An economy for aspies? The Venus Project ...

Post Reply New Topic

It seems to me that people selling there skills is an effective means to make sure those skills are used. If I could get access to whatever resources I wanted with out recouse to any "debt or srvitude" then why bother using (or leaning) any skills at all. Where would the satisfaction in that sort of life be?

Because skills are being replaced by machine autmation. I'm talking about our current economy even. Industry is realising that it is far cheaper and far more efficient to use a machine to replace a human worker. Consider te "liftman" being replaced by automated elevators. Consider the automobile manufacturing industry. Machine automation has VASTLY reduced the eed for human labour there. Machine automation is a natural progression of industry and in our current economy you have every right to fear machines, coz they are cheaper to run than you, they are faster than you, they don't get tired like you and they don't make demands like you.

So what needs to change, the state of technology, or the economic conditions?

Coz personally I would not hinder the progression of technology, because technology is what has enabled us to be able to be as comfortable as we are. Is it reasonable to think "we want technology to make life easier fo us. Hell, I don't want to perform ALL my daily tasks manually and time-consumingly, BUT, I want technology NOT to progress to the point of being able to do my job better"?

No, I don't believe that is a reasonable thing to think. The very word machine means a labour saving device. Why not allow technology to free us from more chores and problems? More chores and problems than we have ALREADY allowed it to free us from.

The only reason why we don't make thisleap is because without providing our labour for purchasing power, we can't survive. So which of those two things need to change?

In the society that the venus project is proposing, machines free man, from jobs that CAN be automated and since money doesn't exist, the incentive system is also transformed.

We cannot even begin to imagine the possibilities purely because the fact that te system we currently live in is so damn oppressive and ay suggestion for change is laughed at. The only reason why peoplelaugh is because they feel unable t challenge the system. They know nothing else and have been conditioned to feel theatened by anything that challenges the establishment.

Anything you post on this board is quotable and pickable-apart. Such is the nature of an open internet forum.

ruveyn

... or should that be pick-apartable?!

As I have noted, machines have reconfigured the labor demands of a good deal of industry but we are still a far cry from totally replacing all labor with machines. Machines require maintainance and replacement and new types of machines are continuously devised that require much human labor and improvement and replacement. And resources are not limitless. Somehow some system has to be used to permit decisions as to where resources are allocated. Undoubtedly some people work for the pleasure of doing their jobs but this is probably a minor contingent of humanity. Most people work to provide themselves with necessities and pleasures. And a very large number would cease if they could exist without working and many dangerous and disagreeable but very necessary jobs would not get done. And that would be a large disaster.

I looked around the website. I couldn't find any concrete philosophy or definite stands on anything taken. So yeah, I have to defend AG's decision not to bother with the Venus project. There are hundreds of such organizations spouting exceedingly vague BS. When they have specific, concrete proposals, we'll be listening.

If AG is bothering you, I would recommend you follow the instructions HERE to block his posts. Then you won't have to read them. The mods are likely to give you the same answer- AG is a very frustrating person to argue with because of his extreme obstinance, but he has not technically broken any rules in this thread (at least not that I can see).

Well... right. I mean, I will mention that I looked around the FAQ. They did have things like "replace all of the cities" and things like that, but replacing cities is very hard to get done due to a number of factors. I mean, Europe still uses a lot of the same cities and those cities weren't designed with cars and such in mind. I also did note that you used some of the things off of the FAQ to defend the idea, including a characterization of Marxian views that seemed quite false.

Not only that, but as I've also mentioned, it is affiliated with the Zeitgeist movies, which are generally considered nonsense and propaganda-ish. I mean, if one accepts Zeitgeist as false, which there is reason to do, then it seems that one should likely distrust the Venus Project.


Thanks for providing the link. I told him about the possibility in that last post that he took great offense at, but I didn't know where the link was and didn't feel up to finding it at the moment.

Most of the people in this forum have ideas but aren't official spokespeople. They still defend their ideas just the same.


I don't see how Jacque Fresco proves that money creates more damage than it mends. I mean, I think the real issue is the nature of a wartime economy, and how that differs from the depression. I mean, money is a representative unit. Not only that, but I don't know who constitutes the "we". Finally the government does have power to draft people, and to get cheaper loans than most people can get, as well as temporarily create more money, alter prices, and nationalistic fervor usually burns quite hot during a war, all of which are ways for a government to do better on the financial issues than a private institution trying to do something, and the war was after a time of under-utilized resources as well which also lowers prices yet again. In any case, the post-war deficit was larger than the GDP of the nation after WW2, so I am not sure if this is being taken into account as part of the budget. I doubt that anything that Fresco is pointing to is ridiculously weird for a Keynesian framework.


