An economy for aspies? The Venus Project ...

Post Reply New Topic

Whatever the revolution, bring it on. It can hardly get worse on this planet. The problem is, we (at least the so called western world) are dead-locked in a really stupid situation: the system is so unfair and inhumane that it hurts almost anybody somehow, but it doesn't hurt enough people hard enough to risk their life for a revolution. (which cannot be avoided if a real revolution is to happen, a new president or governing party is not enough) and democracy ensures that it will stay that way.

so I fear all of this discussion is somehow a little obsolete.

No doubt the present system is a miserable destructive suicidal mess but it really shows a total lack of imagination to proclaim that it could not be worse.

ok, you are right. it can always get worse. I just meant in respect to "stuckness" it can hardly get worse. because if life on this planet was much "worse" the probability for revolution would increase again, which would actually be good somehow.

No doubt some revolutions result in some improvement but I have the greatest tendency to stay the hell away from mass violence.

Since when do I have to have more people backing me than you? This is not some playground fight where I win if I have more mates behind me. Grow up.

That is only true for the current economic climate. You may accuse us of being dreamers when we tell you of what COULD BE. The problem is people in society are not informed as to the true state of technology. This is because our current economy relies on human labour being exchanged for monetry payments on the open market. These payments provide us with our purchasing power which we utilise to cover our costs of living.

If technology were to progress to a point that nearly all of our jobs could be automated, then the vast majority of the world would be made redundant because they cannot compete with the state of technology being able to do their jobs better and thus lose their purchasing power. This is why the progress of technology is being halted. Just to keep people in work. However why halt the progression of technology. Think about all the things that has made your life easier. I'll bet technology is either top, or near the top of that list.

So if we wish to develop technology to help us, but don't wish it to progress far enough to replace us in the labour class, then what needs to change? The state of technology, or the economic structure that has put us in this conundrum?

Captain Kirk, its ok, I actually enjoy explaining the venus project to other people, no matter how obtuse they are behaving.

Thing is I am used to having to explain at great length things to people who either do not understand what I am explaining, or do not wish to. This guy is replying ev ery time so I take that as a cue for me to further my explanations and assure him that the venus project is a humane and feasable direction for the human race, and that it is not what he presumes it is.

Oh, it was a dig. I meant "joke" in the sense that I was making fun of you by inverting the earlier assertion about your opponents.


Umm.... your analogy is irrelevant. The psychology of deviance is not the same as Islam. Saying that it is just makes for an assertion, but nothing is gained by it.


However, this isn't even a parallel. You are trying to discredit researchers for an intellectual movement they have never taken any association with and that was basically dead before they even entered the field. This isn't my rationale, and while you might not be able to tell the difference, there is a difference and your lack of ability isn't my fault.


You're telling me to get a lab where I can do genetics testing on large sets of twins?? Are you really this absurd?


Well, there becomes less and less and less to really argue against. There is nothing wrong with a money system, the fact that you are somehow perturbed by the fact that we call it money rather than human happiness tickets or some such just seems like a personal problem, but not something wrong with the system.

I already also pointed out that the current system does have mechanisms to understand the problem. They just aren't a direct part of the justice system, but rather belong to academia which examines the process.

In any case, I have never said anything of the sort that you are asserting. I don't even think you understand on an intellectual level what you are criticizing though, because nobody says "we don't care how to end pedophilia" and trying to say that this must be it is a failure to understand the very system that you claim is evil.


No, not really. If money were made off of them, then how come it takes tax money to maintain these prisons and catch these folks? The fact of the matter is, just like the mob has learned that it is better to let business-men earn their money and have then take a little of the of the top, so the government should already know that taxing is better than plundering. I find your idea grossly implausible. Particularly given that nobody justifies a war on drugs by the money made, and I don't see how the US secretly wants to help out some person that they'd be ashamed to talk to given how politics works.


And that niggling thought is important, for every action there is a cost, and a person must be willing to involve both.


