The Venus Project

[Prometheus]

Well, then, it's a futuristic house in the middle of fricken nowhere.

Seriously, I only live a couple of hours north, and I'm at the tail end of civilization. There is literally nothing but farmland and wilderness between here and Miami, and that house is right in the middle of it.

'Futuristic' by 1950's standards, maybe, but I guess they'd just see such obsolescence as being efficient. :rolleyes:

http://www.flalandsale.com/building2.html

[fullflavormenthol]

'Futuristic' by 1950's standards, maybe, but I guess they'd just see such obsolescence as being efficient. :rolleyes:

http://www.flalandsale.com/building2.html
Oh my...

Someone was really influenced by 50s/60s Sci-Fi. That really starts to explain a lot actually.

EDIT: That could also explain why no one wants to buy it. Personally I am more a Victorian man myself, but most people would not want to live in a Jetson's fantasy camp. A little too Kitsch, and I am a guy who likes Jeff Koons.

[grandthefttoaster]

'Futuristic' by 1950's standards, maybe, but I guess they'd just see such obsolescence as being efficient. :rolleyes:

http://www.flalandsale.com/building2.html

Hey, I think the Venus compound is pretty cool, I like the whole retro-futurism style:

http://www.plan59.com/images/JPGs/styling_house_of_the_future_00.jpg

[fullflavormenthol]

Hey, I think the Venus compound is pretty cool, I like the whole retro-futurism style:

http://www.plan59.com/images/JPGs/styling_house_of_the_future_00.jpg
Honestly it smacks of a guy that was really influenced by his time. It is the science fiction of the 50s/60s, and that would be really cool if it wasn't this whole social stuff tied into it.

Myself I was influenced by the more libertarian* 80s/90s science fiction, and so I expect the future to be completely dystopic.

....wait...hey lets start the Venus Project and I will be able to still get that dystopic future I have been expecting as long as it is brightly colored and draws from the 40s.:D

EDIT: *I am refering to the parables of individualism over the oppressive society.

[defaultdotxbe]

the venus compound would be a cool place to live, but then i like the whole kitschy retro-future style, but as a social movement it just doesnt work

think about it this way, you could create the venus project vision of the future by giving everyone an american express platinum card, except they never have to pay it back

obviously this raises the question "who is going to pay for it" since you cant give every man woman and child unlimited money, VP hand waves this away by saying money doesnt exist in a resource-based economy, but money is simply an analog for resources, it just replaces dollars with commodity values, but if we take away the monetary value of a pork belly, it doesnt give us an infiinite supply of bacon (as great as that would be) so the question is still, where do the resources come from?

i guess the whole idea comes down to the CT suppressed technologies, that technology to provide unlimited resources is suppressed since it would negate future profits, but that notion fails to take into account competition, as long as there are more than one company supplying resources there is always an incentive for company A to supply more than company B, and thus always a push toward infinite supply

[fullflavormenthol]

Well I am going to go back and ask questions as an artist. Art can inspire different emotions in people, and the Venus Project really depends on people getting along. So what if I create art that inspires a negative emotion in people? For that matter where do I get the materials to pay for my art? Right now I can go to Walmart and buy a couple of koosh balls and paint, and to Hobby Lobby to buy a canvas. Now that is my jolly's if I get nothing out of it, but in a VP world how does that work; and what if that art work inspires a bad feeling in people? Will the VP take that expression away from me? I mean honesltly I am a really negative person. I have a bad outlook on life in general, and I don't think the VP will be kind to that.

[Rogue1stclass]

Even having artistic ability would put you at odds with The Venus Project.

Everyone has the same phone. It's a super-technologically advanced wonder of design that will last 1000 years.

But, it's gunmetal colored.

In a fit of artistic frenzy, break up a pen that you are sent but never use and use the ink to scrawl designs on yours.

Other people see your phone and want one like it, but they don't have the talent to create it. Nor do you have the time, energy, nor inspiration to ink everyone else's phone. Congratulations, you have just created an item of scarcity that Friend Computer must deal with. Its options are to provide everyone with uniquely custom phones or to keep you from creating them. Which do you think it will pick?

"We're sorry, but uniquely customized phones are not available at your Security Clearance. Please report immediately to the nearest Suicide Booth for further instruction. Thank you and have a nice day."

Incidentally, Walt Disney was also inspired by 50s and 60s science fiction for his vision of utopia. Parts of Tommorrowland seem downright quaint today.

[McHrozni]

obviously this raises the question "who is going to pay for it" since you cant give every man woman and child unlimited money, VP hand waves this away by saying money doesnt exist in a resource-based economy, but money is simply an analog for resources, it just replaces dollars with commodity values, but if we take away the monetary value of a pork belly, it doesnt give us an infiinite supply of bacon (as great as that would be) so the question is still, where do the resources come from?

The Venus project doctrine is that resources will be available in an unlimited quantity for all. It postulates that because the US went from an inventory 600 first-class fighters in 1940 to producing 90,000 planes a year during WW2 (that number is greater than the total number of planes that were produced in the US during the war, but that's another story), it is possible, indeed it is easy, to produce more than enough of everything for everybody and give much more leisure time to everybody.
Thus far I have restrained myself from asking them how they tie in the much greater workloads and routine 12-hour shifts during the war to their theory. I guess extreme confirmation bias is a requirement to join their movement.

McHrozni

[Stout]

Hey, I think the Venus compound is pretty cool, I like the whole retro-futurism style:

http://www.plan59.com/images/JPGs/styling_house_of_the_future_00.jpg

hey, cool picture.

However.

If I were the guy standing on the beach and somebody brought their jet powered plane boat that close to me, I don't think I'd be none to happy about that. Likewise if I was guy with family enjoying a quiet breakfast of soylent green and romulin ale and guy with small personal helicopter fired it up I can see my mood shattered by the duck and cover we'd need to do.

Why are these potential problems that we all know would arise from these futuristic devices simply glossed over ? A few months ago i saw a "flying car" on discovery channel. Cool, I thought, but just don't try landing that thing anywhere near me when I'm walking along the sidewalk.

[Stout]

think about it this way, you could create the venus project vision of the future by giving everyone an american express platinum card, except they never have to pay it back



I like your thinking here. :D

[dudalb]

Honestly it smacks of a guy that was really influenced by his time. It is the science fiction of the 50s/60s, and that would be really cool if it wasn't this whole social stuff tied into it.

Myself I was influenced by the more libertarian* 80s/90s science fiction, and so I expect the future to be completely dystopic.

....wait...hey lets start the Venus Project and I will be able to still get that dystopic future I have been expecting as long as it is brightly colored and draws from the 40s.:D

EDIT: *I am refering to the parables of individualism over the oppressive society.

I am more of a 30s/40s Pulp Sci Fi Look fan myself. My favorite Star Wars Poster was the one they put out in Europe that had a 30's "Amazing Stories " Cover look.

[Travis]

hey, cool picture.

However.

If I were the guy standing on the beach and somebody brought their jet powered plane boat that close to me, I don't think I'd be none to happy about that. Likewise if I was guy with family enjoying a quiet breakfast of soylent green and romulin ale and guy with small personal helicopter fired it up I can see my mood shattered by the duck and cover we'd need to do.

