The real aim of the Zeitgeist Movement

[my ill will]

Many misunderstand the intentions of the Zeitgeist movement. Some deem it a utopian fallacy... some disregard it without actual research with the idea that Jacque Fresco has no facts and evidence to back up his theories.

Mr. Fresco has a large resume and has written quite a few books which explain his theories in-depth. It is safe to assume he is the Einstein of social issues, after reading some of his research.

The ZM is not a political movement. This video just released by Peter Joseph will help everyone to understand the true intentions of the Zeitgeist Movement. Understand that it is not from a political, "us VS. them" perspective, but from a scientific approach. Unbiased cause and effect, and what systems need to be in order to address flawed societal structures as well as some solutions to aberrant behavior within humans.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261

It is much better than the Zeitgeist and Addendum movies. It is not concerned about "conspiracy theories", because that relates back to the us vs. them idea, which we are trying to move away from when looking at things from a scientific point of view. It's right to the point about what the Zeitgeist Movement is all about. I hope everyone will check it out.

[calebprime]

97+ minutes!

How about a transcript for those of us who like to read?

[The Nimble Pianist]

It is much better than the Zeitgeist and Addendum movies. It is not concerned about "conspiracy theories", because that relates back to the us vs. them idea, which we are trying to move away from when looking at things from a scientific point of view. It's right to the point about what the Zeitgeist Movement is all about. I hope everyone will check it out.

I'll go ahead and watch the video against my better judgment, but mostly because I'm curious how a video that defends the movie Zeitgeist is "not concerned about conspiracy theories" when the film Zeitgeist itself is nothing but the recapitulation of three, huge conspiracy theories.

[drkitten]

Many misunderstand the intentions of the Zeitgeist movement. Some deem it a utopian fallacy...

That's because it is. The official FAQ more or less states that it is.

The offending quote is
The first objective is to eliminate scarcity. A resource-based economy overcomes scarcity by using renewable sources of energy, plus computerized automated manufacturing and inventory. It would design safe energy-efficient cities with advanced transportation systems, and would provide universal health care and more relevant education.

That's simply not possible. Only in Utopian fiction can anyone even imagine a post-scarcity society; the simple fact is that everything is scarce. There is, for example, only so much beach-front land in the world; if I want a ten-mile stretch of private tropical beach, I implicitly want no one else to have access to it -- and there are more people than there are such stretches.

The Zeitgeist movement therefore suffers from the same problem of all other Utopias. As Chesterton put it, "the weakness of all Utopias is this, that they take the greatest difficulty of man and assume it to be overcome, and then give an elaborate account of the overcoming of the smaller ones. They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon."

[my ill will]

That's because it is. The official FAQ more or less states that it is.

The offending quote is


That's simply not possible. Only in Utopian fiction can anyone even imagine a post-scarcity society; the simple fact is that everything is scarce. There is, for example, only so much beach-front land in the world; if I want a ten-mile stretch of private tropical beach, I implicitly want no one else to have access to it -- and there are more people than there are such stretches.

The Zeitgeist movement therefore suffers from the same problem of all other Utopias. As Chesterton put it, "the weakness of all Utopias is this, that they take the greatest difficulty of man and assume it to be overcome, and then give an elaborate account of the overcoming of the smaller ones. They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon."

I would check out the video, as well as Mr. Fresco's book "The Best that Money Can't Buy"

[drkitten]

I would check out the video, as well as Mr. Fresco's book "The Best that Money Can't Buy"

I would not, unless you give me a compelling reason for what will so self-evidently be a colossal waste of time, effort, and perhaps money.

When the official FAQ of a self-proclaimed movement comes out and states "we are nutcases who should not be taken seriously" I tend to believe them.

[The Nimble Pianist]

It only took me 1 minute and 9 seconds to realize that you didn't even watch this movie yourself.

If your OP you state: "Many misunderstand the intentions of the Zeitgeist movement. Some deem it a utopian fallacy..."

And within the first minute of this movie, it states "Zeitgeist Movement is actually the activist arm of the Venus Project"

Do you know what the Venus Project is?

[The Nimble Pianist]

I would check out the video, as well as Mr. Fresco's book "The Best that Money Can't Buy"

Fair warning: Instructing posters here to read entire books or watch hour long films for answers to their questions or rebuttals to their arguments doesn't garner much respect here.

If you can't make an argument for yourself, don't bother posting these pointless threads.

[my ill will]

Yes, I know what the Venus Project is and it is not a utopia either.

Utopia - any visionary system of political or social perfection.

The Venus Project seeks to apply a scientific approach to society in order to achieve better results and sustainability for more people. Of course scarcity will never be eliminated. But a lot of scarcity is intentionally perpetuated because of the behavior the monetary system creates.

I promise you will not be disappointed in watching this film.

Fair warning: Instructing posters here to read entire books or watch hour long films for answers to their questions or rebuttals to their arguments doesn't garner much respect here.

If you can't make an argument for yourself, don't bother posting these pointless threads.

It's for anyone who thinks they know what the movement, as well as the Venus Project- is all about. I just want to help clarify for some people.

[dudalb]

It the Venus project is not a Utopian Fantasy, I sure woule like to know that the hell is.
The whole thing also feels like a cult, with Franco being an infallble, all knowing, all wise leader.

[dudalb]

Yes, I know what the Venus Project is and it is not a utopia either.

Utopia - any visionary system of political or social perfection.

The Venus Project seeks to apply a scientific approach to society in order to achieve better results and sustainability for more people. Of course scarcity will never be eliminated. But a lot of scarcity is intentionally perpetuated because of the behavior the monetary system creates.

I promise you will not be disappointed in watching this film.

Every Utopian movement claims to be "scientific".
And explain again how society can function without a means of exchange. Barter just ain't gonna cut it.

Go peddle your snake oil elsewhere. You won't find many customers here.

[dudalb]

Fair warning: Instructing posters here to read entire books or watch hour long films for answers to their questions or rebuttals to their arguments doesn't garner much respect here.

If you can't make an argument for yourself, don't bother posting these pointless threads.

What amazed me is the guy did not check and see that both Zeitgest and The Venus project have been discussed and ripped apart time and time again on this forum.
It is incredible who many woo merchants come here, considering this website is just about the worst customer pool they can find.

[my ill will]

What amazed me is the guy did not check and see that both Zeitgest and The Venus project have been discussed and ripped apart time and time again on this forum.
It is incredible who many woo merchants come here, considering this website is just about the worst customer pool they can find.

Well, the reason I posted this video is that it was just released yesterday, and to me it seemed like it addressed points more specifically (and more importantly) than the other movies.

I don't understand all this name calling. Is it not possible to have an intelligent discussion about the actual points? Are you just going to enter in here with a preset idea of dismissing everything that is related to the subject without even considering the facts?

The fact is that the faults of the monetary system far outweigh the benefits. There are other systems that can be made to work. I personally am not aware of the extreme details of a resource-based economy. Perhaps that's what we can discuss here? HOW a resource based economy would work?

