Venus Project, or 1984 on steroids?November 21, 2008
Is this perhaps what would be required to impose the Venus Project on the world? Who knows. Just watch and learn. I strongly recommend the book, it had a significant influence on my thinking at a young age. Also, Frederick Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom“. No related posts.
35 Comments » |
Highest Rated
|
Loading ...
Thought you might enjoy this interview with Peter Joseph.
I had never heard of Alex Jones before this. I found him on a search about the film maker.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=434042117846104780
Utopian ideas are compelling and alluring. Perhaps in some way we are hardwired to be attracted to them. But we need to peek under the covers always.
Nothing is simple. And the denial of complexity is the seed of tyranny.
I am currently watching this, and have also never heard of alex jones, but I am having a difficult time listening simply due to mr. jones’ lack of maturity, and sheer annoying disposition. Peter Jones sounds very intelligent however.
We will see if I can stand another hour of Jones’ childish attitude.
I just finished the interview, and would like to thank you fro supplying it. However, I again would like to emphasize how unbearably rude and immature the interviewer [alex jones] was throughout. It was quite off putting.
With that said, I think Peter Joseph did a very good job at presenting his stance, and explaining his views. I would have to say that I am in almost total agreement. The whole idea about how our relationship with society and each other is almost completely based of our experience and exposure, yet, does in a smaller way is dictated by our genetic make up and innate physiological processes is exactly the point I was trying to make in our other discussion in the ‘vp hoax’ thread about language.
On another note, Mr. Joesph emphasized many times that it is not a Utopian society they are striving for, but rather it is simply focusing a society based our natural needs in an non manipulated way.
“The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity”. -Jacob Burkhardt.
That’s way better.
That’s such an interesting interview, thanks for posting it. “Peter Joseph” didn’t say anything new, I can’t think of a single point that resonated with me. He has fallen into the same intellectual pitfalls as many of the people who left comments on this site. In fact his over-confidence in human ability and the scientific method made me think of the philosopher Karl Popper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_Science
“He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings. Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper’s account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science.”
I should write a book called “Idiots with Models”.
Like the Standard and Poors models???
or the models which show global warming is caused by human activity?
However, they seem to be covering their bases better now and calling it climate change, because change the climate most definitely will.
Are they idiots because they believe in models? or that they believe they are capable of producing adequate models?
I thought falsifiability was a good thing. And in fact has become the accepted way of setting up any viable scientific theory. My understanding is that it simply means that a theory must be stated so that it can be tested or falsified. Something wrong with that?
Now that I think about it….Peter Joseph and the Venus project remind me of Scientology, which I dabbled in when I was sixteen. I was one of those kids they accosted on the street to give them a “personality” test. My parents liked it because Scientology was dead set against drug use.
We were told that Scientology was the only hope for mankind and that one day everyone would be a scientolgist. We were also encouraged to spread the word.
When I told a friend of mine about it and that he should get on board because eventually everyone would….he broke the spell with a very simple statement.
“When everyone else becomes a scientologist, then I’ll join”
Do you think the Venus project will accept latecomers?
“Peter Joseph and the Venus project remind me of Scientology…We were told that Scientology was the only hope for mankind and that one day everyone would be a scientolgist. We were also encouraged to spread the word.”
christians, jews, musliums and everyother kind of religious or ideological movement is based off the these same ideas. There is no one right way, or one system that can perfectly rule humanity. I acknowledge this, and always have. But to me the difference is when those ideas are based off the reality of avaiable resourses, rather than faith, they at least propose some promise. I don’ think that VP is the only answer, or even the right one for that matter, but it looks to be bette than the established one.
Tim,
I am not sure I understand the term “available resources”.
How are they defined? How are they then harnessed? Who does the work required to harness them? How are they distributed? Who decides who goes first and then ultimately last in the distribution chain?
We are talking about a whole new economic system here and I haven’t been able to locate any specific information about how the thing would actually work.