Why are these potential problems that we all know would arise from these futuristic devices simply glossed over ? A few months ago i saw a "flying car" on discovery channel. Cool, I thought, but just don't try landing that thing anywhere near me when I'm walking along the sidewalk.

Flying cars seem like a good idea until you realize that the idiot you saw some morning swerving all over the place until he eventually smacked into a tree would, in a flying car, likely be plunging a 4-5 ton vehicle into a whole house from hundreds of feet up in the air!


So then, lets suppose Venusville gets up and running somewhere with a group of nice adults who are wholly committed to leaving all the nice things in life behind for the sake of bland sameness. What's to be done with their children as they are born and grow up in Venusville? One option would be to let them know about the outside world, with the risk they'll leave, but with threats of excommunication should they do so. The other option is to not let them know about the outside world at all and, to keep them from investigating and accidentally stumbling upon it, you tell them the woods on all sides are populated by horrible, deadly monsters!




Okay, now here's something to ponder. Venusville is supposed to be all about people engaging in original research, so, I have a new ultra-efficient car design that I want to build. The catch is that I will be requiring vast supplies of insulin to use in the production of the new exotic polywater engine. What's to prevent me from acquiring all the available insulin for this endeavor?

[grandthefttoaster]

So then, lets suppose Venusville gets up and running somewhere with a group of nice adults who are wholly committed to leaving all the nice things in life behind for the sake of bland sameness. What's to be done with their children as they are born and grow up in Venusville? One option would be to let them know about the outside world, with the risk they'll leave, but with threats of excommunication should they do so. The other option is to not let them know about the outside world at all and, to keep them from investigating and accidentally stumbling upon it, you tell them the woods on all sides are populated by horrible, deadly monsters.

There probably never will be a Venusville. If they built an experimental city that would mean they'd be acually following their own rules of using the scientific method to make decisions instead of their own opinions. But even then they still would have to use their own opinions and values to evaluate the scientific data and decide that their city worked better then the rest of society.

[theprestige]

Thus far I have restrained myself from asking them how they tie in the much greater workloads and routine 12-hour shifts during the war to their theory. I guess extreme confirmation bias is a requirement to join their movement.
Actually, that's where the magic robots come in. They'll do all the work for us.

[McHrozni]

Actually, that's where the magic robots come in. They'll do all the work for us.

Yeah, I get it. Why would such robots be impossible in a today's' system? Is it "because Jaques Fresco says so", or is it something else? :)

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Okay, now here's something to ponder. Venusville is supposed to be all about people engaging in original research, so, I have a new ultra-efficient car design that I want to build. The catch is that I will be requiring vast supplies of insulin to use in the production of the new exotic polywater engine. What's to prevent me from acquiring all the available insulin for this endeavor?

According to their theory, there will be more enough to go around even for your car. Absurd, I know, but this is their ultimate get away free card. :)

McHrozni

[Stout]

My original research involves a 200 foot yacht crewed by Victoria's Secret models:D

[defaultdotxbe]

Thus far I have restrained myself from asking them how they tie in the much greater workloads and routine 12-hour shifts during the war to their theory. I guess extreme confirmation bias is a requirement to join their movement.

McHrozni
not only that, it assumes the same amount of raw materials were available to non-war production (completely ignoring rationing) and also assumes that civilian production remained the same throughout the war (yeah, im sure detroit was producing the same number of cars for the civilian market while churning out planes and tanks for the war)

[McHrozni]

not only that, it assumes the same amount of raw materials were available to non-war production (completely ignoring rationing) and also assumes that civilian production remained the same throughout the war (yeah, im sure detroit was producing the same number of cars for the civilian market while churning out planes and tanks for the war)

Absolutely correct, although I would use "postulates" rather than "assumes". The Venus Project is not about to admit any possibility it is in some way flawed somewhere.

McHrozni

[fromdownunder]

Sorry if I am moving a little off topic - I don't believe that I am. I am one of those wierd sub-humans, known as a Philatelist (or stamp collector for the less informed).

In this wonderful future, will stamp collecting be permitted? The reason for this question is that there are no infinite resources that can support this hobby. For quite a number of extant stamps, there are less than one hundred examples known. For a small number single digit legitimate copies are available, and for several well, (to keep with the SF theme) "there can only be one".

So, to take the latter example, one person on the planet can own these particular stamps. But I want them, and no amount of money (or non-money) in the world can satisfy that need. A copy, reproduction, facsimile, or photo in a magazine will not do the job.

How does the Venus Project satisfy this need, or indeed the needs of any collector of any ephemera where the sole purpose is obtaining items of limited supply. and the major cost factor is supply v demand.

Supply cannot be increased forever - it cannot be increased at all. One is all there is, and all there ever will be!

So, after a bit of verbosity. essentially my point is, will collectables (stamps, coins, 1960's DC Comics, Phonecards, autographed Frank Herbert first editions, the Mona Lisa for heaven's sake, - any ephemera), where there is finite, established and known quantities be permitted in Venusland? Or is groupthink mandatory, and all other endeavours and hobbies squashed?

Norm

[Prometheus]

Sorry if I am moving a little off topic - I don't believe that I am. I am one of those wierd sub-humans, known as a Philatelist (or stamp collector for the less informed).

In this wonderful future, will stamp collecting be permitted? The reason for this question is that there are no infinite resources that can support this hobby. For quite a number of extant stamps, there are less than one hundred examples known. For a small number single digit legitimate copies are available, and for several well, (to keep with the SF theme) "there can only be one".

So, to take the latter example, one person on the planet can own these particular stamps. But I want them, and no amount of money (or non-money) in the world can satisfy that need. A copy, reproduction, facsimile, or photo in a magazine will not do the job.

How does the Venus Project satisfy this need, or indeed the needs of any collector of any ephemera where the sole purpose is obtaining items of limited supply. and the major cost factor is supply v demand.

Supply cannot be increased forever - it cannot be increased at all. One is all there is, and all there ever will be!

So, after a bit of verbosity. essentially my point is, will collectables (stamps, coins, 1960's DC Comics, Phonecards, autographed Frank Herbert first editions, the Mona Lisa for heaven's sake, - any ephemera), where there is finite, established and known quantities be permitted in Venusland? Or is groupthink mandatory, and all other endeavours and hobbies squashed?

Norm

I'm afraid you'll have to be 're-educated'. :stone028:

[fromdownunder]

I'm afraid you'll have to be 're-educated'. :stone028:

In the Orwell sense? I thought so.

Norm

[fullflavormenthol]

I get irrated about such talk as "what you really need" because I collect Lego stuff. I don't need it, and there is no real reason to have it. I just like having Legos. I bought a pair of Converse One-Star shoes (the ones at Target), not because I couldn't afford the Chuck Taylors, but because I honestly like the look of the One-Stars. I hate this idea of a society that tells me all that I like is conditioning, and I have no right to want something different.

[grandthefttoaster]

I get irrated about such talk as "what you really need" because I collect Lego stuff. I don't need it, and there is no real reason to have it. I just like having Legos.

I'm sorry, but important resources such as Legos have been declared the common heritage of all people and will be confiscated. (We need new material to build our future cities and monorails out of.)

http://www.1000steine.com/brickset/images/6990-1.jpg

[quixotecoyote]

So, basically, this guy is a wannabe Walt Disney.