I think that if you watch the video, at least the first part, it will inform you of the basis I am acting and speaking on. And please, compel yourself to be nice. I'm only a person like you trying to discuss some issues!

[Travis]

Hmmm, just 1:33 in and we have the nice snappy phrase, "the application of the scientific method for social concern."

A nice phrase that is essentially meaningless, at least in terms of differentiating themselves from almost all other scientific endeavors, as well as sounding ominous......like the beginnings of a dystopia.

[my ill will]

Hmmm, just 1:33 in and we have the nice snappy phrase, "the application of the scientific method for social concern."

A nice phrase that is essentially meaningless, at least in terms of differentiating themselves from almost all other scientific endeavors, as well as sounding ominous......like the beginnings of a dystopia.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, it does clarify further into the video. They didn't create a 97 minute video to get the point across in one minute.

[my ill will]

At 37:00, it begins to address the scientific method.

[Travis]

Wow, "through the application of humane science and technology to social design and decision making."

Um, this is sounding more and more like a blueprint for a dystopia.

[my ill will]

Wow, "through the application of humane science and technology to social design and decision making."

Um, this is sounding more and more like a blueprint for a dystopia.

Ok, but what exactly is wrong with that statement to you? What is absurd about addressing the design of the structure of society as well as problem solving with the goal of sustainability through scientific processes?

A lot of social decisions and designs are made based on the need to perpetuate the monetary system because without consumption it fails, so it has to be perpetual consumption. When the idea of making things to last comes into place, the monetary system falls short because things have to break and be bought again. There is a large waste created by the mechanisms of the monetary system. When sustainability is in mind, the quality of things becomes better. Sustainability is a direct opponent of a monetary system.

[Travis]

Heh, heh. This just keeps getting better.

"As many are aware at this time both our societal integrity and ecological integrity are in serious question."

And supposedly there were no conspiracies in this! The only ones "aware" of those two things are nutbags running around screaming about the end of the world. Our societal integrity is strong, stronger than at any point in the past, and our ecological integrity could be better but Earth is not in danger of turning into a lifeless rock.

"Our current economic system is falling apart at an accelerating rate with the possibility of worldwide unemployment and destabilization occurring, possibly, on the largest scale ever seen."

Run! Run away! Build a bunker and prepare for battle! The Four Horseman are upon us and there is no future!

"Simultaneously we are courting the point of no return in regards to the destruction of the environment."

What's that even mean? "Point of no return?" I sure hope these vague scary phrases are better defined later on.

[my ill will]

Heh, heh. This just keeps getting better.

"As many are aware at this time both our societal integrity and ecological integrity are in serious question."

And supposedly there were no conspiracies in this! The only ones "aware" of those two things are nutbags running around screaming about the end of the world. Our societal integrity is strong, stronger than at any point in the past, and our ecological integrity could be better but Earth is not in danger of turning into a lifeless rock.

I don't agree that we have strong societal integrity. There is too much conflict to accept that... Nearly half of the Earth's population is living in poverty, and a lot of that is the direct result of certain downfalls of the monetary system. Maybe not all of it. But a lot of it.

"Our current economic system is falling apart at an accelerating rate with the possibility of worldwide unemployment and destabilization occurring, possibly, on the largest scale ever seen."

Run! Run away! Build a bunker and prepare for battle! The Four Horseman are upon us and there is no future!

I think you like to exaggerate things. They aren't warning everyone of the end of the world, simply that things are going to get worse... this is to get people to focus their energy on changing certain systems of society that perpetuate a lot of irrelevant and disastrous consequences.

"Simultaneously we are courting the point of no return in regards to the destruction of the environment."

What's that even mean? "Point of no return?" I sure hope these vague scary phrases are better defined later on.

Once you finish with the monetary system section, I think you will be satisfied. Then again, perhaps not. It really always comes back down to the perpetuation of cyclical consumption and the irrelevant mess it causes for society, when there are much more efficient systems that could be put into place. Efficiency and sustainability is the goal, not perfection.

[Travis]

Ok, but what exactly is wrong with that statement to you? What is absurd about addressing the design of the structure of society as well as problem solving with the goal of sustainability through scientific processes?

Okay, so you have no problem with a computer program telling you where to live, who to love, what gender your kids will be (assuming the computer will allow you to have kids at all) and when you should catch a ride on Carousel to be "recycled" (euthanized) for the greater good. Fine, go do it. Just don't drag me along with you.


A lot of social decisions and designs are made based on the need to perpetuate the monetary system because without consumption it fails, so it has to be perpetual consumption.

The idea that "perpetual consumption" is bad is nonsense. We have to eat food our entire lives. That is "perpetual consumption" of food.

When the idea of making things to last comes into place, the monetary system falls short because things have to break and be bought again.

I was going to get to this because they go right into the conspiratorial idea of "planned obsolescence" in the video. This is just insane. The implication in the video is that things are engineered to break right after a warranty is up. How does one do that? I'd like to know how someone can design something to break down at a specific point in time.

Also, if this is true, then the old Soviet Union must have produced the best automobiles in history and Democratic Kampuchea must have had micro-processors that never wear out! Does North Korea have TV's that never break?:rolleyes:


There is a large waste created by the mechanisms of the monetary system.

Large waist is created by technological sedentary societies. Unless the Venus Project is going to revert us to a pre-agricultural revolution state then this won't change. We can devise systems to better deal with waste but pretending we can "design" our way away from waste is absurd.

When sustainability is in mind, the quality of things becomes better. Sustainability is a direct opponent of a monetary system.

Yes, no one would ever buy something that is more reliable and no company would ever hit on the idea of creating something more reliable to gain market share.:rolleyes:

[Travis]

The video asks "why not build things out of the best materials available?"
It then asks " why not design things so they'll last a hundred years?"

Hmm, let's see. Is all material equally available for all things?
No.
It might be nice to build houses out of pure titanium but titanium is not available in quantities sufficient to supply such an endeavor. I'm wondering if that might have something to do with why we build houses out of cheaper wood instead?:rolleyes:

By not recognizing that there is a link between affordability and resource availability this project is setting itself up to fail. By pretending that the only thing limiting the lifespan of produced goods is a lack of desire to manufacture better products the project is preying on the engineering naivete of its intended audience.

Then it makes the odd assertion that crime is linked to a monetary society by referencing a study that showed that unemployed people were more likely to commit a crime. Instead of concluding that perhaps creating more jobs might solve the problem the idea is floated to eradicate money altogether.

Then, this supposedly non-political video, makes the assertion that War is a crime perpetuated by governments for profit (ignoring the fact that there is evidence of war predating the very existence of governments). It further makes a claim, with no facts to back it up, that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were purely for resource acquisition.

So much for the lack of "conspiracies" as well.