Perhaps you can either answer these questions or lead me to the answers.
I don’t think “wrong” is the right word. The point I was trying to make (which I have borrowed from Nassim Taleb) is that people need more humility. If the only consequence of a theory proven false is a slightly damaged ego, that’s no big deal — but if it’s the collapse of your empire because your stupid model said something was impossible, that’s quite different. People need to be careful when they pretend economics is some kind of hard science, it’s not. People have too much faith in the ability of humans to understand and describe randomness in a social context. We don’t have a clue.
On a side note, this moving was a horrible interpretation of the book IMO. The book was so good, and the movie was lacking in so many ways. Read the book. Skip the movie.
Thanks for the side note. As usual, the book is better than the movie(except in the case of “Jaws”)
But I see that you haven’t answered my query as to why an economy based on “available resources” is “better” than our current system.
I have always had faith in the capitalist system because it fits so nicely with our human nature of wanting rewards for our efforts. I am not sure about all of the corruption in the monetary system Peter Joseph spells out. I suppose it’s possible.
I am particulary agrieved by the actions which have been occuring in the financial sectors lately.
In my simple understanding it would seem that companies and banks which have made unwise decisions should suffer for them as in going out of business.
This is the law of natural consequences and would serve as a warning that this will not be tolerated or bailed out. So I don’t think what is happening is healthy.
But I do know that intelligent and talented people want to be compensated for their efforts. That’s the only way I see that progress is made.
It certainly is not perfect. But then, that’s life for you.
quote from ‘alice’: “I am not sure about all of the corruption in the monetary system Peter Joseph spells out. I suppose it’s possible.”
alice,
you mentioned that you found some of alex jones’ work. if you research it, you will find one thing that alex and peter agree on is the corruption of the money system. it is a point agreed on by many in the political and media fields. senator ron paul from texas (if i am remembering his name correctly) is outwardly against the u.s. fed and has a few videos on youtube relating the latest financial difficulties with the corruption of the money system. i find his speeches very insightful. you may find worth in them as well.
cheers!
I think Peter Joseph and the Venus Project support a resource-based economy because they believe the free market does not allow for sustainable use of resources. They say instead that the free market encourages the exploitation of resources until they are exhausted and regardless of the environmental impact. They seem to think that we have no means of checking this tendency under our current system.
“I have always had faith in the capitalist system because it fits so nicely with our human nature of wanting rewards for our efforts.”
Human nature? That concept is misguided. Our conditioning and experiences lead us to want rewards. There is no human nature other than what our experiences have conditioned us to.
This reminds me of the arguments I had with Tim when I first joined this discussion. I suppose it’s pretty sad that I am the only one left of all those who were commenting at the time. I guess it would be good for me to get a life.
But I digress. The idea which you are espousing is the enlightenment idea of the blank slate. That man was born into this world with no knowledge and that all he knows comes from experience.
My shortest answer to this way of thinking is that if we were born blank slates we would always be blank slates.
There’s a whole lot going on in humans before they are ever born and I guess one name for those things would be human nature.
after the first 30 mins. of this movie, it is plain to see that the civilization portrayed is one that includes a centralized government, government manipulated media and education, menial and tedious jobs, social stratification, an oppresive legal system and an either true or imposed state of scarcity.
whether or not you agree with the methods of jaques fresco and the venus project, the one thing i think cannot be argued is their goals. they don’t talk about one world government, they talk about world unity without social stratification or financial elitism. they don’t talk about scarcity, they talk about using technology to create abundance. they don’t talk about a legal system that is unable to solve problems, they talk about definitive technical solutions.
the world is not a pretty place and those that control the money system are at the heart of the problem. the vp may not be the solution. but i think we can all agree that the problems in our society NEED to be solved. if vp is not the solution, then what is? what is the alternative? and if we don’t have an alternative, then we need to find one. we can’t just sit around criticizing the vision of others if we have no vision of our own. every minute that we don’t come up with some sort of feasible solution the money makers gain that much more control. every second that we don’t try to spread the word and inform everyone of the danger that this world is in ensures that our children and their children are destined for the same economic slavery that we all “enjoy” today.
the venus project is a hoax? fine. then let’s find a better solution. if we can’t come up with one, then we need to talk to more people, inspire debate and discussion, theorize, hypothesize and do whatever is necessary to find a solution to this mess of a society. i don’t know about you, but i want the best for my children and they deserve better than this. otherwise, i would not have bothered to have kids in the first place.