He bought a bunch of land in fricken middle of nowhere Florida to set up his City of Tommorrow that would be an inspiration for the world. Unfortunately for this new guy, Disney was a brilliant businessman with resources just short of God and even he wasn't able to make it happen in his lifetime. And without his vision, EPCOT went from City of the Future to the lamest of the Disney theme parks.

Without the resources and investments Disney was able to bring to bear to basically build Orlando from a hick farm town into one of the biggest cities in Florida, The Venus Project is going end up exactly what it is, a commune in the middle of frickin' nowhere. Seriously, it's an hour drive to the nearest Walmart from that place. There can't be much in the way of broadband internet or cell reception there. And with no possibility of any kind of return, good luck getting investment in there to build it for you.

The specifics of this guy's idea are fatally flawed anyway. They are based in obsolete 19th Century social philosophies. People don't just become happy and stop wanting stuff just because their basic needs are met. People don't always restrict themselves to what they are taught or what society tells them. People aren't just some combination of genes and environment. People are collections of individuals, and individuals innovate, resist, push boundries, and generally do their own thing as long as they can get away with it and sometimes when they know they can't.

That's why when a commune gets beyond the True Believer stage they generally either fail or become totalitarian. The more individuals in a group, the greater the variety of motivations and preferences. If your society can't meet those motivations and preferences, and keep in mind, individual variations are inherent in the human condition and cannot be controlled for, then it is going to have to quash them. This is going to be especially problematic in the Venus Project, which intends to encourage innovation while discouraging individuality.

I disagree. Disney wasn't trying to create some futuristic utopia, he was aiming for a city based on innovative urban planning.

The only wacky stuff I know related to the EPCOT project was a radial design with commerce and industry at the center and residential zones spreading out, a mass transit oriented transportation system, and a underground series of freight/car traffic, a la Chicago on a larger scale.

None of that was impossible to do with technology at the time and none of it runs into the problems that something as wacky as the Venus Project does.

The problem for EPCOT was that it was a massive investment with nothing to base predictions of success on, and the board was understandably hesitant to invest.

Since then however, they have done a modified version of it (without the more innovative elements, sadly) which is called Celebration in Florida.

[Klimax]

Sorry if I am moving a little off topic - I don't believe that I am. I am one of those wierd sub-humans, known as a Philatelist (or stamp collector for the less informed).
...
Norm

Well,I got bit better collection. I collect computer parts and they could be manufactured just for our sake. (Not in huge numbers,they are not that usefull :D)

That one would be more manageable...

[Rogue1stclass]

I disagree. Disney wasn't trying to create some futuristic utopia, he was aiming for a city based on innovative urban planning.

No, EPCOT wasn't actually intended to be a utopia. However, I do think that Disney's unbridled optimism believed that technology would eventually solve all of the world's problems and that EPCOT was supposed to be a first step towards that end.

Since then however, they have done a modified version of it (without the more innovative elements, sadly) which is called Celebration in Florida.

Haven't been up to Celebration, so I don't know how much it differs, but deed restricted communities built around a town center are pretty common in Central Florida. I live in one myself, and I gotta tell ya, I miss corner gas stations.

[Rogue1stclass]

Sorry if I am moving a little off topic - I don't believe that I am. I am one of those wierd sub-humans, known as a Philatelist (or stamp collector for the less informed).

In this wonderful future, will stamp collecting be permitted? The reason for this question is that there are no infinite resources that can support this hobby. For quite a number of extant stamps, there are less than one hundred examples known. For a small number single digit legitimate copies are available, and for several well, (to keep with the SF theme) "there can only be one".

So, to take the latter example, one person on the planet can own these particular stamps. But I want them, and no amount of money (or non-money) in the world can satisfy that need. A copy, reproduction, facsimile, or photo in a magazine will not do the job.

How does the Venus Project satisfy this need, or indeed the needs of any collector of any ephemera where the sole purpose is obtaining items of limited supply. and the major cost factor is supply v demand.

Supply cannot be increased forever - it cannot be increased at all. One is all there is, and all there ever will be!

So, after a bit of verbosity. essentially my point is, will collectables (stamps, coins, 1960's DC Comics, Phonecards, autographed Frank Herbert first editions, the Mona Lisa for heaven's sake, - any ephemera), where there is finite, established and known quantities be permitted in Venusland? Or is groupthink mandatory, and all other endeavours and hobbies squashed?

Norm

The only way The Venus Project can work is if everything created prior to the Project's implementation is destroyed. Therefore, you won't collect stamps because there will be no stamps to collect. You won't watch The Vanishing Point and want a '71 Dodge Challenger because neither The Vanishing Point nor '71 Dodge Challengers will exist.

Anything else will destroy the all important conditioning.

[cornsail]

p.s. I've had these concerns since I saw the Zeitgeist video, but I noticed on the Zeitgeist forums, there is no forum for skeptics, like even the Loose Change forum has. If their goal is to convince people of the Venus Project, then it would probably be a good idea to allow non-supporters to debate. Maybe you should suggest this to them.

Skeptics are allowed on any of the forums AFAIK. Ed used to be the main 9-11 truth debunker there and I've posted a fair amount against the Christ Conspiracy claims recently. There have been some people completely opposed to TVP who debate on there also, although I haven't payed much attention.

I never had that much interest in the Venus Project personally, although I find it cool and inspiring as a thought experiment. It is best not to think of it dogmatically, but rather as a loose association of ideas. As some sort of plan of action it is useless, in my opinion (even more so now thanks to Peter Joseph who's plan as I last heard it is to recruit as many people as possible--nevermind that his promoting of woo dries away most intelligent people and reels in the AJ fans--then wait for the for the monetary system to fail and have something like the venus project emerge from the wreckage). As a potential way in which society could be shaped in the future, it's incomplete, but otherwise hardly implausible. We (humans) lived for over 100,000 years with no civilization. Then we lived for 1000s of years without anything resembling a Western democracy. Even in the last 40 years there's been major changes in the US. What can and can't work we are far from finished exploring.

[Edx]

Good to see you here Cornsail.

Dont have time to chat here again but thought I'd plug my youtubechannel (http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSkepticalIdealist) that relates to Zeitgeist.

[McHrozni]

As a potential way in which society could be shaped in the future, it's incomplete, but otherwise hardly implausible. We (humans) lived for over 100,000 years with no civilization. Then we lived for 1000s of years without anything resembling a Western democracy. Even in the last 40 years there's been major changes in the US. What can and can't work we are far from finished exploring.

Think of it from the other perspective. If the civilisational model where everything is shared by everybody could compete overall with the private/personal ownership model we have, that system would at least take hold, if not won over completely in the first place.
Such societies existed, mostly in prehistory with some surviving to the modern era, but were always swamped out and vastly overtaken by their more successful neighbors or opponents.

We're forced to conclude, then, that such a society simply cannot compete with an ownership-based society, and it (virtually) disappeared. Considering it's poor results are evident, I really don't see why we would have to mourn it or wish it to come back. It might look okay from a distance, but close by, it looks just plain ugly from all aspects.

McHrozni

[cornsail]

Think of it from the other perspective. If the civilisational model where everything is shared by everybody could compete overall with the private/personal ownership model we have, that system would at least take hold, if not won over completely in the first place.
Such societies existed, mostly in prehistory with some surviving to the modern era, but were always swamped out and vastly overtaken by their more successful neighbors or opponents.

