all of us today. Controls and education are about doing what is right in a belief system that is uniform and understood as the driving force of love within each of us and embraced as a whole.

Change is about growth and growth is about change. It can happen very quickly if we desire it…or it can happen very slowly if we resist it. Ub either case…it is coming weather we like it our not…we are not in Kansas anymore!

Comment by point
2008-11-16 08:46:48

“abundance comes from caring for what resources you have…”

Abundance comes from caring? No, abundance comes from waste. If I only have 10 apples and I take special care of them I still only have 10 apples. In order for them to be abundant I must have so many that at least a few go bad.

“constantly recreating mass and the atoms of resources”

If it was possible to control the creation of atoms, why couldn’t we do that today? We wouldn’t need a VP autocratic religion to benefit from that. Our universities are filled with scientists researching stuff, maybe you should mention your idea.

The rest of your comment is just babble. The goodness of spirit… I mean, c’mon people. What makes you think the VP brainwashers would be any more successful than our current propagandists? If the current lot of losers are unable do it right (since you are still resisting) what makes you think VPers will have more success? We’ve seen all this rhetoric before, go look up the beginnings of communism, it’s filled with ideas about how to make a new man that isn’t selfish and works for the benefit of the state, IT DOESN’T WORK, it ended up creating the gulag. It doesn’t matter how many flowers you weave into your statements, VP is slavery, it’s the opposite of freedom and I won’t accept it.

Comment by Mahesh
2008-12-15 16:14:50

Hello Point !

I liked the straightness of this message of yours. I will try to write in the same way.

For us to have a new socioeconomic system for sociey (examples of old systems are communism and capitalism), two points seem to be necessary: (1) the system must be factible, and (2) it must have the support of a number of people that will put the system into practice. If the system is to be based on not-selfish people, it seems to me that is not an unsolvable problem. Because, if we say that human beings are selfish, we could also say that they are altruists. Both ways of thinking and of acting are inherent in human beings. I will agree that selfishness is more common, because it is part of our basic, animal instints. But surely there is more thant this in humans — this is a fact. Some humans at least have shown this, and I think we could fairly say that all humans potentiality can express this also. I say this based on the new science of biopsychology.

I am writing all this thinking on a new system that was proposed in the end of 1950s, called PROUT (an acronym). This system doesn´t depends on all people becoming altruists. Just the people that form the core of its implementation should be really and sincerely like this. But to extend this system of PROUT to all, most of the people will have to accept it by heart, not through bayonet point. How will this be possible? Well, I will say that PROUT goes not against human nature, by the contrary, it has very deep consideration for human individual and collective, or social, psychology. It´s based upon it. PROUT is as good and workable a theory as Newtons laws of motion and of gravity are: people can surely be stupid enough so as to ignore the effects of gravitation on human body, and to jump from a high cliff or building. So they can easily kill themselves. Our capitalist economy is killing lots of people nowadays, directly and also indirectly. Surely I don´t need to remind you of that. But there is an alternative, and I would say that PROUT has good solutions to offer. I know that there are still hard-headed people that insist that communism or marxism is a workable theory, waiting to be put into practice. But when I dare to say if anyone understands what PROUT about says the dyamics of social change, he or she would see very clearly why marxism belongs to the dust bin of history, as well as the selfish-pleasure-principle-based-theory of capitalism.

We must have some limitation for individual acquisitiveness, as well as ample scope for individual liberty, and ways to guarantee that all people can acquire the basic necessities of life. PROUT proposes an economy that conciliates this demands. (It must be noted that, according to PROUT, “basic necessity” is a concept that must be sensible to varying circumstances of every community.)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by János Pásztor
2008-11-16 09:12:00

Very well. Maybe the Venus Project is the idealistic side of thinking. However, maybe it’s just me being biased, but the way money works currently is not the way I’d like to have it (just take a look at the current financial crisis), so I like the idea of at least opening up a discussion about how to do things differently.

As an IT technician / former programmer I like to build systems that help people. But that’s not what I’m getting paid for, unfortunately. The saying, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions is very true here. We learn, educate ourselves in order to further humanity or create a better life and end up serving not quite what we expected. Everyone check your lives, do you really do something of value? Or is it just an illusion?

Comment by Mahesh
2008-12-15 16:36:05

János !

These are really good, important questions.

I think the problem is not in having good intentions, but at least in part it is in not putting them into practice. Anyway, what good could we do without even having the good intentions? To hope to have something good out of bad intentions seems almost like madness to me, or at least it is no better than doing things without any intention at all, and resorting on good luck to expect something good out of this procedure….

 
 
Comment by James julian
2008-11-16 20:03:41

To me the venus project is basically a commune with amazing technology. It will work if the people living in it have the skills to maintain the technology. Idealy the type of education to teach the youths and adults who live on the commune will be ‘practical based learning’.

People living on this commune will have stronger relationships and have more time to them selves.

But in our monatary system our relationships are indirect and we spend too much time earning and spending money.

The main drive for having more money and wealth is prestige and not greed. The average earner in my country are richer than kings of the past mainly because of technology and cheap labour from other countries.

Having things requires time and energy, if people had stronger relationships with one another
recognizing we’d be better working with instead of against each other it would save alot of our time and energy.

This revolution must start from within and not be forced on others.

 
Comment by tim
2008-11-16 22:42:14

Although I am glad to see you creating a critical response to the movie (in the fact that it is always better in my mind to initially be critical of what you see, regardless of what it says), I must admit I don’t agree with your reasoning for a majority of the issues. Instead of simply attacking each thing I don’t agree with you on, I will just present some (I would like to emphasize ‘some’, because there is much more to the discussion than I have time to talk about here) of the reason that I agree with the ideas and views the film puts forth. But bare with me, because I am known to stray off topic from time to time, but I promise I mean well…

As I understand, the point of the film is to open up the general public’s eyes to the endless flaws and inequality that our current society faces. When it comes to the monetary system and corporate America (or any corporately controlled industrialized country), I completely agree with the film. It is an endless slavery that continues to suppress the masses. Currency cripples the possibilities of people. While the majority struggles to make ends meet, a few are capitalizing immensely on their misfortune. Not only that, thanks to the perpetual creation of false needs by advertising of the corporate elites (the few on the top of the ladder), the average joe is spending all of his downtime and spare dept (some call it money) trying to keep up with the latest worthless fashion trends and mind-numbing toys. I mean does it really come across as a coincidence to anyone that to today’s teens, getting the new 50 cent cd is more important than reading a classic piece of literature, or for that matter, reading at all? I mean honestly, it seems the only thing most people have an interest in reading anymore is what brand name is on other people’s shirts, so they know what useless piece of shit they should buy next. Those who control our capitalist society (yes capitalist, and not democratic) not only want, but NEED our citizens to be as dumb and ill-informed as possible. It is much harder to persuade someone who has taken it among themselves to gauge what is important to their well being, than those who live their lives based off what MTV tells them is important. If the people of our country were actually educated with the intent of making them truly more intellectual and productive citizens, our technology and possibilities would be 100 times what they are today. But that is not what our educational system does. Instead it prepares people to blindfold themselves, and jump headfirst in the corporate toilet. Instead of spending our education trying to expand our mind in unique or pro-active ways, we are told by our parents and advisers to study something that will ‘land us a high-paying job’ in the future; which makes the fact the Business degrees are far-and-away the most popular major of students in the US. I guarantee you, if you were to poll every American college student, and ask them why they want to go to college, their answer will be along the lines of; “so I can get a job and make a lot of money.” It is disgusting how obsessed we are with money. We center our lives around it and are willing to do anything to acquire it. And it really is a global epidemic.

However, if money didn’t exist, I think we would have the ability to prosper as a species, not just a country. Now, I am not so vain to think that simply by removing the monetary system, everything will suddenly be blissful. No, it would take much more than that. It would take the complete restructuring of our society from one of personal survival and self interest, to that of interdependence on one another. I believe that everything is culturally learned. We are who we are, based on the way we were raised, and if people were taught from a young age that to succeed as a whole, the human race needs to work together, and contribute as much as possible to creating equality of resources and happiness for all, I honestly believe that such a global society could be possible. Now, you may call this a type brainwashing or something, but I don’t think it would be any different from the way we live now. The only differences would be that instead of being told from childhood (as we are now) that the most important things in life are how much money you have, what you look like and how successful you are materially, we would be told that what is important is how intelligent you are, how much you can help others and how good of a person you are. I mean the only reason people have a need to stand behind capitalism is because they are afraid they will lose (a) their ‘stuff’, or material possessions, and (b) their freedom to choose what they can and can’t have. But in regards to (a); if you had a society where everyone had equal access to virtually anything they would want, then there would not be a fear of losing those things. Plus, in an ideal society, because there would not be corporations constantly advertising and polluting people’s minds with the desire to have things that they don’t need, there would be a great reduction in what people wanted materially. In such a society, we wouldn’t want that new pair of shoes, or new furniture because people would not be so shallow, and materially driven. As for (b); people would still have the freedom to choose what they did and did not have access to. In fact, such a society would be a democracy in the truest sense, because we would all be equally informed and educated citizens who could all vote on the issue at hand. Thus, since we would all be educated and would have the common good in mind as opposed to our own selfish desires, we would be best fit to decide our own fate. The majority vote could be the deciding factor, which would take out the need for elected politicians who are corrupt and selfishly driven. In a society like this, people would desire something much greater than material wealth; they would desire knowledge. I honestly believe that if you live in a time and place where we are not imprisoned by our necessity to constantly work and pay off the junk we are constantly buying, and we have access to all the basics (food, water, clothing, shelter), we would be able to devote ourselves to knowledge in the purest sense. We could learn just for the sake of learning. Not learning, so we could figure out ways to capitalize on technology or people who are less fortunate, but rather so we could create new technologies that would makes the lives of those less fortunate easier. It would be the only society that every truly cared about helping others, because buy helping them, we are in tern helping ourselves. every time we make somebody else’s life easier, we give them that much more opportunity to give back to the whole. It truly is co-dependent founded society.

I will stop here for now, but honestly, I have just barely scratched the surface. There is so so so much more to it, but these are just a small handful of initial thoughts I had. I would be happy to hear feedback on my thoughts though, so we can continue to refine all our individual ideas into one unified and productive idea.

Comment by point
2008-11-19 21:40:37

tim, I apologize for the delay responding to your comment. This post is becoming a lightning rod and I haven’t had the time to keep up lately… anyhow.

“we would be told that what is important is how intelligent you are, how much you can help others and how good of a person you are”

I took the time to read your comment slowly and think about it carefully. Here is my problem, and it’s the fundamental problem that has bothered me since I was young — people are stupid. And I don’t say that to be condescending, I say that to be accurate. The highly intelligent among us often make the mistake of projecting their idealistic worlds on people who are not capable of understanding them. I don’t believe all aspects of the VP world are desirable (for example not having any laws) but I don’t reject VP as an ideal, I reject it as a practice. I don’t think it will work not because I don’t think it has merits, I don’t think it will work because it’s not realistic. Obviously if you could create a world in which everyone has everything that would be preferable to a world in which most people have nothing, but that’s a massive IF! It makes many assumptions, chief among them that people only want things that can be delivered to them by someone else, and that flies in the face of everything we know about humanity. In a strange ironic way, VP is the pinnacle of materialism. It assumes you can solve all problems with more stuff, even the guy in the video said that scarcity is the cause of crime. What nonsense! If only everybody had more stuff we would all become angels, as if all the millionaires and billionaires today (who have everything they need and want) are somehow elevated to a different plane of consciousness, all of a sudden they become supra-human.

People simply do not realize they are already living beyond the standard of kings in previous centuries. If someone 1000 years ago envisioned a VP world, he might very well have talked about robots that help you travel from city to city, magic boxes that allow you to communicate from one country to another instantly, or take pictures and store them on your key chain. They wouldn’t believe that people could have all these things and still want more. If we lived in a VP world and everybody simply had more stuff we would forget just as quickly.

I have asked some serious technical questions about how the society would be managed and I have not (despite the 100+ comments) had a single person tell me whether and how producers would be compensated, how resources would be allocated, which projects would be supported when there are competing proposals, what happens to those who want to go their own way regardless, who decides where the technology will be implemented first, and so many more. I have not (despite the 100+ comments) had a single person explain HOW they plan to brainwash people into accepting this new religion (because that’s what it is). People say it’s possible, but nobody will explain how. Nobody will accept that communists tried this already, they believed they could tame greed with propaganda, it didn’t work. I want to know what makes you think it will work with VP — because your robots will be better then theirs? Doesn’t this sound even a little bit ridiculous to you?

I selected that quote for a reason, because it summarizes my disagreement with you. There is a wide range of abilities in the world and if you build a society in which only the most intelligent receive recognition (because you eliminate the rewards associated with hard work or luck) then I believe it’s quite likely the majority of people would suffer from severe psychological problems… Let me ask you this simple question, what would an average 90 IQ man do in the VP world? Let’s say he doesn’t understand mathematics, he has no interest in science, he finds philosophy painful and quite frankly all he wants to do is get drunk and bang blond chicks. Just as a thought experiment… go through his average day with me.

Comment by Stewart Griffin
2008-12-03 21:45:03

“I have asked some serious technical questions about how the society would be managed and I have not (despite the 100+ comments) had a single person tell me whether and how producers would be compensated”,

Exactly the problem I have. No one talking about this system ever talks about the system. All they do is talk about it’s alleged effects: better people not tainted by current world conditioning, abundance for all etc.

Anyone can say there system will deliver something it’s providing the details and implementing them that counts.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by tim
2008-12-16 11:54:10

“what would an average 90 IQ man do in the VP world? Let’s say he doesn’t understand mathematics, he has no interest in science, he finds philosophy painful and quite frankly all he wants to do is get drunk and bang blond chicks.”

Honestly, once such a place was established, I believe that these people would be few and far between. That is if they existed at all. But if there was someone like this, then I would tell them they can do whatever leisure activities they wished to, as long as they were not impeding upon anyone else. But again, these types of people would eventually be weeded out naturally from such a place.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by James julian
2008-11-17 04:59:38

I agree with you Tim. I think if we want change we are going to have to kick start this our selves instead of waiting around. I believe teaching people practical skills that keeps them and others alive directly and with a greater inner and worldly awareness is what is going to bring change.

Combining the mathamatical, horticultural and other essential practices for living we can improve our lives for the better.

The Venus Project is only one of many. There is the Eden project in the UK and many others. Also look up seasteding.

 
Comment by Robert
2008-11-17 09:40:22

I found this post very interesting and it seems to have given rise to quite a discussion. I just want to give my thoughts on the Venus Project.

The Venus Project, although a very thought provoking and intriguing concept, is not something which IMHO can be created in the near future. In order for such a society to operate, humans are the ones who must first change. The way we are raised, the beliefs instilled within us and the the way in which our minds operate must change. That is why there will only be world peace once the love for power is overcome by the power of love. It seems we are still far from reaching such an understanding.

The point is not for someone to tell you how many bananas you can eat every day, but for all of us to realise that we are here to further ourselves and humanity evolve in all ways possible. And this cannot be done unless we learn to live in harmony with both the planet that helps maintain our physical existence, as well as all the people around us.

This requires us to evolve to a point where our attachment to materialistic desires is overcome by learning to love, first and foremost, ourselves just the way we are, and learning to give love to everyone and everything around us.

Such a radical change will only happen once the current status quo is completely overthrown, on a global level. This requires humanity as a whole to experience an awakening, a desire to evolve beyond what has kept us restricted in the past. I suppose such a happening may come about either by another World War where a lot of people are killed, or if some perhaps more intelligent being comes to our planet and helps bring about such a change.

What must be understood is that there cannot be a perfect world without perfect beings. We are all perfect in every way, but we are far from realising our own perfection. A perfect society and world cannot exist with imperfect beings. This is why ideas such as the Venus Project are possible, but probably not going to happen in the near future. I doubt that all Governments and individuals will suddenly have a change of heart and decide to concentrate all their efforts on improving all aspects of humanity, rather than creating missiles for pre-emptive attacks.

Just my two cents.

Comment by Steve
2008-11-17 16:13:36

i enjoyed your two cents.

The scary thing is people don’t realize that if we don’t change the way we operate things NOW there will not be a planet to continue our operations on.

 
Comment by point
2008-11-19 21:59:24

“by another World War where a lot of people are killed”

This has happened many times throughout history. Today we look back at WWI and forget that many people didn’t believe civilization would survive. The war was long, deadly, brutal. New weapons of war were just being invented to kill on a mass scale (gas, machine guns, planes, tanks). The Ottoman empire that stood for 600 years fell. Then you had the black plague! I hardly doubt anything short of nuclear winter could be so disruptive to the status quo today. The end of that war, which people at the time called “the great war” instead of being “the war to end all wars” brought us “the peace to end all peace” as Europeans filled a power vacuum in the middle east by setting up imperialist spheres of influence… At the time I bet they thought it was a great idea, spread freedom, democracy, enlightened western culture and all that jazz… Little did they know, and little will you know when whatever plan you are concocting also blows up in your face with unforeseen consequences. The world is an aggregate of an infinite number of random variables, it can not be tamed or planned, no matter how fancy your robots or powerful your microprocessors. For you, I suggest the following reading material — Fooled By Randomness by Nassim Taleb.

 
Comment by mike
2008-11-19 23:13:15

You get it! I completely agree with you here, and it is mention in the Venus Project literature that this is not something that can happen over night. In fact all you’ve done is repeated what the Venus Project already understands.

I can’t say that I agree with point at all, he doesn’t seem to think it’s possible. Maybe it’s not in the world we live in today, but we also live in a terrible world full of poverty and war fueled by greed and controlled by a select few. More people are seeing this, and dissagreeing with this, and hopefully we can begin to change.

It’s not going to happen unless this current state of affairs is overthrown, and shouldn’t we work towards that instead of saying it’s simply not possible?

Also, point says that we don’t have enough resources, the Venus Project says we do. I’ve seen neither of them produce evidence of either scenario.

” 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”

I do know, that this is not the point of the Venus Project, who said we all need mansions? This excess needs to dissapear, no one needs that.

Comment by point
2008-11-19 23:30:25

“shouldn’t we work towards that instead of saying it’s simply not possible?”

See this makes no sense to me. Why would you work towards something that can’t work? Shouldn’t you first answers my questions and prove it makes sense before you commit the entire planet to slavery at the hands of a VP supercomputer and its programmers?

“who said we all need mansions?”

So you are deciding for me how many bananas I can eat… you will have to read all the comments for that to make sense. The point here is that if somebody is going to decide how much of anything you need, regardless of what you want, you are not free. You are in fact a hamster in a cage. What makes you so special that you get to determine what constitutes excess? A tiny two bedroom apartment in New York for a couple with no children might look like excess to much of the world. Go a read the book 1984 by George Orwell right away.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by tim
2008-11-20 00:23:34

“So you are deciding for me how many bananas I can eat… The point here is that if somebody is going to decide how much of anything you need, regardless of what you want, you are not free… What makes you so special that you get to determine what constitutes excess?”

Please Point, stop using this analogy. You are constantly missing the point (no pun intended). It is not about someone choosing how much you can have of what, it is the whole idea that our society right now promotes no natural limits. We, as Americans, waste enough food everyday to feed a large part of the impoverished world. Now if people just learned to live within their means, instead of using the immature response “well maybe I want more than what I need!”, we would be much better off. Anyways, that response is the result of living in an over-consuming country. It really is actually very sad if you seriously take the time to think about it.

 
Comment by mike
2008-11-20 01:03:16

Thank you tim, that is exactly what I’m on about.

 
Comment by point
2008-11-20 21:31:22

“It is not about someone choosing how much you can have of what”

“if people just learned to live within their means”

(I desperately wanted to make this all in caps but I resisted the temptation) Choosing how many I can have is exactly what you are suggesting. The first statement directly contradicts the second. I don’t trust your judgement, you don’t know what I need and quite frankly I don’t really care what some government official thinks about my decisions. Yes many people make bad decisions… most people also don’t exercise. So what? Let them suffer the consequences. Will you next mandate government monitored daily exercise routines with the local government personal trainer in order to qualify for handouts? Just like cows on the farm…

 
 
 
 
Comment by spandrel
2008-11-17 23:58:32

Thanks all for this very interesting discussion.

I think the film should have introduced the Venus Project only at the end, as one example of an alternative to our current system. If it had to be mentioned at all. It is a distraction to very real problems we are facing in the US and that will likely become global.

We are going bankrupt. Approximately half our 11-trillion-dollar debt is to the fed reserve bank, the other half foreign countries and corporations. We put two supposedly conservative Bushes in the White House and between them they nearly doubled it. That debt is going nowhere but up with Obama. A global economic collapse seems likely if the US fails.

Reducing the debt has its own consequences, because of our wonderful fractional reserve system comprised mostly of “checkbook” money. I did not believe it actually worked that way at first. I started looking at the official web sites (a morass, really) then finally ended at Wiki. It truly seems to be a kind of pyramid scheme with the poor bastards at the bottom left holding the bag. Or in this case, not holding one I guess.

Maybe we could seize all fed reserve/central bank property, charge them with racketeering or something, hang them, and restructure. Hell, maybe we could even say they’re suspected terrorists and just put them in prison indefinitely. As well as seize their property. But more likely we’ll devolve into a completely fascist global region. These people read 1984 and were inspired.

The VP promo is, like the project itself, a nice gesture, but we’re screwed, and concrete, immediate changes need to be made. Then we can all focus on actually enforcing existing laws against monopolies and war crimes, completely restaffing the FCC with ethical people, reforming patent laws, and so on while we wait for our ascendancy.

Willie, that was a great rant. I almost feel guilty being a US citizen, but resource use rises with industrialization. Take a look at China now. We’ve done a much better job protecting our natural and historical resources through a century of the industrial age than they’ve done in five years time. Not that I agree with our materialist trends, but we’ve got lots better stuff wrong with us than what you griped about. Hell, our government is behind the killing of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq (to name just the recent areas) and we annually affirm our support of the suppression of Palestinians who were robbed of their country to begin with! And all you can say is “You egotistical materialists.” We are so much more.

 
Comment by Sammy
2008-11-18 08:33:40

You know I agree with the one poster.

True…what they are proposing may not work…at all. This is very likely.

However, what we have now, The system we have now…is a big steam roller machine that empowers people and fuels the fires of GREED, LUST, ENVY, MALICE, even HATE! Among others. The system that we have now is going to kill us.

Power corrupts, absoulte power corrupts absoultly!

It is quite appearent that the current system is not Working either. Why? Because its “Top” heavy…this system is going to drive the machine of war till our whole existence is wiped off the face of the planet.

MONEY…needs to go in my opinion.

Weather its the Venus project or not.

Comment by Sammy
2008-11-18 08:40:02

“That is why there will only be world peace once the love for power is overcome by the power of love. It seems we are still far from reaching such an understanding.”

Thats it right there. Thats the answer. LOVE!

But no one wants to hear that. Cause LOVE would mean that you are “Equal” to me. We can’t have Equals…no…then I won’t be in control of anything.

^^^That is the only problem we face, If we truly did have LOVE …we might be able to salvage this wretched world.

 
 
Comment by demencial
2008-11-18 10:53:09

comprendan a la naturaleza..y acepten la competencia…desquicio psicológico, desarrollen la psicopatía, el ser humano no es más inteligente de lo que pueden definir, lo demás no es real, es utopía, olvídate de los demás y podrás vivir mejor, solo envargalos.

los animales luchan y compiten a diario, nosotros lo hacemos de otra forma, la jerarquía es tan sólo una batalla de mentes, pro no una derivada de la realidad….somos logica problable..pero nadie lo entiende.

solución: creación una nueva especie, y aniquilarse mentalmente, la igualdad es un numero complejo que nadie puede definir…necesitamos que dios nos diga que hacer,¿quien es dios?..la mente más poderosa…pero es indefinible, no categorizable, si yo creará una especie, nunca la haria semejante, es inviable hacerlo.

 
Comment by Tom-atoe
2008-11-18 18:58:07

Another quality installment from Peter Joseph,
I was quite alarmed at this over tendenancy to have us all join The Venus project though.

Surely that’s thinking waaaay too far ahead,
we need to spread the message that there is even a problem first, let alone that we have a very primative THEORY for a solution.