Umm.... you're being absurd. If Bill Gates cannot buy the cure for cancer, then who are they going to sell it to? The entire reason for a cure to cancer would be to sell it and make money off of it. So, of course Bill Gates would be able to afford the cure for cancer, and eventually so will everyone else because patents for medicines eventually die, and because other companies will attempt to also find the trick out.

I don't think you know how our economic system works if you say that a company will create a commodity that it would price as higher than anyone in it's target market could even be able to afford. The idea is massively ridiculous.



Umm.... ok?? Of course we aren't free, there are 300 million people in the nation, and their choices determine what we can reasonably do a lot more than we ever could. I don't think that your examples really show anything for that reason, particularly given that the real basis for comparison is not some ideal but rather how well a medieval peasant would be able to change his world. That peasant has even less power. So screaming against the current system for not being divinely given seems somewhat silly, and maybe you'll try to say that it is only because "I've found the truth, the life, and the way, in our lord and savior Jacque Fresco" but honestly I would really think that the real issue is a lack of grip on how reality works and has always worked.


Umm.... because Gary Becker is one of those economists who has also delved into sociology and has also done work as a professor of sociology based upon his application of economic theory to crime. In any case... um... specialization is kind of necessary. If you haven't noticed exactly how much information there is out there, then you should really look, there are so many things going on, that not only is specialization necessary, super-specialization is somewhat necessary, as most economists don't just specialize in economics, but they specialize in a discipline of economics such as money, or prices, or something like that because otherwise the field is overwhelming. I don't see how a reasonable person can really disagree with specialization.


Umm..... I don't think you are really saying anything. I mean, I will agree with you that the system is flawed, but I think that the flaws are best addressed within the system. In any case you are wrong, there are 2 ways that laws are maintained:
1) By cultivating legitimacy, laws aren't violated if the laws are considered basically right.
2) By creating significant punishment for violating the laws.

Now, you might consider 2 to be fear, but I doubt that it is just this horrendous fear that stops people from getting speeding tickets, it is just that the matter is annoying for them.

In any case, I don't think that the underlying causes are exactly what you want them to be, meaning that there is no easy and clean solution.


Umm... I don't see how a fiction novel really helps the case for objective facts. Not only that, but once again, I think you are just showing that ultimately you are much more the hypocrite, as you at first tell me to do my own thinking and then you criticize me for not reading a fiction novel that you read. And the fact that all a fiction is is a mental construct, rather than a large body of research that you could never replicate seems to undermine your urges that I be a thinker.


Umm.... no. Persistence of religion is actually based upon how deeply religions implant themselves into the human psyche. It has nothing to do with authoritative religions, and to say that this is how this whole matter works seems somewhat silly. I mean, deconversations from religion are known to be messy because of how religions control the thought processes of the person having them.

Well, yes, because religions do drag people who should already know better back/keep them religious. This is something that is pretty well observed.

The "emergent and symbiotic laws of nature"? I don't think I am failing to recognize anything, I think you must have essentially joined a cult, which itself shows how much religions persist. If you think that Zeitgeist is too individualistic and free and all of that to be a cult, then you need to study some elements of the history of the Objectivist movement.

Is this to say that human understandings never change? No. But the issue is that human identities tend to stay pretty firmly rooted, and this is also because of the "emergent rules"/whatever, given that consistent human identity is important for people to interact with their reality.


Umm..... ok? I get the feeling that the "symbiotic laws of nature" is less of a matter of psychological studies, and more of a religious perception. Why? Well, it is was a matter of studies, instead of calling them "symbiotic laws of nature" they'd be called "the work of Dr. So and So" as "laws of nature" isn't a popular term in science these days.


Analogies are BS.


Well, actually yeah, I do think that conspiracy theorists are more enslaved than most people. Once again, I never said "all conspiracy theorists accept all conspiracy theories" though, I said that this wasn't the point I was trying to get at. I also don't consider the matter presumptuous either, it is something that a lot of people have noticed.