If we tried to determine the possibilities of human society based on the past alone, we would have to conclude in points of our history that monarchy/despotism was the only realistic possibility. And before that we would conclude (based on a far less insignificant sample size) that nomadism was the only realistic possibility. The argument doesn't work. Civilization is in its infancy and no one can predict what it will look like in 500 years.

[McHrozni]

If we tried to determine the possibilities of human society based on the past alone, we would have to conclude in points of our history that monarchy/despotism was the only realistic possibility. And before that we would conclude (based on a far less insignificant sample size) that nomadism was the only realistic possibility. The argument doesn't work. Civilization is in its infancy and no one can predict what it will look like in 500 years.

That was not my argument at all.

Your point would be true if monarchy/despotism coexisted alongside democracy, and won over it. That may happen someday, but it sure doesn't look like it ever could. Nomadism is the same thing, had nomadism existed alongside settled living, and in time nomadism outgrew the settled living, then your argument would be true. Instead, the opposite is true.

Both cases are similar, however. Democracies have grown and outgrown tyrannies, with but a few outposts left. Settled living has outgrown nomadism, with but a few nomads roaming the Earth. We can agree that democracy produces better results for civilization than despotism, and we can also agree that settled living does as well.
By the same extent, we can also agree that a property - based society produces better results than a communist (or however you call it) society.

McHrozni

[cornsail]

That was not my argument at all.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm reinterpreting your position as follows. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

-Let A and B be mutually exclusive properties
-Societies with property A have existed alongside societies with property B
-Societies with property B out competed societies with property A
-Therefore future societies with property A will be unable to compete with societies with property B
-Therefore societies with property B produce better results for civilization

I'm still a little unclear on your argument, though. Which prehistoric shared resource societies are you talking about exactly? Are you talking about nomad groups or an actual civilization like in early Sumer? If the former, I'd say it's an irrelevant comparison. If the latter, I'm no scholar of prehistory, but I'd say your sample size is way too small, it lacks reasonable external validity and not enough is actually known about it.

Your point would be true if monarchy/despotism coexisted alongside democracy, and won over it.
I don't know how you would define "won it over", but democracy existed in ancient Athens and was out competed for the most part until the 20th century. A couple hundred years back you would have to conclude that democracy was a poor form of government.

I also find it implausible that absolutely no communities attempted settled living before 5000 BC. They were most likely just out competed by nomadic groups (also probably a big reason why we out competed Neanderthals who tended to be far less nomadic). But I'm speculating. If you consider that plausible, though, would you take that as an argument that we never should have expected settled living to become a successful form of society?

We can agree that democracy produces better results for civilization than despotism, and we can also agree that settled living does as well.
I would agree that democracy produces better results for civilization, but it has nothing to do with the argument you've been making. If the US lost the cold war or underwent a Marxist revolution would you conclude that totalitarianism "produces better results for civilization"?

[McHrozni]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm reinterpreting your position as follows. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

-Let A and B be mutually exclusive properties
-Societies with property A have existed alongside societies with property B
-Societies with property B out competed societies with property A
-Therefore future societies with property A will be unable to compete with societies with property B
-Therefore societies with property B produce better results for civilization

This is the reasoning, yes, although "property" would be better said to be a "defining characteristic". Not every property of a civilisation will be this severe.

I'm still a little unclear on your argument, though. Which prehistoric shared resource societies are you talking about exactly? Are you talking about nomad groups or an actual civilization like in early Sumer? If the former, I'd say it's an irrelevant comparison. If the latter, I'm no scholar of prehistory, but I'd say your sample size is way too small, it lacks reasonable external validity and not enough is actually known about it.

Some hunter-gatherer tribes still do it that way, like the Bushmen. There were artificial attempts at using this sort of approach in the Communist world - Soviet Kolkhoses, Chinese co-ops, and all performed abmyssimally. Paris Commune of 1871 also tried that to some extent, and failed. A Spanish collective Modragon, organized along these lines though not following them precisely, managed to last for some time, but soon began to falter and start using the property model to some extent.

The comparison is not necessarily irrelevant - a more advanced, settled society apperently can't function without a system of property.


I don't know how you would define "won it over", but democracy existed in ancient Athens and was out competed for the most part until the 20th century. A couple hundred years back you would have to conclude that democracy was a poor form of government.

Democracy of ancient Athens was a poor form of government. The democracy we have now is much more similar to the Roman Republic, where a government exists to represent the interests of various groups of people. Again, significant differances exist, but contrast this to what was essentially a referendum state in Athens, which is considered unworkable in the modern age.
Don't call two systems the same just because they share a few characteristics and a single word. Modern democracies don't even call themselves democracies, but republics or constitutiuonal monarchies (with a few others, like Grand Duchies, but that changes little).

I also find it implausible that absolutely no communities attempted settled living before 5000 BC. They were most likely just out competed by nomadic groups (also probably a big reason why we out competed Neanderthals who tended to be far less nomadic). But I'm speculating. If you consider that plausible, though, would you take that as an argument that we never should have expected settled living to become a successful form of society?

Again, you missed my argument. The argument wasn't that settled living will win every time and in short order. That is false anyway, Huns and Mongols for example, were nomads, but were fairly effective in the short run. In the long run, however, they were outcompeted by settled peoples in a few decades - two generations and they essentially died off or settled down and began to rapidly assimilate into the settled population. In the long run, however, nomadism lost whereever settled living was viable.

I would agree that democracy produces better results for civilization, but it has nothing to do with the argument you've been making. If the US lost the cold war or underwent a Marxist revolution would you conclude that totalitarianism "produces better results for civilization"?

If Marxism also spread to the rest of the world, which would accept it without too much cohertion, then in all likelyhood, yes. It didn't, though, it deteriated and all but collapsed, which strengthens my argument, I believe?

There is one more thing which you apperantly missed. Not all defining characteristics are of equal severity. Absolutism vs Democracy is a much less severe in effectiveness as ownership vs commune society. An absolutist society has many advantages over a democratic one in effectiveness and short term stability, and it's ability to respond quickly and effectively against dangers of any kind. A democracy is more effective in the long run, because it stimulates people towards bettering their lives for themselves, which gives better results in economy and technology in the long run, and it also has an easier time convincing people not to take up arms against the government.
Nomadism vs settled living is a similar, but more severe - settled living produces better results, but at a similarily low technological level, nomadism can outperform it in military capacity and perhaps some other means, and conquer a settled population. Over time, however, one of two things will happen:
- settled population will outgrow in numbers, wealth and technology and wipe out the nomadic one or
- nomadic population will settle down and stop being nomadic

Property vs commune is more severe. A communal population never managed to develop into a significant civilisation from the bottom up, and whenever it was imposed from the top down, it failed. This happened over a much shorter period of time than the above examples, modern democracy needed over two centuries to eventually triumph over absolutism, while nomadic versus settled living typically needed at least two generations to work. Contrast this with failures on the scale of months for property vs commune living.

McHrozni

[cornsail]

This is the reasoning, yes, although "property" would be better said to be a "defining characteristic". Not every property of a civilisation will be this severe.

Yes, not every property of a society is equally significant. However, there are far too many important factors to label a single one of them as "defining".