[Aepervius]

I was going to get to this because they go right into the conspiratorial idea of "planned obsolescence" in the video. This is just insane. The implication in the video is that things are engineered to break right after a warranty is up. How does one do that? I'd like to know how someone can design something to break down at a specific point in time.

This is easy : just open everything from washing machine , to car, to plane, to toaster. You will find a small microprocessor. After a certain date is over, it will simply stop allowing the stuff to work. This is naturally an improvement over the old design which was a ticking clock rigged with a small amount of trinitrotoluene.

[drkitten]

I was going to get to this because they go right into the conspiratorial idea of "planned obsolescence" in the video. This is just insane. The implication in the video is that things are engineered to break right after a warranty is up. How does one do that? I'd like to know how someone can design something to break down at a specific point in time.

Haven't seen the video, but I know more or less how to do it. Basically, any component has a measurable "mean time to failure." (MTTF) For example, we know about how fast gas leaks into an incandescent light bulb (a perfect seal is as impossible as a frictionless surface), and when enough air leaks in, the filament catches fire and the bulb literally burns out. (This is, of course, one of several failure modes for a light bulb).

The better you make the seal, the less air will leak in and the longer it will take. But a better seal costs more money.

If you want your light bulb to last 2000 hours, you design it so that the MTTF of the seal is about 2000 hours.

If you want your light bulb to last 6000 hours, you need a better (more expensive) seal, which means that your bulbs will probably sit unsold on the Wal-Mart shelves while my 2000 hour bulbs sell out.

Ultimately, it's the market and not the companies that determine how long bulbs will last --- if I have to change light bulbs every week, I'm switching brands. But if the bulbs last longer than the house does, I'm overbuying.

[my ill will]

Okay, so you have no problem with a computer program telling you where to live, who to love, what gender your kids will be (assuming the computer will allow you to have kids at all) and when you should catch a ride on Carousel to be "recycled" (euthanized) for the greater good. Fine, go do it. Just don't drag me along with you.

I don't understand where you are getting this from. At what point does it talk about computer programs telling humans where they can live, who they can love, etc? The desired outcome of the society is there will be more freedom for people to do what they want to do...

The idea that "perpetual consumption" is bad is nonsense. We have to eat food our entire lives. That is "perpetual consumption" of food.

Sure, and in the video it addressed that specific point, but those are basic necessities we are talking about. What about things that aren't necessities? Where there is money to be made, it will be made and perpetuated. This does create waste where resources can be used in more useful and relevant applications...

I was going to get to this because they go right into the conspiratorial idea of "planned obsolescence" in the video. This is just insane. The implication in the video is that things are engineered to break right after a warranty is up. How does one do that? I'd like to know how someone can design something to break down at a specific point in time.

this is answered in the post above mine.

Also, if this is true, then the old Soviet Union must have produced the best automobiles in history and Democratic Kampuchea must have had micro-processors that never wear out! Does North Korea have TV's that never break?:rolleyes:

Why are you comparing this to socialism? Socialism has leaders... it is a form of government. It utilizes the monetary system and so is inherently corrupt in the behavior that it produces.

Large waist is created by technological sedentary societies. Unless the Venus Project is going to revert us to a pre-agricultural revolution state then this won't change. We can devise systems to better deal with waste but pretending we can "design" our way away from waste is absurd.

And that is exactly what the VP is attempting to do... create less waste and deal better with it through the application of technology.

Yes, no one would ever buy something that is more reliable and no company would ever hit on the idea of creating something more reliable to gain market share.:rolleyes:

You're right, good point. But, there are still always deliberate actions that negatively affect quality of resources and products by people in the economic system, because of the competition system it creates.

[ktesibios]

Umm.. how exactly does one distinguish between the following two scenarios, based only on one's perception of the lifetime of a product?

1. Company president: "We'll design our products to break right after the warranty expires because that will force the consumer to buy more, bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!"(twirls mustache).

2. Company president: "We'll design our products to last through the warranty period because warranty repairs cost us money and I hate losing money!" (glares at engineering staff)

;)

[my ill will]

The video asks "why not build things out of the best materials available?"
It then asks " why not design things so they'll last a hundred years?"

Hmm, let's see. Is all material equally available for all things?
No.
It might be nice to build houses out of pure titanium but titanium is not available in quantities sufficient to supply such an endeavor. I'm wondering if that might have something to do with why we build houses out of cheaper wood instead?:rolleyes:

By not recognizing that there is a link between affordability and resource availability this project is setting itself up to fail. By pretending that the only thing limiting the lifespan of produced goods is a lack of desire to manufacture better products the project is preying on the engineering naivete of its intended audience.

I think most competent people understand that link. But who's to say things aren't engineered to be less durable, among other things, to maximize profit? The entire system is based on each individual maximizing profit for themselves.

Then it makes the odd assertion that crime is linked to a monetary society by referencing a study that showed that unemployed people were more likely to commit a crime. Instead of concluding that perhaps creating more jobs might solve the problem the idea is floated to eradicate money altogether.

People do what they need to survive, or increase positions of power and control. The idea is floated to eradicate money altogether...
That's because many of the occupations are for perpetuation of cyclical consumption. In other words, there are tons of jobs for the sole purpose of keeping the economy running. And this monetary economy produces the competitive behavior known as greed and corruption because inherent in its principles is the vicious profit-first ideology. You can't say that human beings are naturally greedy, because the way we think and act are direct outcomes of our surroundings. However I will agree that humans have natural instincts to stay alive and keep themself in good condition before they act upon others. But the profit-first ideology expands this into nearly every aspect society and multiplies it indefinitely.

Then, this supposedly non-political video, makes the assertion that War is a crime perpetuated by governments for profit (ignoring the fact that there is evidence of war predating the very existence of governments). It further makes a claim, with no facts to back it up, that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were purely for resource acquisition.

So much for the lack of "conspiracies" as well.

Any competent person knows that war has been around forever, whether started religiously, out of pure hatred or insanity, out of principles of "justice", or for control and domination. I'm sure the maker of the video is well aware of that.

What it is explaining is that war is also used as a tool. When you have a group of people who have the largest military force in the world at their hands, who's to say they aren't going to use that military and the concept of war for power gain and profit? Take a good look at the Iraq and Afghan wars... okay, maybe we're hunting "terrorists". But we're also killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. We also have mercenary armies like Blackwater in there, also murdering innocent people. You think we're trying to save them over there? Conservative racists run everything, I don't buy that for a damn second. They want control. Yeah, they want revenge too. But they're gonna get some profit out of it.

[Dr. Imago]

I'm going on a tangent... stay with me here...

Are some people in society considered more beautiful and desirable than others? Are some people stronger? Are some people smarter?

Until you can fix these things and make everyone possess the same height, weight, shape, attractiveness, drive, intelligence, desires, physical capability, (etc.) you will never achieve Utopia. That is the problem. Human nature, and the struggle for human triumph, will always supersede.

I promise I'll watch your video if you go back and re-read "Lord of the Flies".