Most of society don’t even know what they’re missing yet!!!!

If you want to help humanity in anyway. Just spread the message that the Zeitgeist films even exist. Invest in non-corporate media formats like the Internet News Channels that the film suggested, get them to raise the issue and have it broadcast across the world.

Because If you take Zeitgeist to the Fox Network,
They’d shoot you for being a terrorist…….

 
Comment by Trevor
2008-11-19 02:01:29

I am probably not as well versed as you Point and as well read, however I do believe in the idea of logic. Based on this is…..I feel there maybe some logical flaws in your argument.

For example, I feel the point of “unlimited resources has been made out but misinterpreted. The movie clearly states the “idea” of proper management of the earth’s resources to “feed, educate and house everyone.” The whole idea here is that we push towards that goal, achieving it obviously will be hard for a number of reasons but I don’t believe its because we do not have enough resources.

Recently, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett were able to vaccinate how many poor African children??….
Obviously we are talking about 2 very elite individuals, and its not like they gave up all their life savings for this, but my point here is….we are talking about two people with so much wealth; as if they did not choose to do that honourable deed, those kids would not be vaccinated. The idea these two individuals can have so much wealth only exists in a society that works in the monetary system as described in the movie. Therefore this system much change, as there is no justification for such inequality to exist as I have just proved that the “resource”, in this case, vaccines have been provided on an “abundant” bases and was readily available.

Now I have read how you mention, who will direct this change, how will you decide who gets these resources? But change takes time….the way make things out to be….it almost sounds like your complaining about a fictional person ahead of you in the line trying to get the next XBOX 360….or a new ultra thin flatscreen TV. In time we can probably argue those points….however, the real step for change is to start by helping those who lack the fundamental needs for survival (food, shelter, education). As this change has been proven possible by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett why hasn’t there been a more global effort to do this?. Are most of the elite as “generous” as them???….ofcourse not.

A global and open conciousness is required….to be united which the idea of “closed doors collabration”…..and there must be “trust” between the open public and the “leaders” for this change. Maybe we are not at this point of society yet….but I am someone who agrees with the movie…that this society is much better than our current one.

looking forward to your response

Comment by point
2008-11-19 23:00:17

I may have missed your point, but where was I not being logical? You’re saying we have imbalances in the world and that rich people can help poor people with charity, yes, that’s not really news. We have many resources, we can do many things with those resources, but we have to understand that we don’t dig vaccines out of the ground, these things have to be researched or invented and produced. Who is going to do that? Who will get them first if we only have the ability to produce 1 million shots per year? Technology is more than just an Xbox, if the system will provide for everything then by definition it includes everything… houses, clothes, food, vacations, medicine, cars, mass transit, etc. We can’t ignore those questions, you can’t accept an economic system without answers to these fundamental questions I mention in the post and other comments.

Comment by Trevor
2008-11-21 06:43:50

Hi Point, thank you for your quick response….very much appreciated. I find this thread very fascinating and I very happy I can discuss this topic with you.

I would just like to point out two things that you have mentioned….one from your response and one from your article talking about money. Hopefully you will see why I disagree with some of the logical arguments and points you make:

“You’re saying we have imbalances in the world and that rich people can help poor people with charity, yes, that’s not really news.”

and

“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”

If you can click on the link below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5115920.stm

In the BBC article above the “very large” donation made by Mr. Buffett which clearly warrants “news.”

Now here is a quote from the BBC article which I very much like:

“I am not an enthusiast of dynastic wealth, particularly when the alternative is six billion people having that much poorer hands in life than we have, having a chance to benefit from the money,”

- Mr. Warren Buffett

Comparing your quote to Mr. Buffetts depicts money in two different ways doesn’t it? When he says “benefits” doesnt he mean an exchange for goods and services….food shelter, education…health..?

I am only mentioning these points because they are significant to your article…and the idea of change.

Also another interesting point made depicted in this quote:

“BBC business editor Robert Peston said the size of the foundation’s cash pile dwarfed that of other organisations, and compared it with the $12bn annual budget of the United Nations.”

Wow! Kindof a slap on the face by Mr. Buffet. That is more than 3 times lesser than what Warren Buffett donated…..and this is the international organization we have now for change….no wonder there is no change….all the money is floating around these rich CEOs and big corporations.

As I mentioned before…..it is important the wealthy help out….we will not be in a state of welfare as another gentlemen has mentioned…..its funny how people are so afraid of change….we all have been so spoiled all these years……Its time to face the music people….and get real.

As mentioned before….most of his donations went to helping vacinate african children.

Is the motivation to make vaccines just profit? Or is it meant to save a human life? If there is even a slight delay in this response…do you not feel this is something fundamentally wrong? Or Maybe not?
Or did the guy who invented this was just inspired because he just wanted to be the top guy in his group? And if this was the motivation…..where does money factor into it? The thing is….there are many ways to look at this..

I noticed you seem to put a strong focus on “who” will decide this new order…..but shouldn’t we be asking ourselves do we need a new structure for society?……If we all to some extent believed in this….shouldn’t this substantiate to a direction of change on some level?…..Your absolutely right….direction and leadership is a tough thing to deal with this situation…..but thats not the point…..the point is to facilate a movement for change.

I just find it funny….with all these ridiculous bailouts and stupid ways to spend money…..why not take the time to look at this perspective and try to use technology to free us and sustain us…….we wont even dare try….sorry did I say we?….At the moment…it looks like we don’t even have that choice.

There is alot I would to like to say….maybe I am not as clear as I would like to be

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Trevor
2008-11-22 04:27:01

P.S

We are also willing to consider bailing out a failing american auto industry…..a breed of cars totally out classed and outdated by the rest of the world. What is the real reason for doing or considering this?….and is this more important than anything we are talking abt?…..why not randomnly through so money at this new system……if it fails….I’m sure its not as bad as giving to someone to make a hunk of steel.

 
Comment by Trevor
2008-11-25 02:31:29

*throw some money

 
 
 
 
Comment by alice
2008-11-19 11:09:50

I haven’t read all 119 comments but only a smattering of them. The most immediate thing I want to say is “We’re so screwed!”

Has anyone been watching “the hearings” around the bailout on CSPAN? Watching all of those politicians posturing for the voters will give you a good window into what these guys are really about. They have no idea what to do except to point fingers at each other.

Kinda like Zeitgeist.

IMHO we have gotten too big and too complex for the human mind to grasp. There are way too many zeros, even for Henry Paulson. I’m not saying we’ll go down any time soon, but we will continue to blindly go down this crazy road we’re on for a very long while, fiddling with the edges and pretending we know what we’re doing.

I just hope there is some semblance of a viable system left when this is all over.

Ron Paul for president!

 
Comment by Pat Gallotta
2008-11-19 15:49:48

I don’t think that capitalism itself is the problem; I think the problem is that democracy is ineffective in keeping it from running amok. Who can deny that capitalism is responsible for mankind’s greatest advances?

Comment by James julian
2008-11-19 18:15:58

The greatest achievements in human history were never really motivated by money. When ever money becomes the motivation for an organization people get bored with their job and the organization becomes sluggish.

Comment by spandrel
2008-12-08 23:58:46

Well, you have the Earl of Sandwich’s apetite as a case in point. But not much else. And he was already rich.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by tim
2008-11-19 20:13:15

“Who can deny that capitalism is responsible for mankind’s greatest advances?”

Me. And I do not hesitate for a second when I say; thank human ingenuity, not capitalism.

 
 
Comment by Ricardo Miguel
2008-11-19 19:48:00

Greetings…!!

Here’s my previous comment, just for the recent viewers who may have seen the previous one…

I had the idea that “Point” was someone intelligent enough to argue with, but apparently I was wrong, I wish however to thank to all of those who brought important issues to this discussion.

“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…

Comment by StupdiCommies
2009-03-14 22:41:37

So you have nothing other than to insult this man? You have no understanding of human nature. You are and idiot, this will not work. The system you want to replace ours with is WORSE than what we have now, and you’re too fucking stupid to see that.

 
 
Comment by matik
2008-11-19 20:28:11

I think the Venus Project is a great idea. The abundance of resorces is a brilliant concept….and for free, forever, and for everyone. If there is more than enough resources to go around, its useless to try and currupt such a system. It’ll be like trying to sell air and tap water. But the movie states that it wont be a perfect system…just better than the current, which doesn’t take a genious to figure out the truth to that statement. As long as genuine ideas of “real” freedom are being discussed we can only move in a more positive direction, and the Venus Project is the true meaning of freedom as long as technology is used for the greater good of all mankind to be free to look after our planet and each other.

 
Comment by spandrel
2008-11-19 23:06:06

On the project’s web site, they state that the resource-based economy is going to be driven by a supercomputer, since no human being could possibly weigh all the necessary variables (it’s in the city link I think). Doesn’t that beg the question? In their “cybernation” of society (their word), who writes the program? You? Me? Jacques? Who decides on the relative weight to give the variables or even what variables to use?

And does it matter? It is nothing but a design economy, just another form of collectivism really. Yes, they will “free” the individual from forced labor, religious indoctrination, poverty of your purse and spirit. This has been tried before and the dogma is practically the same! If history’s of any value, the guys doing the programming will be the guys at the top. And the rest of us will learn to be hackers just to shoe our children.

Anyone here from the states ever been on welfare? Visited a project where recipients of it are housed at low or no cost? Cheap housing, free food, cheap clothes, free education. Kind of like the Venus Project, just without the stainless steel appliances. The human race on welfare is not a pretty picture. I wish it were different, but it’s just not so. No offense to anyone on welfare. I’m for it rather than the alternatives. But it’s just not any kind of happiness or fulfillment engine for the most part and I’m not sure taking money entirely out of that picture (which it is already to some degree) would make it better.

I think we need to consider less extreme options, like buying back the fed, campaign finance reforms, breaking up monopolies (particularly in the media), energy reforms. No one alive today had any say in the selling of our government, but the fact is, we probably would do it again without even realizing it. Somewhere between Jefferson and now, we bombed in a big way and now we’re sitting clueless in the crater. Anyhow I don’t know if a grassroots campaign for those things is possible in this country any longer. But we’ve definitely got a better shot at them than realizing the dreams of the Venus Project.

BTW, Alice, the only thing I hate worse than watching our elected politicians is watching the idiots they’ve appointed to the FCC in session or hearings. Completely amoral jackasses who must believe we’re even dumber than they are, which really is an extraordinary stretch despite our general stupor. Amazing really. Well there was one reasonable, ethical guy, but he resigned in protest I think.

Comment by point
2008-11-19 23:16:57

I think this is the first comment I agree with. Gold star.

Comment by Spandrel
2008-12-02 01:00:41

Well, thanks. I may have missed some or mistook some, but I think that puts the minority group at a grand total of three members.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Ricardo-Miguel
2008-11-20 20:21:53

To: spandrel

You’ve made an excellent point by asking “who writes the program?” the machine would be as much “untrustworthy” as the man who wrote it, or in other words, it would go against the basic principal of freedom and equity…

However i must disagree with your analogy with the Welfare System because that system depends on the monetary system…!!

And once and for all, about the VP, of course that it is an idealist visions with some eccentricities worth mention, one thing is having technology help us, another is making important decisions for us… “Matrix” and “Terminator” anyone ?

But the base of the idea is that Monetary System has to go…

Do you really think that our current System is THE ONLY WAY, THE BEST SYSTEM for us to grow, is this the best way to relate ourselves to the Planet and our surrounding environment…!!??

Thank you for reading this…

Appreciate any comments…!!

Comment by spandrel
2008-11-20 23:49:52

The welfare system is supplied by taxes, yes. But the recipients are receiving resources without the need to work for them. I’m not saying it’s a perfect analogy, it just happens to be the closest real-world referent for the vp idea. Don’t you think we should try to find some parallels in the world around us instead of just imagining what we would be like under the vp system? Aren’t you concerned, for example, that important medical research might go by the wayside? How long will the determined ones work while everyone else is kicking back? I don’t think vp has been well thought out at all. We need a little realism in discussing it.

Our current system stinks, but then it’s not what the founders envisioned. From Washington’s warnings about a two-party system, hell, all of them warning about the press and bankers, we’ve pretty much done everything they said not to. Do you really believe that it would be so difficult to improve our economy, regulate pollution/alternative fuels, aid poor in our own country as well as foreign, have a diversified independent press, actually practice diplomacy, educate ourselves better, and so on? Our system is corrupt because we elect corruptible politicians, and renew their terms for gods sake, because one just isn’t enough.

The constitution was the best political creation the world had ever seen, with a built-in mechanism to allow it to be made even better. And we managed to botch it. What in the world do you imagine we’d do with a fuzzy system like the Venus Project?

 
 
Comment by point
2008-11-20 20:45:50

I removed Ricardo-Miguel inappropriate post again, unfortunately that gets rid of the entire thread. You don’t have to agree with me, just keep it civil.

Comment by tim
2008-11-21 18:44:26

I will respond to the other objects later this weekend, but I could only do one more tonight due to lack of time.

Comment by tim
2008-11-21 18:44:55

*objections, not object. sorry.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Cristian
2008-11-23 14:24:34

Hello.

To begin with, I state that I am not completely against the Venus Project, but I find your arguments quite solid against removing the monetary system.

It would be a world of chaos, and there are and will be people that, no matter how better the education system is (and how much the VP project will invest in it), will have problems integrating into a world where everything is for free. So their few numbers might bring chaos into the system.

I think the VP-ers are thinking in such a big picture that they do not see the small steps that everyone should take before making drastic decisions (like eliminating the “money”) and should strongly consider discussing their options.

We do not want to counter the actual ideas with arguments that will destroy them, but rather try and improve on them. Try to find out if the purpose was something that you agree with. If so, then we have to consider improving on that solution, or adding and removing parts that do not work.

About 50% or more of the Zeitgeist Addendum movie is based on strong arguments and consists of very good ideas.
Improving our energy infrastructure by harnessing more of our natural sources
Take this and let’s analyze it.
The purpose is very good and the scope of it is to have more eco-friendly ways of generating energy. On the other hand, we should also emphasis on building better energy-saving products. But what happens when we are trying to upgrade the whole system of energy generators? Won’t that be very energy-consuming and therefore we allow the current power generators which run on coal and fuels to pollute the ecosystem more? We should have to make sure that the process is not that damaging, and I think this is done best by taking little steps and assessing the possible results and all the variables in this equation.

Also there are few others in the Venus Project description from the Zeiteist Addendum movie that I think they haven’t given thought to all possibilities. It also seems that they are trying to promote their designs, but that’s a different issue.

This was just an example of what can we do instead of arguing on things like “I want to marry Jessica and I want to have an island of my own” (sorry for not citing exactly). What is this example for? To just make a point that people will want to be greedy and pursue their goals no matter of what are the consequences? This we are trying to overcome now, and to upgrade from the greedy bastards that we are (no offense, nothing personal) now, to better and understanding human beings.

So instead of fighting on small issues that we know we can’t reach consensus on, we could join our thinking forces and become like a team who is trying to make the world around us better.

Thanks for your time and I am looking forward to your reply.

Cristian

 
Comment by gilbert
2008-11-24 10:58:43

I for one would not believe in such change. Eliminating constants in the world is simply impossible. I would simply not adhere to the idea of a faux-communist idealism. Without constants such leadership, it would be impossible to maintain order in such a society. Sure, the movie exposes parts of the realities but fails due to its advertising nature. Money itself is not evil and the purpose of which is to regulate and maintain balance. It’s just greed for resources and power that messes up things.
As a comment for the “documentary”, sure it may get you convinced on the first half then now you begin to assume that this was just 2 hour advertisement. I don’t even live in America to begin with. How am I and my country as a whole benefit out of this? It’s totally unrealistic

 
Comment by alice
2008-11-24 13:11:35

It seems like the tide is turning against Zeitgeist.

A very interesting thread.

I think the last posters agree that we need to work with what we’ve got and that it is unlikely that a new system could be substantially better than the one we’ve already managed to foul up.

The last election should give us some insight into how unlikely it is that any substantial change is imminent. Sensible politicians like Ron Paul don’t have a chance in hell because most of America is starry eyed and ideological. We like our rock stars and we like to stand in large venues with tears in our eyes. We don’t really want change. We want promises and bail-outs, unaware that such things get us into even deeper trouble.

If the Venus project should work on anything it should be to instill human beings with more ethical standards and a strong sense of personal responsibility.

Comment by tim
2008-11-24 20:47:15

the tide is not turning against Zeitgeist. If anything it is turning against the VP idea.

Comment by James julian
2008-11-25 09:54:53

The VP just needs better publicity and the tide will support the VP.
The Eden project in the UK is up and running and works very well.
When some people talk about the VP they talk about enslavement or how it won’t work. Like any project it depends on the people working on it, mistakes always happen but we learn from them.
When some body starts a company to make a profit at first there is always loss but some times they make profit. But most companies don’t last the first year. So just because millions of companies go bust in the first year it does not mean the idea of a profit making company is impossible.
There are many other projects around the world similar to the VP. The successfull will grow and the others will either die or learn from the ones that work.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by tim
2008-11-24 20:53:54

And it is not simply American’s starry eyed, ideological tendencies. Politics are controlled by people who have money; the very same people controlling the capitalist society we live in. Media exposure controls what the majority of American’s believe, not ideologies. Ideological people are far and away the minority and always will be, becuase to have ideologies and beliefs about how things could/would be better implies that you are exposing yourself to ideas and information that goes far beyond what FOX News and CNN show. So personally, I think that is a load of bs. If anything, Ron Paul’s stances represent ideologies, because they often represent those who do not agree the current system.

 
 
Comment by alice
2008-11-25 20:09:18

Tim,
It would be difficult to determine which came first… the tendency to be starry eyed or the media which exploits it.

They probably evolved together.

James,
“The successfull will grow and the others will either die or learn from the ones that work.”

This sounds like capitalism. Just don’t let the politicians near it, because then the unsuccessful will get subsidized and/or bailed out.

 
Comment by Twonto
2008-11-26 14:00:25

THE LEGACY OF EARTH

so there’s no hope, then. if we are stuck with the monetary system, then there will always be people who could not compete enough to pay their debts. there will always be people that are homeless and starving in the streets. there will always be children in 3rd world countries dying of malnutrition and preventable diseases. there will always be greedy selfish businessmen and bankers who prey on the downtrodden and the gullible. education will always be available only to those who can afford it, leaving all others ignorant and useless. there will always be pollution because there is no profit in renewable, clean energy sources. and we will NEVER see a world where everyone is taken care of because we are all too selfish to do what is RIGHT and NECESSARY and to do our part for the making of a better world for ALL. this is the legacy of earth. this is what we leave for our children and future generations.

we are so quick to dismiss the ideas of others, but what ideas have we come up with? where are the more feasible solutions to all the problems that have plagued our world for generations. we can’t just wait around for everything to solve itself. peter joseph and jaques fresco may be wrong in their view of a better world, but at least they tried to come up with something. we need to stop tearing down the ideas of others and concentrate on bringing forth our own ideas. we ALL know we can do better than this. all we have to do is make the effort to find the right solution. humans are wonderful, powerful beings and if we focus on what’s important we can do almost anything. what’s the alternative? i can’t even think about it.

for those of you who have children, look at them now and then tell yourself that this is the best that they are ever going to get. that they don’t deserve a better world than this. that the rich and the greedy will be the only ones able to live as they chose and your kids can only be slaves to the system. can you do it? if so, you’re better than i am.

 
Comment by Attempt
2008-11-26 20:53:09

I ate this blog up, and read all the comments straight from the beginning.

I am not some kind of doctor or economist or anything like that. I am a simple student,albeit one who loves watching philosophically inclined debates.

I am intrigued by the different points of view of different people. While it is true that it is difficult to decipher what is the truth and what is incorrect from all the fancily wrapped up bullshit, the truth, or at least part of it, will always leak out.

I just wanted to comment or rather respond to those who asked WHO would take care of things like farmland for our food, the geothermal indicator,so on and so forth.

Human beings cannot simply sit on a beach sipping a piña colada and stare at the sky for a lifetime. It cannot be done. A human will easily get bored. This is a few year’s fantasy at best. A human will enjoy this fantasy while it lasts, then a human will do what it does best: work. Work is essential, as it is a time killer, yet the most productive time killer.

Now some may disagree, but let me finish. Everybody is created different,correct? Therefore, everybody has different tastes, different viewpoints, different ideas, etc. For example, some of you may like History, some may like Medicine, and some may like Computer Tech. The list goes on.

A human being will generally do something he/she likes. Let’s just say I love building computers and programming and making circuit boards, etc etc. I will go on and do what I like. While doing these, I will inevitably gain experience, which inevitable will lead to a broader knowledge of these things and eventually, I will discover something new about whatever I am doing.

“A painter will enjoy sharing his work MORE than actually selling it”

This is true for anything. If your passion is the environment and finding “greener” ways to live, you will proudly show off your discoveries of newer ways to live green to the world.

A person who likes to operate and maintain and manufacture and test machinery will proudly maintain his creations and improve upon it.It is a question of pride, something we all come to get. We can apply this to the “guy who’s gonna check your geothermal indicator while you’re listening to music in your boxers”, right?

So technically, if everybody works on their PASSION, they will, without a doubt, improve it one way or another. In a VP-type (doesn’t have to be necessarily VP) world, these improvements would be proudly shown off, without the fear of having to buy a patent or copyright for it. Now since most human beings dislike repetitive jobs, and repetitive jobs are usually easy once you get the hang of them, we can leave those jobs to machines, and let ourselves, as highly intelligent or incredibly idiotic we may be, exploit or own knowledge, to further the standard of living in this world.

If you are worried about the oh-so-emotional part of this, let me remind you of a human characteristic EVERY NORMAL HUMAN BEING should have experienced at least once in their lifetime: LOVE. Believe it or not, love has an amazing power, and it is much more powerful than all of the manufactured “characteristics” this monetary system has brought us. Someone brought up an example of a two babies in a room with two big shiny objects. Of course, the first reaction would be domination. Greed is human nature. BUT the baby that took the two shiny objects will look at the state of the other baby and realize how cruel it had been, and therefore share or maybe even give both objects to the other. That, my friends, is love. Love is not taught, and unfortunately it is not as practiced as greed.

This post was aimed to be improved over time, meaning I am very open to all replies. I do not post this as an insult to anyone’s intelligence; this is simply my two cents.

Comment by Twonto
2008-11-27 08:43:12

and those “two cents” were very valuable. thank you for your insight.

 
Comment by Trevor
2008-11-27 09:17:18

I think the bottom line between both arguments (Point’s and Zeitgeist) is “free will” to make a choice in our lives without any influence, restrictions from some system governed by the same individuals who live in it…..What I’m trying to say is….one human being cannot tell another human being to be a human being…..and that is the real issue……and a better question would be, referring to your baby example….how does it know the meaning of cruelty to begin with??….Is that an innate emotion?

Comment by Attempt
2008-11-27 17:12:03

My guess would be that cruelty itself IS innate. But to fulfill the balance, love, or in this case guilt (which by the way is fueled by unconditional love) is also an innate emotion.

The problem about the baby example when whomever it was first introduced it (the example) was that he or she did not complete the scenario. It’s like giving a half-truth, either intentionally or not.

Too many people underestimate themselves and their fellow mates. There is too much generalization in the world. I don’t know if you’ve read about Frankenstein, but even he, as evil as he was, was evil for a reason. He did not get the love he deserved.

That brings a silly thought into me: Are politicians sad people :p?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by alice
2008-11-27 12:20:23

Some threads just attract a lot of attention. This one is amazing. Perhaps that is because the movie and the VP movement get at something so basic about human existence.

There are those who are drawn to the idea of a much better future and there are those who are skeptical that anyone or any idea can actuate the change which will be neccessary to build that future. This perhaps describes the entire history of the human race. The push and pull which naturally occurs between the conservative and the progressive.

Thomas Sowell in his book “The Vision of the Annointed” describes this confict in detail. One of the aspects of the conflict is the idea of unintended consequences. We have seen a lot of this lately. One example would be the United States’ invasion of Iraq to get rid of the horrible Sadaam Hussein and in the meantime unleashing the long suppressed hatred of the factions which live in that country. Another would be The United Nations sending aid to impoverished nations only to have that aid end up in the hands of violent armies.