Some hunter-gatherer tribes still do it that way, like the Bushmen.
The idea we're discussing has nothing to do with hunter-gatherer tribes, though.

There were artificial attempts at using this sort of approach in the Communist world - Soviet Kolkhoses, Chinese co-ops, and all performed abmyssimally. Paris Commune of 1871 also tried that to some extent, and failed. A Spanish collective Modragon, organized along these lines though not following them precisely, managed to last for some time, but soon began to falter and start using the property model to some extent.
None of these things were remotely close to a society without traditional property rights. And aside from the Paris Commune they were not even societies, but businesses.

The comparison is not necessarily irrelevant - a more advanced, settled society apperently can't function without a system of property.

Like I said, by your logic one would conclude 10,000 years ago that settled societies apparently can't compete with nomadic ones. And one would conclude 200 years ago that Democracies cannot compete with dictatorships.

Democracy of ancient Athens was a poor form of government. The democracy we have now is much more similar to the Roman Republic, where a government exists to represent the interests of various groups of people. Again, significant differances exist, but contrast this to what was essentially a referendum state in Athens, which is considered unworkable in the modern age.
Don't call two systems the same just because they share a few characteristics and a single word. Modern democracies don't even call themselves democracies, but republics or constitutiuonal monarchies (with a few others, like Grand Duchies, but that changes little).

You are right, but for reasons that undermine your own argument when you make simplistic conclusions about what societies are possible in the future based on past societies. Western democracy is unprecedented (and yes I know it's not pure democracy, nor are there absolute property rights anywhere).

Again, you missed my argument. The argument wasn't that settled living will win every time and in short order. That is false anyway, Huns and Mongols for example, were nomads, but were fairly effective in the short run. In the long run, however, they were outcompeted by settled peoples in a few decades - two generations and they essentially died off or settled down and began to rapidly assimilate into the settled population. In the long run, however, nomadism lost whereever settled living was viable.

I'm not sure how you define "viable". Are you saying that there was nowhere settled living was viable until 5000 BC? 100,000 years is an awful long time to call the short run. If your argument is that changes in environmental circumstances change what types of societies are viable then this also undermines your argument since you're making conclusions about the future from a period with very different environmental/technological circumstances.

If Marxism also spread to the rest of the world, which would accept it without too much cohertion, then in all likelyhood, yes. It didn't, though, it deteriated and all but collapsed, which strengthens my argument, I believe?

Democracy hasn't spread to the whole world, so you're setting the standards too high. And now you're introducing a new element to the argument, acceptance without coercion, when before you were simply talking about survival and outcompeting. My point was that you can't simply judge the "positive results" of a society by how well it competes, conquers others etc. otherwise you'd conclude 50 years ago that Soviet Russia was a better society than all the Eastern European countries it conquered.

[McHrozni]

Yes, not every property of a society is equally significant. However, there are far too many important factors to label a single one of them as "defining".

I'm not labeling a single one defining. Several are, such as organization of division of labor and such. These are the most important aspect of a society.

The idea we're discussing has nothing to do with hunter-gatherer tribes, though.

Erm, quite the opposite. It's one of the best examples of a human society that doesn't know property. No other property free society existed for very long - they usually collapsed within months.

None of these things were remotely close to a society without traditional property rights. And aside from the Paris Commune they were not even societies, but businesses.

They were, however, attempts at making a society without private property (which is distinct from personal property), and none of them were nearly as successful as their property-owning competition in the long run - and often in the short run. It's the best we have to study how a property-free society and how it may function. The result is clear - rather poorly, even in the lite version.

Like I said, by your logic one would conclude 10,000 years ago that settled societies apparently can't compete with nomadic ones.

10,000 years ago, there were very few, if any, settled societies. I couldn't make that conclusion, since settled societies were never tried at that point. This contrasts with a property free society, that has existed for millenia, often alongside a property owning society, and the latter prevailed each and every time.

And one would conclude 200 years ago that Democracies cannot compete with dictatorships.

200 years ago, the world had one actual democracy, which has already shown it can resist a monarchy, and defeated it in a war, which tried to end it's existence.
No, you could not conclude that 200 years ago.

You are right, but for reasons that undermine your own argument when you make simplistic conclusions about what societies are possible in the future based on past societies.

Only if you miss the rather vital parts of history, which clearly show Athens thriving and sometimes prevailing in the face of dictatorship. Property free society has yet to score a single notable victory over a property owning society (USSR wasn't a property free society, but some of it's attempts were).

Again, democracy versus absolutism is a much smaller difference than property vs no property.

I'm not sure how you define "viable". Are you saying that there was nowhere settled living was viable until 5000 BC?

By viable I also mean that the necessary technology - like agriculture - are developed.

100,000 years is an awful long time to call the short run.

Only if we assume all early societies were property free. We don't know if that was the case. If it was, there was no competition, and no competition means we can't compare the effects of the two. If it wasn't, then the property free society clearly couldn't compete in the long run, although the time scale is thousands of years, rather than years.

If your argument is that changes in environmental circumstances change what types of societies are viable then this also undermines your argument since you're making conclusions about the future from a period with very different environmental/technological circumstances.

No, the environment has very little to do with the argument, although technology is a factor - no society that advanced beyond the primitive technologies of hunter-gatherers was able to maintain a property-free characteristic.

Democracy hasn't spread to the whole world, so you're setting the standards too high.

Even that's arguable, virtually every government in the world maintains some minor pretense of democracy - even North Korea has elections. Obviously these elections are just a pretense and not democratic at all, but just as obviously, this pretense of democracy has some importance to them.

Regardless, I'd settle for USA and Europe in that particular case. Just USA is too restrictive. I never said it needed to cover every part of the globe.

And now you're introducing a new element to the argument, acceptance without coercion, when before you were simply talking about survival and outcompeting.

That's because the two examples aren't as comparable as you would like them to be. Communism was spread almost exclusively through coercion, which doesn't apply for a property-owning society. It does apply for a property-free society to a small extent, with predictable results.

In addition, the competition between property and no property took place during a period when survival was the issue, and competition over many generations - akin to evolution - was what made one way of life prevail.
Communism stopped being a major force in the world affairs within 72 years of it's first major experiment.
You can't equate these two struggles. You can draw some parallels, but not every factor will appear in both.

My point was that you can't simply judge the "positive results" of a society by how well it competes, conquers others etc. otherwise you'd conclude 50 years ago that Soviet Russia was a better society than all the Eastern European countries it conquered.

Here's a news flash for you: I don't. Spread is one factor, but not the only one. At the very least you need to include results in science and technology and arts.
Democracy eventually prevailed over communism for precisely these factors (and a few others).

Soviet conquering is precisely why I introduced acceptance without coercion. In the struggle between communism (or socialism) versus democracy, it was a vital factor. It doesn't apply for a property based society, since those very likely weren't spread by war.

McHrozni

[cornsail]

10,000 years ago, there were very few, if any, settled societies. I couldn't make that conclusion, since settled societies were never tried at that point.
No settled society had ever been tried?

200 years ago, the world had one actual democracy, which has already shown it can resist a monarchy, and defeated it in a war, which tried to end it's existence.
No, you could not conclude that 200 years ago.

But compared to anything it was certainly less successful.