You have completely missed what I have said. However, yes, I do think that you are a conspiracy theorist.


I know about that, the issue is that even though credentials aren't everything, not having them does say something, particularly given that people without the credentials usually don't bother with peer reviewed research.

I don't think I said that the man had dementia either. I also am not surprised by the THOUSANDS either, as that is a small number of people given the overall population.


Because biased research is still valuable. You're the one who keeps on attacking bias, I am the one who accepts it.


Umm.... yeah, I know. But you criticized my use of sources, I was defending them.

*sigh* Alright, I am done with you. There is absolutely nothing that I think can be gained by either party or anyone else by letting this go on.

Awwww, no fair! Don't go! Im having fun! I'm at work at the moment so I will reply to your post and thus explain my position in regards to our discussion tomorrow.

So you have resorted to immature ridiucule now? Very clever. I must say your decency astounds me.



No, you just wish to maintain you illusion of superiority by not answering a question like a man. As long as you can excersise your position of being able to trwist facts and dodge logic, then you feel powerful. Well your reluctance to give a straight answer has shown how uneducated about this issue you are.



Yes it is your rationalle. Despite the fact that Zeitgeist was made years before Pefer Joseph even heard of the Venus Project, you openly chose to discredit the Venus Project purely on the grounds that it has indirect links with Zeitgeist, which by the way has nothing to do with the Venus Project. I am not claiming to have the same rationalle, but merely to use it against you and show that you were being a hypocrite.



As far as you perceive, yes. But that is only because you are failing to see what the hell I am trying to tell you.



There is less and less for you to argue against, because the more I explain, the more your mind closes off. Because I do apologise to present you with plausable ideas that just happen to threaten your belief systems. That is AL that s gog onhee. I am expaining these ideas, you are doubting them. Thing is I don't prescribe to the idea of "winning" any arguments. That is purely immature and primative. As far as I'm concerned, being proven wrong is something that should be celebrated rather than feared.

The reason why money isn't called anything like "human happiness tickets" is because the very idea of money does not represent, or provide human happiness. It represents differential advantage and greed. Which is what the economic system is fueled by. THEREFORE, the system is counter-productive to our survival and THEREFORE, there is something VERY wrong with it. You need to start seeing beyond the system and see what it has done to us as a species. THEN you will see that there is EVERYTHING wrong with the monetary system.



And where do taxes go? I did tell you that money is made from drugs. I have told you time and time again, that human concern is not the driving principle of the monetary system. It merely serves to benefit those very few at the top of the pyramid. Its a reverse Robin Hood scenario that has been going on for centuries.

And what reason would the governments have to reveal the sources of their funding? If they wanted their empires to collapse, then yes, they would divulge those facts.



You really don't get it do you? WE DON'T NEED A MONETARY SYSTEM. WE DON'T NEED THE FALSE INSTITUTION OF MONEY. You seem to think that we need this s**t. We don't And once we free ourselves from it, we realise how free we really can be.



Maybe I have exadurated, but lets just imagine that a cure for cancer were to be created. And lets compare it's value to something as rudimentary as Viagra. Viagra can only be obtained lawfully by prescription, and no amount of exemption can allow a person to dodge the fee. That fee being around 36 quid for 4 PILLS. Now that is merely a medication for erectile dysfunction. Not exactly a life saving medication. Imagine how much they would have to charge for the cancer cure? Something tells me not very many people on the planet are in possession of a bank balance that wouldn't be greatly dented by that purchase.

That isn't the only fact of the matter. Some people around the world are driven into bankruptcy and are even forced to ceise treatment and die because their purchasing power cannot cover the costs of medical treatment. How is that fair?

My point is that if we were to shed the monetary system you will notice that EVERYONE WORLDWIDE, not just here in the UK where the NHS can cater for our needs without a pricetag, can benefit from life saving and life extending medical care.