Ok, I would say natural resources, manufactured resources, goods, and ability to provide services.

Money isn't real wealth though, and any economist recognizes that, which is the reason why economists distinguish between real GDP and nominal GDP, as inflation increases the latter, but the former focuses on the ability for people to live better.

I don't see how you have disproved the value of the capitalist system, it seems to me that it has continued to be an appropriate system. One might question whether it has a flaw here or there, and how to improve that flaw or if that flaw can be improved upon, but it really does a lot of things that a wartime economy, which Jacque Fresco points to, could never appreciate.


1) I don't see how money is an interference. It *is* access to resources within our symbol as it represents those. It is like saying that the written word is an interference to understanding. Y'know, we don't need "words that represent meanings, we need meanings". I consider a position like that somewhat empty. It has missed the point of language.

2) Well, generally yes, but this is considered to be efficient when it happens given that in order to get money, it must be given away. So, let's say that a person figures out that persons A-N need something that O-X have, and then coordinates between the two groups. Well, they'll do so to make a profit, and thus we'll have social stratification, however, by this person doing what they did, everyone is better off.

3) People aren't equal in ability I would think either. Some are paradigm shattering geniuses, while others are mentally handicapped. People aren't equal.

4) Well, it is doubtful at this point in time that there is an effective way to replace the unliked jobs that many of us get. I once had a job calling people for a university, and the idea was to get their information, to inform them about what the university was doing and to get donations. This could not be done by a computer, but it was a job that needed to be done, and it *really* sucks. Fortunately they had an autodialer as I hate calling people for strange reasons. Frankly though, we need a way to get people into jobs that they will dislike.

5) All systems involving power will involve problems related to power. However, I doubt that power can be abolished. People have differences in ability and they are very clever at leveraging these differences in ability in ways that cannot be expected, and messing with systems in ways where we didn't expect a flaw to emerge.

6) I doubt that. Most laws are enacted with the interests of the general public. Some are more focused towards corporations, but a lot of areas have no smoking in restaurants and things like that. That hurts the tobacco industry, that probably hurts the restaurant industry as well, and the only potential beneficiaries are likely the wait-staff and the non-smoking customers. Minimum wages were enacted with the presumable interests of the people earning those wages. Maybe instead of "general public" one can say "interest groups" which include a lot of interests that many people have, and interest groups do have the money required to get their point across and aren't all pro-corporate which reflects our legal system better, but still... I think this is a vast overstatement if not false.

7) Those who have power in any society have greater influence. I am suspicious of anyone who claims to abolish power though. It has always existed. Flattening it is more believable, but not abolishing it.

Umm.... that's the point of money. It is to provide incentive for people to act in ways that they wouldn't normally do. If I want somebody to give me his gameboy, I give them money. In any case, this overlaps with point 4, as if point 4 is considered a weak point, then 8 also must fail.

9) I've heard about this happening during the great depression, and I know the US government currently does this, and I will admit that this is likely to happen in other cases. However, I would still argue that the system works better to create abundance than to make goods scarce, mostly because it makes no sense for individual actors to do this as a general rule in most cases, except in cases where something is already past the point where it should be reasonably sold, but where giving it away undermines their market. (I am mostly thinking about a food industry doing something like selling stale bread) A major thing to be explored in those instances though, and I think some of these organizations might already do this, is whether this can be given away to charity, as that wouldn't likely undermine their market, while at the same time giving them a better reputation.

10) The only industry I can think of is the auto industry. In that instance, I would think that this could only be supported, (if it is supported) if consumers demand it. People are going to buy new vehicles when they want to buy new vehicles.

11) Ok, and this all depends on whether disposing waste cheaply is better than the more expensive actions. There is a trade-off, and one that is difficult to determine which is best for society given a large range of options.

12) We'll plunder the earth whatever we do. The basis of civilization is plundering the earth.(mining, farming, tree-cutting, etc)

13) Well, at first this is true. The reason being that manufacturers of new technologies want to see what they can do when introducing the product. However, eventually most technologies start getting more and more spread to everyone. The very poor are often the last to benefit, however, I think most people now benefit from automobile technology. I think a lot of people benefit from cell phones. Microwaves are now very common, and well... the list of technologies that have high penetration continually grows.