I think there IS a solution that isn’t the VP. The Federal Reserve of the United States controls the money supply and pretty much all they do is rob from the poor and middle class and cause recessions. If we restore the gold standard worldwide, there would literally be no more wars or elite because the governments would need us to finance them, so it would pretty much be up to the people. My point is governments and central banks really hold us back from achieving things, so we have to limit governments and eliminate central banks.
Twonto, (canadian?)
Distrust of the Federal Reserve goes back to the 1930s in the person on Father Coughlin “the Father of hate radio”. He didn’t like the Jews much, either.
I don’t pretend to understand the Fed, but it’s here and probably to stay for a while since people like Ron Paul will never gain powerful office.
And I don’t believe there is a vast conspiracy of people who control the world. I do know that there are unscrupulous, unethical and powerful people. Add to that the number of people who think they know more than they actually do and you’ve pretty much included everyone. Certainly any system can be manipulated by the powerful and the greedy. It doesn’t seem practical to think that it could ever be otherwise
I hope you won’t think it’s naive of me to say “that’s just the way it is” and always will be, unless we can change the DNA of the human race.
You see I believe in an innate human nature far more than Peter Joseph does.
I must take issue with your characterization of our society where people work at menial and tedious jobs. Perhaps this is true for some, but at least those jobs put food on the table and a roof over the head and a TV in the living room which is not the case in many countries.
And there is always the promise of advancement. Take for instance, my neighbors, who just built their second home and are sending their son to a fine university in California. The wife of this couple was the eldest of four children born to uneducated parents in Mexico. They migrated legally and her mother worked two jobs. Her father was severely injured and eventually passed away when she was young. My neighbor has been cleaning houses for all of her adult life. The husband has a similiar, unprivileged background and is a building contractor.
I would venture to say that their story is more the rule than the exception in this country. They had a dream they believed in and the drive to make it succeed. No one gave them anything.
Isn’t that hopeful and don’t you think that kind of opportunity exists for many who will take it?
It is silly to wring our hands and bemoan how terrible things are, because compared to past human history, our lives are amazing. We just always fail to appreciate it.
So….. there is now a spill-over from the other Zeitgeist post. Interesting… I wonder what wonderful software program accomplishes that.
So I’ve been thinking about Karl Popper since I was surprised to see him berated or at least taken down a notch. I thought his ideas were the gold standard in scientific standards. I have in the past made myself more or less familiar with his ideas, but since you, Point, questioned his theory I decided to look him up again.
Here is what I found out about the standard of falsifiability. Popper said the following in 1963.
It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
I’m all for humility, Point. In fact I love to see the mighty fall for lack of it, but I just don’t see the connection between Popper and economics or falling empires. In fact I think he’d agree with you that eonomics is not a science because it lacks the characteristics stated above.
Thanks for the interview link, Alice. It was interesting. I think Alex Jones is more of a crackpot than Peter Joseph. The guy just loses it forty minutes in, rants, and unfortunately stops addressing Peter Joseph’s points except during broadcast breaks. Kind of funny. Does Jones actually confuse BF Skinner with Nietzche?
At least Joseph went into more detail about implementing the Venus Project. But I think it goes back to something Point said in the Zeitgeist thread, a small-scale experiment populated by a bunch of ideologues is not proof of its soundness. How this would work on a regional scale, much less globally, is entirely another matter, and I can’t believe Joseph and the Venus Project believe they could micromanage such a society. It’s a scary notion even if a nice pipe dream.