Once more you are wrong. Jacque Fresco is not a saviour. He is not a leader, he is not even willing to consider himself as such. He is merely a regular person with a very good idea. When I met him in London there were hundreds of people there describing him as an "inspiration", however my mother said the same thing to me in the car when going home from my final treatment of chemotherapy.

Jacque Fresco, and his partner Roxanne Meadows get rather embarrased when faced with all this adoration. That is because they have come before us with these ideas which we, the masses hadn't really considered on a practical level before. Let alone mounting an organisation to propose their implementation. To consider Jacque and Roxanne as "Saviours" will unfairly immute them as infallible figures who's reason is unquestionable and they are never wrong. That is not the case. They actually ask for people to "question the hell out of" them, and if someone doesn't understand what they have said, they ask not for politelness, but for someone to actrually say "wait a minute, you didn't answer my question". They are very humble and intelligent people, and it would be wrong to place them up on some sort of god-like pedestal and it is immature of you to imply that I would make that kind of mistake.

I can understand if you don't understand this idea. Maybe if you opened up your mind you could consider it.



Think what you may, but specialisation really is a cop-out. Its an excuse to not know anything other than your chosen field.



Once more, I am providing facts and all you are providing is "i don't think"s. I appreciate that you are having difficulty with agreeing with anything that I am saying, in addition to having difficulty with providing evidence other than your own naked doubts, but I assure you that my motivation is the betterment of society. Not to trample all over your beliefs. "Maybe you're right, but I personally doubt it" is a more honest and braver response.



Ok, the book is about how the system can be turned on it's head if insanity is faked. Look it up, and consider where art immitates life.



Why do you start nearly all your replies with "Umm..." just curious.

You seem to understand how disgustingly authorative religious belief can be. Have you ever considered that maybe the ideas I have would not imply or suggest a forced deconversion, but rather a gradual shedding and outgrowing of religion due to accrued information and enlightenment? No? Didn't think so.

Of course human understandings change. So who's to say that theistic religion will always stay fixed in our minds and keep our brains firmly believing in myth? What I propose is NOT an abolishment of personal identity, no-one in the world that The Venus Project will be the same. The idea of individuality is promoted outside of religion. In fact religion promotes against individuality, because with individuality comes the threat of psychological revolution.

And cult? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! !! ! OK, lets see:

CULT –noun (Copied and pasted from Dictionary.com)
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
–adjective
9. of or pertaining to a cult.
of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.

Whereas The Venus Project: (Copied and pasted from Wikipedia)
The Venus Project, Inc is an organization that promotes Jacque Frescos visions of the future through a website and by distributing videos and literature with the goal to improve society by moving towards a resource-based economy and the design of sustainable cities, energy efficiency, natural resource management and advanced automation, focusing on the benefits it will bring to society. The organization was started by Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows in 1995, while their website claims The Project started around 1975. Future by Design, a film about the life and work of Jacque Fresco, was produced in 2006. The name of the organization originates from Venus, Florida, where its 21-acre (85,000 m2) research center is located, near Lake Okeechobee Within the center are ten buildings, designed by Fresco, which showcase the architecture of the project.

And even The Zeitgeist Movement (Copied and pasted from Wikipedia)

The Zeitgeist Movement is a worldwide grassroots movement advocating social change, most significantly that of society transitioning from a monetary based economy to a resource-based economy. This group is noted on their website as 'the activist arm of the The Venus Project', a non profit venture by designer and social engineer Jacque Fresco As of December 26, 2009, the movement claimed to have approximately 377,000 members.

Now with that in mind, I find it absurd to think how you can think this is a cult. Your ignorance and presumptious hatred of the venus project will dictate this, very much like Peter Joseph was accused of being a satanist.



Ok, where did you go to school? Are you the kind of person who would think that Issac Newton discovered gravity because of religion? Gravity itself is a law of nature. No religious requirements. You REALLY need to know what you are talking about. Once you know what "symbiotic laws of nature" ACTUALLY means as opposed to what you assume it means (mainly due to your reluctance to consider that I actually have a point here), you will see what I mean.