14) Well, for self-interest. The point of this system is to tie most people's self-interests together. Which means that most decisions are going to somewhat be made for the sake of people, simply because of the interconnections between supply and demand. This doesn't mean that all decisions benefit all people, or even that an action that only benefits the maker of that decision while hurting all other parties doesn't exist, but generally self-interest induces people to make decisions that help other people. Making laptops helps everyone who demands one and makes the person a profit. Going into engineering makes the new engineer wealthier while helping society out by providing an additional person to generate knowledge.


Sure, but does he have more education? Is his perspective right? Are his experiences going to push us in the right direction, or are they skewed? I mean, a lot of old people are crazy and have perspectives not worth hearing, and some still uphold racism and things like that, so really I won't judge just by age.


Only PhDs understand things, and they only understand their areas of specialty, and maybe even those not too well.

I have already pointed out that the Zeitgeist movies associated with the movement have been considered by most groups to suffer from major factual errors, and that the Venus project is associated. People can investigate more, but I do not think it is profitable to do this. (don't mean money profit )

Well, maybe, however I doubt this matter. I mean, this system is the least oppressive system in human history. No other system has allowed so many deviants, including those who want to destroy that system, to exist under it.

Now could it be that we just really cannot see the possibilities? Sure, but I would have to argue that good arguments against the possibilities have already been made. I mean, I think that the socialist calculation debate had a significant enough pro-market argument to rail against the possibility of a lot of non-capitalist systems. Essentially a non-capitalist system would have to emulate some elements of the emergent structure of a capitalist system to be efficient I would think, and that is hard to figure out a way to do without becoming capitalist.

One point which I have been pondering on, which I'm sure would interest you is the idea of the importance of credentials. More and more I have found in these kinds of discussions is a person like myself presenting these kinds of ideas, and more and more I have found there's at least a few people immediately demanding to know "what are your credentials? have you studied any of what you're talking about?" As though I would require an academic framework in order to be taken seriously. This is rather absurd as far as I can see, because I have found that it doesn't matter what your credentials are, and what you have studied.

I'll tell you a little story of one guy at the Venus Project lecture that took place at the university of london back in october which I attended, I actually attended the second lecture, since the first lecture that day was sold out by the time I had the funds to purchase a ticket so I had to buy my ticket for the second lecture which was a couple of hours after the first. (Both lectures by the way had sold out). There was a man there who during the questions and answers section of the lecture announced that 2 weeks prior to the lecture, he watched Zeitgeist Addendum, then promptly quit, yes quit his job as a corporate banker. This announcement which when you watch the film you will understand was met with an immense cacophony of applause and voiced admiration.

He had quit his job as a corporate banker because he learned through Zeitgeist Addendum the true nature of the fractional reserve system, which he had never been taught on his path to and during his time as a corporate banker. Now I don't know the exact path one would have to take in order to acheive a post of that status, but what I do know is that it would require at least desireably is extensive study in economics and monetary finance. And for a man such as he was to have quit his job on at the very least an altruistic basis shows immense implications of what well placed research can teach you. This guy must have studied for YEARS in economics and yet was still blind as to the true functioning of the fractional reserve practise. Zeitgeist Addendum had taught him this. Not his many years of study and work in that respective field.

So you see credentials don't really mean anything when it comes to truly understanding a system, especially if it is something like the monetary system. Hell I spent 3 years at college studying performing arts, and I have actually taught myself 20 times more about performing arts than what they taught me in college. The educational system, be it primary, secondary, higher or further learning is not really designed to teach you to think. You are taught to merely do the job. Nothing more. You know the expression "we don't pay you to think", that actually has factual grounding because we are not brought up and educated to be free thinking individuals to better society, we are merely taught to support and power the economy and it's contained establishments.

And you may be thinking why this sort of thing occurs, well it is the same reason why certain facts are suppressed in order to inhibit people from truly understanding the true natures of things. Take 9/11 for example. Any independent efforts to finally and unequivicably get to the bottom of the events that day back in 2001 have been continually stonewalled, suppressed ignored and even laughed at, and in some cases threatened with physical or political violence.