~Dr. Imago

[balrog666]

Hmmm, just 1:33 in and we have the nice snappy phrase, "the application of the scientific method for social concern."

A nice phrase that is essentially meaningless, at least in terms of differentiating themselves from almost all other scientific endeavors, as well as sounding ominous......like the beginnings of a dystopia.


Assuming you watched at least 1:33, thanks for taking one for the team! ;)

[Travis]

Okay so I'm through the section on the Scientific Method now. It had two good ideas: 1) diversifying our energy production (though how this would be done in a society with no currency is not explained) and 2) conducting a truly comprehensive global resources survey (which raises the question of how one will prevent the overuse of scarce resources when there is no longer any prices on anything due to a lack of currency).

However it touched upon some strange ideas. Key amongst these was the idea that people don't need incentive to accomplish great things and then mentions the creation of the polio vaccine and invention of airplanes as two things that were done "for the good of society and not for personal gain.":boggled:

There is also an assertion made that companies always create scarcity for their products to keep prices elevated. If this is true then I'm wondering why computers and DVD players have gone down in price when the "evil" companies should have been keeping their prices artificially high.

[steve s]

There's been some excellent posts about the cost and practicality of building something to last forever. But another point is why would you want something to last forever.

My parents had a '72 Ford Galaxy 500. I sure wouldn't want to be driving that car today. I'm glad it's gone. My first computer was a Commadore 64 back in the 1980's. Why would I want to be using that computer today? IIRC, it could only produce 16 colors. It would be useless to me.

ETA: If things lasted forever there'd be no iPods because we'd all still be using 8-track tape players.

Steve S.

[Hyver]

My parents had a '72 Ford Galaxy 500. I sure wouldn't want to be driving that car today. I'm glad it's gone. My first computer was a Commadore 64 back in the 1980's. Why would I want to be using that computer today? IIRC, it could only produce 16 colors. It would be useless to me.

ETA: If things lasted forever there'd be no iPods because we'd all still be using 8-track tape players.

Steve S.
This is an excellent point that I think deserves attention. If technology continues to advance (which for the love of FSM I hope it does) then really we ought to be aiming at making things last no longer than it takes for it to be made obsolete by new developments.

[steve s]

This is an excellent point that I think deserves attention. If technology continues to advance (which for the love of FSM I hope it does) then really we ought to be aiming at making things last no longer than it takes for it to be made obsolete by new developments.

Thanks. I thought of a couple more.

If things lasted forever, there'd be no Halo 3 because we'd all still be playing Pong.

If things lasted forever, your cell phone would look like this...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_815449b313b54caf3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15574)

Steve S.

[Hokulele]

Thanks. I thought of a couple more.

If things lasted forever, there'd be no Halo 3 because we'd all still be playing Pong.

If things lasted forever, your cell phone would look like this...

Steve S.


And you would be squatting in an outhouse prior to taking a cold bath.

[athon]

I'm going on a tangent... stay with me here...

Are some people in society considered more beautiful and desirable than others? Are some people stronger? Are some people smarter?

Until you can fix these things and make everyone possess the same height, weight, shape, attractiveness, drive, intelligence, desires, physical capability, (etc.) you will never achieve Utopia. That is the problem. Human nature, and the struggle for human triumph, will always supersede.

I promise I'll watch your video if you go back and re-read "Lord of the Flies".

~Dr. Imago

I'll go one further and ask if all people have the same social values.

As it's been said over and over again, most utopian models neglect to understand the concept of resource limitations. Economics is not the study of money, but the study of value versus resources. Whatever system is used to measure this, it will essentially be economics.

What it comes down to is what different cultural groups value. Utopian groups assume all cultures share the same needs and desires. This is quite obviously bollocks. Those with scientific leanings will value logic, reasoning and discussion. Yet even between different cultures there is variation here. The point is, such utopias only work once you homogenise a population to all share exactly the same needs, values and desires. In other words - not going to happen.

Indeed, this should never happen. The strength of a system in a chaotic environment is in its internal variation.

I agree that politics, economics, and other social systems could benefit from being more evidence based. Science methodology (notice: not method! Science is no more a single method than cooking is a single recipe) can be useful. Yet it's easy to lose sight of its limitations when we ignore the fact that humans aren't difference engines that all share the same programs.

Athon

[godofpie]

Thanks. I thought of a couple more.

If things lasted forever, there'd be no Halo 3 because we'd all still be playing Pong.

If things lasted forever, your cell phone would look like this...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_815449b313b54caf3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15574)

Steve S.
Watch it buddy-my cell phone DOES look like that.
Signed,
Zack Morris

[Roboramma]

Thanks. I thought of a couple more.

If things lasted forever, there'd be no Halo 3 because we'd all still be playing Pong.

If things lasted forever, your cell phone would look like this...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_815449b313b54caf3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15574)

Steve S.

I don't see why that should be true - people are willing to throw out old things before they break and buy new ones because the new ones are better.

My girlfriend does it with jeans all the time.

[Travis]

Something I don't understand is that this is supposed to all be done with scientific principles guiding the decision making of the society but at the same time the society is supposedly governmentless. If there is no government then who is doing the decision making? Is this supposed to be some sort of distributed bottom up decision making? If there is no central authority then how are these decisions enforced? Is everyone on the honor system?

[Safe-Keeper]

I promise you will not be disappointed in watching this film.True. It taught me so much about how not to make a movie that it's a joke.

Random patterns to ward off epileptics - arbitrary space pictures - BOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOM for five minutes - some stuff about religion - BOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOM - more nonsense about religion and ages and whatnot - switch to 9/11...

I stopped watching at that point. I mean, christ, at least tell me what the movie is about. It doesn't have to be as in-your-face as "in this movie, I want to show you how x, y and z are true", but come on, I don't want to sit through 30 minutes wondering what the heck I'm watching.

If things lasted forever, your cell phone would look like this...Sorry, but I just don't buy that. I don't think you do either.

[my ill will]

True. It taught me so much about how not to make a movie that it's a joke.

Random patterns to ward off epileptics - arbitrary space pictures - BOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOM for five minutes - some stuff about religion - BOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOM - more nonsense about religion and ages and whatnot - switch to 9/11...

I stopped watching at that point. I mean, christ, at least tell me what the movie is about. It doesn't have to be as in-your-face as "in this movie, I want to show you how x, y and z are true", but come on, I don't want to sit through 30 minutes wondering what the heck I'm watching.

Sorry, but I just don't buy that. I don't think you do either.

I think you were viewing a different film, because the link I posted does not mention religion or 9/11.

[my ill will]

Something I don't understand is that this is supposed to all be done with scientific principles guiding the decision making of the society but at the same time the society is supposedly governmentless. If there is no government then who is doing the decision making? Is this supposed to be some sort of distributed bottom up decision making? If there is no central authority then how are these decisions enforced? Is everyone on the honor system?