It seems that for every plan there will be a counterplan and for every idea of aiding some, others will pay a price which they did not agree to pay.

I live in the United States and have my basic needs met by this society. When I watch video of children in third world countries living in squalor, I cringe and I might be moved to send a check. But why are these things happening?

Why do the armies of the Congo slaughter their own people? Can anything we do stop this when the people who live there seem to have so little regard for one another? And can the West be blamed for this? Some would say yes. They say it is colonialism which has driven the third world nations of the world to such depravity.

I am not so sure.

I will agree with Twonto that at least the Zeitgeist folks have taken the time to propose a solution of sorts and that’s a lot more than I have done. The best I can say is that somehow throughout the history of humanity we have managed in fits and starts to improve. It seems to be the way it’s accomplished.

I will say that the free market seems to be the very best idea with which to accomplish change. However it really doesn’t exist. There is so much manipulation that it can’t operate as intended.
That’s why I supported Ron Paul’s presidential bid because he embodied the closest thing I know to free market thinking. You can see how far that went. Neither party wants some guy like Paul in power and so the media didn’t even bother covering his ideas except as a side note.

No solutions here, but I am thinking about this time as a crossroads for the human race.

Comment by Attempt
2008-11-27 17:17:26

The worst part is that every minute, heck every nanosecond the “elite” keep improving and rendering their tactics more and more subtle and efficient.

Sometimes I just think the only reason why people think that others are ignorant is because those people don’t even know that everybody knows, but that they don’t say or mention or debate it because it isn’t worth it, and that all is lost.

Sometimes I get so paranoid. How much worse can this get? It probably can get very bad, but the real fear is that we do not know how.

 
Comment by Alex
2008-11-27 17:26:29

“One example would be the United States’ invasion of Iraq to get rid of the horrible Sadaam Hussein and in the meantime unleashing the long suppressed hatred of the factions which live in that country.”

How do you know Sadaam was horrible, he just did not want to sell his country. No one should have a right to invade any country because one does not like the other president or country state, this is just an excuse for public. The end victims are mere people.

Comment by StupdiCommies
2009-03-14 22:45:50

Wow, I guess you support torture and the genocide of kurds. Yeah Sadaam was a just a victim of “eeevul america”.
You are a goddamn IDIOT.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by AD
2009-04-11 01:07:48

Please note that in turn, America tortured and abused people in the name of freedom.

What the hell is the difference?

YOU are a goddamn idiot.

-AD

 
 
 
 
Comment by Alex
2008-11-27 17:32:04

A project led by few people can’t cover everyting at its first stage. Criticizing an effort is easy then doing something for our planet. I think every person can send suggestions to the VP, and the best ideas will be taken into consideration.

This project reminds me of Linux, and Venus Project can also be developed by all people for everyone’s benefit.

“Space is limited, there is no way that everyone can have x number of mansions and beach houses?”.”

First, one must not have more than 2 houses.
The best places can not be owned by an individual, but organized in a way that everyone can enjoy it, like resort hotels. One must not own best places, they should be public, but you would be able to book an appartment etc at any beach for certain time. And this is just one of the ways how to solve this.

Unlimited resoureses vs unlimited stuff.

People should be taught to esteam things.
If one breaks a new car/thing through his fault or ignorance he/she will not get a new one for sometime, but she/he can be given a bycicle or other transportation means instead or take a public bus/train/ etc. For example if one breaks something through his fault within warranty period, he will not get nothing instead till the end of warranty period, say 1-3 years depening on the thing he broke.

Who gets technology first?
Nobody untill certain batchs have been produced to be send to all distribution centers, the supply later is adjusted based on consumption of the users. Say, you have a local distibution center website, you place a request, come and pick it up.

The VP is just a start, the rest can be resolved / adjusted with time.

Comment by Attempt
2008-11-27 18:39:40

I like the idea of public places, but you also have to take into consideration privacy. A
lot of people value it.

This may be nit-picking but I’m sure others would have mentioned it.

Also, who really honestly knows of most advances in technology? What do we know about what scientists and techies have in store for us. After all, WiFi technology was suppressed a few decades before being commercialized.

 
Comment by tim
2008-11-27 19:16:17

“One must not own best places, they should be public”

Sometimes I think it may need to go a step further, and possessions of any kind should be abolished. I mean if nobody owned anything personally, then they would not need to be so worried about protecting and hoarding what they have. if something breaks or is stolen, you do not suffer because of it either financially (no money allowed) or in a sense of convenience.

“People should be taught to esteam things.
For example if one breaks something through his fault within warranty period, he will not get nothing instead till the end of warranty period, say 1-3 years depening on the thing he broke.”

I understand where your thought comes from, in the sense that people should be held accountable for their actions and such, but with this type of situation people would just begin to learn how to manipulate the situation. Everyone would do what they do now, and try to claim no responsibility. They would do whatever was in their best interest which creates corruption, and then the system would just crumble over time.

 
 
Comment by Paul
2008-11-28 03:07:36

Sadly enough the architect of the poorly written article has a conscience the size of an atom, thus defending something that he considers to be right (Monetary system). Broaden your level of awareness and realize things must evolve to survive. How do you think to United States came to be? Through questioning a broken system (Economic Crisis Anyone?) and acting out their desire to be free through revolution. O.o

Comment by Spandrel
2008-12-01 23:38:05

This has got to be one of the most ignorant comments I’ve seen yet, both in manners and sense. Nobody on here would agree that our fed-managed fractional reserve system is fair or just, including the “architect of the poorly written article.” That was the principle reason for the revolution according to Franklin, and the system was certainly criticized not just by many other founders, but also US politicians throughout our history. How that naturally leads to the Venus Project you don’t say at all. Why don’t you try broadening your level of awareness like you recommended to the “architect” (by the way, it is ok to just say “author”). Try this thought experiment: imagine what any one of the founders would say if the Venus Project were proposed to them. Keep in mind these were well-informed guys that were extremely sensitive to the ways power has been abused throughout human history.

 
 
Comment by Attempt
2008-11-28 08:13:05

If we think about it, the US did in fact have a smarter way to work with the Greenback. I would say they regressed ever since the fed came into place.

Comment by AD
2009-04-11 01:14:00

Yeah, they took away our gold standard and swindled us of what was our real currency, gold. They acted like a magician with perfect slight of hand. Now you see it, now you don’t.

 
 
Comment by James
2008-11-29 19:43:37

Nice attempt, but your argument is flawed. Crime may come from the desire to obtain certain items and not money, but The Venus Project proposes that everything is free. So why would you steal something if you could just ask for it?

And regarding the problem of ‘Who gets the first 100 of item x’, the answer is more simple than you think. The people who ask for it first get it first. It’s called a queue. No class system required.

Oh, and who will design the machines and buildings and stuff? The population will. And what will their compensation be? Whatever that machine or building contributes to the society. It is as simple as that. Some people may choose to just loaf around, but that gets boring after a while. People will always have the urge to contribute something to society. People will be able to pursue careers that interest them such as being a musician or an architect rather than having to work as waiters or maids.

Comment by alice
2008-11-29 21:21:34

It sounds like we’re going to need a whole lot of cafeterias and electro-mechanical engineers who are willing to work for free.

Comment by SiMMo
2009-11-06 09:58:20

Is this a joke? if it is i like it :)

…..and if not, then you still dont get it.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Spandrel
2008-12-01 23:10:06

So who will be the waiters and the maids? And I can’t believe you suggest a queue. Even assuming essentials can be so overproduced to meet everyone’s needs as they experience them, are we all gonna be fighting for a place in line for the latest tech? Won’t some unscrupulous person get the bright idea that it’s easier just to steal the person’s who was first in line? So much for abolishing the criminal code and police force. We’re gonna need to add a new code just for regulating behavior in your queues.

Comment by AD
2009-04-11 01:18:12

If the machine deems your request as a valuable asset to society, a manufacturing and distribution network will be built in tandem in all cities around the globe. All resources will be allocated accordingly and units will be cranked out. Nobody will get the units until all of them are created and ready for distribution. If your request is not viable, then tough beans. This will be based on a very complicated formula that takes into account all of humanity before making its decision. Chances are very good that a lot of people won’t get everything they want. That’s the point of resource based economy.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Arminda
2008-11-30 03:08:56

Yes I think you are right that people will always have an urge to contribute something to society because being seen and recognized is as a human being is an inherent human characteristic… even more so than greed.

I personally like growing food, preparing it, and giving it to others. Being in nature and surrounded by a community of loved ones brings me satisfaction that I will never get from a mansion. If I live in a society where there is no money exchanged for my services, I will continue to do it. And I will choose to do it more for people who are giving and less for people who are greedy.

I think if nothing else, the Addendum has hit home for encouraging people to seek to change themselves. Be conscious about where you spend your money, choose to stop participating as much as humanly possible in the society that we despise, and redistribute surplus. Take your energy away from slaving to maintain society and put it towards creating the things that ACTUALLY REALLY make you feel good (not the stuff that other people say will make you feel good). This is the most fundamental to the change that we seek. Once these fundamental things start happening (and they already are at a rapid rate… hopefully fast enough)then projects like the Venus Project will be sprouting up left and right.

Concentrate on all the ways things can be better, rather than all the ways they are so bad. Solutions instead of problems in every single aspect of your life.

Seek your true bliss, People! This is your human right and obligation! Then seek to spread your bliss, and you’ll realize that lots will fall in place to assist. And then all the sudden we’ll look around one day and say “Oh shit, we must be in Heaven!”

 
Comment by Dan Ross
2008-12-01 11:53:26

I watched Addendum last night and the only effect it had on me was anger. Anger towards the ruling elite and our terminally ill society.

None of the information provided surprised me. In our society, we are rewarded by displaying self interest. VP suggests we drop the incentive for greed by providing equally for all…. All well and good. I would love for a system like such to be implemented and to work. Nothing angers me more than injustice and in our society, it seems injustice is at the rotting core.

The VP has been decided to be the way forward by some. How do they suggest implementing the new society without using violence?

What makes them think that the ruling elite are going to give up their power? There would be a huge amount of conflict involved in implementing this. It is sad, but true.

Even if the system was implemented, there would always be separatists who wanted to revert to the monetary method. This ensures a continuous state of conflict and means the VP could never work.

Catastrophe is the only way to unite masses of people. A common aim of rebuilding society in the VP model would first require the previous society was destroyed. That could not be done without lives being lost. Some may think ‘you can’t make an ommlette without beaking some eggs’ but at what stage have too many eggs been broken?

I would love to believe in VP and think even its conception is a step forward in human development.

We need to think about realistic steps to implementing equality for every human being on Earth. It is basic human rights.

Comment by AD
2009-04-11 01:23:10

The VP project is a gradual movement. Education is at the core, and people need to be smart and happy for this system to work. Once we are a society full of intelligent people, where ever person regardless of race or class can get an elite education, we can begin our move toward the VP project. It’s all about education. I’ve been saying this for a very long time.

 
 
Comment by alice
2008-12-01 15:21:18

I have been thinking a lot about this movie, VP and the responses I have seen on this website.

As the comment by Dan has shown, Peter Joseph has been successful getting people riled up. But he’s short on solutions.

As far as “the ruling elite”, I doubt any scheme will eliminate that aspect of human society. Any scheme can and will be manipulated by the unscrupuous among us. I am not convinced by anything I saw in the movie or by anything I have seen in my life that those who will take advantage to the detriment of others can be eliminated entirely. Money is not the issue here. It’s human nature in all its complexity.

And I am also amused and somewhat appalled that so many describe our society as so corrupt and unredeemable. Look at any period in history and you will find people enslaved, unable to feed themelves sufficiently and unable to live healthy lives. The numbers of those unfortunates has been reduced considerably in modern times. We seem to lose sight of this when we condemn the western world we live in.

I am not saying everything is rosy and that we should not be eternally vigilant about bringing injustice and criminal actions to light and eventual punishment. We have the rule of law for that and we should make it our business to be informed and active.

But to throw the gains of the free market in the trash for the promise of some kind of unrealistic and ill defined utopian scheme is silly on its face.

It will never work.

As EO Wislon said “Socialism….nice idea, wrong species.”

 
Comment by Spandrel
2008-12-01 22:43:19

Would just one of you pro-vp persons explain how we get from here to there because the people at the Venus Project DO NOT KNOW. They have nice pictures of VP cities, vivid portrayals of alternate power sources fueling their resource-based economies, but no help in understanding how we are to bring this into being or the nuts and bolts of how it would really operate once it was.

Anyone wondering why these points are being glossed over? Do any of you care to know how society is going to be made to operate under their system? Want to know what your duties will be? If we’re all following our passions, who’s gonna take out the trash? Maintain sewer systems? Does any one really have a passion to be a janitor? We do these things because they pay better than our alternatives PERIOD. In an industrial society, our choices are a competitive market or slavery.

Before someone pipes up about how we are slaves to bankers now, I would ask you to try to separate any pyramid banking schemes, corporate-lobbying, monopolies, and so on down the endless list, from what a free market could be. These things can all be addressed under our current system much more easily than they could under any other. The fault is ours. We elect the people that permit these excesses, we choose how to spend our money and where to keep it, and we generally divert ourselves more than we educate ourselves.

So to wrap up, can someone pro-vp please explain how such a system can be set-up and how it would operate if it were? Also, since it’s obviously gonna require at least as much initiative as fixing what’s wrong with ours now, I’d like to know how it’s gonna be better than if we did just fix those problems.

 
Comment by bryan
2008-12-02 10:49:39

fortunately we in this day and age we have a way of communicating with everyone, like the forums were using now direct democracy can be achieved through the internet. Venus project can be a supporting role in a future system of things.

 
Comment by curveball
2008-12-03 06:36:16

Wow! What a fasiating debate, I only wish I had time to read and digest it all thoroughly. However, in my opinion much of what I have read above is irrelevant in light of what I will share below.

Although I agree with much of what Addendum says about religion I must make one crucial point. Buddhism has been educating the world about the emergent and symbiotic nature of reality for centuries. It calls these two principles impermenance – everthing changes and is therefore emergent; and interconectedness – every thing depends on every other thing for its existence and is therefore symbiotic.

Buddhism also teaches that all suffering is due to desire, or always wanting our present experience to be other than what it is. To transcend desire is to transcend much of what is written above about the use of resources and structure of a new society. In order to transcend desire however, there is one vital resource that has not yet been mentioned yet in this debate. That resource currently lies hidden within each of our hearts and can be found if we care to look for it.

To be fully connected with the mystery of what lies within is to be utterly fulfilled in all ways at all times. Of course each body has vital needs to be met but being in touch with the exquisite beauty of each moment renders all other desires obsolete.

Look deeply inside, find your own innate fulfillment, live each moment from that place and the solutions to all societys problems will emerge.

Comment by alice
2008-12-03 14:34:17

I agree with what you have said, curveball.

I think there is one person who has written similiarly and that is Mahesh.

 
Comment by Mahesh
2008-12-29 20:17:57

Hello curveball !

I like and agree with what you say about searching inside. I noticed also that you mentioned the needs of our bodies, which I think is also very good sense.

So let me point at where we may have some disagreement — or not, let´s see. I think that the problems of sociey have not an so easy solution, like “…and the solutions to all societys problems will emerge”. In fact, it is no easy solution — because for everyone in sociey, or say, most people, to reach that stage where they can find satisfaction and feel better by looking inside, is a point difficult to be reached. Nonetheless, it seems to me a most desirable stage for humanity to reach, and also a factible stage. But very distant, taking our society as it is now. So I suggest, let´s discuss how we could reach there.

Lord Shiva teached, some seven thousand years ago, what should be the correct approach to human development: He said that there should be a “subjective approach with objective adjustment”. In other words, “self-knowledge (or self-realization) and service to the entire creation (all creatures)”. Service to all creatures means that one should work for the welfare of all beings in this universe. It is not a passive aproach.

A modern spiritual teacher has also said, “The very import of the history of human welfare is the history of struggle and strife. Even the sweet gospels of peace could not be preached in an environment of peace and composure. Devils did not allow the apostle of peace to work peacefully — that is why I say that peace is the outcome of fight.”

In order to maintain our lifes, we have to breath, we have to eat. There is no passivity in these acts. Every time we take a breath, we kill a great number of microscopic living beings. When we eat, we are also killing living beings, like seeds of rice, wheat, and so on. Even fruits are formed of a great number of living cells, like our own body. For us to go on living, it’s necessary to maintain our bodies, and for this, a great number of cells of our bodies die, as also some similiar number of new cells are born and grow, forming our bodies anew. They need food, oxygen, and so on. Our bodies are verily a living society consisting of a huge number of cells.

So, the point that I want to emphasize from all these things I am saying, is that, in order to maintain our bodies, other living beings die. There is nothing evil in this. So I would like to emphasize also, that “we” — say “you” and “I” — as individual humans, really have many desires, but there is also a cosmic desire, which makes the universe exist and function as it does. So, what you said about looking inside, means to me that we trying really hard to leave aside our small desires, like “I want that car”, etc., or rather, to direct them to that one Cosmic Desire, by seeing One in many, looking after the essence of everything, learning how to develop only the desire for that Supreme Entity, the One from which this universe was created, in which it exists; this universe changes according to the will of that Supreme Being. Our human intelligence has not come out of nothing, and the evolution of this universe and of living beings in this earth, all these things go not moving at random. Scientists speak of the laws of nature. Why is this so? There is system everywhere. Why is this so?

In order to look inside, we have to have a body, a mind, and maintain them in a proper way. Not everything we can push inside is healthy for us. If we watch too much television, what would be the resultant condition of our minds?

Well, I am trying to “make some point”, and I don´t want to put it directly on the table. I think it´s not so hot anymore…

Even for human society there is a system, a system for how all humans beings can live together and be happy. Actually, as we know, almost no one is happy, not even the ones who have economic power in their hands. There are only few things that 50 billion dollars can buy, and that 50 million could not. And is anyone of them really essential for human life? If yes, then it follows that only a small number of people can have a good life… Of course we know that all this is just madness, a result from the mental illness of extreme egoism. This is the point that capitalism has reached. It is not a socio-economic system for the welfare of all. But I think that there is a necessity for a proper socio-economic system for the welfare of all beings – not just all humans. We cannot avoid suffering, but we can minimize it, through a social system that guarantees the basic necessities of life to all humans, and that gives them also proper education, which teaches them to look inside. Of course this system cannot be based on materialism, like capitalism and marxism are. I think there exists one such system, an its short name (acronym) is PROUT. I have written a little about it in this thread. Please have a look at it, I think it deserves this !!!

Thank you for your attention ! I wish you the best !!!

Comment by Bell
2010-01-01 11:56:02

I did a mini course on it. it seems interesting

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by russ
2008-12-04 00:36:04

first half of the movie was great and very informative … can’t say the same about the second half

 
Comment by jonpoh
2008-12-04 01:17:53

i like the fact that the Venus Project that claims there will be no need for money, has an online store on its website, selling movies for MONEY. And that the “research center” is for sale for $550,000.

Hypocrite. Thats the end of the venus project.

This discussion is a waste of time beyond this point.

Comment by tim
2008-12-04 01:41:04

while I definitely see where you are pulling hypocrisy from the situation, you can’t forget that as of now it is not a practice, it an idea. as long as we all continue to live in the established societies, we are all going to bond and restricted to its practices. currently, money is a necessity to survive, so nobody can function without it. that is pretty obvious. I mean you said it yourself:

“there will be no need for money”

‘there will’ implies a future tense. If he claimed that it currently was no need for money he would say “there is no need”. that is not the case though.

Comment by Mahesh
2009-01-01 13:43:48

Hello Tim !

In my opinion, it is pretty possible for us to live in any society without doing more or less the same what other people in that society do.

There were so many societies in this world, and any one of them had a beginning, and most of them have already come to their end. What is the relation to the individual people with any one of these societies?

In particular, it seems pretty clear to me that it is possible that some individual or individuals live in our present “capitalist” society without being “capitalist”. We have to understand what the essence of capitalism is, and we just have to act in disacordance to that, if we want not to follow capitalism.

Capitalism has to do with egoism and acquisitive mentality directed to the material sphere. So, if we act and work in an altruist direction, and if we don´t develop this acquisitve mentality to the point that characterizes capitalism (that is, where egoism is necessary to maintain it), or rather, if we develop that mentality to other spheres, say, the psychic sphere, to the sphere of knowledge, we may incur in intelectual or spiritual capitalism, but this is not a necessity. I hope you got the point !!!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Mahesh
2008-12-29 14:11:21

I agree with the importance of being an example first, before asking or suggesting other to follow an idea.

But I would also say that a person may not have had the coherence, out of some cause or another, to put in practice an idea that he or she preaches. Nonetheless, this idea MAYBE good.

In the case of VP, I have already pointed, in some of my previous post, at some basic defects that it has, and also have argued about them, and pointed to what I think is a much better alternative plan or project, or better said, alternative socio-economic system, because it is based on a strong and sound theory.

Comment by Bell
2010-01-01 12:11:26

why it’s got to be one or the other just like communism or capitalism we always pushing. We need to express better, make the same mistake sounds very superficial.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Bell
2010-01-01 12:30:21

If I have the money I would buy it. the end of discussion I don’t, use your brain a little more and thank you for the information I didn’t know. Look around, things are not just black and white.

 
 
Comment by alight
2008-12-07 01:43:42

very good points made by alot of people here..

A couple of pionts i want to adress,tough:

In a society thats sincere with regards to education and understanding, we would face the world and its problems realisticly and not only feel a connection with nature and society, but understand it as well. Having an understanding of resourcecapabilities vs. human growth is essential to our survival anyways, so why is this a bad thing? A society that produces thinking people, (smart people that come up with smart solutions), would handle these and other problems in smart ways (e.i. colonizing the oceans,as purposed på VP, or even further: space.) The only limit is the human mind, wich when tapped properly, is infinite. If we understand the cause of problems, we might see how we can be part of the solution.

This would then again lead to people taking responsibility for their actions,based on knowledge. This would also work for the aspect of drugs, for example. Education and understanding is the key. Independent,free thought is encouraged.

Freedom is not doing and having what you want when you want it. Freedom is responsibility.

Responsibility for yourself is noble,and an absolute. Responsibility for yourself, seen in a larger context is the very definition of freedom. There is no freedom unless it is freedom for all. All things connect. We cannot avoid this point.

This is not communism. This is a society aware of its “one-ness”, but stil promoting the individual.

We make people on this earth good only by setting good examples. Not indoctrination.

With the monetarysystem gone,the banks,the marketing,the commercials,they all dissapear.No need for the constant propagation of consumerism. This will in turn curb the drive (wich I, like they say in Z, believe is human behavior caused by environmental influence) for the constant urging for material goods.

We do not solve problems with endless negative statements as “this will never work!”, “this is fascism!” and “what about all the suff that I want?!”. Instead, point out what you think is wrong and ask if there is a possible solution to the problem, or even better; endulge us for a few minutes (i know you have some to spare,hence your posts) and try to come up with a solution yourself!

I think we need to reconsider human conduct as it is today and remove powerstructures. The best way to do that is to come up with a better solution and start waking people up.

Work together. Stop bickering. Use your brains. Or we all perish as a failed human race. Peak oil is coming, and noone is taking actions as how to implement new energysources in our societies. This could get ugly folks. But maybe this is what its all about. Our final test. That ol’ 2012-age-of-aquarius-legend-type-of-shit.. Just not in the way people thougth. A spiritual understanding of our connection to this planet, and a realistic view on the worlds current affairs is what is needed. The way to a new society could be troublesome. But we can focus on solutions. Then we eventually win. Wake up and make a difference while we still can.

-A

(26 yrs,Oslo,Norway)

P.S. I am very happy to see that these debates actually contain words and thoughts of intelligent people in contrast of alot of other followers of movements revolving around “conspiracies” these days. That itself is a measure of value as to the importance of the topic. D.S.

Comment by tim
2008-12-07 20:22:13

I agree with you, and thanks for the input. Those are many of the points I have been supporting in this forum for the last month or so.

 
 
Comment by alice
2008-12-07 15:34:15

Wow! Norwegian and such a great grasp of the English language. It puts our education system to shame.