This is why I object to such "noodling" because I'm not gonna be the whipping boy who either confirms or breaks your current understandings and beliefs, it is only going to come about from your own self-awareness having the will to learn for yourself. That is why I find it so ridiculous and wasteful, because people who are able to "noodle" so well are best doing that internally in their own minds as opposed to wasting their time and wasting other people's time by picking over little details and picking them apart when they can just as easily point that high powered critical thinking towards the source of the idea and deliberate for themselves whether it is something fruitful or not. You have to get past the hostile and confrontational methods of decision making and education that you have been conditioned to follow. The very idea of "noodling" is ridiculous because people who participate in it are merely serving their confrontational desires and abusing the gift of their intelligence by wasting time haggling over details when they can just as easily consult the source, not it's followers. That is why I strongly object to being the target of such an immature and self defeating excercise. I'm not gonna teach you what you are nit-picking to criticise. You have to see for yourself. As John Kramer says "You can't help them. They have to help themselves". So you see this is why you need to do your own research and make your own decisions. You cannot be taught the true nature of the monetary system, or any other system. You have to find out for yourself.

Well, I asked about your knowledge of economics simply because you seemed to take whether I had thoroughly studied the Venus Project as a major deal. I also said that only PhDs understand things well just semi-seriously. Why? Because PhDs are the rare people who spend years studying anything, everyone else just does a bit of light reading and goes on with things.


Well, Zeitgeist addendum is an attack on the economic/political system.



Well, actually it probably wouldn't take much knowledge on monetary economics at all. Most finance degrees don't teach that course, and in fact, a lot of economics classes sweep that under the same rug as macroeconomics without specializing in the issue much. Not only that, but most economics classes don't spend much time on the odd views of the economy, which includes Zeitgeist, but also a number of other more legitimate perspectives held to by scholars(I only learned much about monetary equilibrium theory at a seminar), which means that real exploration of many possible views doesn't occur in many undergraduate classes(I would imagine that a lot of this is simply because there is too much). So, really, unless this guy has gone for a PhD in economics specializing in monetary economics or something, I wouldn't necessarily hold him as credible. I mean, really, it is very probable he just focused on finance as an undergraduate and maybe got an MBA, but it is possible that he got by with only the undergraduate degree or the MBA.(maybe not as likely, but possible)

Also, working as a corporate banker doesn't entail much deep study on how things work. The job is a bit like being a technician, it might be good to know from an engineering perspective how to design something, or even a theorist's perspective on how it may work, but generally, that kind of knowledge isn't necessary to deal with that one part.

Additionally, generally speaking, out of a large group of people, there will be a few who end up making weird choices. So, unless there is some detailed knowledge about this person as a person, I might not take his perspective as credible as some people are easily influenced and impulsive, and others are more solid.

That being said, I personally have a lot of the educational background required for that kind of job, as I've studied economics and finance for years at a university, I have spent much time studying outside of class as well, and um.... yeah. Not only that, but I've heard that the matters involving the federal reserve system are similar to the film "Money as debt", which wasn't a very good film in terms of educating people on the monetary system.



Don't mean *anything* is too strong of a claim. They tend to mean *something* but the issue is that this something isn't always that important. I certainly am cynical towards the education system, but the issue is that education, whether it is the knowledge, certainly symbolizes some things.

Now, as for factual grounding... um.... in all societies throughout history people have not been paid to think, instead they have been instructed to do their roles. This is just pragmatic. I mean, thinkers have a few problems: 1) thinking is costly, 2) a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. What I mean by the latter is that no idea and a complete idea are better than a half-baked idea. In any case, people working in their roles does benefit society somewhat, and while there do need to be thinkers, there is a danger in having individuals who are both thinkers and impulsive.


Well, I believe that a book was published by the government offering a report on what had happened. I mean, maybe there is a conspiracy, but I tend to have strong doubts about that. I would really tend to incline more towards the view that those who believe there is a conspiracy are, on some level, looking for a conspiracy. I am not saying that the Bush administration is a set of saints, but even Southpark has mocked the 9/11 truthers, and it isn't a government organization in any way.



Umm.... ok? The issue is that from everything I have learned, your conclusion is practically removed from the runnings. Y'know, there is a set of possibilities that a person can conceive of, and some things seem very impossible, while other things are quite realistic, and most of the things that you are advocating are pretty near the impossible category.

As for the idea itself, well.... I already looked at the FAQ and Orwell, another poster agreed that this idea was rather empty and should be rejected based upon what he saw.

I didn't use the word "noodling", however, it is really quite essential for any knowledge gaining process. You can't evaluate all sources, so instead, you interrogate the small set of sources that readily come available and then evaluate from that whether to go further. The number of ideas that can possibly exist is nearly infinite, so we have to reduce that set of possibilities.