There will be no "enforcement" of decision making, if I assume correctly. People who care, as well as the people supervising machines will solve the problem, after finding the proper decision through the scientific method. There is no enforcement needed as people are allowed to do what they please, while given necessary opportunities for expansion. (relevant education that is free to all, etc)

And to actually readdress this, the decisions aren't made. A problem is recognized. The resources and things are analyzed. Experimentation takes place and a decision is ARRIVED AT.

[Gravy]

Evidence that there is a Zeitgeist movement?

[my ill will]

Well, there is a forum with growing activity... Z-Day is coming up on March 15th to promote the movement. A couple of fellows from the forum have bought around 150 acres in New Zealand and are implementing the basic ideas of the ZM and VP into a community. There are blueprints for a full Venus Project style city utilising some of Jacque Fresco's designs and other self-sustainable methods, but this project requires a lot of money and resources... but we can achieve it and hopefully in the next few years we'll get something going.

[my ill will]

I think you guys have a lot of good points on this, but it is true that all problems in life can be seen from a technical and scientific perspective. Applying an unbiased and certainly more accurate computer decision is a much more effective method than politicians and other people in power, because they are generally influenced by profit, control, etc. They can also be influenced by good, ideas of peace etc... but they still won't be nearly as accurate.

[steve s]

I don't see why that should be true - people are willing to throw out old things before they break and buy new ones because the new ones are better.


But you're making our point for us. Why go to the added expense of making something that will last indefinitely when it will be obsolete in a few years?

Steve S

[my ill will]

But you're making our point for us. Why go to the added expense of making something that will last indefinitely when it will be obsolete in a few years?

Steve S

I think that is mainly in regard to structures, vehicles, and certain society machines, as in a resource-based economy, the culture will be extremely different. The social consequences of implementing this society would DRAMATICALLY change the way people interact and what they want, or think they want, to buy.

But, generally speaking, even if things do get outdated, there are intelligent ways we can recycle these resources and use them to create updated versions and different materials. Intelligent recycling will probably be a large part of this system.

[CapelDodger]

There will be no "enforcement" of decision making, if I assume correctly. People who care, as well as the people supervising machines will solve the problem, after finding the proper decision through the scientific method.

People with an interest in the decision arrived at will seek to influence it - because they care. This would include self-interest.

There is no enforcement needed as people are allowed to do what they please, while given necessary opportunities for expansion. (relevant education that is free to all, etc)

If people do what they please anyway no decision by "the people who care" is going to matter. Given the choice, most people will skip the educational opportunities in favour of demagogues who appeal to their own perceived self-interest. Demagogues "care".

[my ill will]

People with an interest in the decision arrived at will seek to influence it - because they care. This would include self-interest.



If people do what they please anyway no decision by "the people who care" is going to matter. Given the choice, most people will skip the educational opportunities in favour of demagogues who appeal to their own perceived self-interest. Demagogues "care".

These people do not have power or influence. All things are readily available, and problems that arise will be adressed from a scientific perspective and then handled.

The society would be dramatically different. It would be nearly impossible for any self-interest that affects many people to exist. There would be no way for a single person or a group of people to "control" things, and even if there was, these people would be easily stopped within the structure of this society.

[CapelDodger]

But you're making our point for us. Why go to the added expense of making something that will last indefinitely when it will be obsolete in a few years?

Steve S

Or if not obsolete at least unfashionable. Nobody gets rich quick in replacement markets; new, better, extra features, this year's model - that's where the money is. Latch onto the aspiring consumer, tell them what to aspire to, and then provide it. "It" being your next release, or this season's fashion.

[CapelDodger]

These people do not have power or influence. All things are readily available, and problems that arise will be adressed from a scientific perspective and then handled.

Naive.

Who decides what's the scientific perspective to take on any particular issue?

The society would be dramatically different.

Society remains the same, only the rhetoric changes.

It would be nearly impossible for any self-interest that affects many people to exist. There would be no way for a single person or a group of people to "control" things, and even if there was, these people would be easily stopped within the structure of this society.

"These people" would be the structure of society. The rest would be a society with no structure at all, by your own definition.

[athon]

There will be no "enforcement" of decision making, if I assume correctly. People who care, as well as the people supervising machines will solve the problem, after finding the proper decision through the scientific method.

Hence these people have no idea how science works.

Science is not a means of leading to 'the' answer, but is rather a set of principles which offer confidence that one idea is more useful than another. That's it. As a human behaviour, however, the ideals don't necessarily translate as expected. Science works because it is a methdology - a way of moderating the discussion on what models best describe what we see.

As such, there is no 'proper' solution to any given problem. There is only a solution which best fits the observations given one's own cultural values. Science cannot necessarily find a single solution that will suit all desires, in other words.

Treating science as if it is a religion is just as dangerous as treating religion as if it is a science.

Athon

[Earthborn]

Utopia - any visionary system of political or social perfection.All utopians claim that their vision isn't a utopia, because it isn't "perfect"... just infinitely better than what we have. Then they start ranting vagueries about how much better their system would be -- usually without explaining how it would be different -- and in order to not sound totally unrealistic they start summing up examples of what their societies could be like that sound futuristic but technically possible. Conveniently ignoring those already exist, produced by the somewhat less than perfect system we already have.

Example:Intelligent recycling will probably be a large part of this system.It already is. Recycling is a huge industry, and growing.

[Zeuzzz]

How dare someone suggest a way to better the world and improve the problems of money and greed and try to come up with a solution! This fresco guy surely is trying to become a cult leader/whacko/crackpot/nuthob that thinks too far outside of the box for our meagre minds to comprehend what he is trying to suggest.

He's just plain evil.

*sacrcasm sidenote.

[Travis]

I think you guys have a lot of good points on this, but it is true that all problems in life can be seen from a technical and scientific perspective. Applying an unbiased and certainly more accurate computer decision is a much more effective method than politicians and other people in power, because they are generally influenced by profit, control, etc.

So we just go to the master computer and input data and it tells us how to get rid of serial killers once and for all?

Who programmed this master computer and how do we know it wasn't programmed with the biases of the programmer?

If, instead, this all done by a committee then who is on the committee and what authority would their recommendations command?

If all decisions are arrived at by scientific experimentation then how are such experiments, say on how to eliminate rapist pedophiles, performed? What ethical constraints are there on their experiments?

[paximperium]

His followers areHe's just plain evil stupid.

Fixed it for you.

[Gravy]

Well, there is a forum with growing activity...

Yes, I posted there after someone told me a Zeitgeist Forum moderator had said he refused to read my 9/11 websites because I am a "Theologian."

That's the strangest excuse I've seen someone give to justify avoiding the facts I present. Oh, and I am not a theologian. I'm an atheist.