By viable I also mean that the necessary technology - like agriculture - are developed.
Which is part of what I said. It seems to undermine your argument, because the same thing applies to the future.

[McHrozni]

No settled society had ever been tried?

That I do not know, but I did presume that by 10,000 years ago, you meant not the literal date, but the time before settled living became a reality. If you meant the actual date, please tell me how widespread that was at the time.

But compared to anything it was certainly less successful.

Perhaps so, but it was vastly more successful than a property-free society ever was. The scale of difference is so huge that such comparisons have a limited value at best.

Which is part of what I said. It seems to undermine your argument, because the same thing applies to the future.

This may be true. However, since a property-free society is inherently suitable only for a technologically backwards community, and falters quickly as technology gets more advanced, the reverse could easily apply. Not all aspects are universal, nor is there any need for them to be.

A property-free society probably was viable while the entire property to be owned were the clothes on your back and the few tools the community used to hunt. As societies advanced however, better forms of society on all levels emerged if the society was to progress at all.

Generally speaking, it seems quite likely that a certain amount of selfishness was imprinted upon us through evolution. That selfishness was not absolute, and we remain very capable of selfless acts, but even then we always tend to put people or societies closer to us before those away from us. People are more likely to give their lives to protect their children, than to protect nameless strangers from the other side of the world. The orientation is the same with less severe examples, and the same reasoning applies. That is in agreement with the human being more adapted to an ownership based society to a property-free society. I don't know of a single trait that would indicate humans function better in a property-free society. Do you?

McHrozni

[cornsail]

That I do not know, but I did presume that by 10,000 years ago, you meant not the literal date, but the time before settled living became a reality.
No I don't mean the literal date, I mean the progression of human society up to that date. We know that nomadism was dominant, but it's implausible to think that settled living had never been tried in 100,000 years.

We can agree to disagree, because I don't see this going anywhere. But you're extrapolating off an extremely small, confounded sample size with no external validity (due to rapidly changing technology, which you admit changed what types of civilization were viable in the past).

[McHrozni]

No I don't mean the literal date, I mean the progression of human society up to that date. We know that nomadism was dominant, but it's implausible to think that settled living had never been tried in 100,000 years.

I see. I suggest you rephrase your question, eliminate the year and describe the society at the time with how you think it looked. In other words, describe the hypothetical situation you want me to comment on.

We can agree to disagree, because I don't see this going anywhere. But you're extrapolating off an extremely small, confounded sample size with no external validity (due to rapidly changing technology, which you admit changed what types of civilization were viable in the past).

We can, if you want, though I'm still interested where you're going with that 10,000 years ago thing.
Secondly, yes, changing technology has altered viability of civilizations. However, each technological advancement has also reduced the viability of a property-free society. Barring development of a few theoretically impossible devices, like perpethum mobile, future technology will make this distinction even more severe.

McHrozni

[grandthefttoaster]

Skeptics are allowed on any of the forums AFAIK. Ed used to be the main 9-11 truth debunker there and I've posted a fair amount against the Christ Conspiracy claims recently. There have been some people completely opposed to TVP who debate on there also, although I haven't payed much attention.

I have read some stuff on the forums and saw that a few people were skeptical of the conspiracies stuff, but I didn't really see anyone skeptical of the Venus Project part, and there is no subforum called "for skeptics". Since they are claiming a future based on science, it would be a good idea to open their ideas up to debate, even try debating with professional economists or scientists.

[cornsail]

I see. I suggest you rephrase your question, eliminate the year and describe the society at the time with how you think it looked. In other words, describe the hypothetical situation you want me to comment on.

No my point is that if you try to argue what's possible in the future by extrapolating from the past then you come to very different conclusions based on the point of history you're in, suggesting a significant flaw in that line of reasoning. If it were 10,000 years ago then the past is the period of time 100,000-10,000 years ago (or however long humans have been around, it's not known exactly), etc.

Secondly, yes, changing technology has altered viability of civilizations. However, each technological advancement has also reduced the viability of a property-free society. Barring development of a few theoretically impossible devices, like perpethum mobile, future technology will make this distinction even more severe.

That's a speculation and not necessarily a wrong speculation, but certainly not one that can be claimed with high confidence. You're still relying too much on extrapolating the future from the past.

[McHrozni]

No my point is that if you try to argue what's possible in the future by extrapolating from the past then you come to very different conclusions based on the point of history you're in, suggesting a significant flaw in that line of reasoning. If it were 10,000 years ago then the past is the period of time 100,000-10,000 years ago (or however long humans have been around, it's not known exactly), etc.

Again, I'm not arguing this line of reasoning is universal. It may very well be that 200 years from now we'll again be living in an absolutist system, which is more suitable for the conditions we'll find ourselves in, for example.

The difference is one of scale. No significant society without property existed since settled living became prevalent, despite many attempts from both bottom up and top to bottom. Nothing worked. A child can point out the problems the greatest experts in the theory can't solve. The only rational conclusion is that it probably can't work well at all.

That's a speculation and not necessarily a wrong speculation, but certainly not one that can be claimed with high confidence. You're still relying too much on extrapolating the future from the past.

Yet again, I'm not arguing the reasoning is universal. It applies to a no property society and possibly some others as well, I don't know, but it applies to that one, for reasons stated.

McHrozni

[cornsail]

Again, I'm not arguing this line of reasoning is universal. It may very well be that 200 years from now we'll again be living in an absolutist system, which is more suitable for the conditions we'll find ourselves in, for example.
But if your reasoning is valid it shouldn't only apply to one or two societal properties.

The difference is one of scale. No significant society without property existed since settled living became prevalent, despite many attempts from both bottom up and top to bottom.
And no significant society with settled living existed until 5,000 B.C. despite the implausibility of it never having been attempted in the 100k years beforehand. Yet somehow it became the dominant norm later on.

I will repeat the other problems with the argument once more just so I'm clear, then agree to disagree.

1. Sample size. Inferential statistics (which is essentially the spirit of the argument) typically requires a large sample size to be useful. You haven't provided a sample other than a few cooperative businesses, a short-lived government that never attempted to do away with property rights and a few unmodernized indigenous tribes.

2. Confounds. History is not a controlled experiment, so your sample cannot be used to support your inferences unless they have no other differences between contrasting successful societies than their attitude toward property rights.

3. External validity. Rapidly changing technology, society culture and environment make predicting future societies from the past an unconvincing venture. The claim that technology can only increase the viability of a property rights system is merely speculation.

[fullflavormenthol]

1. Sample size. Inferential statistics (which is essentially the spirit of the argument) typically requires a large sample size to be useful. You haven't provided a sample other than a few cooperative businesses, a short-lived government that never attempted to do away with property rights and a few unmodernized indigenous tribes.

2. Confounds. History is not a controlled experiment, so your sample cannot be used to support your inferences unless they have no other differences between contrasting successful societies than their attitude toward property rights.

3. External validity. Rapidly changing technology, society culture and environment make predicting future societies from the past an unconvincing venture. The claim that technology can only increase the viability of a property rights system is merely speculation.

I know to you this looks really intelligent and all, but it really isn't any more than writing,

"Well its never been tried yet."

Which is also a very unconvincing argument.