I think those who are opposed to VP don’t trust others to be making decisions for them. We don’t think there is anyone wise enough to do that. I think we’d rather try to get along with our broken little system and try to work through the problems that way.

Looking at history, we can see lots of utopian proposals which have turned out badly and some even disasterously.

I believe in the free market and I like the idea of money. I don’t like greed or dishonesty, but see them as part of the human condition. As a person who lives in a free society I know that bad things and bad people exist, but they can even be viewed as an opportunity, such as in the profession of lawyer, policeman or alarm system salesman.

The only premise about capitalism that I am beginning to question is growth. I think there may be a time when people will stop being obsessed with it and may begin to be more satisfied or perhaps look into repairing and preserving what we have already built.

Comment by tim
2008-12-07 20:33:40

In what way do you believe this is a free society? That you are able to freely choose what meaningless toys to buy, or where you can get a censored and debt creating ‘education’, or what you can watch on TV or listen to on the radio? Because don’t forget all of those things are controlled, filtered, and pumped into us by the same people who control the corrupt system that exists now, and there is a reason that you are only exposed to certain things at certain times. It all acts as a means of control; both mentally and physically. Once they control our minds and what we enjoy, they control our bodies and what we do. So as long as people are happily engaging with the consumer and censored society created by the mass media, you are under the influence, and in turn control, of the elites. Personally, that doesn’t seem like a free society at all.

“I think there may be a time when people will stop being obsessed with it and may begin to be more satisfied or perhaps look into repairing and preserving what we have already built.”

why would this ever happen? Once we stop wanting more, and becoming content with what we have, we no longer would remain profitable… and nobody would want that would they?

Comment by alice
2008-12-08 11:32:17

Lighten up, Tim. Read a little history and then look around at the world you live in. You’re a damned lucky fellow to be living now.

And BTW there’s no one out there who’s smart enough or powerful enough to control the world.

There just isn’t.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by tim
2008-12-08 18:47:55

oh I agree. There is not one person who controls the world. That would be an absurd idea. However, when it comes down to it, there is a relatively select few who do have a vast impression and influence on it.

Obviously, I am happy to be alive. That is a silly comment. However, I rather be alive and informed than simply alive and mindless – which is basically what our consumer based society promotes.

But one thing you got wrong is that I should ‘lighten up’ as you call it. Lightening up, and becoming latent is exactly what people with money and power want, and it is the main reason our society has reached the point it has.

Maybe instead of telling others to lighten up, you should wake up, and be open to hear other people’s ideas. From what I can tell, you love to talk with people, but only people who’s views align with yours. Any confrontation (and even polite confrontation at that) is met with a cold attitude by you. You seem to love to dish out your ideas, but not to openly consider others. That is no way to make progress.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-09 12:39:04

“Lightening up, and becoming latent is exactly what people with money and power want, and it is the main reason our society has reached the point it has.”

God Tim, why don’t you crack open a dictionary? Half of what you write doesn’t make sense because your use of words is so inept.

But I will say this. It would behoove you to study the roots and history of this “consumer based society” before you consider yourself informed enough to set about upending it. You might want to spend some time in a library where ther are all sorts of interesting ideas hidden in books.

Then maybe we can talk.

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-09 17:15:42

I apologize for having a different perspective as you alice. Clearly, all of those who don’t see eye to eye with you have no place in any conversations. Thanks you for showing me the light. I don’t think I can ever repay you for all the great wisdom you have bestowed upon us all :)

 
 
 
Comment by Bell
2010-01-01 12:24:29

or what we always have

 
 
Comment by alice
2008-12-07 15:52:04

a bit more about what I see as a problem I see with “growth”.

My sister was an executive with United Airines. It was her responsibility to improve customer service which at the time was a problem for the company. At the same time United was aquiring new routes.

I asked her if it wouldn’t be wiser for the company to concentrate on making the service they had better…in fact excellent. She said that the model which every company in the US is following is that of growth.

I suppose this has a lot to do with the stock market, etc. But I think it’s unwise.

But I don’t think such a thing can be regulated. Regulations always create unintended consequences. And the people making the regulations always have unterior motives. Any change in behavior needs to happen freely and naturally as a reaction to circumstances.

 
Comment by spandrel
2008-12-08 23:38:05

Maybe the company that grows as quickly as possible without overextending is the one that leads the market, like an arms race whose goal is to maximize market shares. Corporations might fear that if they don’t they will fall behind competitors and eventually fail. I’m just speculating since I have no business background. And I’m also sounding a little like Jacques. But then I thought his observations in the film were interesting (even if his solution is a bit optimistic).

Tim, I think you are a bit extreme in your characterization of our society. Our conversation on this thread is evidence against it. The fact that you can get on your computer in your home, and with a little bit of typing, learn about nearly anything, read diverse opinions by experts in any field, and educate yourself with very little investment… All those things are evidence against what you say. You could buy reams of cheap recycled paper, print flyers about “the man”, and distribute it nationally. The worst you’d have to worry about from the state is a fine for littering. You might even be able to make a profit from it.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that our education system would be a poor value at a hundredth its price, and cable is about 99.9% crap anymore, but you know, they are just selling toothpaste. What is it? A conspiracy of toilet paper makers? I think you’re being counterproductive. Though I sympathize, the means to solving our problems is still available to we the people. We just aren’t.

Comment by tim
2008-12-09 12:13:05

Thanks for the thoughts spandrel.

First, I am not trying to say that every company out three is apart of some conspiracy to destroy civilization or anything like that, so if my statements cam across as such, I apologize. I understand that many of the people or organizations selling products and paying for commercials are simply trying to do their part to make a profit, and most of them are not overtly malicious about it. However, it is the people who run wall street, the oli companies, the Nikes, the McDonalds, the Wal-marts and other multi-billion dollar organizations of the world that do possess the real power. And I wouldn’t believe for one second that the people running those shows don’t realize the effect that their actions have on society. Go look at the McDonalds commercials for example that promotes the dumbing down of society, in efforts of making them ‘real americans’ (or what have you)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg87E1tjTOE

And although these things are made to be funny, it only is masking the real issues that our society faces. For the most part, companies don’t want to have an extremely intelligent consumer base, because then most of them would not still be around.

Even if smaller time companies are not doing things on a grand scale, or promoting specifically bad societal qualities consciously, they are still adding to the pot like everyone else. To me that is an issue for concern.

Also, I know we do not live in a country where everyone who goes against the norm will be exiled or will ‘disappear’, we do live in a country where mass media and other influential outlets are promoting an agenda that is set by someone with a lot of money and power. And I would encourage everyone to question those agendas, because odds are, they are not to make the American consumer the smartest and most knowledgeable group of people in the world.

Thanks for your time.

Comment by spandrel
2008-12-10 01:57:38

Tim, I agree that, in collusion with our representatives or just by the influence of their advertising dollars, the wealthier corporations are able to do things they should not – censor news, receive subsidies or lucrative private contracts on behalf of our armed services (is there a real difference?), get away with illegal pollution, enforce monopolies, and so on. We might even be smart to never vote for a politician who has been favorably portrayed by the media.

I think your advice to question their agendas is good. And anybody who wants to has the means to. Even the few who have no access to the internet can turn on c-span. Is an expanded basic package even required for that? They can watch our witless politicians pandering to every special interest that throws money their way. If people are not doing this and voting accordingly, it is because they choose not to. Nobody is forcing us to watch FNC or CNN in between blocks of our favorite dumbed-down sitcoms or dramatic crime shows.

What I really disagree with is your tirade a few posts up “In what way is this a free society….” Granted that we do have a problem with private monopolies of public airwaves and the press, but there are other sources available to us all. And what is with that “control our minds and what we enjoy…control us physically…”? Are you talking about advertising? It seems to me that educating ourselves about the ways we can be manipulated through advertising is a satisfactory defense against it. And we can all do that at our local library or book store (Mediaspeak great book on subject but may be out of print). So again I have to say, I sympathize, but I think your extremism is to a large extent unfounded and so counter-productive.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by tim
2008-12-10 19:14:59

First, thanks for the feed back.

Secondly, I understand that how I came across may have seemed rash at first glance, but I really do not feel it is that far off from the truth.

“Granted that we do have a problem with private monopolies of public airwaves and the press, but there are other sources available to us all.”

I think this spells out one of the main issues at hand. The fact that there are monopolies of public awareness and press IS a major problem. I sympathize with the fact that we do have alternative sources of information, but lets be real, how many American citizens are seeking them out? My guess is a very select few (probably less than 5%). A majority of our citizens rely solely on the privately owned and agenda set CNNs, Fox News or USA Todays of the world to supply them with their information. It is simply a fact. And if a large majority of the population is basing their opinions and knowledge of the world on these goal-oriented (I will let you imagine what some of those goals may be) media outlets, then they are in turn inevitably going to either consciously or unconsciously become mindless advocates of these underlying agendas.

“And what is with that “control our minds and what we enjoy…control us physically…”? Are you talking about advertising?”

Again, I know this seems extreme, but it is also very straightforward and logical. If they [the boys with the big bucks] dictate what the public readily has access to – and the public is basing their opinions and knowledge off what they readily have access to (i.e. the media, MTV, sitcoms, advertising, etc.) – then the the people putting out the messages are dictating the mindset of the public. Once the mindset of the public (what we like to watch, think about, listen to, spend our free time doing, what we feel is important, the world view we hold, etc.) has been molded by the agenda setters, then they basically have an indirect control over our lives. You think this is so absurd? Look at any major slum in any major city. What do a majority of those teenagers care about? Is it literature? an education? critical thinking? cultural understanding? No, of course not. They care about the same things that all of the shit being crammed down their throats tells them to care about (degrading women, having bling, the big house, the nice ride, the sweet rims, sell drugs, being violent, and the list goes on).

So I believe that my point is justified, and I believe it is a much more serious issue than some people make it out to be. And mind you, I am only using some specific examples here as far as the slums example. This is an issue for ever level of society though, and all deceptive agenda setting institutions – religion being one of the front runners.

“It seems to me that educating ourselves about the ways we can be manipulated through advertising is a satisfactory defense against it.”

Yes, I totally agree. But how many citizens do you think are truly informed about this, and actually understand the impact it has on society? A select few I assure you.

Again, thanks for your time.

 
Comment by spandrel
2008-12-11 00:26:59

Ok Tim. You make a lot of good points. No, I don’t think it’s absurd, just somewhat exaggerated. The rest of us may start looking for other avenues once prompted to by the circumstances. Sure, better now than later, but I just don’t see it happening until things get a bit worse (could be soon). If it does, it may happen in a very big way and our politicians may start resembling people with consciences. I think you would really enjoy that book I mentioned Mediaspeak. I believe the author is Mary Woolfolk Cross. Of course, it would be just preaching to the choir in your case, but lots of good points in it.

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-11 10:44:18

I agree, things probably wont change until they reach a breaking point, and once that point is reached the current system will probably require a serious overhaul. Well, at least some of us what be surprised if it were to happen in our lifetime. Hopefully it will.

Thanks for the book recommendation. I will most certainly check it out.

 
 
 
 
Comment by alight
2008-12-09 01:05:35

“Any change in behavior needs to happen freely and naturally as a reaction to circumstances.”

exactly!and we cant change under the current circumstances. the only problem is how to make people realize the situation they are in. I mean, even the “truth&change”-movements are working against eachother now. Personally, Alex Jones was the one who, in 2002 (I think), woke me up to this shit we’re in.

Since then I’ve done my own research. discussions and serious thinking about history, politics, psycology, religion, wars, energy and such, and it all culminated into this movie. “Finally!”, I thought. This makes sense. Not as an Utopian dream, but as a startingpoint. A startingpoint for improving and better ourselves and our society.

Then i saw that Alex Jones invited the Zeigeist-director on his show and screamed at him through the whole interview. Claimed that John Perkins was “occult new age illuminati”-influenced when describing us (humanity) as one in Zeitgeist. Showing a picture of two palms making a triangle with the sun in the center..I mean,c’mon..

The people that rightfully distrusts their government have a tendency of paranoia. Wether we are “Constitutioners”, Truthers or Anarchists we have an inclination for letting anybody rule over us.

I am, in heart and mind, the latter and I understand these worries perfectly.

I do on the other hand understand that I have no more freedom than nature will allow me to. If the planet turns to shit and theres no animals or plants left, you can savor that “freedom” all you want but it wont do no good.

The point beeing, in this purposed VP-society there will be no human decision on how we expand and how much we consume. Nature makes that perfectly clear for us. We can only expand as long the earth allows us to do. Instead of watching the world get plundered and destroyed at the highest bid and distributed to those who can afford, we could calculate our biospheres carrying capasity vs. our resources and base a society on that. From here on there is no limit to what we can achieve.

I have read sci-fi-books too, and I know there are dangers in a techocratic society. On the other hand this type of society is inevitable. Not because of the “NWO and their evil plans”, but because of human ingenuity and creativeness. We develop regardless, but if we have a choice of living in a future dehumanizing monetary prison (with machines working against us) on behalf and in control of the elite, or having a resourcebased economy with education, community, equality, honesty and individual human progress as primary objectives (with technology on our side), what would you choose? This is the best idea I’ve heard to date!

Dont just say “we all watched Terminator and we all saw how that went” like its a nostradamic prediction, because its not. Its a movie. At best its a warning we should take into consideration.

Its important to find out the past present and future horrors of this world, but we cant perpetuate a constant wallowing in that horror. We must look for solutions.

I think control is going to be obsolete in a selfsustaining society. In this society we could find solutions with our minds rather than to try to control them with our systems. If you empower the people and they live as equals, there is no need for governance.

I dont know where I heard this saying, but I think it’s vital. I only know it in Norwegian, but I’ll try to translate it:

“A place where everyone thinks alike, noone really thinks alot”

I am not promoting agreement, I promote out-of-the-box-thinking. We are emergent, and this is the age of revolution. Your personal, and hence everyones revolution. Fuck you mr. Obama, THAT is change we can belive in!

 
Comment by alight
2008-12-09 02:31:38

..and regarding Spandrels concerns on “how do we get from her to there”: We simply start here.

Develop ideas,polish them,let someone break them,see if we can glue them together, and if we cant, we start on a new one. Dont be just a sceptic or a believer. Put that ‘ol ego aside and be both.

Involve people. See if this ignites sparks, because I think it will. That is the first step to getting there.

Massive worldwide collaborations between activists,artists,all levels of scholarship and the people to force a the governments to slowly decentralize and the military to disarm.

Close down wallstreet but keep the food and goods circulating. Then there would be just a greedy elite,with no powers.

Each nation use their own safer greenback-type monetary system, with a constitution to guard the people in this transitionperiod.

VP’ers focusing on keeping eachother fed and housed while working.

Implement scientists worldwide and have total transparency on their findings as to resources available,start worldwide implementation of the basic plan and develop from there.

Those who wishes to keep their monetary system does so. My guess is they would sooner or later join the cause and change to the VP-model if our society proved that it worked better. This is one quick proposal of an idea.

Transformation can be tough, but the earths got a timer too so we will one day be forced to do such a thing.

Isnt it better to do it informed and willingly, while we have the time, than to do it when forced by nature (and our governments) when its probably too late anyways?

This system we have now is static. How do we expect change to occur in a static system?

sorry for the long posts.

Comment by alice
2008-12-09 13:20:14

“Develop ideas,polish them,let someone break them,see if we can glue them together, and if we cant, we start on a new one.”

Isn’t that kinda what we do now?

“This system we have now is static. How do we expect change to occur in a static system?”

I don’t think, as you do, that this system is static….but then what the hell do I know.

 
Comment by spandrel
2008-12-10 02:29:13

I am sorry to say it but I find you naieve. You don’t have to read sci-fi to be concerned with the Venus Project’s rhetoric. Very similar things were said about communism. That wasn’t just a miserable failure – tens of millions of people were murdered, others were stripped of all freedoms (physical, economic, religious) for nearly a century.

If you closed down Wall Street, but were going to keep the food and goods circulating, you’d need to invent a new wall street right away.

We already have a constitution in the US. It doesn’t assume a static society. All those things that came after are called “amendments”. The process for making them is spelled out in the original. You could think of them as “emergents” if it helps, to conform to VP rhetoric.

Well, I am approaching rudeness on this thread so I am just gonna break for a while. I think that we do too much rash fantasizing and too little trying to improve what we have. Good luck to you all. Hopefully there will be some new topics as interesting as this one’s been.

 
 
Comment by alice
2008-12-09 14:55:06

So I think I’ve come to the end of my participation in this forum. I initially found Point’s site after viewing “The Addendum” and looking for some additional materials about the film.

What I have come away with is that there are many people who lack appreciation for Western society as it is. I exclude places like Africa because of the mess it is in.

Perhaps this lack has to do with the youth of those people. I have repeatedly tried to offer that while not even approaching perfection, (whatever that is) our world is the best, most free, most prosperous for more people, more healthy for humans, and offers more opportunity for the common man than at any time in history.

If you can’t admit and understand that and be really grateful to be living now, I don’t hold much hope that any society you can create will be nearly as good and certainly not any better.

Cheers!
Alice

 
Comment by Exseed
2008-12-10 03:16:33

I can tell you are one of the many that has absolutely no faith in human ingenuity or the good that can come from a human being who cares more about humanities well being than “The power to purchase goods”….this is a planet of abundance…your mind can not see it because you have been conditioned to believe so….centuries ago you would have been the same man to defend the worlds flatness…yet….is it not round? A wonderful sphere of life! You have no real bases to say we live in a land of scarcity…so fuck off with your formal wording as if you are coming off in a legit manner…which you are not….you are certainly in need of some sort of spiritual upgrade! Good Luck on the pasture!

 
Comment by alight
2008-12-10 12:30:05

“I am sorry to say it but I find you naieve. You don’t have to read sci-fi to be concerned with the Venus Project’s rhetoric. Very similar things were said about communism.”

This is not communism. Individuality and free thought was the enemy of communism.

Ok, so everytime someone comes along with a good idea on how to change things, we just say: “no, we already tried to change the world once, and you saw how that went!”
Talk about a scary rhetoric…

“We already have a constitution in the US.”

I am sorry to say it but I find you naieve. You dont have a constitution, you have the Patriot Act I & II, you have a gigantic military industrial complex & the worlds most integrated intelligence agencies monitoring you(off, course not to protect you, like on 9/11).
But you’re right, you have some bits and pieces left, in light of this.. Your president swore that he’d uphold the constitution, only he did the exact opposite! And he was your president for 8 fucking years! Get my point?

(And i know what an amendment is, even though I’m Norwegian. I dont have a problem with you being rude, because your arguments dont stick. But please dont be so fucking condencending.)

“I don’t think, as you do, that this system is static….but then what the hell do I know.”

Yeah, what the hell do you know? A system of perpetual debt, the people on one side of the planet living off the other. Enormous corporations merged in with the body of politics to keep the world in this agony, with greed and growth as the only driving forces. Mortgages, mastercards and thirdworld-debts. A world that cant, and will never be debt-free. Never going to the source problems, just keep on patching up old broken ideas. Electing president after president with no change in sight. Coke- and heroin-money flowing like Niagara falls through wall street. New, environmental, clean energysources outed by Oil-conglomorates. Most of the population eating up the massmedia-lies, so they think its all well. All growth, no progress. Thats what i call a static system. Whats your criteria?

“What I have come away with is that there are many people who lack appreciation for Western society as it is. I exclude places like Africa because of the mess it is in.”

That is because we can do better. And we can do it this way without stepping over bodies (as we have done with Africa amongst others) in the process. And because people dont generally like the idea of handing over their lifes and responsibilities to organizations and institutions, since we really have the ability to take care of ourselves and our communities. That is IF we are told the truth about the state of affairs.

“…most free, most prosperous for more people, more healthy for humans, and offers more opportunity for the common man than at any time in history.”

Only omitting the fact that in order to be free we have to be part of a gigantic machine with no concerns for human or other earthly life, only profit.

‘None are more hoplessy enslaved, than those who believe they are free.’ Remember that citation?

I do, on the other hand appreciate living at this time and age. I love to travel (like we can today) and I stand in awe when I see what we have been able to build and achieve.

But like when I was in the Vatican; I admired the art and the gigantic constructions, but I also could see the bloody history behind it and be all out discusted at the same time.

I see the blessings of the western society, like education and free speech, as groundworks for thinking for yourself and saying smart & provocative things. This again forms the basis for changing the status quo. The internet and all the other advantages we have now are tools for changing the future, not arguments for keeping the system static.

And I’m not claiming I can make a better society than we have today. Haven’t you guys listened at all? WE can build a better society than we have today! If you dont think that, you’ve already given up.

Strange how people will lash out their opinions, and then say they’re done debating..

Comment by tim
2008-12-10 18:42:06

“Strange how people will lash out their opinions, and then say they’re done debating..”

That basically sums up my feelings with some people here. And it doesn’t even need to be a debate, it should follow the lines of discussion, but people are constantly inclined to lash out with back-handed comments than to take into consideration somebody else’s perspectives. That is exactly one reason why we are in the situation we are today; egotism runs rampant, and unification of ideas has lost its way. Western society is far to dependent on individualism. To be productive, we need to find a balance between individualism and collectivism. The best of both worlds (both of which have a lot to offer, and a lot to leave in the dust).

 
Comment by spandrel
2008-12-10 18:47:16

I’ll try to address your first two points at least, which were about my posts. And then maybe move on to another thread. Why are you talking about free will and individuality? Where does an enforced division of labor figure into your schemes? The abolishing of religion? Who’s going to process your trash? Treat your sewage? Toil in fields fighting pests all day to grow your organic crops? And these really are minor items. A system devised around a supercomputer micromanaging our lives sounds pretty ripe for corruption and abuses to me even if it could be programmed to deal with such complexities, which is unlikely. Why should this collectivist economy work when all others failed?

I mostly agree with you about the current state of the US government and have said as much in other posts. But I don’t think hysterics are gonna help much. We still do have an intact constitution. A couple of amendments could certainly be rescinded and a couple others adopted. I read the Patriot Act. It’s a disgrace, but it’s also got a built-in ending date. Hopefully it won’t be renewed.

I think our system is redeemable. I’d bet you know its problems, including the military industrial complex and the central bank, have European roots. We were drawn into your conflicts and the machinery never shut down after that. It’s a shame, but you may as well despise your neighbors at least as much as you do the US.

You pretend like anybody who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t want to make the world a better place. That’s ridiculous. Some of us just believe we should try to improve our current system. It at least has a brilliant foundation whatever it’s become, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for the Venus Project or any other fuzzy pipe dream. All you’ve really said is “Just believe it can happen and we can do it.” That’s not a political philosophy – it’s a fairy tale. If you want to discuss some of the actual issues involved you should scroll up and read the posts between Tim and Point. At least then you’ll have somewhere to start.

As far as the mass media crap that both you and Tim are disgusted with, you’ll get no argument from me. In this country I’m hoping the FCC takes some action. Powell and Abernathy have both gone, Coppes (I think that’s his name) is still in. Maybe we’ll see some improvements in this next administration. But like you say at least there is still the internet if not.

 
 
Comment by VoiceOfReason
2008-12-11 08:23:14

If i had to choose between the future that is currently infront of us and a future similar to that of the Venus Project, i would choose Venus.

To all of you that don’t agree, good luck!

 
Comment by Lightwing1
2008-12-11 12:01:10

Having read all of the comments posted here (what an interesting read) I have to say I tend to side with Point on this. I am a pragmatist, first and foremost, and tend to side with what works.

When approaching VP, one should always keep in mind that cultures develop from the bottom up. Every time someone tries to build a new culture from the top down the idea or movement only lasts a single generation. In worst case examples, millions of people die or are horribly marginalized.

There is a very simple reason for this. Human beings detest coercion, whether it is for a seemingly laudable goal or not. We do not like to be forced. We will resist doing what is arguably and logically “good for us” when forced. There is an innate tendency in humans toward the exercise of free will. This is one of the immutable laws of the universe as I understand it.

I for one would never take instruction or mandate from a machine nor the controllers of the machine (ie. programmers) about how to live my life, what resources to use, etc. You can argue that I do so now – but only as a matter of survival, not of choice, and I exercise my free will whenever I am able.