I think Popper went by the wayside in the social sciences even if he still gets lip service. He’s too strict for them. I think most social science looks to confirm the expected pattern, but doesn’t try to eliminate other possible causes of those patterns as explanations. It’s hard work and tentative conclusions don’t make for catchy headlines. I’m not sure Point was knocking him – I think he was praising the humility in Popper’s method.
Thanks again for the link.
Perhaps social science isn’t science.(according to Popper)
Popper began his philosophical struggle to define science by studying the work of Marx and Freud. The problem he saw was that any and all data to supported their theories.
I particularly like the idea of predictability.
That in order for a theory to be considered scientific it had to be able to predict an outcome which wasn’t readily available.
As in the way Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicted that light waves would bend. That event wasn’t recorded until years later when Eddington took the famous pictures of the solar eclipse.
Popper liked Darwin’s theory of natural selection but said this about it “the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.”
In 1978 he stopped short of calling it a scientific theory. I am wondering if he were alive today, he would change his mind.
That is curious. I never really thought about it like that. The evolution of species over time could easily be falsified, like if we found hominids in dinosaur strata. But natural selection can only be directly observed as a mechanism in current changes within a species. Still there is so much circumstantial or indirect evidence that it is the primary mechanism for evolution I’d have to wonder if Popper didn’t agree that it deserved to be called a theory. And much of that was available before 79. He’d probably be pretty disgusted with the just-so stories of some evolutionary psychologists today though.
Warning to anyone following the money masters link above – it is three and a half hours long. Worth it, but I wish I had started much earlier last night. I’m not sure that either that one or the Zeitgeist film gets the fed quite right. We borrow from the fed by selling bonds to them yes, but I’m pretty sure the creation of money occurs independently of that, real money when the fed directs our treasury to print it and checkbook money any time they create a loan regardless of whether it’s for the govt. Right now printed/minted money is about 3.5% of the total supposedly. The rest is checkbook money whose volume must swell or shrink as loans increase or decrease. Bills and coins are apparently being phased out.
I wish there were a documentary that was a little more explicit about all of it, including the printing of bills through our treasury. It is definitely hard, for me at least, to get the ins and outs from the federal reserve or govt web sites. I’m not sure all the details are available from either. Anyone who knows another reliable source please let me know.
I actually like the just so stories of evolutionary psycholgists. But I don’t know if they are falsifiable, which is the standard Popper holds.
There are lots of cognitve scientists, such as Daniel Wegner, who feed the evolutionary crowd’s thought processes through their studies and experiments, Most of which I assume are falsifiable. Wegner wrote an amazing book called the “Illusion of Conscious Will”.
But, that doesn’t mean that there is no value in something that is not falsifiable, it’s just not science from Popper’s perspective.
I think most of them are well-reasoned thought experiments, but not falsifiable. And they seem to be used as justifications for morally-questionable behavior in many cases, which perhaps is not the fault of the scientists performing those thought experiments. Maybe it’s just another burp like social darwinism was, but then that turned out to have some pretty nasty consequences for a lot of people.
The thing is the correlation between genetics and social behavior is fraught with unknowns. The temptation is to gauge a social behavior’s fitness from game theory (the standard of optimization models) based on what we suspect about our social evolution. But primate behavior is so varied amongst closely related species (compare bonobos with chimps for example, our two closest living relatives)that we really don’t have a historical basis for such speculation. It’s almost to the point where our impatience is leading us to fabricate what we can’t find in the fossil record. In my opinion anyway.
Not to say that they aren’t interesting! I just think a grain of salt and so on.
Michael Crichton does a nice job of debunking and showing the dangers of social darwinism, eugenics and all junk science in the epilogue to his novel “State of Fear”.
I’m not sure that there is anything that dangerous on the horizon at this time. Mostly these guys are doing a lot of arguing. As in Stephen Gould (although he’s dead) and E.O. Wilson.