I also don't see the practice as immature, it could be in some people. Now, of course, it must be recognized that "noodling" doesn't disprove anything, but it certainly can make something seem useless to investigate further, and certainly because one lacks the resources to explore EVERY idea.

As for helping people? Um... giving good responses is helping people. They may not change their minds automatically, but certainly showing that a position has rational defenders also shows that it is rationally defensible, the first step to changing a person's mind. Not only that, but you seem to be taking the hardline stance that giving people information cannot ever inform them, ever.... which... um.... yeah....

As for whether I am just "conditioned by the education system" or whatever... um.... I don't know how to respond to that. I mean, the only real rebuttal is an insult at that point. Not only that, but really, I don't see the point in studying an idea that most people reject for other theories, particularly when sources of these ideas don't seem to have even grasped their competition.

I think you need to realise that people with phds aren't the only people who understand things. A phd is not the be all and end all of understanding. I don't have a phd in psychology, so are you saying that as an aspie, someone with a phd in psychology understands asperger's syndrome better than i do? Don't make me giggle. I think it is extremely narrow minded and insulting of you to imply that unless a person possesses a phd then they don't completely understand something.

The only thing you are proving with your immature noodling is your own pig ignorance to the rest of us.

I think others here would prefer to decide things for themelves rather than to decide through your ignorant criticism.


You can pick apart my words all you like, you cannot disprove my perceptions. Just mull that over for a minute. YOU CANNOT DISPROVE MY PERCEPTIONS.

Now if you do persist in this ridiculous practise it is only yourself that you are embarrasing. Because you don't know me. Your noodling of my words holds no sway whatsoever.

Why don't you have the balls to criticise Jacque Fresco. I f****n DARE you. You have devoted MOUNDS of time and brain power into criticising me, then why not devote your time instead to a more honorable cause. the act of criticising the source. This will prove your efforts to bear some fruits. That is if you have the courage to. That is if you could drop the cop-out that your mind would "go off track". That excuse is merely to justify your criticism of me. So have the courage of your convictions. Refusal will prove your cowardice.

If you don't then you are only proving your cowardice and ignorance.

Well, assuming that the PhD is specializing in autism related issues, then YES! You only understand what it is like to be you, but you don't understand what it is like to have AS(in general) who could?? I mean, you only know your perspective on it, and that perspective is shaped by life experiences, by educational background issues, and even by other genetic factors. The PhD is likely to have some perspective on people with different life experiences, different education backgrounds, and different genetic influences.


And you don't have pig ignorance? Everyone has pig ignorance.


I think most people have basically decided based upon the little they have seen, using the kinds of inferential tools that I am promoting.


Well, no, because perceptions aren't anything, even perceived things can be found out to be incorrect upon later examination. In fact, there is a very freaky optical illusion that shows this. http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/200 ... usion.html

If you'll note you can easily see green and blue spirals but you are absolutely wrong when you see this.

The problem is that a perception is shaped by mental processes which are imperfect, and then the memory of the perception is also shaped by mental processes as well. There is nothing direct about perception or their memory, and both can be wrong. In fact, for an example of the memory issue, I remembered the optical puzzle as showing more similarity between the blue and green spirals, and was shocked upon seeing how stridently different they were, even to the point of trying to double check the optical illusion to see if it was real.... again.


Ok.



Umm.... honestly, part of the reason is because Jacque Fresco, by this point, would have had to receive mounds of criticism. If he hasn't openly rebutted it, then.... I don't think he's the kind of person I ever want to give an e-mail address to. In any case, this isn't a matter of cowardice, I really don't want to deal with the man.


Well, no, because there are many other conceivable things I could be showing based upon the psychological models one uses to model me. Saying that one is correct without *ahem* you knowing me, only shows your "pig ignorance" and frankly "your noodling of my words has no sway over me".

You are not paying attention. I said someone with a phd in psychology. Read what I have put. And the example I gave was someone with a phd in psychology understanding asperger's syndrome. I do believe I have a greater understanding than any phd shrink. Your pedantacism and spin is not doing you any favours.

Enough is enough. Quit taking the easy way out by criticising me and have the courage of your convictions. Your ways are tired. Your words here are wasteful. Point that brain of yours at Jacque Fresco and keep me posted with the correspondance.

AG, AAU - if you need to deal with a personal issue, take it elsewhere. Otherwise, stick to the topic and quit attacking each other.


M.

This is exactly what I am trying to avoid. I am doing my utmost to get his guy off my back and to deal with the source of what he is spending so much time, energy an brainpower to criticise.