1.) You are wrong in attempting to claim that none of the previous mentioned governments ever attempted to get rid of property rights, and in fact a very brief study of history would show that in fact, yes they did take away property rights. What you seem to be very focused on is that they kept those rights within the hands of the government itself, but fail to understand that in their system this was a transistion. So yes in fact this is a good sample when looking at the issues of a society attempting to move to a property free society. Which is the point brought up by those who look with a critical eye at the claims of TVP.

2.) Wrong. Unless you wish to admit that you can make no argument for TVP or any society for that matter. Hence you have no opinion as you have taken away from yourself any ability to derive one.

3.) External validity. Rapidly changing technology, society culture and environment make predicting future societies an unconvincing venture. The claim that technology can only increase the viability of a property rights free system is merely speculation. Or to better phrase this "We ain't knowing nothing 'bout no future."

So that only leaves us with the abilities to compare ideas and the viability within human society, and make a judgement from that; which goes against the plausibility of a VP utopia. This is what has been pretty much decided upon by most who don't simply refuse to look at history and human society.

[Travis]

In a society without property rights what's to prevent me from turning my neighbor's backyard into a swimming pool accessible only from my property? What's to prevent someone from hollowing out Lincolns head in My Rushmore for their own condo? Roller Coaster all over and up and down the Eiffel Tower? Why not?

[zaphod2016]

In a society without property rights what's to prevent me from turning my neighbor's backyard into a swimming pool accessible only from my property? What's to prevent someone from hollowing out Lincolns head in My Rushmore for their own condo? Roller Coaster all over and up and down the Eiffel Tower? Why not?

Correct me if I'm wrong (Anthropology is not my strong suit) but I believe several hunter gatherer societies had worship, and sacred items / monuments. I believe the Polynesians on Easter Island were communal, and they respected the Moai enough not to build huts on top of their massive stone heads.

Also, re: settled living prior to 10,000 years ago: check out the Gobekli Tepe (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html). This site is still quite controversial, but I maintain it is plausible that societies attempted to settle, and failed, prior to the (neolithic) agricultural revolution.

[cornsail]

I know to you this looks really intelligent and all, but it really isn't any more than writing,

"Well its never been tried yet."
Not at all true. These are important concepts in social science that you can verify by looking at a research methods text book.

2.) Wrong.

Not a very convincing argument. Your dismissal suggests you aren't very familiar with inferential statistics or research methods.

Unless you wish to admit that you can make no argument for TVP or any society for that matter.
I can't make a conclusive inference about what societies will look like in the future. "Argument for" suggests a normative argument, which is unrelated to the discussion that you're jumping into.

Hence you have no opinion as you have taken away from yourself any ability to derive one.
Correct, I cannot predict what human societies will look like in the future, as I've made clear.

3.) External validity. Rapidly changing technology, society culture and environment make predicting future societies an unconvincing venture. The claim that technology can only increase the viability of a property rights free system is merely speculation. Or to better phrase this "We ain't knowing nothing 'bout no future."
Indeed, that is essentially my position.

[cornsail]

In a society without property rights what's to prevent me from turning my neighbor's backyard into a swimming pool accessible only from my property?

Logic.

[McHrozni]

But if your reasoning is valid it shouldn't only apply to one or two societal properties.

I'm sure we could find more if necessary. Each one of them is unique in it's own way, but some factors that apply in one may also apply in the other. Settled living vs nomadism, I think, is the closest of all to a property-free society vs property-owning society argument.

And no significant society with settled living existed until 5,000 B.C. despite the implausibility of it never having been attempted in the 100k years beforehand. Yet somehow it became the dominant norm later on.

That's a rather weak argument. The further you go into the past, the less plausible it becomes. However, the two arguments, while similar, are not identical. At the very least, settled living relies on a considerable knowledge of plants and animals, whereas property-free or property-owning society has no such requirement. Lack of such knowledge would make permanent settlements less viable until the necessary knowledge was obtained.

I'll respond to your arguments, and then we can agree to disagree :)

1. Sample size. Inferential statistics (which is essentially the spirit of the argument) typically requires a large sample size to be useful. You haven't provided a sample other than a few cooperative businesses, a short-lived government that never attempted to do away with property rights and a few unmodernized indigenous tribes.

You forgot the Soviet cooperative farms, that did attempt to do away with property rights, and pre-history, which is more speculative. More importantly, these were all attempts at such societies in history. The sample that encompasses all the data is not flawed, but perfect.

2. Confounds. History is not a controlled experiment, so your sample cannot be used to support your inferences unless they have no other differences between contrasting successful societies than their attitude toward property rights.

I'd argue that prehistory is the closest thing to that, and yet property-owning originated there.

3. External validity. Rapidly changing technology, society culture and environment make predicting future societies from the past an unconvincing venture. The claim that technology can only increase the viability of a property rights system is merely speculation.

Perhaps, but all the data shows to that. I do agree it is possible that major technological advancements in the future will make property owning obsolete, but the technology required is impossible in our universe, if the fundamental laws of physics as we know them apply. In other words it is a speculation, but it has very strong foundations. The speculation that the emerging technologies will reverse this trend hinges on theoretically impossible technologies being developed. It's not hard to see which of the two is more plausible.

McHrozni

[Travis]

Correct me if I'm wrong (Anthropology is not my strong suit) but I believe several hunter gatherer societies had worship, and sacred items / monuments. I believe the Polynesians on Easter Island were communal, and they respected the Moai enough not to build huts on top of their massive stone heads.

Also, re: settled living prior to 10,000 years ago: check out the Gobekli Tepe (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html). This site is still quite controversial, but I maintain it is plausible that societies attempted to settle, and failed, prior to the (neolithic) agricultural revolution.

Those are sites that deemed sacred. In Venus Project World there would be no such thing as a sacred thing/place. How could there be? Religion would be outlawed, along with government and some computer is making decisions based on nothing more than "efficiency."


In a society without property rights what's to prevent me from turning my neighbor's backyard into a swimming pool accessible only from my property?
Logic.

Okay. I want a swimming pool. My neighbors backyard has the space for it. I have more friends with better weapons than he has sooo, yeah, logically we should build it in his backyard.

[cornsail]

In a society without property rights what's to prevent me from turning my neighbor's backyard into a swimming pool accessible only from my property?
Logic.Okay. I want a swimming pool. My neighbors backyard has the space for it. I have more friends with better weapons than he has sooo, yeah, logically we should build it in his backyard.

:boggled:

I think you missed the point of my highlighting of words and my use of the word "logic".

[TokenMac]

:boggled:

I think you missed the point of my highlighting of words and my use of the word "logic".

I think the "more friends with better weapons" part was meant to make up for the lack of officially owned property.:D

[cornsail]

Huh?

[McHrozni]

I think the "more friends with better weapons" part was meant to make up for the lack of officially owned property.:D

Logical.

McHrozni

[zaphod2016]

Those are sites that deemed sacred. In Venus Project World there would be no such thing as a sacred thing/place. How could there be? Religion would be outlawed, along with government and some computer is making decisions based on nothing more than "efficiency."

Yeah, it really sounds a bit like 1984 meets Brazil when you describe it like that. I'll pass. As a programmer, I know better than to trust a computer.

However, my point was simply that communal societies have respected communal property. You can argue that was due to religion, but I'd argue that even in an atheist Venus society you would still have traditions, and some form of "holy" or "significant" relic or prop. Even chimps carry sticks around; its just what we do.