Again, a very esoteric argument, hard to follow, but good to be having.
This stuff is truly in its infancy and there will be a lot of missteps along the way, but it’s a whole lot better explanation than Adam and Eve.
As far as their impatience. Hey…it’s publish or perish, baby!
And the grain of salt bit is good to keep in mind always.
The last book of Wilson’s I read was “On Nature” I think. At least nature was in the title. I gave it to my daughter so I can’t check for sure (and she probably didn’t trouble with it!). Anyway it is a very easily-read, thoughtful book. Kind of a collection of informal essays.
I like Gould and Wilson both very much though I could not get through Gould’s last gargantuan book on his evolutionary theory. I’ve been told there really is a modified theory of evolution in there – it’s just a little hard to piece together.
Dawkins strikes me as too much of a knee-jerk adaptationist, but he’s written some great stuff too. He’s also crazy – in his anti-religious documentary, he traveled to the mid-east to interview muslim extremists and to the mid-west to interview Christian fundamentalists. I’m not sure where he was in more danger. Probably arguing with the muslim extremist in the mid-east was the least sound. That might be another interesting thread, but probably more polarizing than the zeitgeist one.
I’m having a bit of a problem communicating with Tim, so I’ll adress some of his ideas by addressing yours Spandrel.
Dawkins, Wilson and Gould all have their takes on what Darwin’s theory means and what it’s implications are. They argue and write books about it. We read them and if we are interested and informed about the subject we may agree or vehemently disagree. Hell, we might even decide to go with intelligent design as our explanation for how we ended up where we are.
Similiarly, we might become afraid about global warming after watching a two hour movie about it and want all sorts of action to be taken. We might also be in favor of bailing out the banking industry because we don’t want the economy of the whole world to collapse. Or we might sit back and say that the climate of the earth is always changing and that it is because we now have so populated the earth as never before we are in a bit of a mess because we can’t just migrate to another location. Or we might look at the failing bank system and say “tough luck losers, go ahead and fail”.
Or we might think the whole thing is such an irredeemable mess that it sould be thrown over in favor of a “resource based economy” (whatever that means)
We have all of these choices and because of the complexity of our global society all action becomes questionable. But if nothing else, we humans do like to act.
Tim thinks perhaps that people are not as aware of the brainwashing that is taking place as he is. But I would say that there is brainwashing going on all the time and has been going on forever. If we think that’s going to change….well it isn’t.
We all want to control our world and influence outcomes. We do it in differing ways, aome of it is brainwashing or coercion or just simply by not telling the whole truth. It is incumbent upon the individual to sort through all of the information available and make one’s own decisions about what they are being told.Some are more gullible than others. Some don’t trust anyone. Some just suspend belief until they can gather better information. I think it is silly to accuse an entire population of not being aware of the forces which are brought to bear against them.
Just a few thoughts.
I got the impression you were a bit frustrated. He and Point did have somewhat decent discussions starting off that thread, but it’s gotten more convoluted now. I am going to try to respond once more. If nothing else I suppose he could change my mind.
Spandrel,
I have been thinking about your search for more information about the fed, so on a whim I looked in a library book I recently borrowed. It’s a compilation of essays by Ayn Rand and her compadres called “Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal” When I first took it out I was surprised to find Alan Greenspan as one of the contributers, so I decided to read his articles and find out if he had any commentary about the Federal reserve. Sure enough in an essay named “Gold and Economic Freedom” written in 1966 while he was president of Townsend-Greenspan &Co (economic consultants) he wrote the following:
“But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline-argued economic interventionists — why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely — it was claimed — there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks (“paper reserves”) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.
When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve’s attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain’s gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates.
The “Fed” succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market — triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930′s.”
Here’s a link to the entire essay. http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html
Whodda thunk? Greenspan and Rand. She’d roll over in her grave if she could get a load of what’s been happening lately.