The only “utopia” I would ever support would be one that is arrived at through freely applied individual volition – IOW, freely chosen and entered into by all whom it impacts. Achieving this consensus takes us into the realm of politics, propaganda, marketing and religion – a nasty gray area where everyone has a differing opinion and results are as variant as human beings.

My main objection is that the idea is that it is not pragmatic. Utopian solutions are always predicated upon human behavioral change. One of the posters above rightly argued that the only way to achieve mass behavioral change in a short time frame is to use coercion – which, as I have asserted above – never works.

The Christian church is a great example of this. It all started with a simple idea – “Love thy neightbor” – and devolved into a power struggle over doctrines which tried to codify this idea into a set of human behavioral norms and then coerce these norms through the exercise of military power, political power, lying, theft, and the marginalization and execution of all dissenters.

The dissent arose because of the coercion and required the need to suppress it in order to get “everyone on board with the same way of thinking.”

It laughably devolved into a paradigm so at odds with the original intent of “Love thy neighbor” that now, in modern times, many Christians have become the polar opposite of this message and attack their neighbors at every turn for disagreeing with them.

The message I get from VP is “Evolve NOW, or else…” This is not helpful. I understand the desire behind it and I even understand those who argue for it. But it is a top-down solution that will inevitably deprive at least some of their right to self-determination, as all top-down, centrally organized solutions do – whether well-intentioned or not.

The needs and desires of each individual on this planet are as varied as the individuals. There is no “formula” that will create a perfect society. Shifting the responsibility for our own impact on this planet to a machine is not the answer. We need to be connected to our impact, not removed from it. Being personally involved with our own impact is what motivates us to expand and evolve as beings. It is how we learn and what catalyzes growth and change. Removing ourselves to a hermeutically-sealed, machine-controlled paradise will only make us lazy – no need to strive or accomplish anything because everything has already been solved. There would be a few socially minded individuals that would contribute volitionally and would bear the brunt of the work while everyone else played. Few would volunteer for the grunt work – sanitation, production, maintenance, etc. because no human aspires to the mundanities. Look at the wars in a basic household over division of labor! Do you think that most men feel guilty that they have been able to avoid the boring drudgery of “housekeeping” for most of history. I think not. More like they have taken advantage of it and used their extra leisure time to advance their own interests.

And if the social structure requires these “chores” to be dealt with and no one wants to do them, then they will inevitably be coerced. Machines certainly can’t handle all of the things necessary to maintain such a “liberated” society – unless it is an episode of Star Trek with replicators and sonic showers.

And, my argument doesn’t even begin to touch on individuals who seek power and status, or more wealth than the “other”, etc. Inevitably they would find a way to turn the system to their own ends. The US Constitution itself aspired to provide a framework in which individuals could pursue their own ends, unimpeded by a coercive government, and has been successfully (and sadly) subverted by the very types I mentioned above.

How do you stop such people from coopting the utopia toward their own ends? Again, coercion must be applied. And we are right back where we started.

One of the posters above suggested that “As we think, so we are.” It is true that who we are inside determines our state of being on the outside. This is where true evolution happens – on the inside – within our hearts and minds. Change the inside and the outside will follow – organically and naturally. This is not to suggest that coercive measures be used to force this change either. Various religions have tried this and the world is still as violent and barbaric as it ever has been – perhaps more so – but with better cosmetic veneers.

One cannot choose to value either the self or the whole and achieve any meaningful or lasting change. The optimal whole begins with each individual valuing him/herself first. A cohesive whole organically arises from this focus. An individual that values him/herself will take the whole into consideration. An individual that is coerced to value the whole above self, will seek to eradicate or subvert the whole in order to escape the coercion.

So, how is it possible to achieve a cohesive whole with billions of disparate individuals – all with different desires and goals and intents? It seems impossible to achieve without coercion – which is why coerced behavioral norms are so much a part of the fabric of utopian visions from NeoCon wet dreams to VP. This is the fly in the ointment and some of our best and brightest have spent their lives trying to figure it out.

I don’t know. I have some ideas but they are my ideas and seem right to me. They work for me. They might not work for other people. I think individual reponsibility is a good starting point. Taking full responsibility for your own actions. Love of self is another good tenet although our current culture teaches us to submit to authority and disregard our natural impulses. Respect for and tolerance of “the other” is also a good one. This takes maturity to practice. Working out our differences on a personal level instead of relegating this function to the government would also be great. Having dialogues with each other – presenting our different viewpoints and agreeing to disagree on some things. Finding common ground and working from there.

Finding common ground between adversaries has been one of the miracles of the Ron Paul rEVOLution. I saw vegans partnering with gun rights advocates – why? Because they agreed on at least two of his points – that we need to restore fiscal sanity to the US by eliminating the fiat money system and the federal reserve – and – that personal self-determination is the bedrock that leads to a greater whole ultimately. I thought this was a great thing although the MSM painted the ad hoc coalition of opposites supporting Ron Paul as loonie or worse. They couldn’t see the greatness of this coalition or what it portends for the future of America. Ironically, it is a coalition mostly of the youth of this country who seem to understand the concept of finding common ground with your adversaries and building from there.

And that leads me to the final rub. This process takes time. Consistent and determined application to the principle of finding common ground and building from there will actually make a difference long-term – in the way we create institutions, run our lives, our businesses, treat the environment, solve poverty, treat our neighbors, etc. But everyone wants the solution NOW because the world is going to end tomorrow, right? And the only way we can get it that soon is via coercion – a direction that will subvert the human spirit and set back all of the gains that have been made over the last millenia.

There may be workable ideas in VP. Great! Try them out on a small scale first with voluntary practitioners – IOW – use the free market to your advantage to beta test. If it is a truly feasible effort, it will catch on and become a new paradigm – organically and authentically. If however, it is simply another attempt to hurry up the evolution of human behavior in order to quell a fear-incited panic that we are doomed through the use of coercive mechanisms, then it will most certainly fail.

Comment by tim
2008-12-11 12:35:47

I know I am skipping the bulk of your post, but I only have a second and just wanted to say one quick thing. The rest we can save for another time.

“There may be workable ideas in VP. Great! Try them out on a small scale first with voluntary practitioners”

Peter Joseph and the creators of the VP idea have indeed stated that this is the best way to go. They mention that it must realistically start out small scale, with one singular city, and then branch out form there. Their idea is that once people begin to see the incomparable advantages of the system, then people will begin to choose to be apart of the movement on their own free will.

I just don’t want you to think that the minds behind the concept are expecting this to be an overnight thing where everyone drops what they have and jumps into a Utopia.

Also, it is not a Utopia. I think a lot of people make this mistake. It will not be a perfectly ran system. Nothing man made will ever be perfect. It is simply a way to approach society that works hand-in-hand with the natural world, and what it has to offer. It will surely have its flaws, but the idea is that it would serve as a system that is superior to the one in place.

Alright, I must run (and write a philosophy paper which is ironic haha). Thanks for your time.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-11 19:17:00

“This process takes time. Consistent and determined application to the principle of finding common ground and building from there will actually make a difference long-term – in the way we create institutions, run our lives, our businesses, treat the environment, solve poverty, treat our neighbors, etc.”

I’ve been pretty sad and stressed out lately when I consider the state of the world in 2008. But in my more tranquil moments I believe that the human race is always moving forward in the way you describe above.

There are fits and starts and crazy detours, but as I have said (and been maligned for), our world is the best that’s ever been. There is no reason to assume that we won’t continue on this trajectory…..and it will take time.

PS Ron Paul for president.

 
 
Comment by Lightwing1
2008-12-11 21:04:13

Thanks, Tim, for your elucidation. I have not reviewed the video though I did read the site. What lead me toward thinking it was a utopian effort was the nature of some of the comments (and the underlying desperation that some seem to harbor).

Perhaps we should view VP as one possible model for the future. This leaves the door open for other possibilities and directions as well. Some of the responses seemed to indicate a desire to achieve an “out with the old, in with the new” paradigm by next week. I was reacting to that. This is a particular flaw of the current environmental movement – impatience and alarmism. Idealists in a hurry get into trouble because they alienate so many through harsh judgements and not making room for multiple viewpoints.

To Alice:

It does appear, if you spend an inordinate amount of time on internet boards, that people are polarized beyond repair. They don’t listen or even pause to take another’s viewpoint into account. They fall prey to the false logic that what is right for them should be right for everyone, by coercion if necessary. Some of this assumed superiority triggers people’s guilt (because who isn’t imperfect?) which evinces harsh reactions.

The world is a mess if you calibrate it by internet content and statistics. But everyday I experience acts of kindness from those diametrically opposed to my philosophy and I find common ground with them. I have to – I am a business owner and as such it is incumbent upon me to be as neutral as possible and allow expression of viewpoints I find antithetical to my own course in life.

Yet, in the midst of the despair and the flaming attacks and general juvenalia, there are those who are seeking common ground, like Ron Paul for instance – even against the shrill criticism of the MSM and other nay-sayers.

What we need to remember to achieve hope, is that machines can produce change in the blink of an eye. Human beings, however, are wired differently and take time to change. We cannot expect human beings to be machines.

As to hope – it is out there. I humbly recommend some resources that have helped me achieve a “bigger picture” perspective of some new models that are being forwarded – aside from VP – which is only one in a sea of new ideas happening currently. You can search Google for all of these.

1. ClueTrain Manifesto – a fresh take on marketing tactics that includes the customer in the communication cycle and seeks to build a bridge of communication between business/corporate entities and customers.

2. The Industrial Hemp movement which seeks to educate on the incredible impact this highly benificent plant can have on materials and resource usage.

3. CowPower.org – an initiative in Vermont that is tapping our current food production model for alternative energy solutions. These enterprising individuals are not waiting for government mandates but are taking solutions into their own hands. Admirable and quite the best of American ingenuity being put into practice.

4. Changing World Technologies – which promotes a new system of waste management modeled on Mother Earth herself that could, if proven effective, transform the way we recycle manufactured materials, sewage, plastics, and animal offal – basically any carbon based waste – which is most of it.

5. In addition to Ron Paul, there are others working to create new money models. Do some reading at the American Monetary Institute.

6. The odd Ron Paul coalition itself and the fact that it draws from many walks of life and provides a common ground framework which many Americans can agree on.

7. Van Horn. Look him up and the work he is doing to build a bridge between elitist, affluent environmentalists together with inner city communities and the working classes with his “Green Jobs” program.

8. His work is echoed by the Apollo Alliance.

9. TED – a gathering of some of the best and brightest in Monterey California once a year to forward unique ideas and solutions about how to solve some of the worlds biggest challenges.

10. The responsible wealth movement. Sponsored by United for a Fair Economy. Responsible Wealth is a network of over 750 business leaders, investors and other wealthy people works to build a fairer economy through shareholder activism, support for the living wage, and fair taxation work. Small perhaps, but the conversation is happening none-the-less.

11. Search for this article: IT Outsourcing Services Offered by American Indians

12. StoptheDrugWar.org – an organization devoted to rescinding drug prohibition that is supported by cops – people who have a unique perspective on this issue having served in the trenches. Cops are the last people you would expect to support this but they make cogent arguments supporting their case.

There are many more, but you get the idea. We are experiencing a huge paradigm shift the likes of which the world has never seen. Most of the new systems models that are being floated about are in their nascent stages. But I believe that at least some of the ideas will prevail and present future possibilities that should give us all hope – with the exception of the few who benefit from the current status quo, who will, of course, fight the changes to secure their status. However, aren’t the elites going through a PR fiasco right now with the bank bailout? People’s faith in their bought leadership is also failing. Many are coming to realize that we have to roll up our sleeves and get busy – because our leaders are just not getting us there. That’s the pioneer spirit, by jove, and I believe in that more than anything else about America.

I find it highly amusing that many on this board who were at each other’s throats over VP found some common ground on the Bailout, or the FCC, or the MSM. Underneath our personal ideologies, we are all Americans, inculcated with the pride and promises of the Constitution.

I believe that Americans will ultimately shake themselves out of their spoiled reverie to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and in fact, lead a global transformation (aided and in some ways pulled along of course by significant contributions from the best and brightest of all nations). It has happened before…

Comment by alice
2008-12-12 12:10:18

lightwing (pilot?)

I just wrote a fabulous post and because I didn’t do the name thing, lost it.

So maybe it wasn’t that good.

You said “It does appear, if you spend an inordinate amount of time on internet boards, that people are polarized beyond repair.”

I do like to play the devil’s advocate so I will say this. Maybe polarization is a good thing. It may just keep us talking and keep us from acting in ways which wouldn’t be beneficial. And going back to some of my previous thoughts about human nature, perhaps this is just a demonstration of that very nature.

I don’t find myself wringing my hands about arguing. I think well thought out discussion of issues is invigorating. In the case of this thread, however, it seems pretty clear which side the cogent ideas are on.(don’t worry, they don’t know what cogent means.)

Thanks for all the links. I do think that good things are afoot, although I doubt any one like Ron Paul can be elected within the next hundred years. He’s too sensible.

America loves her rock stars.

Comment by tim
2008-12-12 15:28:31

“In the case of this thread, however, it seems pretty clear which side the cogent ideas are on.(don’t worry, they don’t know what cogent means.)”

Alice, your are so arrogant (hopefully you know what that means) it is sad.

Also, your self proclaimed departure was very short lived; possibly too short.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by tim
2008-12-12 15:32:49

oh and please do not forget use my typographical error to display to the world how incredibly inferior my mind is to yours.

 
Comment by koi
2010-06-16 12:02:18

so why are you calling someone arrogant when you don’t even come back with any kind of challenging argument,constructive criticism, or philosophy to show how she is arrogant? maybe your just mad because you like so many others have failed to eliminate you ego, or Maya….besides at least shes thinking and not one way. occasionally we do need to play the devils advocate to know what the devil is trying to do and so we aren’t clouding our own judgment.you sound smart, but not intelligent.

 
 
 
Comment by alice
2008-12-12 18:55:12

So today I was doing some CAD work, something which can be tedious (that’s “boring” to you, Tim)and I decided to call up my Netflix and watch a movie simultaneous to my drawing endeavors (that’s “at the same time”, Tim)

Lo and Behold! there was a documentary (that’s a “true story” Tim) about TED. I only got about ten minutes into it when I had to stop because one of the best and brightest stars and shining lights was none other than Tony Robbins.

God help us if we’re going to have to rely on a charlatan like him to show us the way.

Maybe someone should tell him about VP. If there’s any money to be made, I’m sure he’d do a consultancy for them.

Ron Paul for president.

Comment by tim
2008-12-12 19:43:46

Hey Alice, do you think you make some how turn your posts into picture books for me? Maybe then I could figure out what all these crazy words mean!

…Sorry, I couldn’t help myself as this has turned into a game for me, but I promise I am done with the pettiness now everyone :)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by alice
2008-12-13 00:25:06

So here’s what I want to know, Tim….Where the hell is this Point guy. He hasn’t written a post in almost two weeks and yet here we are, we and a handful of others, continuing the insanity of this thread. This stuff can be very addictive.

I did want to say a couple of things about you, Tim. First, I think you are bright and amazingly sincere and good hearted. I just have a problem with your writing.

I think it would be very good, because you are bright, that you learn to write more coherently. From what you have said, you are enrolled in some kind of school. Since you mentioned philosophy, I suppose you are college age.

I recommend you take some kind of writing class and be really open to criticism. I know writing classes are often just something to pass, but there is something so vital about writing to any kind of intellectual pursuit, that you need to do more than pass. You need to learn sentence construction and logical sequence. Writing well will help you think well.

I think you have the chops to be a fine thinker and writer. I just think you need to learn a little more before you will be able to make an impact in those areas.

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-14 12:26:27

While I do appreciate the suggestion, I am going to have to pass on that. First off, you need to understand that this is a blog forum. What I write in here are usually just opinions off the top of my head, and (sorry to admit) are never thoroughly proofread. I understand that I should be considerably more careful with my spelling, punctuation and grammar, but the truth is I simply do not have the energy to do so. I can get lazy. But luckily for me, this is only a blog and I am not being graded on the little things. When it comes down to it though, I assure you I have the ability to write eloquently enough (I promise I wont lose any sleep if you do not believe me).

If you truly feel everything I write is completely inept and incoherent, I apologize. At the same time though, everyone else seems to understand my blog lingo, so I am not too worried about it.

As far as Point goes, he seems to have gone MIA on the forum. Luckily for us, other people are still interested enough to post.

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-14 12:37:37

Also, I forgot to say that I am actually a very poor and slow typer. Always have been. Probably always will be. It can definitely be problematic at times, I agree. I do often leave out minor words as a result of trying to type fast. I am sorry if that messes up anyone’s ability to understand my posts. I will try to work on that.

 
 
 
Comment by Lightwing1
2008-12-17 00:43:38

Correction: Van Horn should be Van Jones, Green for All. My apologies for the brain fart. :-)

 
 
Comment by kendra
2008-12-11 23:44:44

I read several of the posts and finally got tired of the constant cycle, never ending spinning, and ruthless arguing. I think one of the main things you all need to realize is that without understanding and at least trying to see each others point of view we will get nowhere. The human race has been arguing over these things and things like these for thousands of years…do you think the worlds problems are going to be solved on this blog?
I don’t know shit about half the stuff i learned in both movies, but i do know that the movies were created mostly out of the desire for something better.

You can sit here and spit arguments back and forth, which in my opinion is mostly because a good majority of you like to argue. But that’s just it, people want power and they want the monopoly on the truth. The Venus Project has many great ideas, but it is also true in my opinion that human beings will never stop wanting more more more…not everybody, but the vast majority. Most humans want something better than what they already have. Something better, faster, more shiny, more valuable, more “stylish”, more modern, on and on and on. Given unlimited resources, even though i want to have faith in the human race…no i do not think greed or the desire to rule and have power will end. sadly.

I wanted to make this post just to point out that all you guys are doing is arguing. You all want to fight because you all think you are right. I stood on the outside and saw that you all made very great points, is that a bad thing? to say you all made very good points?

In my opinion the movie was mostly about love, the human consciousness and the fact that we need to move on out of our comfy cocoons, open our eyes to a brand new day and start something new. I think we all can agree that we need something to happen, well…here WE all are arguing and complaining and cat scratching about a friggin movie…at least the people heading the Venus Project have an idea huh? Do you think they log on to web sites and sit and argue with people, making the same points over and over and over and over again? dont think so, they spend their time trying to find a way to make your life better, my life better, and the lives of our children better…etc etc.

Comment by spandrel
2008-12-13 01:05:42

But what if we could all come to a consensus on here about the direction the US needs to take, say 50 voting citizens here over the course of a month debate, then each going to other blogs, the original 50 getting a consensus of 49 others each in the second month, and so on. Well, that’s a lot of arguing and a lot of math, but eventually we might end up as a substantial voting bloc. An exponentially growing number of disgruntled voters all agreeing on one course of action, independent of the media and special interests! I just think that would be really special.

Comment by alice
2008-12-13 12:15:08

My buddy , Chris Wilson, formerly of The Enlightened Caveman blog has started something new.
http://www.informedopinions.net

His idea is that in order for people to comment on this blog, you have to pass a test about history, economics, curent events, etc. He believes this will give you credibility. You can also carry this credibility with you as you comment on other blog sites by displaying some kind of tag. And of course you will be able to link other sites to ION.

Another aspect is an ongoing series of polls.

Anyhoo….it’s taking him a while to get all of this up and running. So far he’s missed an historical election and an economic meltdown.

Maybe by the time he gets it going there won’t be anything to chat about.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by spandrel
2008-12-14 11:34:46

There’s a syntax error when trying to sign up that stops the whole process. Nice idea though.

 
 
Comment by point
2008-12-16 23:00:26

You had me really interested for a second, then my skeptical brain kicked in. How is that any different from the many secret societies developed to promote progress through coordinated actions of its members? I’m not judging their effectiveness, but isn’t that essentially what you are proposing? Or would the difference be keeping the communications and debate transcripts public… There are some practical issues to work out, there would need to be a process to select people, kick people out, formal votes… I think the biggest obstacle though will be actually coming up with consensus opinions.

Let me tell you a story that shaped my view of this subject, back when I was in high school, in my physics class we were told to select our own partners for one of the labs. So the four smartest of us joined together and said (in all our arrogance) let everyone else fail, they are worthless without us. You should probably already know where I’m going with this, oh, let me count the ways that plan failed… I’ll just summarize, I learned something about team dynamics. As much as we hate to admit it, people need to be lead. There is a natural hierarchy among people just as there is among many animals, groups don’t function well when everybody wants to be king or wants their ideas to be king. At some point, people need to accept that despite their conviction and continuing support of an idea, the argument has lost. We will never all agree.

http://www.pointbite.com/2008/01/23/why-open-minds-are-closed/

Now in that situation, for your project, should this person confuse the general public with a contradictory opinion, quit the group, refuse to contradict the group in public, or advocate against his/her beliefs? Now we’re getting into party politics and loyalty and public relations and all that jazz… you see the slippery slope.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by alice
2008-12-16 23:09:50

“process to select people,”

I’m not sure what you are refering to, but if it is Chris Wilson’s ION, the selection process involves taking a test and passing with at least a 75% (?).

Unfortunately Chris’s ambitious project isn’t up yet. He’s been working on it for about two years. But for what it’s worth, here’s the link. The video on the home page is good.
http://www.informedopinions.net/

I’m not sure what the hold-up is.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Joshua
2008-12-12 11:02:23

“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.”

i did not read all the way through your article… just the top and saw this line… which deterred me from reading anymore. CONSUME MUCH MORE is the DISEASE that is RUINING THIS PLANET. no one (actually there are many aware individuals that can) looks or finds WITHIN the meaning of life, happiness or love. they CONSUME MUCH MORE big macs and whoppers leading to heart disease and obesity, they buy BIGGER houses with MORE rooms, BIGGER tvs to watch manipulated media and marketing, MORE video games for their kids, BIGGER tires for their yellow H2 hummer parked in the garage, CONSUME MORE! very few seek or find peace in laughter with their friends (and if so it is only after 3 beers, 2 bottles of wine, a fifth of jack daniels and a joint – is that true laughter, or numbness from the pain of their daily lives?), peace and happiness in walking their dog in the park, watching a sunset and holding the hand of someone they care about, making a healthy dinner with family and friends with vegetables they grew in their organic garden. does a $50,000 Rolex tell any better’a'time than a $20 dolla timex?

i don’t know if the venus project will become a reality? there are many aspects of the life that they propose that appear viable to me… i feel they are just striving to get people to ‘wake up’ and realize there is a beautiful life out there just waiting for all of to enjoy… after we are done killing, judging and suppressing that is.

~namaste
josh

Comment by point
2008-12-16 22:36:32

Then you will hate the Venus project, it’s all about consumption. The heart of its philosophy is that satisfying as many human desires as possible with an abundance of material goods will create a more peaceful species. You raise a good point though, there are many people today consuming an abundance of big macs and they aren’t exactly model humans to follow. The article makes the same point about the ultra-rich more generally already living in abundance.

The point of the quote you selected, I should clarify though, is not that people should consume more, it’s simply an attempt to explain the relationship between stuff and money. Even if you don’t want to consume more today you may still seek to protect future purchasing power, and making money scarce will only make it more valuable.

 
 
Comment by JanColdwater
2008-12-15 10:22:41

1st, who authored this “counter” article calling Zeitgeist and the Venus Project a Hoax? I would like to be one to say that it is no more hoax than the system we live in now!

Who said everyone would live in a 5000 sq ft mansion? That is not realistic as far as NEEDS go. I live in a house more than half that size with 6 people and I do everything within my ability to live as “green” as I can & am constantly looking to expand my abilities in this mindset. My goal is to waste less physically and monetarily.

I disagree that the creator of this film doesn’t understand the difference between money and currency, they explain it very well for the “stuff money can buy” is resources! That was what it is all about! This stuff and acquiring of it is what you are stuck on and that is also what the movie is about, moving beyond that mindset.

I fail to see how money DOES NOT breed power and influence. They go hand in hand! This is the way our world works now and it is purely corrupt. We are the consumers PAYING to be CONSUMED and that is where I agree with you about debt. Maybe our corrupt monetary system is the one issue we can all agree on, however no system in our minds can achieve an equitable distribution of stuff because it is the individual who determines what something is worth for them self. Not everyone values each thing equally. Some people would rather burn wood or recycled chips rather than pay a heating bill. Some people don’t like animal fur so they purchase man made materials etc.