I've never been that confident to disregard and denounce such a linguistic tool. I think you need to consider analogies are useful for shjowing people like yourself that they need to think about things and their root causes to understand them, as opposed to commiting the sin of spin.



Who has noticed? Can you name them?



Then my friend, you are wrong about me. Just accept it.



377,000 people. Considering the movement hasn't even existed for longer than a year. And yes you did imply that Jacque Fresco had dementia. I care for patients with dementia so I can consider the impact of your implication. Just face the fact that Jacque Fresco and myself are not the only people who think this way. Because "it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society".



Who are you to say what I think? Your opinion of me is both biased and limited. That in itself show's it's fallacy.



It is your choice to run, but remember if you ever need to bounce off ideas, I am always here.

Just fast forward all of our current courses of action and I think it's quite easy to see the disastrous end results. What good is competition if the winner still loses due to cost of human life and the destruction of the planet. If we continue on with business as usual, I have questions for the police and military: When it's your own families that have lost everything and revolt against this corrupt system, will you arrest them? Will you kill them? This is our future if we don't seek radical change and seek it soon. The only thing that can fail in The Venus Project is us. I'd rather die knowing that people failed at the fundamental level rather than some fake economic or fiat monetary system failing. I believe there is more good than evil in this world, it gives me much hope. We are not civilized yet, will we ever be? Hey President of the United States of America, will there ever be enough good high paying jobs for everyone? His only honest answer can be, no. In fact, 0% unemployment isn't even desirable. GDP or GPI? I vote for GPI. Scramble or blueprint? I vote for blueprint. Most likely, however, we'll probably all just kill each other. Stock up on ammo and save the last bullet for yourself. All you brain-washed people make me sick, I understand it's not your fault, however, so I just ask you to educate yourself on as many aspects of the world as you can. Then maybe your views will get some respect. The truth hurts, I guess ignorance really is bliss.

People only seem to defend the status quo when a less conventional alternative is brought up. Why fear radicalism? Our current way of life is radically different from our great-grand fathers and so forth. The very notion of normality is relative according to time, so is the status quo really the optimum? People usually discount revolutionary change because said ideology proposes an ultimate end. Nothing ever ends. This economical system cannot sustain indefinitely - it's going to change either by:

- Drastic unpleasant environmental influences beyond our control eg. global warming, world famine
- Voluntarily drafted design

The Venus Project is not only based on the latter, but also admits that is not a permanent system - as changes will be constant.

I'd admit, I only watched the Zeitgeist films for the first time 2 nights ago. I shrugged off the first one as mere amusement. The Addendum is wot really struck me. Because unlike most social-criticising docus, Addendum actually proposed an elaborate solution. It is definitely a radical ideal worth considering.

The only thing I find improbable is trying to implement the project WITHIN the system. Or at least it seemed that way. There's still a lot about the Project I am trying to learn.

The French Revolution is the poster child for well intentioned revolutions that go bad. It started off to limit the power of the King and abuses by the aristocrats and ended with The Terror. The revolution in Russia was not any better. Even the American Revolution produced a defective state that had a horrendous Civil War --- 620,000 killed, 1.5 million maimed in a country with a population a little over 30 million.

ruveyn

There is one major factor you are omitting from these examples. They were implemented by bare faced violent conquest and propaganda within a monetary system. THAT is why they didn't work. Revolution in the conventional methodology will never bring about lasting holistic change that will benefit society.

That is why we need to address root causes to solve problems and encourage a shift in value systems to view violence as not only abhorant but as unacceptable and counterproductive to our survival.

Here is a root cause for you. Some people want more than they deserve and are willing to use force to get it. Now deal with that. People will resort to force for one of two reasons:

1. They will fight to protect what they possess (rightly or wrongly)

2. The will fight to attain what they do not possess (rightly or wrongly).

Conclusion: It is a no win situation.


ruveyn

You cannot win.
You cannot break even.
You cannot get out of the game.


M.