BTW I also looked in an economics book by Thomas Sowell a couple of weeks ago and found about two pages about the Fed. Apparently it’s America’s best kept secret.
That article is another nice find. Thanks again. I’m not sure I’m understanding what he means by the fed actually creating more paper reserves in response to the 1927 slump and precipitating the great depression. Maybe he’s saying they actually increased the reserve ratio required which reduced the amount of loans that could be disbursed? And he says nothing about the market calls that occurred across the boards and so on.
The last two documentaries I’ve watched both claimed the fed intentionally stifled the economy to worsen the depression and allow banks and corporations to be bought for pennies on the dollar by the few people in on the scheme. Yes, wealth was consolidated in far fewer hands during that time, though it seems far fetched and I really have no opinion one way or the other yet. But they and Greenspan both agree that market slumps after the fed was instituted were much, much worse than anything seen before. And that’s exactly what the fed was supposed to protect us from.
He also glosses over fractional reserves and implies that the practice shouldn’t be regulated in a truly free banking system. The banker is supposed to “gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.” I think that would be cause for concern. Wouldn’t you always have to worry if your bank has overextended itself? I’m not sure what he’s getting at there. Regardless, I have this visceral reaction to paying interest on money that was largely created (to the tune of about 90% of it) by a keystroke when I signed the loan agreement. It is definitely a banker’s world.
Greenspan also doesn’t mention how gold can be cornered by a very few interests. The money changer doc actually claims a full-reserve fiat currency with a volume based on a population to goods ratio is best because it prevents such manipulations. But then observing congress in session (like you mentioned under the zeitgeist thread) doesn’t inspire much hope. Our representatives probably aren’t up to such a responsibility.
LOL. Well finally we agree on something. I tip me hat to ye, girl.
By the way, I can’t believe the Zeitgeist thread is still going. It’s much longer than any other thread I’ve looked at on this site. That was some can of worms Point opened up. Very good topic.
I am not interested or concerned with any sentiments regarding the Venus Project as simply “entertainment content” nor am I interested in hearing other cop-out interpretations that only tag value-labels onto substantive ideas that deserve in-depth study and elaboration, especially from individuals in a society as remarkably different as ours.(Imagine a bunch of monkeys studying other monkeys from the same group…rather easy right? Would be much harder for that same bunch of monkeys to study a bunch of fish in the sea. It would require more work, more self-inspired insight, and definitely more research.) The basic principles of the Venus Project are essentially at fault here. It simply is not realistically applicable to our current political and social system. The Venus Project essentially presents a dumbed down version of TNAT, the North American Technate, an idea that has existed since the Great Depression. Jacque use to be a part of this movement, but long since has broken ties with it. TNAT presents a much more holistic application of the same ideals that Jacque tries to uphold in the Venus Project. During the Great Depression, Technocracy in North America really became a viable option, but other circumstances prevented its advance (WWII). In any case, Technocracy is beginning to make its come back; the largest barrier that it faces today is its own image. It is often confused and attributed and attached to stupid conspiracy theories and other tried, tested, and outdated forms of governance…fascism and communism. The expanded details of the North American Technate are too comprehensive for me to even begin to talk about here… but if you are interested in delving more deeply into a humanistic approach to society, then I suggest you check out these links and essays that I have presented.
http://technatedesign-tnat.blogspot.com/
This is the “I am the Price System” Essay written by R.B Langan, A technocrat, in 1944.
http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/I%20Am%20The%20Price%20System-r.HTM
This is an introductory video to Technocracy on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ps5vJrIxM
Here’s a list of the things we need and have right now:
Solar panels are a reality. I have one on my watch and on my calculator and on my RV. In fact, the solar panels on my RV charge a set of four batteries that, through an inverter, run my TV, my microwave, my computer, my lights and charge my cell phone.
This is not a fantasy. This is not some daydream or imaginary world. I have this and use it TODAY!
Wind generators are a reality. In fact, many farms had them before AC was pitched to them as an energy source that would be cheaper for the farmer because they wouldn’t have to service their wind generators.