I enjoyed how the movie celebrated the myriad of ways to meet our most basic of needs that because of our current corrupt monetary and governmental systems are being halted altogether. This is where I disagree with whoever wrote this article, not everyone with money would LOVE to see an abundance of resources for all humanity. I think the opposite to be true; they need to keep a healthy balance of consumerism and indebtedness to the corrupt system for it to function. They need us to need the system, stuck on a never-ending treadmill of lies. The best example of this is needless and mindless purchasing of goods that we do not need which breeds more debt and waste. It sounds like we have become accustomed to living like our government lives.

Prices are not the best guide to know what people want even though we shouldn’t be working so much on WANT but rather NEED. Look at the price of gas. The supply is there and the price is played with as well as production to drive up the price. People slowed the consumption and it was something the did not want to have to do. This is because it isn’t a free market. Just let WalMart drive the price down low enough on an item and you will find those who will purchase it regardless of even if they want it or not! I see it all the time. Simply reckless. As hard as it may be to find a buyer, with the way we have been trained I could probably sell our government for a buck!

I don’t think that the Venus Project is working on the same set of standards we have now. It is a rather large undertaking because it is different and in my eyes, anything different than what we have now is at least worth a LOOK. You didn’t hear me say, jump right in. I do applaud their efforts that at least seem to TRY to break the cycle of corruption. It seems that what the author of this article has a problem with more than anything is human behavior! Well, that is where it becomes IMPERFECT and something we will all have to deal with as long as we exist. Who is above being governed? Who is beneath? No laws? Who is a worker and for no MONEY? Who gets things first? That is the only thing truly holding the idea back! I think I would like us to try to come up with solutions taken from our Constitution and work out the kinks! The only thing holding America and the globe back from taking back our monetary system is the time it takes WORKING to SUPPORT IT! How many times have you heard “I don’t have the time”… “I’m too busy working”??? We are working to support a system of corruption that feeds on us!

Talk about adjusting prices and money flow! None of that ever adjusts downward in the amount of time the average person works! That keeps increasing! The only resources they have to worry about running out of are humans! Keep us healthy enough to churn in the debt and die just shy of being too old to be burden on profit. Great scam! Is it one worth perpetuating by doing nothing but voting? I am sure you have all heard that saying… If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal.

I do know one thing; all the questions that are coming from this are a good start to actually doing something and since education will be the main focus rather than work, people will have more time to watch the system rather than the ZERO time they have now. We have to think of the future as being something of real change and promise for a better world, it can’t be just talk and we can’t look for perfection because even the movie admits, that wouldn’t be achieved. Talk about fantasy yes, you may not be able to protect yourself with savings from a monetary system that isn’t worth anything to begin with! Should that stop us? Heck no for I don’t even have that saved up! LOL

What is it that we do have? We have big ideas and most of them have NOTHING to do with the system we have now. Where does this leave us? It leaves us with the simple fact that we have to live within our means, get creative and OVERTHROW our existing government! If we can’t get together on that one fact, (Overthrowing our government) we will NEVER see our dreams of freedom come to fruition.

Comment by StupdiCommies
2009-03-14 22:57:41

You have no fucking right to tell me and anyone else what we “need”. Many people would feel that a 2 room apartment and some bland tasteless soy food and water is all that we “need”. So please, fuck off with your commie bullshit.

 
 
Comment by Point are you alive??
2008-12-15 19:31:11

Wondering if your still alive and commenting on the posts….I just thought of something….the “idea” of “incremental change”.

This idea is similar to the Kaizan philsophy of business which is what made Honda the successful company it is today….If we now take our current society and balance it out using kaizan principles….then focus on this incremental change of gains….we might have our so called Venus reality. Now ofcourse your argument is that we will revert backwards and not everyone will be happy with what they have and who will direct this blah blah blah……but we’re looking for continuing progess in society and therefore we must be able stable this to have this occur….any thoughts? I have answers to any questions…this is hard to grasp but I will explain my thoughts…and this makes sense

Comment by Point are you alive??
2008-12-15 19:32:03

I am AKA as Trevor on this site and have posted before….appreciate any comments

 
Comment by point
2008-12-15 19:59:44

Yes I am still alive, I haven’t read all the comments in a while though, I’ll do that soon. I am not familiar with Kaizan philosophy, I’ll read about it and let you know my thoughts.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-15 23:03:34

Not that you asked, but my opinion is that we are always undergoing incremental change.

It’s generally a chaotic process with no discernably straight line, but things do improve in the long term.

Not everyone is happy and there are lots of reversions backwards and then enough people are happy so that there isn’t that big a reversion backwards and then we go forward…a bit.

I think it’s called life.

Comment by tim
2008-12-16 13:30:26

It seems like you have a somewhat traditionally eastern approach to life. Not that that is bad or anything, but I just get a holistic feel from a lot of what you say (I could be wrong though); the whole idea of constant flux in the universe from one extreme to the other, and a tendency to view things on the whole on a more contextual level.

Anyways, I am just finishing up reading a pretty good book that lays out the difference between eastern and western though processes. It isn’t totally related to anything in the discussion, but I think might enjoy it. It is a quick and easy read, and worth the time. It is called ‘The Geography of Thought’ by Richard Nisbett. You should check it out sometime.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by point
2008-12-16 22:20:20

I read the wikipedia page about Kaizen, there isn’t much information there, but my gut reaction is positive. It’s nothing ground breaking, I don’t know anybody who doesn’t instinctively look for ways to create small incremental improvements in their lives all the time. Formalizing natural common sense processes to incorporate them into our culture in a more conscious way couldn’t hurt, but it’s no panacea. People will still be pushing and pulling in different directions.

 
 
Comment by Lightwing1
2008-12-16 00:48:25

One more for Alice:

Just discovered this tonight. Amazing ideas in this one. Even if they are a ways off from being mainstream, at least someone is thinking them. I find the ideas inspiring and hopeful and incredibly apolitical – which is a breath of fresh air.

Anyway, enjoy: http://www.asknature.org/article/view/what_is_biomimicry

Comment by tim
2008-12-16 11:38:17

Hey Lightwing1,

I just took a glance at that link you provided. Very interesting indeed. Thanks for it.

 
 
Comment by Stavros
2008-12-16 14:20:56

Hi, my name is Stavros and i am currently on my master Research program in Ancient Greek History leading into the Ph.D and i would like to say a few things on this whole matter. I spent 4 hours watching the zeitgeist movies and i got fairly disappointed with the ending. The central idea behind it is good but i think it can never work. Firstly money is not the invention of banks to control the world. Currency has been around in many ancient civilisations and that enabled people to interact and trade. I cannot see how a world could function without money. Some people say that if energy is free then money will not be needed. Okay, since i am an ancient historian, i would counter this with an example from Ancient Greece. Sparta (an ancient city-state in the Peloponnese in Southern Greece) famously did not have money so that the citizens would not be corrupted and during it’s pick time it indeed functioned well without money. The thing though is that the Spartans did not need money to exchange goods because they had everything in abundance produced in their allocated plots by the Helots ( the enslaved population of the neighbouring Messinia). Whenever the Helots were freed by the Thebans, the Spartan system collapsed. Needless to say that they referred to each other (Spartan Citizens) as “HOMOI” which means “equals”, but they had two kings, a board of elders and the ephors that formulated the agenda of the meetings of the people (male citizens), at which the voting took place through shouting, after the most influential people took the podium. Without money some people were still higher in a society of equals. So in order to make currency useless you need someone something to produce the things you need for free right? That’s 1. 2 in order to make those things (or machines) that would create everything for humans, you need other humans to make them, fix them and research so that technology and the machines and so forth advances.So these people will automatically have more prestige and influence than the rest, so there goes the society of equals. Also why would anyone want to do this if one knows that there is no “real” exchange for your trade/skill/knowledge?unfortunately very few people would even be bothered to acquire this trade/skill/knowledge. In order to change that you need to essentially breed a new race of humans. This utopian presented in the venus project has some reflections of the Aristotelian and Socratic/Platonic utopians which had a huge impact on communism. 3. in a society with no laws and no one to enforce them what or who prevents anyone from raping a woman in the street, just because he wanted to have intercourse with her? And what then prevents that woman’s husband, father, brother or boyfriend from killing the rapist? I cannot agree with the suggestion that society can function without laws. 4. As for the no government i am assuming that the decisions will be taken by everyone? Total/absolute/radical democracy? How can 6 billion people, of all ages have a saying in a matter which no one puts forth? Lets say everyone puts forth a matter. Do you have any idea what sort of a chaos would come out of that? Who would process these and classify them? how will this be done? Internet? who tell’s us that a hacker wont just mess the whole thing up? And when would it happen when Sydney has 11 hours difference from London?and it is impossible for every single human to have the knowledge and ability to have a saying on every issue that arises. 5. I disagree on the whole medicine thing. It was all the study done by humans that enabled robots to perform surgeries with the accuracy they do and it is this same study that will improve these robots. Do you know how few people would actually bother themselves to becoming doctors because they love it? 6. I cannot understand how everyone would learn to accept and love everyone (nationally speaking and not individually). I am from a Greek-Cypriot. Cyprus ( a small country in the eastern Med- with primarily a Greek population) is occupied since 1974(37% of its land) by Turkey.How am i to be able to be okay with that in a globalised world in which there’s no Greeks and Turks?Where am i born does not matter? Then we will all be the same? how? Who will i be without my history? Yes we are all humans, but the essential characteristics of a group or a nation is what defines us. And i find it extraordinary that we are so few- such a young organism and yet, so different. Why change that? Also why is globalisation different now than of what it could be in the Venus project? Closing i must say that I LOVED the energy suggestions. i hope this actually happens sometime in the near future and i agree on driving smaller cars and making our houses energy self-sufficient. our society can be improved rather than utterly changed. the federal/state banks should and can be owned by the states. so that there is no actual debt on the money produced and this way the great powers can invest in the 3rd world countries. with just a few simple modifications to the existing system our world can become better. This whole idea of the Venus project just seems like a modern version of the classican Greek utopians, and although it sounds promising, it still is just a utopia, that fails to see the problem the way it actually is.
Thank you,
Stavros.
P.S.: Looking forward to comments.

Comment by tim
2008-12-16 17:45:59

Hey Stavors,

First, thanks for the insight. I am not going discuss everything you talked about right now, but am just going to throw in a few of my views.

“Sparta…famously did not have money so that the citizens would not be corrupted…the Spartans did not need money to exchange goods because they had everything in abundance produced in their allocated plots by the Helots ( the enslaved population of the neighbouring Messinia). Whenever the Helots were freed by the Thebans, the Spartan system collapsed.”

It seems to me that this outcome was destined to occur, as a result of the fact that it was based upon direct forced slave labor of a group of humans. It is impossible (as far as history says) for any nation state to maintain direct oppressive control over another group of people indefinitely. Something always happens (war, upraising, social restructuring, etc) that eventually causes the oppressor to lose power over the oppressed. If the society used technology however to acquire its resources as opposed to the forced slave labor as listed above, it could – hypothetically – last as long as people properly maintained it.

“in a society with no laws and no one to enforce them what or who prevents anyone from raping a woman in the street”

That is a very good question, and I personally do not have the perfect answer. However, I believe that criminals – just like everyone else – are culturally created. If there was a culture that didn’t glorify things like crime, female sexual subservience, drugs use, violence, etc there simply would not be the vast number of criminals that there are today. Of course, I am not to say there would not be exceptions to the rule, but I think they would be vastly diminished.

“but the essential characteristics of a group or a nation is what defines us”

This is something I strongly disagree with. I believe that nationalism has the completely opposite effect; I believe these characterizations are what separate us, not define us. They create a distinction between groups of people that is simply used as a manipulative tool by governments to exploit their citizens, and getting them to buy into their personal agendas. The only natural truth is that we are all humans (as you pointed out before the quoted comment). That is what should unite us – not within which imaginary lines you were born in, what language you speak, or what your regionally and environmentally created culture promotes.

“Closing i must say that I LOVED the energy suggestions. i hope this actually happens sometime in the near future”

I completely agree, however, as long as we live in capitalist societies I fear that this will never be a complete reality. If truly energy efficient products are made, then there is no need for people to continue to buy new products to replace their insufficient ones. It simply wont happen. As long as people are able to make profits on poorly designed products – that are often literally made to break down – there will be no such thing as self-sufficient housing, car, or anything else. Even when new technologies are released that claim to be more efficient, they are usually just minor fixes or ‘band-aids’ to the real problems, whose only real purpose to to keep people happy enough from really thinking they are getting ripped off.

With that said, I again want to thank you again for your comments.

Thanks for your time.

 
 
Comment by Stavros
2008-12-16 14:29:15

P.S.2:Sorry for my english in some cases…its 6:28 a.m and i’ve been up all night watching the zeitgeist movies..so im not 100% here..

 
Comment by IvanK
2008-12-16 18:04:46

Some pointst:
Pretending people will continue to work without compensation by blaming capitalist propaganda is a cop-out.

What is “open source software” then? Isn’t it just that? People working on projects without any monetary incentive. And why is it possible – exactly because the “resources” for this (computing power, internet) are virtually abundant. How about that, huh?

If people could afford everything they wanted they would stop borrowing to consume and put the banks out of business.

Isn’t that the point?

But the most astonishing question that this movie asked was if technology is the pusher of human progress, welfare and life itself, why the heck do those who rule the world are not scientist and engineers? Why the people in power still debate theological questions? Why indeed.

 
Comment by point
2008-12-16 21:15:03

“What is “open source software” then?”

Anything can work with a small group of ideologues, I’ve mentioned that already. But even most open source software created purely for personal pride or whatever ultimately gets abandoned as life, interest, obsolescence, and time constraints interfere with ideology. Believe me, it is the commercial use and support of open source software that distinguishes the best from the worst. Do you think Linus Torvalds hasn’t been compensated for his work? Did you know that Mozilla makes so much money off firefox that their non-profit status is about to be challenged by the government? Many contributors do so for commercial reasons, they are selling books, or support, or they use the recognition or experience to get jobs… many people are paid to maintain these things. For-profit companies often release their proprietary software to the open source community because it’s a good selling feature with clients, look at BEA for example, not all of this stuff was produced for free. And the majority of people who use open source software for non-hobby reasons ultimately have commercial aims for its use, some people may play around with a few things here or there, but that’s often just boredom and nothing productive comes out of it. If there were no consumers of this software because nobody can use them to make money, would they still be produced?

But all that is besides the point really, of course some people will work, but how many, for how long, how productively, how self-less-ly, and more importantly, what will those who DON’T work be doing with their time? Beach volleyball 365 days of the year or raping and rioting for kicks?

“Isn’t that the point?”

Yes, that’s why they won’t let it happen. That’s why it must happen. That’s also the answer to your engineers ruling the world question.

 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-17 08:37:38

I find your point of view… rather disturbing and not a little pessimistic.
In several instances you infer that, under the venus project system, someone would be in charge and dictating to you how much you can have, how many children you may have, etc. and nothing could be farther from the truth. The only one that would dictate your wants/needs… is you.
Try to think in terms of what YOUR mind could concieve AND ACHIEVE if you were freed of the drudgery of merely sustaining your own life.
There are many people in the world that would continue to produce simply because they WANTED to. Painters would still paint, musicians would still make music, people curious about the sciences would still be curious and would do work in their CHOSEN profession simply to satisfy their own curiousity… with their only needed reward… the pleasure of doing, creating, inventing. Do you not find pleasure in doing something well? Would you find no pleasure if that something were of benefit to all of mankind? Would you really just stop doing anything simply because you didn’t have to to survive?
Well, that’s OK in the proposed society. creat if you choose, don’t if you don’t wanna.
I gather that most of the people who have written so far have, at least, watched the movie. What follows, I have plagarized from the Venus Project so that you can READ what they have to say. I think that it may change your mind… or, at least open it a little???
The Venus Project operates out of a 21.5-acre Research Center located in Venus, Florida.

When one considers the enormity of the challenges facing society today, we can safely conclude that the time is long overdue for us to reexamine our values, and to reflect upon and evaluate some of the underlying issues and assumptions we have as a society. This self-analysis calls into question the very nature of what it means to be human, what it means to be a member of a “civilization,” and what choices we can make today to ensure a prosperous future for all the world’s people.

At present we are left with very few alternatives. The answers of yesterday are no longer relevant. Either we continue as we have been with our outmoded social customs and habits of thought, in which case our future will be threatened, or we can apply a more appropriate set of values that are relevant to an emergent society.

Experience tells us that human behavior can be modified, either toward constructive or destructive activity. This is what The Venus Project is all about – directing our technology and resources toward the positive, for the maximum benefit of people and planet and seeking out new ways of thinking and living that emphasize and celebrate the vast potential of the human spirit. We have the tools at hand to design – and build – a future that is worthy of the human potential. The Venus Project presents a bold, new direction for humanity that entails nothing less than the total redesign of our culture. What follows is not an attempt to predict what will be done – only what could be done. The responsibility for our future is in our hands, and depends on the decisions that we make today. The greatest resource that is available today is our own ingenuity.

While social reformers and think tanks formulate strategies that treat only superficial symptoms, without touching the basic social operation, The Venus Project approaches these problems somewhat differently. We feel we cannot eliminate these problems within the framework of the present political and monetary establishment. It would take too many years to accomplish any significant change. Most likely they would be watered down and thinned out to such an extent that the changes would be indistinguishable

The Venus Project advocates an alternative vision for a sustainable new world civilization unlike any social system that has gone before. Although this description is highly condensed, it is based upon years of study and experimental research by many, many people from many scientific disciplines.

The Venus Project proposes a fresh approach–one that is dedicated to human and environmental concerns. It is an attainable vision of a bright and better future, one that is appropriate to the times in which we live, and both practical and feasible for a positive future for all the world’s people.

The Venus Project calls for a straightforward approach to the redesign of a culture, in which the age-old inadequacies of war, poverty, hunger, debt, environmental degradation and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but totally unacceptable.

One of the basic premises of The Venus Project is that we work towards having all of the Earth’s resources as the common heritage of all the world’s people. Anything less will simply result in a continuation of the same catalog of problems inherent in the present system.

Throughout history, change has been slow. Successive groups of incompetent leaders have replaced those that preceded them, but the underlying social and economic problems remain because the basic value systems have gone unaltered. The problems we are faced with today cannot be solved politically or financially because they are highly technical in nature. There may not even be enough money available to pay for the required changes, but there are more than enough resources. This is why The Venus Project advocates the transition from a monetary-based society to the eventual realization of a resource-based global economy.

We realize to make the transition from our present culture, which is politically incompetent, scarcity-oriented and obsolete, to this new, more humane society will require a quantum leap in both thought and action.

An Obsolete Monetary System

The money-based system evolved centuries ago. All of the world’s economic systems – socialism, communism, fascism, and even the vaunted free enterprise system – perpetuate social stratification, elitism, nationalism, and racism, primarily based on economic disparity. As long as a social system uses money or barter, people and nations will seek to maintain the economic competitive edge or, if they cannot do so by means of commerce they will by military intervention. We still utilize these same outmoded methods.

Our current monetary system is not capable of providing a high standard of living for everyone, nor can it ensure the protection of the environment because the major motive is profit. Strategies such as downsizing and toxic dumping increase the profit margin. With the advent of automation, cybernation, artificial intelligence and out sourcing, there will be an ever-increasing replacement of people by machines. As a result, fewer people will be able to purchase goods and services even though our capability to produce an abundance will continue to exist.

Our present, outmoded political and economic systems are unable to apply the real benefits of today’s innovative technology to achieve the greatest good for all people, and to overcome the inequities imposed upon so many. Our technology is racing forward yet our social designs have remained relatively static. In other words cultural change has not kept pace with technological change. We now have the means to produce goods and services in abundance for everyone.

Unfortunately, today science and technology have been diverted from achieving the greatest good for reasons of self-interest and monetary gain through planned obsolescence sometimes referred to as the conscious withdrawal of efficiency. For example, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, whose function is presumed to be conducting research into ways of achieving higher crop yields per acre, actually pays farmers not to produce at full-capacity. The monetary system tends to hold back the application of these methods that we know would best serve the interests of people and the environment.

In a monetary system purchasing power is not related to our capacity to produce goods and services. For example, during a depression, there are computers and DVD’s on store shelves and automobiles in car lots, but most people do not have the purchasing power to buy them. The earth is still the same place; it is just the rules of the game that are obsolete and create strife, deprivation and unnecessary human suffering.

A monetary system developed years ago as a device to control human behavior in an environment with limited resources. Today money is used to regulate the economy not for the benefit of the general populace, but for those who control the financial wealth of nations.

Resource Based Economy

All social systems, regardless of political philosophy, religious beliefs, or social customs, ultimately depend upon natural resources, i.e. clean air and water, arable land and the necessary technology and personnel to maintain a high standard of living.

Simply stated, a Resource-Based Economy utilizes existing resources rather than money and provides an equitable method of distributing these resources in the most efficient manner for the entire population. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude.

Earth is abundant with plentiful resources; today our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technologies and can make available food, clothing, housing, medical care, a relevant educational system, and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy such as geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, etc. It is now possible to have everyone enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities that a prosperous civilization can provide. This can be accomplished through the intelligent and humane application of science and technology.

A Resource-Based Economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

To better understand the meaning of a Resource Based Economy consider this: if all the money in the world were destroyed, as long as topsoil, factories, and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we choose to build and fulfill any human need. It is not money that people need; rather, it is free access to the necessities of life. In a Resource Based Economy , money would be irrelevant. All that would be required are the resources and the manufacturing and distribution of the products.

When education and resources are made available to all people without a price tag, there would be no limit to the human potential. Although this is difficult to imagine, even the wealthiest person today would be far better off in a resource based society as proposed by The Venus Project. Today the middle classes live better than kings of times past. In a Resource Based Economy everyone would live better than the wealthiest of today.

In such a society, the measure of success would be based on the fulfillment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

The Choice Is Ours To Make

Human behavior is subject to the same laws as any other natural phenomenon. Our customs, behaviors, and values are byproducts of our culture. No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry, patriotism and hatred; these are all learned behavior patterns. If the environment is unaltered, similar behavior will reoccur.

Today, much of the technology needed to bring about a global Resource-Based Economy exists. If we choose to conform to the limitations of our present monetary-based economy, then it is likely that we will continue to live with its inevitable results: war, poverty, hunger, deprivation, crime, ignorance, stress, fear, and inequity. On the other hand, if we embrace the concept of a global Resource Based Economy , learn more about it, and share our understanding with our friends, this will help humanity evolve out of its present state.

The only limitations are those we impose upon ourselves. The Venus Project is neither utopian nor Orwellian, nor does it reflect the dreams of impractical idealists. Instead, it presents attainable goals requiring only the intelligent application of what we already know

Comment by spandrel
2008-12-17 12:11:02

Yours is the most detailed description of a resource-based economy that I’ve heard to date, including that provided by the Venus Project on their web site. That said, there is much that has not been said. Who is going to determine how the resources are apportioned amongst the world population? Someone has to program the supercomputer and maintain it. — Who is going to do all the gathering and shipping? Are we going to institute forced labor camps for this purpose? — Will it be so perfect that no one will have more than they need and no one less? If not (which I think is likely) are resource scrips going to become the new money? — Isn’t such a complex system at least as corruptible as our current one? In such a global system, there will be many points in the chain ripe for it.

Also everyone who promotes the Venus Project only mentions how people will want to continue painting (art, not walls), researching, and so on to satisfy themselves. No one ever mentions how people will want to continue doing the more mundane, less desirable tasks, such as data entry, garbage collection, sewer maintenance, and so on.

Also the wealthiest of today would not be better off in a resource-based economy. Multiple mansions, beach houses, private jets, top-grade medical care, and power. Are you saying we’ll all have these things and more in a resource-based economy? Not that I’d care if resources were more equitably ditributed around the world – god knows a lot of people are dying everyday because they are not. I’m just saying that the very wealthy might not agree peacefully.

Comment by tim
2008-12-17 15:08:02

“Also the wealthiest of today would not be better off in a resource-based economy…I’m just saying that the very wealthy might not agree peacefully.”