Z-Day is coming up on March 15th to promote the movement. A couple of fellows from the forum have bought around 150 acres in New Zealand and are implementing the basic ideas of the ZM and VP into a community. There are blueprints for a full Venus Project style city utilising some of Jacque Fresco's designs and other self-sustainable methods, but this project requires a lot of money and resources... but we can achieve it and hopefully in the next few years we'll get something going.That's awesome! I strongly encourage people who can't distinguish fact from fantasy to form their own self-sufficient communities. New Zealand, being almost as far away from me as possible on Earth, seems an ideal place for that. Say hi to Xena, King Kong, and Middle Earth for me!

[Gravy]

These people do not have power or influence. All things are readily available, and problems that arise will be adressed from a scientific perspective and then handled.The same "scientific perspective" that produced this gibbering heap of stupidity about 9/11, supported by quotes from Loose Change and Steven Jones?

These claims include that the U.S. government had advance knowledge about the attacks, the response of the military deliberately let the planes reach their targets, and the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 underwent a controlled demolition. The film claims that six of the named hijackers are still alive, that Hani Hanjour could not have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon, that no substantial plane wreckage was found at two of the three crash sites, that the Bush administration covered up the truth in the 9/11 Commission Report, and that the mainstream media have failed to ask important questions about the official account. [From the film's Wiki page]Oh, yeah, a community built by the dopes who believe that is going to work out well.

[Foolmewunz]

... and the overwhelming reaction is "Ewwwww!" An hour and a half to basically read a hitech version of Rodney King's famous "Can't we just all get along?"

What a steaming pile of sanctimonious crap!

I sincerely doubt that Peter Joseph has even the remotest understanding of science. He refers, several times, to a calculator as taking over your decision making, for instance. A calculator makes no decisions - not the primitive calculators he shows or is speaking of. A calculator performs calculations faster than the previously best device, an adding machine. And that performed faster than the human mind. But it was still merely a speeding up of the process.

More important is that this whole VERY UTOPIAN idea kept reminding me of an old joke about some other such concept.

What's the Venus Project recipe for Home Made Tiger Soup?
Well, first, catch three tigers.

There is no starting point for the society which is going to achieve all of this pollyannaish nonsense. Where's the meat? This all boils down to fantasist wishful thinking. A central computer core is going to process my request for a larger or newer refrigerator and just send it on over? Or is someone going to have pre-programmed that computer to decide whether or not I need one? And what is my need based on? The same as the other six billion people on earth.

The first problem you have with a resource-based economy is that there are people and governments sitting on top of those resources and someone's got to convince all those entities that they need to include all of what is traditionally viewed as "property" in that global resource bank. This is to be done, apparently without governments or armies (since he refers to "government and its team of brainwashed assassins" I gather he's against armies), so it's based on the philanthropy of Robert Mugabe????

First, catch three tigers.

Gravy,
I like New Zealanders, generally. Why would you wish this on them? I do like the comment that it'll take lots of money, though. Seems that ever-practical need always gets in their way.

[Miss_Kitt]

I think you guys have a lot of good points on this, but it is true that all problems in life can be seen from a technical and scientific perspective. Applying an unbiased and certainly more accurate computer decision is a much more effective method than politicians and other people in power, because they are generally influenced by profit, control, etc. They can also be influenced by good, ideas of peace etc... but they still won't be nearly as accurate. bolding mine

myillwill -- This is the central fallacy in your viewpoint, and presumably the Zeitgeist adherents' viewpoint as well.

The scientific method is a way of testing how well certain hypotheses explain what happens in reality. Its primary test of validity of concepts is, Does this concept/theory produce valid predictions? (Does it do so consistently, when tested by multiple different testers? One-offs don't count as "valid".) Science is good at finding ways to describe what is going on.

The scientific method, however, is completely useless in the realm of value judgments. The classic way of expressing this is, "An 'is' does not imply an 'ought'." Scientific testing can determine which chemotherapy drugs are most effective in slowing the advancement of pancreatic cancer; but it is useless in deciding when a patient who is terminal should move from aggressive to palliative care. Even if you put scientific-sounding phrases like, "unbiased and more accurate" on the decision, it's still a value judgment.

Some people don't want to survive in a hospital bed, so doped up they can't tell day from night half the time, without the ability to walk, talk with their friends and family, play with their dog, or pursue their chosen profession. Others will fight for every single day, treasuring each moment they can think and experience Life--even if that life is edged with pain. Some will set a certain milepost they wish to achieve, like seeing a loved one graduate or get married, and then want to move on. Some will want to trade off between amount of discomfort and length of life. And so on.

Science does not, and cannot, say which of these positions is right. All values are defined within a context of, "To whom? At what cost? Under what conditions?" (And, whether that cost is measured in dollars or man-hours or the opportunity cost of what else could have been done with the resources involved, there is always a cost.) Patients who value their quality of life over their length of life are entitled to feel that way; but the patient who wants to live to see their child graduate is equally entitled to their perspective. There is no way of 'scientifically' differentiating between the two. It's a matter of their respective values.

No matter what the computer's program does to make decisions, there will still be value standards present, at least implicitly, in its criteria. If the standard of the Medical Resource Allocation program is, "Maximize lifespan until age 70" but also, "Do not use hospital resources for a shorter-projected lifespan patient if a longer-span patient needs them," then the arrival of a traffic-collision or appendicitis case in an otherwise-healthy 24-year-old will bump the cancer patient out. Since resources on the planet are finite, there will always be scarcity of some kind. Scarcity in fields where a great deal of knowledge is one of the resources is even more common. (That's why doctors and virtuoso violinists are highly-rewarded: There is more demand for their knowledge and ability than there is supply.)

Let's go even further away from the evidence-based treatments and outcomes, and raise another question: Should this space between buildings be used for lawn, garden, or a fountain? There is no scientific answer to that question. There are preferences, that vary per individual involved, and often their current/recent experience.

For example: I have a big lawn, because I have an active 9-year-old. As soon as she outgrows the run-around phase, we'll replace some of the lawn with a larger patio and a hot-tub (yes!!) that will be of greater use to my husband and me. If, in the meantime, we acquire a large dog we may opt to keep more lawnspace for the dog's benefit. None of these are arbitrary decisions; but they are value-driven, not "scientifically" determined. Science can tell you that having some kind of natural feature in your environment for daily interaction is healthy--that's why cities need parks and planter strips and windowboxes--but whether it's majority grass or a rock garden with shrubs and flowering grasses is a matter of preference.

The assertion that there are "scientific" ways of valuing is, quite simply, wrong. It is possible (in many cases) to map out rationally the most efficient ways to implement certain values once they have been selected; but there is no scientific way to decide whether jazz or Mozart should be taught to a clarinetist. There is only preference.

The central virtue of an individualist, monetary-based system is that it lets each person demonstrate their values by where they spend their money. If more people pay to hear jazz than Mozart, the classical fans will have to spend more per seat to support their interest. And as long as they are willing to pay enough, their symphony will stay in business. Musicians who dearly love a particular style of music will accept a lower income to play that, deciding that the pleasure they experience practicing and performing it compensates them for the things they aren't buying because of that lower income. Others may think that being a musician is what's important, and they will play the style that provides them with the most discretionary spending. Still others may decide that they will make music a hobby, because their preferred standard of living is not supportable on a musician's salary. Each makes their own choice, based on their own values.