Computers are a reality. I’m using one now. In fact, it’s being used as a typewriter because I have a software program that turns it into a typewriter. I also have a program that lets me take pictures and store them digitally and even alter them to look like… anything I want… and a program that, by merely entering data, I become an accountant. I drive a car that is largely controlled by an on-board computer and was, to a very large extent, built by computer controlled ROBOTS.
I saw an ad on TV for a car that, once you find a place to park, you turn control over to a computer controlled ROBOT that parks the car for you and another that has developed a computer controlled braking system (ROBOT) that will not let you have an accident.
I go to Safeway and a computer controlled ROBOT opens the door for me when I approach and closes it behind me. And, when I check out, I don’t have to see the cashier. I scan the bar code myself, swipe my card, collect my groceries and leave without ever having any contact with another human being. ALL ROBOTS, ALL CONTROLLED BY COMPUTERS AND SOFTWARE.
I drive down the street and a computer recognizes that I’m there and, when no other cars are coming, changes to green and allows me to proceed.
I place my dinner in a microwave oven (COMPUTER) and it ROBOTICALLY cooks my dinner and dings at me when it’s ready for me to eat.
I have a GPS unit that tells me exactly where I am and how to get to where I’m going (computer again).
Is it so hard to believe in a world where ROBOTS build and service computers and other robots? Is it so hard to imagine a world where computer controlled robots plant, tend and harvest our food, take out our garbage, mow and water our lawn (opps, we already have those), vacuum our houses (opps, we have those already too).
Everything that humans do today just to exist can be done with computer-controlled robots. Man no longer needs to work just to put a roof over his head or food in his mouth.
That doesn’t mean that you won’t be allowed to work if that’s what you want to do. It doesn’t mean that you’ll have to go ask BIG BROTHER for the things you want/need. You can have ‘em simply by telling the computer that you want it. It just means that you won’t have to work unless you want to. It means that you will have the time to think. It means that you’ll have the time and resources to educate yourself in any field that interests you. Or you can sit around and watch “I love Lucy†reruns forever if that’s what you want.
Can the Venus Project be built without money? No, of course not. We are living in a system that runs on money. But, if it’s built, is it within the realm of possibility? Absolutely!!!
Are there problems that have to be worked out with the Venus Project? Yes, of course. Any new concept is going to have problems, quirks that have to be ironed out. But, frankly, the system that we live with now has gone about as far as it’s going to go and it’s failing at a rapid rate.
Should we cling to a hope that doesn’t exist? Or should we look for another way?
It’s been ask, “Who’s going to get it first?†The answer… What difference does it make who gets it first? I’ll volunteer right now to be the last in line. You can have my place. I know I’ll get mine eventually. There’s plenty for everyone… even the late comers!
As a side note and completely off topic;
people keep talking about Communism. WE ARE A COMMUNIST NATION!
Do we have a graduated income tax? Communist!
Do we have a central bank that controls the money? Communist!
Do we have state a controlled educational system? Communist!
and I could go on but you get the drift.
Wake up!
Why should the Venus project be at the very least considered?
It starts by addressing the problem of people starving to death, living in tents, and humanitarian crisis.
Heres the thing that means calling it communism, utopia or whatever is utterly irrelevant. Everyone in the world needs and is responsible for looking after people in times of crisis, everyone needs to be feed, housed, clothed and have power and transport. These basics are not up for debate. We can do this and where anyone who actually cares about humanity and life starts. If you can’t see that these principles are a prerequisite for an economic system then I suggest you go work for the banking system they need people like you.
All mankind suffers when anyone; any single or multiple individual are deprived of these basics of life. I don’t know all the ins and outs of this system but it starts from the only position that one can start from. So please don’t dame it to dismiss it because something like it was suggested before. Furthermore think hit big and win big.
It’s all about consensus. Is it? We will see. May all those thermonuclear weapons will come in useful after all!