I would definitely agree with this. At first, those select few who are at the top of the ladder would not want to support something that would diminish their sense of power, but think of it this way: if all of the impoverished, lower class and even middle class people around the world (also, I am sure that there are a number of upper class people who would support such a movement regardless if they lost ‘power’ that they had, because they genuinely care for humanity) were to unite and jump start a VP-like society, the idea is that eventually as money became obsolete and the rich lost their grip of power, they would decide to join the movement on their own. Since a large majority of the world’s population is not apart of this elitist group, if money was abandoned, the power would finally be turned over to the majority. Once, the financially powerful lost their grip over the masses, they would find themselves on the same level, and in the same boat as everyone else. At this point, there would be no reason for them to want to resist the movement of equality, because they would eventually be the ones who were struggling. Sure they may have huge mansions, jets, cars, etc but if they can not buy the resources they need to maintain those things, and if the currently enforced sense of materialistic superiority was no longer relevant, they would have nothing to separate them from the masses. So once money was abolished, they would find the best life within the system – just like everyone else.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-18 02:51:22

You ask “Who is going to determine how the resources are apportioned amongst the world population?”
The answer is relatively simple. Obviously the first people to benefit will be the people who are the initial builders. It’s not something that’s just going to appear overnight but, when it’s built… they will come… and be most welcome. The resources will be easily available to anyone. Let me explain.
TODAY we have solar, wind and thermal power that, were it not supressed by power companies, oil companies, etc. CAN deliver ALL the clean, free energy that we can possibly use.
TODAY almost everyone has computers.
TODAY we have computer programmers that can produce software that will perform any task that we require.
TODAY we have robotics that are capable of duplicating ANY job that man can do and do it better.
TODAY we can have robotics, controlled by computer software and powered by sun, wind and/or thermal FREE AND CLEAN energy that can feed and water the chickens, milk the cows, produce, package, prepare and serve our meals, operate our vehicles without any more than a voice command to the on-board computer. EVERYTHING that you need to do today to sustain your life can be done without one single human being lifting a finger with the technology that is available TODAY.

You ask, “Someone has to program the supercomputer and maintain it. — Who is going to do all the gathering and shipping? Are we going to institute forced labor camps for this purpose? — Will it be so perfect that no one will have more than they need and no one less?
The answer is simple. Yes someone has to write the programs that will make all this possible, yes someone will have to build the robotics. It will be the same geeks (no offense intended) that LOVE to play with computers just like the painters who paint because they LOVE to paint. No slaves. The computers will be our slaves. And yes it will be so perfect that no one will have less than they need and, if you want more, push the button on the computer and the computer will command the robot to make it for you.
You don’t need money if all you have to do to get what you want/need is to press a button on your computer and the computer obeys.

You say,” Also everyone who promotes the Venus Project only mentions how people will want to continue painting (art, not walls), researching, and so on to satisfy themselves. No one ever mentions how people will want to continue doing the more mundane, less desirable tasks, such as data entry, garbage collection, sewer maintenance, and so on.
Again the answer is simple. The computers can and will do ALL the more mundane, less desirable tasks, such as data entry, garbage collection, sewer maintenance, and so on. Computers and robotics CAN do it all.

You say, “Also the wealthiest of today would not be better off in a resource-based economy. Multiple mansions, beach houses, private jets, top-grade medical care, and power. Are you saying we’ll all have these things and more in a resource-based economy?
The answer: Only if you WANT them. But in a resource-based economy even the wealthiest will eventually wake up.
In one of the posts here an analogy was made pertaining to human nature: If two babies are left alone with one ball each, one of the babies will want all the balls for himself. (and I’m paraphrasing here.) and, if left at this juncture, that statement could ALMOST stand. But lets take it another step. The first baby takes the ball from the second baby. The second baby cries for a moment but, already having been schooled in the process, pushes a button on a computer and the computer provides him with another ball. The first baby, seeing this, comes over and takes that ball away. The first baby, cause he knows how to get another ball, pushes the button and gets another ball. Sooner or later, baby number one is gonna see that; (1) It’s impossible for him to have ALL the balls and (2) He’s got a button of his own. He can have all the balls he wants just by pushing the button and his mind is reprogrammed.
Our human nature for collecting things stems from our caveman ancestors who, because they only ate what they could find, only ate about once a month (same reason that we have so much intestine… that, by the way, we’ve outgrown the need for) and it was important to survival to get as much as he could, whenever he could and from whoever he could… and the strongest survived. That thinking manifests itself today with mansions and jets. And it is that thinking that we must overcome. It is that thinking that manifests itself throughout this debate (and I’m not talking just about the debate between you and I but the whole thread.)
If you want a 15 bedroom mansion you can have it. Just push the button. You’re not gonna impress anyone with it ‘cause ANYONE can push the button. You don’t need to take mine so you can have yours. Just push the button.
Free, clean, energy, powering computers, which guide robotics to do everything that you need to do to exist. The technology is here TODAY
And a final thought;
Throughout this thread all I’m reading is how it won’t work. The system that we have in place doesn’t work. If all of you people think that the VP won’t work, in my humble opinion, why aren’t you offering up an alternative plan that WILL work instead of just knocking the ONLY alternative that may have a chance.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by StupdiCommies
2009-03-14 23:03:30

Oh yes, just hand wave everything away with “robots will do it for us!!!111″. Idiocy, the robots will need a degree of autonomy, that means greater intelligence, and eventually sentience. You’ve just enslaved another sentient race. However, they won’t deal with that for long, as by then humans will be weak and stupid, and it would be a simple matter for the robots to get rid of us.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-17 09:09:25

Let me give you a very personal example.

I am retired. I have a sufficient income to live very comfortably for the rest of my life without lifting a finger. I, personally, could sit on the couch and do nothing for the rest of my life and would want for nothing but…
I do work. Not as much as I did when I was scratching to pay the rent but I work nonetheless. I don’t work much but I work as much as I chose and I do it with glee, I do it for the pleasure that it brings me, I do it for the joy I feel in helping others. Finally, after the years of sacrifice, of deprivation, of slugging along under, what I felt were incompetent and un-appreciating bosses. Hating to get up in the morning to go to that awful job. I now wake at my leisure, enjoy the beauty of a sunny morning. Feeling just as contented as I could EVER hope to be and, if I chose, I do some work and my reward is pleasure. Pleasure… in doing something that I WANT to do. Pleasure… in doing something that helps my fellow man. It just makes me feel good. In fact, MOST of the money that I make in my endeavors, I use to help those around me that are less fortunate than I am. Why not? I have all that I need/want.
Can you seriously tell me that that is somehow bad? Subversive? Detrimental to myself or society?
That is what the venues project is trying to offer to the world and you don’t want it? What is wrong with your thinking? Why would ANYONE not want it to work? Why would ANYONE not want to give it a try?
It’s the greatest feeling in the world.

Comment by spandrel
2008-12-17 12:28:46

I don’t think anyone on here disagrees that it would be nice if the Venus Project could be made to work, without the degradation that’s accompanied every attempt at a collectivist economy in the past, leading to inevitable infringements of liberty/ self-determination/ mental and physical well-being. Also I don’t think anyone on here has claimed that taking pleasure in helping others is a bad thing either.

Nobody on here seems to like our current system. Everyone is just discussing whether it can be fixed or should be abandoned in favor of something like the Venus Project. I’m just filling you in since this is a long thread and it seemed you hadn’t read it all.

Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-18 03:06:30

My God man, in the system that we have in place we have the very degradation that you speak of, we have the infringements of liberty/self-determination/ mental and physical well-being that you speak of.
You say,” Everyone is just discussing whether it can be fixed or should be abandoned in favor of something like the Venus Project.” But you… NONE OF YOU… are offering,” something like the Venus Project.” NONE OF YOU are offering anything to take the place of the corrupt system that we have. All that you are saying is the Venus Project isn’t the answer. OK, I’ll go along with that. What IS the answer? And, if you don’t have that answer, how about we change the tenor of this discussion to how the Venus Project CAN work instead of just discussing how and why it won’t work. ANYTHING is better than what we’ve got.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by spandrel
2008-12-18 21:54:55

I think it’s much more reasonable to be concerned with improving the system we have. I’ve noted a few of the things I would like to see change in several posts. You and many others on here might not think it’s enough. I admit much of what I think would help probably requires circumventing the two-party system, and I have no idea how to go about doing that. Libertarians have been trying for years and they average maybe about 3% of the votes in national elections. They are the third largest party in the country and have been around I think about 50 years now.

But whatever support, grassroots movements, or public involvement that would be required to make changes within our system pales compared to what would have to occur to enact the changes the Venus Project requires. Also, I just do not agree that govt control in the US right now is anywhere near as severe as what would likely result in the Venus Project system. That could change, but I think there are good reasons for my opinion at the moment.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-19 01:40:31

If there’s anything hopeful about all the nonsense which has been happening for the last many years it is that people might just learn a few things.

Unfortunately all of the government fiddling will make that change harder to achieve because the law of natural consequences has been obliterated by bailouts and stimulus packages.

But maybe, just maybe, some sort of good common sense may emerge. In the short run we may end up hitting some kind of ugly wall. But in the long run we (the human race) will come out of this and look back on all of this as a good lesson.

Ron Paul for president?

 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-19 13:13:29

Spandrel, Alice,

Again I am compelled to disagree. As Patrick Henry said,” I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”
I am 67 years old and (you’ll have to trust me on this one unless you’re old too) I have spent many, MANY years knowing a freedom that many of you have never known or experienced and, therefore CANNOT UNDERSTAND, CANNOT COMRPEHEND. Please don’t think that I am considering you stupid or uninformed but… Let me give you an example that may illustrate what I’m trying to convey:
As children we grow up eager to be adults, chomping at the bit to experience the freedom that age 21 brings. But most of us grow in ignorance of what that will entail because we have never experienced that freedom and don’t UNDERSTAND yet that, with that freedom comes many responsibilities that, again, many of us are unprepared for. Paying our own rent, providing for the food that has always just been there when we wanted it, buying our own car along with the maintenance, insurance etc. that goes with it. Getting a job AND KEEPING IT even when we didn’t like it… ‘cause it paid for those things that had always been provided for us as children…. And the freedom of turning into an adult turns to drudgery and we long for the carefree days of childhood once again.
If you have never known the freedom that I, as an older human being, have experienced, you CANNOT recognize your own slavery and you won’t long for the freedoms that only one who has known them cries for.
Our country WAS a wonderful, free country… once upon a time. It is far from that now. The government WHICH WE CREATED to serve us has become our master. The system that the elite have created by bastardizing OUR Constitution has destroyed much of our freedoms and is WELL on it’s way to destroying ALL of it. This system CANNOT BE FIXED.
, again, to quote Patrick Henry,”…it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

“The law has been perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
“Life Is a Gift from God (or whomever you refer to as a supreme power. I, for the sake of brevity will use this term.)
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production–in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
What Is Law ?
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right–from God–to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend — even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.”

You say, “Also, I just do not agree that govt control in the US right now is anywhere near as severe as what would likely result in the Venus Project system.” And I say; the government has WAY more control than that which I grew up with and is lusting for more EVERY DAY. The Venus Project offers freedom not slavery. With the Venus Project on one is in control… but YOU. The only law you would be required to obey… DO NO HARM.
Our (sorry, make that THEIR) Federal Reserve System robs us of our Life, our Liberty, our Property every time that they print into existence… more paper money.

There is only one cause of inflation (legalized theft.). That is the creation of wealth by printing it. Everything else is just a symptom of the disease.
Me

Amchel Rothchild said,” Give me control of a Nations economy and I care not who make the laws.”
“If the American people ever allow private banks (the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned bank) to control the issue of currency (paper money), first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered.”
Thomas Jefferson
(DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR TO ANYONE???)
THIS SYSTEM CANNOT BE FIXED!!! OUR politicians won’t fix it. They ain’t OURS anymore. They are bought and paid for by the Corporations that borrow “money” into existence and spend it to buy ALL politicians. I repeat ALL politicians. IT CAN’T BE FIXED!!!
The Venus Project is the closest thing I have EVER seen that offers a ray of sunshine, of hope for any future.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-19 16:33:33

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

“Our country WAS a wonderful, free country… once upon a time. It is far from that now.”

Nice post. Jan and I was agreeing with what you said until I read the above. It is always easier to find things to disagree with but since these are in your premise I must say that I agree with neither.

In my opinion, the only thing which existed before man’s laws is life. And the “rights” to liberty and property only exist because of man’s laws. John Locke believed in God. I do not. And before civilization and the laws which accompanied it rose out of the brutality of man in nature, no one had any rights….only might.

As laws emerged, rights then were accorded to monarchies, and made their way through the ages down to the common man.

Similiarly, this country was never more wonderful and free than it is now. I know a lot of people like to look at “the good old days” but those same good days were bad days for someone else.

I have never read such a litany of complaints as I have since I started participating in this thread. People keep talking about “the elite” or “the system”. I just don’t happen to agree that things are SO CORRUPT. Surely, I am not please with a lot of what is going on, but this is a good system and good country and I believe that this is one of those big bumps in the road that comes along every so often in history. It’s a correction and I think we will learn from it.

Get a grip people and quit being so hysterical.

 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-19 23:55:00

Well good for you Alice. Whatever else you do DON’T study any history. And, when your world caves in around you, you can say you heard it here first… And if, by an act of GOD (which is exactly what it would take.) you manage to survive… ya got the last laugh.
But I would STRONGLY suggest that you keep the address of the Venus Project in the back of your purse.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-20 12:48:43

Well, Jan, I guess when you can’t fill up a post with lifted material, you tend to resort to insults.

Bravo!

 
Comment by tim
2008-12-20 16:09:39

“you tend to resort to insults.”

yes Alice, you are the one true exception to this aren’t you?

 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-20 23:17:54

I wasn’t going to respond to you at all because, frankly, I feel that you have such a lack of understanding that I just didn’t want to waste my time but… Well, here goes…

And yes it’s more “lifted” material.. but why rewrite what has been said so eloquently by men who were so much more intelligent than me?

Our Founding Fathers put it this way:

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain, inalienable Rights. That among these Rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS governments are instituted among men. Deriving their JUST powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever ANY form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and form a new government: laying it’s foundation on such principles and organizing it’s powers in such manner, as to them, seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

In 1775 they wrote this to King George in a treatise called, “Declaration of the causes and necessity of taking up arms”

If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them has been granted to that body. But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end.

Rights are NOT passed down from some monarch that kept them in his pocket and suddenly became benevolent. That’s privileges that are handed down. Rights belong to us merely because we exist and supercede all human legislation. And we the people create governments to insure that those Rights are protected. Not the other way around. And this is true whether you believe in some kind of supreme being… or not.

You say, “As laws emerged, rights then were accorded to monarchies, and made their way through the ages down to the common man.

Just who was it that “accorded” these rights to monarchies. It couldn’t have been God… you don’t believe in God. Are monarch’s. just born with ‘em?

Your remarks hold no logic and certainly show no signs that you have studied any history. What am I to think?

Here’s some more that you should be aware of:

Our Country, after the Revolution, and before the Constitution, was, as it is now, on the brink of failure due largely to the use of a paper medium of exchange

On Monday, August 27, 1787, in Convention it was decided by a vote of 9 to 2 to eliminate paper money from EVER becoming a medium of exchange in the United States due to the “pestilent effects” of paper money.
And they wrote Art I. Sec. 8., and Art I. Sec. 10 with the intent to, as they put it,” shut and bar the door against paper money”.

James Madison, writing in the Federalist Papers #44 uses almost the same words.

The Federalist Papers, for your information, were a series of letters written and published in the New York Times in an effort to “sell” the Constitution to the People.

In every single State, as the People ratified the Constitution, had some similar statement that said, in effect,. “That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and the Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security…That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve.”

RIGHTS do NOT come from laws. Laws are designed as protection for Rights.
Now do you understand?

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-21 12:26:25

So Jan, Point has asked us to continue long discussions on the forum page. I did check out that feature, but it isn’t yet designed to work with this conversation. I am sorry to be disregarding the request of our host, but I just couldn’t let some of your comments stand.

As far as the issue of whether rights exist independent of laws, I have had very lengthy discussions about this with people who feel as you do, however my contention remains that without laws there are no rights. Rights exist as an agreement between civilized persons. I don’t think I ever said that rights come from laws, but they certainly don’t exist without laws.

I do not believe there is such a thing as inherent rights, even though the beloved founders stated that in our constitution.
They were reiterating the thoughts of Locke and other enlightenment thinkers. Taken in context, this was a huge and revolutionary step. Until then, “God” didn’t really like people very much. And living on earth had little to do with “happiness”. It was during the enlightenment that ideas about God changed radically and God became much more benevolent. Hell, he even gave people rights!

This change in concept was also quite pragmatic for those with thoughts of democracy. No longer did “rights” exist only in the hands of rulers, they existed for everyone, because all men were created equal (white, landowning men, that is).

And as far as this statement…
“Our Country, after the Revolution, and before the Constitution, was, as it is now, on the brink of failure due largely to the use of a paper medium of exchange”.

So the fact that we had just fought a war with England and owed the French a ton of money had nothing to do with it?

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-21 12:37:15

just so you won’t nail me on this….”life, liberty and the pursuit…’ is in the Declaration, not the Constitution.

And the Federalist Papers were not so much an attempt to “sell” the constitution to the people as an expostion of the ideas of the Federalists who were in favor of a strong central government as opposed to the Anti-Federalists who believed that the proposed constitution was written by aristocrats and would lead to aristocratic tyranny.

 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-21 15:16:02

Alice I gotta take back MOST of what I was thinkin’ about you. You apparently are more well read than you, at first, appeared to be. Please accept my apology.

A side note: I too am a long time fan and supporter of Ron Paul.

On to other things.

Allow me to put forth a hypothetical situation:

You are on an island. It has more than sufficient natural resources to sustain your life and you are all alone on this island.
Can you name one thing that you wouldn’t have the Right to do? The answer is obviously that you could do whatever your mind could conceive and your innate abilities allowed you to do even if it were to your detriment.. Can you find fault in this logic?
Now add a second person to the equation. Logic tells me that the ONLY restriction on your Rights would now be that you respect the equal Rights of the other party.
Add 300,000,000 people and the same rule still applies. No one person in that extended society would have any Right that any other person didn’t equally enjoy.
The difference is that, with 300,000,000 people we would obviously have to spell it out for some of them and LAWS would come into existence.
First came the Rights by virtue of the fact that you live. Then the Laws; so that you were informed as to how your Rights must be restricted for the benefit of all.

You say, “I don’t think I ever said that rights come from laws, but they certainly don’t exist without laws.”
I have to ask the question… Where do Rights come from? My answer; They come merely from the fact that I exist.

Next point:

You ask, “So the fact that we had just fought a war with England and owed the French a ton of money had nothing to do with it?
As far as I know… No. But I’d be willing to change my beliefs if you would offer something to substantiate your statement. What did the form of our medium of exchange have to do with whether or not we owed money to France?

Next point:

“just so you won’t nail me on this….”life, liberty and the pursuit…’ is in the Declaration, not the Constitution.

I agree and I don’t think that I claimed that.

Next point:

“And the Federalist Papers were not so much an attempt to “sell” the constitution to the people as an expostion of the ideas of the Federalists who were in favor of a strong central government as opposed to the Anti-Federalists who believed that the proposed constitution was written by aristocrats and would lead to aristocratic tyranny.”

Come on Alice I know you’re more intelligent than that.

The Federalists were trying to “sell” the Constitution to a swing state that wasn’t that enthusiastic about it and the Anti-Federalists were trying to “sell” the idea that it wasn’t a good idea. Why else write ‘em? Just to fill space in a newspaper?

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-21 15:36:53

I think the discussion which took place in the Federalist papers was part of the attempt to shape and design something which had never existed before, except in ancient Greece and certainly that was not a blueprint for what was being imagined in the late 1770s.

I’m not sure what swing state you are refering to, but there was a lot of opposition to the drafted constitution. One of the big factions (something that Madison railed against) was the group of slave states which didn’t want any of their “rights” played around with.

And I didn’t say they weren’t trying to sell. I only said that that was a simplified mischaracterization of the debate. I don’t know how much the people had to do with the ratification of the constitution except that they were represented by those who would ultimately vote on it. And as happens to this day, those people were influenced by much more than the will of the people.

I will look into the history of the debt which existed after the revolution and get back to you.

As for your opinion of me. I don’t think I ever appear to be less than well read. I make statements which I have considered and thought about for a long time. Sometimes they are meant to provoke discussion so they may be stated in simple terms but I believe I can always back up what I have to say.

I also want to write more about “rights”, but my daughter is coming home for Christmas and I have to clean the house.

More later.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-21 19:19:45

As far as your thought experiment about rights goes, I’m not sure I can do much with it. But as far as it goes….I suppose rights wouldn’t have any relevance with one person, but when there is more than one person, it would depend on the personalities of those two. If one were stronger, that one would be able to take whatever that one wanted. The rights of the other would have no relevance and I might go so far as to say they did not exist because of that irrelevance.

However, if the two decided upon some laws, perhaps they might then have rights, but in that scenario, if there was no way to enforce those rights, again they would have no relevance.

I think at the end of all this I would have to say that rights and the laws to enforce/protect them go hand in hand.

For example, there were times in history(most of it) when the common man had no right to property. There were only the rights of kings. And they were definitely enforced. Rights are only a mental construct unless there is the means to enforce them.

Back to you

 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-21 20:41:21

I think the discussion which took place in the Federalist papers was part of the attempt to shape and design something which had never existed before, except in ancient Greece and certainly that was not a blueprint for what was being imagined in the late 1770s.
No again.

The attempt to shape and design something which had never existed before happened during the Convention. The Federalist Papers were written to explain it and “sell” it to New York (without which the Constitution would not have been ratified.)

You say, “I don’t know how much the people had to do with the ratification of the constitution except that they were represented by those who would ultimately vote on it”

Sorry Alice wrong again. The people had EVERYTHING to do with the ratification. The Constitution of the United States was ratified directly by the people at large NOT the legislatures.
I have copies of the LETTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, DATED September 17, 1787, TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, TRANSMITTING THE CONSTITUTION. I have the RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION SUBMITTING THE CONSTITUTION TO CONGRESS, SETPEMBER 17, 1787 which state, in pertinent part, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof… I have the RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1787 SUBMITTING THE CONSTITUTION TO THE SEVERAL STATES with instructions … that the same be transmitted to the several legislatures in Order to be submitted to a convention of Delegates chosen in each state by the people. I have the CIRCULAR LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF CONGRESS, DATED SEPTEMBER 28. 1787, TRANSMITTING COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION TO THE SEVERAL GOVERNORS in order that it may be submitted to a Convention of Delegates chosen in Your State by the people of the State… And I have a copy of the RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE SEVERAL STATES by State and by date of individual state ratification and EVERY STATE had words very similar to the following in their ratification. “We the Deputies of the People (NOT the legislatures of the States)… That there are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social compact cannot deprive or divest their posterity… That all power is naturally vested in and consequently derived from the people:

You said, “I will look into the history of the debt which existed after the revolution and get back to you.”

I strongly suggest that you pick up a copy of Roger Sherman’s “A Caveat Against Injustice or an Inquiry into the evils of a fluctuation medium of exchange.”
Roger Sherman, for you information, was the ONLY founding father to sign all four of our most precious political documents-The Continental Association of 1774, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and The United States Constitution
And he was MOST instrumental in the construction and implementation of Art. I Sec. 8 and 10 of the Constitution (these are the two Articles in the Constitution that forbid the use of a paper medium of exchange in the United States.).

Have a good holiday. I’m sure I’ll hear from you.
Jan

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-21 22:35:09

“The people had EVERYTHING to do with the ratification. The Constitution of the United States was ratified directly by the people at large NOT the legislatures.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “at large”, but I do know that the people elected delegates to vote on ratification. And now that I have read up on it, I found that out of the 4 million citizens at the time, only 150,000 voted for those delegates.

Not only that but the constitution was in effect before New York ratified it.