Once you start spouting vaguaries of "technical and scientific perspective" you are trying to disguise the reality that some people will be "the deciders" and will enforce their decisions on everyone else. The only system that does not do that is one where people can directly demonstrate their preferences: That is called a "market".

Just my thoughts, Miss Kitt

[Travis]

Bottom line is that it's not a good idea to try and construct a radically new society around a bunch of vague platitudes.

[my ill will]

Hence these people have no idea how science works.

Science is not a means of leading to 'the' answer, but is rather a set of principles which offer confidence that one idea is more useful than another. That's it. As a human behaviour, however, the ideals don't necessarily translate as expected. Science works because it is a methdology - a way of moderating the discussion on what models best describe what we see.

As such, there is no 'proper' solution to any given problem. There is only a solution which best fits the observations given one's own cultural values. Science cannot necessarily find a single solution that will suit all desires, in other words.

Treating science as if it is a religion is just as dangerous as treating religion as if it is a science.

Athon

Well the idea is that all of life's problems (the ones that matter, anyways) can be seen as technical, and therefore applying the scientific method to the problem will produce the most accurate results. The goal is to align with nature and the natural order of things as much as possible.

Bottom line is that it's not a good idea to try and construct a radically new society around a bunch of vague platitudes.

Well that's why there's a movement to do it, people to figure out the details. I'm not Peter Joseph or Fresco so I would look like a little girl trying to talk against them, but this is only an introduction to the principles of the movement. The details grow as research and planning within the movement develop. (as well as your own personal involvement... there's a lot more than just some videos going around...)

[Foolmewunz]

Well the idea is that all of life's problems (the ones that matter, anyways) can be seen as technical, and therefore applying the scientific method to the problem will produce the most accurate results. The goal is to align with nature and the natural order of things as much as possible.

snip



This is beyond starry-eyed optimism. This is just foolish. Whose version of the natural order am I aligning with? Have you been to the Kashmir recently? What's the "technical" solution to wars of aggression and hatred that have nothing to do with PJ's silly points as to what war is all about?

All of life's important problems have a technical solution? Really? You need to think that over.

This is like watching Star Wars. Just get in touch with The Force.

[Stout]

I do like the comment that it'll take lots of money, though. Seems that ever-practical need always gets in their way.

Last time I checked, a couple of months ago, the VP property in Florida was up for sale, asking price half a million including everything in the buildings. I don't know why, but it was reported that Fresco was wanting to move to Peru. I wonder whether he's planning on taking that private helicopter he posed with on the VP property ad with and if private helicopters for everyone are part of the vision.

I propose the Zeitgeist movementers either follow him there, or try to sell him on the New Zealand idea. Or there's always Somalia, they look like they might be up for a fresh start.

[Travis]

Well the idea is that all of life's problems (the ones that matter, anyways) can be seen as technical, and therefore applying the scientific method to the problem will produce the most accurate results. The goal is to align with nature and the natural order of things as much as possible.

There are many problems in trying to solve issues as purely technical issues.

At what age should someone get married? You could probably reduce this to an equation factoring in economics of materials, optimal time for child rearing and the synchronization of fertility factors between the two genders and arrive at an answer. Say the end result is that science determines the optimal age is 23 years, four months for men and 21 years, seven months for women. Now what? Suppose someone is not in love with anyone at that time, do we then use science to find a "perfect" match in the manner that countless online match making services promise but never keep? Do we do nothing and the scientific answer was just an intellectual exercise that actually influences nothing? Or does science determine that relationships are inherently inefficient all together and we'd be better off forcing everyone to be loners living in individual life cubes while children are conceived, birthed and raised in special "population replenishment" facilities by robots?

[athon]

Well the idea is that all of life's problems (the ones that matter, anyways) can be seen as technical, and therefore applying the scientific method to the problem will produce the most accurate results. The goal is to align with nature and the natural order of things as much as possible.

You completely missed the point. Then again, Miss Kitt phrased it much better than I did.

Science can only deal with finding the likelihood of an outcome. If people want two different outcomes, it's useless. That's what others have been trying to explain and you seem bent on trying to ignore.

Athon

[Gravy]

The goal is to align with nature and the natural order of things as much as possible.
What does this mean? What is the natural order of things? Be specific.

[Gravy]

I think that is mainly in regard to structures, vehicles, and certain society machines, as in a resource-based economy, the culture will be extremely different.Yet after 34 years of promoting a resource-based economy, Jacque Fresco will take cash, thank you very much:
Supporters can make a quick and easy gift of cash. Donate online over our secure website.


Yes, the Florida property is for sale (http://www.flalandsale.com/). Only $550,000 for 21 acres and 10 buildings, yet it's been on the market for years??? That tells me that something is seriously wrong there.

Note that after all this time promoting alternate energy sources, Fresco doesn't use them. C'mon, Jacque, you couldn't put up a few solar panels in Florida?


Here are the Venus Project's four phases (http://www.thevenusproject.com/intro_main/aims.htm):

Phase 1: Build 25-acre "research center" in Florida from which to promote ideas, book, pamphlets.
Status: Complete. Oops, for sale at a loss, that is.

Phase 2: Make a movie promoting the Venus Project.
Status: Idiotic, but complete. In 1994.

Phase 3: This is rather a big step over phase 2: raise money, then build an experimental city. Projected design: unstated. Projected location: unstated. Projected cost: unstated. Let's just say a real, real lot. It's a whole city, goddamnit! Send us money!
Status: After 34 years, we've begun to prepare some blueprints.

Phase 4: Build a Venus Project theme park. No, really. Because the experimental city isn't a theme park, it's, like, a theme city.
Status: We need to get our flying car repaired to scout out locations. Please send us money.


my ill will, these charlatans are laughing at people like you. Please don't fall for their nonsense.

[dudalb]

How dare someone suggest a way to better the world and improve the problems of money and greed and try to come up with a solution! This fresco guy surely is trying to become a cult leader/whacko/crackpot/nuthob that thinks too far outside of the box for our meagre minds to comprehend what he is trying to suggest.

He's just plain evil.

*sacrcasm sidenote.


What part of "Fresco's plan has no basis in reality" don't you understand?

[Travis]

Boy, the enthusiasm for this sure died quick. Which, if I might predict it now, is what will likely happen with the real Venus Project. At the end of the first weekend everyone is nursing headaches from hangovers lamenting, "dude, I totally dreamt that we tried to establish a new society or something."

[Soapy Sam]

Well, I actually listened to it.
Nothing there I haven't seen in many SF novels and frankly, nothing I profoundly disagree with, except that it won't work.
I can think of just a few small problems...
That doesn't mean NONE of it could work.

It has a very western and intellectual bias though. The circular city model harks back to Von Thunen in the 1800s. Hell, it harks back to Atlantis!. very kewl. Wholly unworkable. Mars or the Moon maybe. Can't see it happening here.

I did like the comparison of Mother Theresa with Alexander Fleming.

I'm going to second the OP in suggesting people listen to this . (It's not mentally demanding, you can do it while doing routine work without missing anything and it's primarily audio. You could suppress the visual part entirely and miss nothing.)
Like I say, I find it unworkable and utopian, but not unadmirable. I'd like some details on how whoever plans to try actually realising any of it. (Absent a global bloodbath).

The single feature of interest that is scarcely mentioned- is humans;- you know, the smelly, greedy, irrational things that steal, vandalise and destroy for no reason except that they enjoy it? The ones with all the kids and the wierd dogmas about behaviour?
Are they really just critters of their environment- or do they actually have a hard wired competitive side? (I lean towards the latter).

Still, maybe we need a little optimistic idealism right now. It's a bit blandly reassuring and I do want to smack the narrator, but it's no worse than most social documentaries.

One teeny quibble- Please. The word is "tenet", not "tenant".

[Foolmewunz]

Travis,
It's not that My Ill Will doesn't have staying power (except that he doesn't) but that he's off on an exciting new (derailed and at full throttle) train of thought.

May I suggest that for further hillarity you drop into the Politics section and check out his thread on the Freeman Revolution. Suspend all reason, ye who enter. (Actually, gas masks, goggles, ear plugs, and a bona fide sense of humor would also be of use.)

[dudalb]

What is entertaining about My Ill Will's change of course is it is a 180 Degree turn, since the nearly Objectivist principles of The Freeman Movement are almost totally opposite those of The Venus Project.
Of course it is not unusual for crackpots to make sudden reversals of direction.

[Travis]

Travis,
It's not that My Ill Will doesn't have staying power (except that he doesn't) but that he's off on an exciting new (derailed and at full throttle) train of thought.

May I suggest that for further hillarity you drop into the Politics section and check out his thread on the Freeman Revolution. Suspend all reason, ye who enter. (Actually, gas masks, goggles, ear plugs, and a bona fide sense of humor would also be of use.)

Hoo boy. Okay.

[Earthborn]

Phase 3: raise moneyNot such a great start for a society that is supposed to function without it.

[Stout]

I don't see why this idea couldn't function like any other of the thousands of intentional communities out there. I suppose the main limiting factors are size of the community and the obvious start up costs for a society totally based on technology. The initial construction would be cheap if they were to follow Fresco's building designs using concrete and steel with scavenged portholes for windows.

If this were built in a tropical area where the demands for heat ( forget AC, suck it up and sweat ) would be non existent, I don't see why they couldn't run this whole thing off of 12 volt technology with a focus on eating raw foods, or cooking over open fires.

pretty much your typical "commune" but with trippy buildings and computers in every room. Maybe a couple of those automatic doors, like on Star Trek, everbody running around wearing silver jumpsuits, a few solar powered golf carts...same same as any other intentional community except with futuristic trappings.

[INRM]

xivvmcm85

They actually admitted to being associated with the Venus Project?

[Myriad]

Comprehensive Questionnaire for Designers of New Societies:

1. Does your New Society offer me a daily free lunch?

2. If the answer to question #1 is yes, then no further answers are required. Nor desired. Thank you for participating.

3. If the answer to question #1 is no, then please describe in a few sentences how I as a typical member of your society would obtain my lunch.

Note that for any actual or fully envisioned society, present or historical, small or large scale, answering question #3 is relatively easy and straightforward. (Various answers might include such elements as backbreaking farm labor; a day job, money, and trade-offs between food quality, convenience, and price; attending the community refectory, at the proper time, conditional on meeting various community obligations; or drinking cheap vodka while waiting in long lines to exchange ration stamps for staple food items.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Soapy Sam]

While it's easy to be cynical, there is some truth to the points in the file.

It's self evident we can't go on just consuming and producing. Wall-E may be a shade OTT, but no more than that.

There's no doubt some sort of rational, centrally planned global economy might offer advantages over the current system, but absent a world government with teeth, the question is are we capable of rational, centrally planning anything?

Bring on the asteroid, I say, let the ants clear up the mess ten million years hence.

[Travis]

What I wonder is how is the Venus Project going to help those that might really need something new? Like the people in Bangladesh. There's 150 million of them with only 50% of the men literate and only 38% of the women literate. How would these 150 million destitute and largely uneducated people be brought into the Venus Project fold? How would it be done without fighting a war with the existing Bangladesh military?

Even if such things could be done what's to prevent a marauding warlord from raiding the Venus Project compound to grab some slave labor for themselves? I'm assuming the Venus Project has no army since armies are just the "governments brainwashed assassins" so how would security be attained?

[Foolmewunz]

What I wonder is how is the Venus Project going to help those that might really need something new? Like the people in Bangladesh. There's 150 million of them with only 50% of the men literate and only 38% of the women literate. How would these 150 million destitute and largely uneducated people be brought into the Venus Project fold? How would it be done without fighting a war with the existing Bangladesh military?

Even if such things could be done what's to prevent a marauding warlord from raiding the Venus Project compound to grab some slave labor for themselves? I'm assuming the Venus Project has no army since armies are just the "governments brainwashed assassins" so how would security be attained?

I think he addressed that. "If you need something, you just tap into the web and choose it and the resource-based-economy-bot will send it over." I'll admit they didn't go into too many details, so a tip of the hat to Myriad, 'cuz that's the point unaddressed. T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. Just where does the central computer get all those built-in refrigerators for all those needy Bangladeshis. Or the electricity to power those built-in refrigerators.

[Soapy Sam]

The problem with all one-shot utopias is not the general idea, but the need to do it all at once. That level of upheaval is impossible except in the wake of a global disaster on asteroid scale- and that's exactly when the resources to make it work would be absent.

Things must be done a bit at a time. One hopes we last long enough.

[Travis]

I think he addressed that. "If you need something, you just tap into the web and choose it and the resource-based-economy-bot will send it over." I'll admit they didn't go into too many details, so a tip of the hat to Myriad, 'cuz that's the point unaddressed. T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. Just where does the central computer get all those built-in refrigerators for all those needy Bangladeshis. Or the electricity to power those built-in refrigerators.

What about my issue with security?

[Foolmewunz]

What about my issue with security?

Wait, no! That was MY issue with security. (Well, I concur, actually... I think I brought it up back on page one of the thread when I'd just watched the video.)

Actually, I was leaning more towards the question of just how you achieve all this, and that, in fairness, is a question long ago asked and someone here already cited the glaring flaw in Venus Project that is the same as all the other Utopian schemes. They have these lovely schematics of how the cities will function, and probably are preparing technical drawings of things like people movers and space cars and solar wind thermal generators.... but they haven't explained why and how Robert Mugabe is going to give up all that arable land nor why Turkmenistan is going to donate their natural gas to the cause.

As I said earlier.....

First, catch three tigers.