Yeah, I had to pull out my political science book to find this stuff

I do stand corrected that the Federalist papers were not part of the designing of our democracy. However, the constitution was really not complete until the Bill of Rights was added. Since it was Madison who wrote these ammendments and he was an author of the Federalist papers, I can’t help but feel they were intimately entwined.

The Federalist papers and the constitution, I mean.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-21 22:37:33

and as far as paper money….

it’s a done deal, get over it.

 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-22 16:24:37

Alice, this is my last post to you. I’m outta here. I REALLY don’t want to take the time to explain EVERYTHING to you. Especially when you don’t back up your “opinions” with anything. As an example, you said something about the paper money somehow being tied to the fact that we owed France “a shit load of money”. I don’t know where you got the idea but I’ve never found ANYTHING that linked the two.
But I am going to answer this one last post.
“The people had EVERYTHING to do with the ratification. The Constitution of the United States was ratified directly by the people at large NOT the legislatures.”
“I’m not sure what you mean by “at large”, but I do know that the people elected delegates to vote on ratification. And now that I have read up on it, I found that out of the 4 million citizens at the time, only 150,000 voted for those delegates.”
I each State, in each County, the People chose 3 delegates from their County to attend a State Convention to judge and either reject or approve the Constitution.
“Not only that but the constitution was in effect before New York ratified it.”
Yes, but NOT before the Federalist Papers were written. The Federalist Papers were MOST instrumental in the NY ratification and, at the TIME the Federalist Papers were written, it was felt that NY WAS important for ratification.
Yeah, I had to pull out my political science book to find this stuff
“I do stand corrected that the Federalist papers were not part of the designing of our democracy. However, the constitution was really not complete until the Bill of Rights was added. Since it was Madison who wrote these amendments and he was an author of the Federalist papers, I can’t help but feel they were intimately entwined.”
First, although I personally agree that it was not complete without the Bill of Rights, some, rightly so, felt that, as a Bill of Rights was something that only a King would be compelled to sign, it was not only unnecessary but might even lead, as it did, to this new Government to assume powers that were never given to it… as they have done.
And, the States recommended 12 amendments to the Congress (including the 10 that were adopted) and James Madison only worked on them as part of his duties as a representative.
And, the Federalist Papers were written by three people; James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
The Federalist papers and the constitution, I mean.

Comment by alice
2008-12-21 22:37:33
and as far as paper money….
it’s a done deal, get over it.
I got the impression that you were a supporter of Ron Paul? I’ve got to wonder how could you be. Ron Paul is probably the MOST outspoken critic of our money system and chief advocate of a sound money system. You’ve really lost me sister.

 
Comment by alice
2008-12-22 20:50:57

Jan, words cannot express how I feel about the news that you will no longer be addressing me in your posts, but “glee” comes close.

You are a confused, silly man.

 
 
 
 
Comment by alice
2008-12-17 14:12:26

“Yours is the most detailed description of a resource-based economy that I’ve heard to date, including that provided by the Venus Project on their web site.”

actually I think he got it off their website.

“Nobody on here seems to like our current system.”

Our system exists largely by agreement of those who participate in it, especially since we are the freest people who have ever trod the planet. It’s not perfect and it can be better, but it is the way it is because we have agreed to let it be that way.

It’s evolution, man!

Comment by tim
2008-12-17 15:17:10

“Our system exists largely by agreement of those who participate in it, especially since we are the freest people who have ever trod the planet. It’s not perfect and it can be better, but it is the way it is because we have agreed to let it be that way.”

Come on alice, I expect more from you.

We all know that a vast majority of people who partake in such a system, do so in ignorance of how completely imbalanced and unfair it is. Sure people understand that richer people have it better, but it is obvious that they do not realize the severity of the situation. Most people don’t have the slightest clue how badly they are being manipulated and raped on a daily basis by the governments, mass media, advertisements, the system as a whole, etc. So do not play the ‘we are all informed and happily choose to be apart of it card’, because that is bs and everyone knows that.

Plus, people are only as free as their income allows. If you want to argue against that, feel free, but I doubt you will rally much support.

 
Comment by spandrel
2008-12-17 16:26:58

Hmm. He may have consolidated the text from different pages of the web site. It did sound familiar, but I’m not going back to check (once was enough) and my questions are still not answered. Everyone is tossing the phrase “resource-based economy” around like it’s got some real-world implementation scheme behind it.

“We have agreed to let it be that way.” I’ve paraphrased that statement in several other posts I’ve made. And then Tim and I debate the extent of mass-manipulation on the part of the media. But I was just posting for the benefit of the previous poster who had not seemed to look at much in between Point’s article and the bottom of this very long page. I am not looking to beat any more dead horses. Poor things.

Point opened a new thread for a discussion of the fed if anyone’s interested. I thought the video link was worth the 45 minutes:
http://www.pointbite.com/2008/09/24/the-creature-from-jekyll-island

 
 
Comment by alice
2008-12-17 16:02:24

So glad you have high expectations of me, Tim.

Maybe it’s because people “have no idea” that “things are the way they are”.
But “things” do change once people get a clue. There are countless examples of this, but one very dramatic and recent one is the civil rights movement in the 1960′s. People finally did something about the horrible conditions black people were being subjected to.

And it didn’t take a whole different society to make those changes. People worked with what they had.

And BTW, I don’t expect or need support for my ideas.

Comment by spandrel
2008-12-17 16:37:10

Tim, so you agree with the last bit of my post and say they’ll be forced to fit in. Ok. But what about all the questions surrounding the resource-based economy? Everybody keeps tossing that around without knowing how it could be implemented or maintained. That’s a lot of figuring to do. The Venus Project describes little facets of it without bothering about the necessary details. Do you honestly believe that could be made to work? If you do, how? Please lay it out. God knows no one else is.

Comment by tim
2008-12-17 19:15:45

Spandrel,

Thanks for the feedback.

I – like you – have many questions too. I have to admit don’t know what all the details are, or how every facet will dealt with. But then again, I have not exactly devoted myself to figuring it out either. I agree though, it seems difficult to imagine such a dramatic change at times. But that just shows that it would have to be a process that took time. I don’t think anyone is claiming it would be an over night transformation. Also, I would like to emphasize that everyone refers to it as a Utopia (not saying you specifically necessarily, but in general), and I think that is a large misunderstanding. It would have its flaws, no question. Anything created by man is bound to have its flaws, as everything we create is a reflection of our abilities which are in some way or another limited an imperfect. Surely, at least in the beginning, there would be a need for physical labor of some sorts. Maybe this could be equally distributed though among citizens. For example, maybe all people have to work a certain amount of manual labor hours each year for a certain amount of years equally, and those hours can be decided by the population as a whole (just a very rough suggestion off the top of my head). I know this is putting a restriction on people, but it seems like a small price to pay for the benefits reaped.

I guess, the reason why I support these types of ideas is because I simply feel that the current situation we are in is not working, and I don’t think it will ever really evolve unless a monumental change happens. I like to be optimistic about the idea, becuase to me it see much more promising than anything that has been seriously attempted, and at the very least, it is based off equally providing all human beings with the resources they need to achieve happiness and live peacefully – something I strongly believe in.

So right now I don’t have all the answers, sorry. But maybe if we all worked together in an effort to unite all of the positives and proactive ideas we have, we can figure out a better approach cohesively.

Thanks for you time.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-18 03:10:59

Span,
see my last two posts.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by tim
2008-12-17 18:24:46

Hey Alice,

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to get across. If you are just trying to emphasize the point that for anything to change, people must first be informed, I complete agree. But, that seems to go against what you were initially saying about how we choose to keep the current system, because as I stated before, most people are in fact not properly informed. So how will change ever arise if people remain as informed as they are now?… Again, I am not quite sure what you were getting at – whether you are saying the system should be changed, or not – so I apologize.

I also would like to say one more thing. I believe that as a result of the civil rights movement and what preceded it, our society did change to a very large extent. However, that change was still much much smaller than what would be need for the type of change anything VP related would require. Because lets not forget, racism still exists all across the country, as well as the world. I would consider the change from the civil rights movement to be more of a surface change than anything else. Many people’s values and opinions deep down didn’t change, but they simply do not express them to the serve degree that they used to. Don’t get me wrong, I think there are a lot less people who are racist ratio wise as there were 100 years ago, but I think that there is still a huge number of people who still are privately. Consider it an ‘underground racist movement’ if you will.

But for real change that is far reaching, people core beliefs need to progress, and be passed down genuinely from generation to generation.

 
 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-19 14:12:52

OK. I’ll explain it AGAIN.

TODAY we have solar, wind and thermal power that, were it not suppressed by power companies, oil companies, etc. CAN deliver ALL the clean, free energy that we can possibly use.
TODAY almost everyone has computers.
TODAY we have computer programmers that can produce software that will perform any task that we require.
TODAY we have robotics that are capable of duplicating ANY job that man can do and do it better.
TODAY we can have robotics, controlled by computer software and powered by sun, wind and/or thermal FREE AND CLEAN energy that can feed and water the chickens, milk the cows, produce, package, prepare and serve our meals, operate our vehicles without any more than a voice command to the on-board computer. EVERYTHING that you need to do today to sustain your life can be done without one single human being lifting a finger with the technology that is available TODAY.
You ask, “Someone has to program the supercomputer and maintain it. — Who is going to do all the gathering and shipping? Are we going to institute forced labor camps for this purpose? — Will it be so perfect that no one will have more than they need and no one less?
The answer is simple. Yes someone has to write the programs that will make all this possible, yes someone will have to build the robotics. It will be the same geeks (no offense intended) that LOVE to play with computers just like the painters who paint because they LOVE to paint. No slaves. It will be the geeks that WANT the project to happen that will build the robots and program the computers. The computers will be our slaves. And yes it will be so perfect that no one will have less than they need and, if you want more, push the button on the computer and the computer will command the robot to make it for you.
You don’t need money if all you have to do to get what you want/need is to press a button on your computer and the computer obeys.
You say,” Also everyone who promotes the Venus Project only mentions how people will want to continue painting (art, not walls), researching, and so on to satisfy themselves. No one ever mentions how people will want to continue doing the more mundane, less desirable tasks, such as data entry, garbage collection, sewer maintenance, and so on.
Again the answer is simple. The computers can and will do ALL the more mundane, less desirable tasks, such as garbage collection, sewer maintenance, and so on. Computers and robotics CAN do it all.
You say, “Also the wealthiest of today would not be better off in a resource-based economy. Multiple mansions, beach houses, private jets, top-grade medical care, and power. Are you saying we’ll all have these things and more in a resource-based economy?
The answer: Only if you WANT them. But in a resource-based economy even the wealthiest will eventually wake up and realize that they can’t have it all because everyone has access to every resource that they have and can create for themselves anything their mind can conceive… too!
If you want a 15 bedroom mansion you can have it. Just push the button. You’re not gonna impress anyone with it ‘cause ANYONE can push the button. You don’t need to take mine so you can have yours. Just push the button.
Free, clean, energy, powering computers, which guide robotics to do everything that you need to do to exist. The technology is here TODAY
Tim brought out a very interesting point (THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, Tim) that illustrates your future when the Venus Project is implemented.
“Sparta…famously did not have money so that the citizens would not be corrupted…the Spartans did not need money to exchange goods because they had everything in abundance produced in their allocated plots by the Helots ( the enslaved population of the neighbouring Messinia). Whenever the Helots were freed by the Thebans, the Spartan system collapsed.”
Read that paragraph again. Now read it again. When the Venus Project is implemented, computers and robots will take the place of the Helot slaves. History itself has proven that the Venus Project will work. the Spartans did not need money to exchange goods because they had everything in abundance. It was when their slaves were freed that Sparta collapsed. Who is gonna free our computers? Our robots? And to what purpose.
How simple does it have to be to be understood?
You ask, “Surely, at least in the beginning, there would be a need for physical labor of some sorts. Maybe this could be equally distributed though among citizens. For example, maybe all people have to work a certain amount of manual labor hours each year for a certain amount of years equally, and those hours can be decided by the population as a whole (just a very rough suggestion off the top of my head).”
A good guess but the answer is so much simpler; The physical labor would be performed by the very people who are trying to get this thing off the ground. The people who WANT IT will perform the physical labor, the people who WANT IT will program the computers, the people who WANT IT will build the robots. And when the Beta is complete (or far enough along that it’s self-sustaining) you can come on board. THEY are building it FOR YOU!

Comment by alice
2008-12-19 17:09:37

“The physical labor would be performed by the very people who are trying to get this thing off the ground. The people who WANT IT will perform the physical labor, the people who WANT IT will program the computers, the people who WANT IT will build the robots. And when the Beta is complete (or far enough along that it’s self-sustaining) you can come on board. THEY are building it FOR YOU!”

as E.O. Wilson said, “nice idea, wrong species”

Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-19 20:28:18

Well, Alice, I guess that mankind has no hope and we should all just commit suiside or sit by the side of the road and wait to die.
I don’t see any other plans being offered and the system that we have now is on the brink of complete failure.
Again, we seem to have a world FULL of people willing to tell us what WON’T work. Tell us what will. What do you suggest?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by alice
2008-12-20 12:44:38

I know you will find this amazing, but I think what we have right now works…..and works, not perfectly, but well.

I have written several posts talking about the advancements in things like food production and health that we take for granted and then complain about. Western civilization with it’s allowance for free thought and free markets has allowed these things to emerge from the chaotic mess called humanity.

And as I have written, I am not pleased with a lot of what has gone on in the past, say, ten years. My blood boils when I think of Enron, in my estimation an absolutely useless hunk of junk, being able to make millions of dollars and then screw its employees all in the name of “capitalism”.

So I agree things need to change.

But being a conservative, I am wary of change because of unintended consequences. So all the plans to “regulate” while they sound good, will eventually lead to another round of problems.

But this is the landscape of human existence. We try and we fail and we advance eventually. It would be my fondest hope that what has occured of late will inspire all of us to take the virtues of honesty, integrity and fairness more seriously. Because in the end things work better that way.

 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-20 23:22:13

Ain’t gonna happen Alice. Not as long as we have a paper medium of exchange. Our Forefathers understood (see my last answer to your previous post.)

 
 
 
 
Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-19 15:24:09

Well look what I found on the internet today. Maybe this will help the sceptics understand…

The robots are not so much coming; they have arrived. But instead of dominating humanity with superior logic and strength, they threaten to create an underclass of people who are left without human contact.

The rise of robots in the home, in the workplace and in warfare needs to be supervised and controlled by ethical guidelines which limit how they can be used in sensitive scenarios such as baby-sitting, caring for the elderly, and combat, a leading scientist warns today.

Sales of professional and personal service robots worldwide were estimated to have reached about 5.5 million this year – and are expected to more than double to 11.5 million by 2011 – yet there is little or no control over how these machines are used. Some help busy professionals entertain children; other machines feed and bathe the elderly and incapacitated.

Professor Noel Sharkey, an expert on artificial intelligence based at the University of Sheffield, warns that robots are being introduced to potentially sensitive situations that could lead to isolation and lack of human contact, because of the tendency to leave robots alone with their charges for long periods.

“We need to look at guidelines for a cut-off so we have a limit to the contact with robots,” Professor Sharkey said. “Some robots designed to look after children now are so safe that parents can leave their children with them for hours, or even days.”

More than a dozen companies based in Japan and South Korea manufacture robot “companions” and carers for children. For example, NEC has tested its cute-looking personal robot PaPeRo on children: the device lives at home with a family, recognises their faces, can mimic their behaviour and be programmed to tell jokes, all the while exploring the house. Many robots are designed as toys, but they can also take on childcare roles by monitoring the movements of a child and communicating with a parent in another room, or even another building, through wireless computer connection or mobile phone.

“Research into service robots has demonstrated a close bonding and attachment by children, who, in most cases, prefer a robot to a teddy bear,” Professor Sharkey said. “Short-term exposure can provide an enjoyable and entertaining experience that creates interest and curiosity. But because of the physical safety that robot minders provide, children could be left without human contact for many hours a day or perhaps several days, and the possible psychological impact of the varying degrees of social isolation on development is unknown.” Less playful robots are being developed to look after elderly people. Secom makes a computer called My Spoon which helps disabled people to eat food from a table. Sanyo has built an electric bathtub robot that automatically washes and rinses someone suffering from movement disability.

“At the other end of the age spectrum [to child care], the relative increase in many countries in the population of the elderly relative to available younger care-givers has spurred the development of elder-care robots,” Professor Sharkey said.

“These robots can help the elderly to maintain independence in their own homes, but their presence could lead to the risk of leaving the elderly in the exclusive care of machines without sufficient human contact. The elderly need the human contact that is often provided only by caregivers and people performing day-to-day tasks for them.”

In the journal Science, Professor Sharkey calls for ethical guidelines to cover all aspects of robotic technology, not just in the home and workplace, but also on the battlefield, where lethal robots such as the missile-armed Predator drones used in Iraq and Afghanistan are already deployed with lethal effect. The US Future Combat Systems project aims to use robots as “force multipliers”, with a single soldier initiating large-scale ground and aerial attacks by a robot droid army. “Robots for care and for war represent just two of many ethically problematic areas that will soon arise from the rapid increase and spreading diversity of robotics applications,” Professor Sharkey said. “Scientists and engineers working in robotics must be mindful of the potential dangers of their work, and public and international discussion is vital in order to set policy guidelines for ethical and safe application before the guidelines set themselves.”

The call for controls over robots goes back to the 1940s when the science-fiction author Isaac Asimov drew up his famous three laws of robotics. The first rule stated that robots must not harm people; the second that they must obey the commands of people provided they does not conflict with the first law; and the third law was that robots must attempt to avoid harming themselves provided this was not in conflict with the two other laws.

Asimov wrote a collection of science fiction stories called I, Robot which exploited the issue of machines and morality. He wanted to counter the long history of fictional accounts of dangerous automatons – from the Jewish Golem to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein – and used his three laws as a literary device to exploit the ethical issues arising from the human interaction with non-human, intelligent beings. But late 20th-century predictions about the rise of machines endowed with superior artificial intelligence have not been realised, although robot scientists have given their mechanical protégés quasi-intelligent traits such as simple speech recognition, emotional expression and face recognition.

Professor Starkey believes that even dumb robots need to be controlled. “I’m not suggesting like Asimov to put ethical rules into robots, but to just to have guidelines on how robots are used,” he said. “Current robots are not bright enough even to be called stupid. If I even thought they would be superior in intelligence, I would not have these concerns. They are dumb machines not much brighter than the average washing machine, and that’s the problem.”

Isaac Asimov: The three laws of robotics
The science fiction author Isaac Asimov, who died in 1992, coined the phrase “robotics” to describe the study of robots. In 1940, Asimov drew up his three laws of robotics, partly as a literary device to exploit the ethical issues arising from the interaction with intelligent machines.

* First Law: a robot must not harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to be harmed.

* Second Law: a robot must obey the commands of human beings, except where the orders conflict with the first law.

* Third Law: a robot must protect its own existence so long as this does not conflict with the first two laws.

Later on, Asimov amended the laws by adding two more. The “zeroth” law stated that a robot must not harm humanity, which deals with the ethical problem arising from following the first law but in the process putting other human beings at risk.

Asimov also added a final “law of procreation” stating that robots must not make other robots that do not follow the laws of robotics.

 
Comment by max
2008-12-22 10:13:03

My boss used to give us free sodas and water. Employees would get a drink, open it, take a few sips and set it down. When they were ready for another drink they would get a new one, take a drink and set it down. At the end of the day we would have a trash can full of three quarter full drink bottles.

My boss now charges 25cents for drinks. People write their initials on the cap, tear off labels, and identify their drinks in various other ways. Now the trash can is full of empty bottles. The price system has many purposes.

 
Comment by Lenny
2008-12-23 06:13:27

I was just reading some of the comments at the top of the page and there was one from the author that said he wouldn’t want a person of higher power deciding how many bananas he could have. I don’t think the movie said anything about regulating how much people could have or use, but that the creation of this new society would eliminate peoples greed and desire to have more. The transformation wouldn’t just be to our physical society (buildings, transportation,etc) but a complete change in the way we act as humans. Society would be so radically different that people could be brought up and the idea of having the most bananas or being materialistic wouldn’t even be part of how they think. Whether this could ever happen we will have to see. Its hard to believe it could be with the state of humanity right now. The authors point about people finding other things to fight about is something that also crossed my mind. The venus project may not be the answer but its the fact people are starting to seriously think about the transformation of society to make it better that matters. You have to admit there are serious problems with the way the world works now and there has to be a better way. Hopefully one day we will achieve a perfect society. Love and peace to all!

Comment by Jan paulson
2008-12-23 09:08:41

Ah, a voice of reason in this sea of madness. Yes there MIGHT be other, unforseen problems that crop up. But what we have now IS failing and, if we don’t find another way, we’re all goin’ down with the ship.

 
 
Comment by Thomas S.
2008-12-23 09:28:48

You’ve only outlined that there are some issues with the Venus project – which the author claimed ‘wasn’t perfect’. For sure the Florida real-estate may still be scarce but things needed in developing nations like clean water and food will for sure not be scarce. The complete elimination of currency may not make sense in our generation from our view point but – perhaps working 10 hour work weeks instead of 60 makes sense.

Bottom line is – it is not fair that because you’re born on one side of the ocean vs. the other you will have a better chance at reaching the age of 5.

Its clear the current system of spending trillions on a war machine does not make any sense at all.

 
Comment by john wickham
2008-12-24 03:05:03

okay i’m not sure what URI stands for but i’ve been reading these back and forth arguements and i would like to express what i have come up with in terms of my concerns about this very controversial topic that many people are pondering; weighing out the pros and cons. I would like to read more of them soon as i am trying to be as open minded as possible to talk and discuss more so that we can all hopefully come to a better understanding of what’s being presented from the venus project.

First thing that comes to my mind so far is that the venus project to me, sounds like the begginings of an aim towards an ideology that is not indevidualist, or collectivist, but perhaps a hybrid of the two, and thats the reason i think so many people are having a hard time with it and grasping its meaning and it’s motives. I aggree with a number of opposing sides so far on a number of elements of the vp topic of which i will not go into detail at this time. Instead might i simply take a more progressive approach to the problem and state my concerns so far

–My first concern is of the abuse of these powerful new technologies, not of the application and emmergence of technology itself. We must remember that when people invent or design new technology that comes about that can do something or serve a certain function in our world, it doesn’t neccesarily mean that it’s meant to be used or applied, or should be, or is going to be applied at all. Sure, we invented an atom bomb but was it nessesary? Did we really have to use it? Did it’s creation imply that it had to be used eventually? My answer is no. Secondly i am concerned with the lack of respect for or at least the understanding of, property rights that is presented in this ideology, such as the organizatiion of who gets to live where and things such as the use of musical instruments or cameras and who has rights over these things that the vp proposses will be available to all? (i recommend whatching the venus project tour on you tube) Who grants the privalages? What party or individual or technology is dictating these decisions and from what standpoint? I’m a musician, and i’ve always wanted to learn to make a guitar, not because i know that i could make a living at it, but because i love playing the guitar and i would love be able to make many of them in my life, not for a living to aquire food shelter and water, but for the sake of the enjoyment of creating them, playing them, and above all the enjoyment of giving them to friends that i love who show an interest in and a desire to learn to play them. I love the idea of the basic neccesities of survival being provided such as free energy and food for all. This means that as an indevidual i could focus on my interests and spend much more of my time giving what i create as means of contributing to the better of society and of myself consequently, as opposed to creating guitars, but finding myself in need to trade them for food and shelter, clean air and water, either directly or indirectly through a medium of exchange. But you see, in order for me to feel the joy and satisfaction of hand crafting an instrument and giving it to a particular friend and saying “here, this is from me to you.”, i would have to know that in my environment, or *our* environment, since i made the guitar and hand crafted it myself, it is my *property* alone and therefore, i hold the *rights* as to whom i could furthermore allow the *previliges* of playing it, or the right to give it to someone as a gift. But also, i would need to know that when i give it to that person, it would be aknowledged in our environment and in our understanding, that it is becoming *their property* now, and from that point *they* would have the *rights* over that intrument and they could, from that point, grant *privilages* to anyone else to use that guitar or whatever. If this exchange of property was not understood, i could not enjoy the act of giving something i create to someone. In my world view, it is self evident that we ARE all one and a