Okay. I want a swimming pool. My neighbors backyard has the space for it. I have more friends with better weapons than he has sooo, yeah, logically we should build it in his backyard.

Pronoun trouble. I've seen this before.

In a world without property, neither you nor your neighbor would have yards; there would simply be THE yard, plus you guys. Likewise, it would not be YOUR pool, it would be THE pool. The pool would be communal, just like the property on which it was built.

Ya dig?

How would that work in practice? Well, most tyrants in history have opposed private property rights- and with good reason.

[defaultdotxbe]

As a programmer, I know better than to trust a computer.
im with you there, GIGO

putting resource distribution in the hands of a computer doesnt remove human greed and fallibility from the equation, it just shifts the blame, the computers will have to be built, programmed, maintained and have directions carried out by greedy, fallible humans

[Edx]

In Venus Project World there would be no such thing as a sacred thing/place. How could there be? Religion would be outlawed,.

...In a society without property rights what's to prevent me from turning my neighbor's backyard into a swimming pool accessible only from my property?


Just thought I'd drop in and comment. As much as I think the Venus Project cant work practically, arguments like you're making here is more evidence that you dont understand what you say you dont agree with. The only way you will stop creating these strawmen is to go and actually learn what they actually believe, but it seems you really have no time for that. Thats fine, but strawmen isnt going to convince anyone that is familar with what they actually think.

[zaphod2016]

im with you there, GIGO

putting resource distribution in the hands of a computer doesnt remove human greed and fallibility from the equation, it just shifts the blame, the computers will have to be built, programmed, maintained and have directions carried out by greedy, fallible humans

This is probably the best anti-Venus argument for the conspiracy-minded.

In the Venus society, as a programmer, I would be like a god among men. I could wipe out entire populations with a few keystrokes. Talk about the NWO! Holy s***! I would put those amateurs to shame the first time I woke up in a grumpy mood. I'm the kinda guy who sends my armies on doomed missions when playing Civilization just because I find the death animations amusing. God help us if a real army ever responded to those clicks.

Seems to me that the Venus project is all about centralization. More power in fewer hands; more responsibilities being managed by fewer people. In a word: oligarchy. I'll stick with our (highly imperfect) democratic Republic, thanks.

[fromdownunder]

In the Venus society, as a programmer, I would be like a god among men. I could wipe out entire populations with a few keystrokes.

If the Venus Project does not state or imply a fully sentient computer which follows Asimov's Four Laws of Robotics, then you are correct.

And even if it does, then what if this Computer suddenly decides that Humanity (Zeroth Law according to Asimov) would be far better off with One Billion people instead of Seven Billion? Or 100,000?

Norm

[McHrozni]

If the Venus Project does not state or imply a fully sentient computer which follows Asimov's Four Laws of Robotics, then you are correct.

And if the computer cannot be manipulated in any way, not even by those who programmed it in the first place - which is a clear impossibility. A few rather big ifs on the practical side, I see.

McHrozni

[Edx]

im with you there, GIGO

putting resource distribution in the hands of a computer doesnt remove human greed and fallibility from the equation, it just shifts the blame, the computers will have to be built, programmed, maintained and have directions carried out by greedy, fallible humans

The thing is they dont say that getting rid of money, government or installing super cool computers to make decisions will "remove human greed".

You should look into what they say about education if you want to understand how they feel that will be accomplished that since that is what they say that will change peoples ways of thinking, the technology and so on is just a way for the enviroment to nurture this value system.

[zaphod2016]

You should look into what they say about education if you want to understand how they feel that will be accomplished that since that is what they say that will change peoples ways of thinking, the technology and so on is just a way for the enviroment to nurture this value system.

No, I get it. I just think its Utopian and unrealistic.

I don't think you can educate the evil out of men. Look at the bonobo chimps- they use weapons, organize themselves into organized ranks, and wage war against each other all the time. Granted, a bonobo war is usually short-lived (and almost ends in an orgy), but the instinct to fight for, and to defend, resources runs very, very deep.

[Edx]

No, I get it. I just think its Utopian and unrealistic.

Me too, but I dont see the point in saying they are wrong about something they dont really think.

I don't think you can educate the evil out of men. Look at the bonobo chimps- they use weapons, organize themselves into organized ranks, and wage war against each other all the time. Granted, a bonobo war is usually short-lived (and almost ends in an orgy), but the instinct to fight for, and to defend, resources runs very, very deep.

Maybe but as I said the people that seem to argue this kind of thing in this thread usually give some of the worst arguments, ie. music taste is genetic, woman wanting to collect loads of shoes is genetic etc. In fact yours is the only example to come close to a valid example of what they were trying to say. I dont really want to get into it again nor do I have the time to anyway, but I think that theres clearly enough evidence to show how easy humans are to manipulate into doing "good" and "bad" things. The idea however that you could change the entire world to the kind of thinking that is required for their society to work is what I find is unrealistic.

[fullflavormenthol]

Basically we can look at what they (TVP proponents) have to say about education, but what they believe can be accomplished through mere education is rather unrealistic. Hence it is at the level of a non-answer to direct someone to TVP's ideas about re-education as a response to an issue with human greed.

[Edx]

Basically we can look at what they (TVP proponents) have to say about education, but what they believe can be accomplished through mere education is rather unrealistic. Hence it is at the level of a non-answer to direct someone to TVP's ideas about re-education as a response to an issue with human greed.

But you do see the difference between saying they are wrong ...

1.... because their idea of being able to educate everyone to hold the appropriate value system supported by the technology, is unrealistic...

2. ... because their idea of being able to get rid of greed and corruption only by having computers make decisions, is unrealistic.

The first point is valid while the second is not, since they do not say what point 2 says.

[defaultdotxbe]

im not sure if it was you or another TVP proponent in this thread, but the argument was the difference between TVP and communism was that communism used a dictator, committee or some other person or group of people to disseminate resources, while TVP would use computers for the same thing

if the reason this makes TVP superior is not because the computer (technocracy was the word used i believe) does not have greed or favoritism, then what is the advantage of this system over traditional communism?

[Edx]

im not sure if it was you or another TVP proponent in this thread, but the argument was the difference between TVP and communism was that communism used a dictator, committee or some other person or group of people to disseminate resources, while TVP would use computers for the same thing

if the reason this makes TVP superior is not because the computer (technocracy was the word used i believe) does not have greed or favoritism, then what is the advantage of this system over traditional communism?

Yes that is what I said but the point being that they dont believe that having such a computer system, having no money and having no government will stop people being greedy and corrupt.

They believe you have to give people the right education so they have the appropriate value system that enables them to function well in that enviroment.

By all means show they are wrong, but show they are wrong for the right reasons. Otherwise it just sounds like a strawman to anyone that is actually familiar with what they actually believe.

[zaphod2016]

[Venus proponents] believe you have to give people the right education so they have the appropriate value system that enables them to function well in that [environment].

I will agree with you that social conditioning is a powerful force, and I'll even go so far as to agree that the "great unwashed masses" can be manipulated (educated) to believe just about anything, given enough repetition.

However- all societies have outliers. For example, our consumerism-based, pro-corporatism modern world (right?) contains people who advocate the Venus project. Clearly these VP folks are outliers in our society; for whatever reason they have rejected the mass programming that the rest of us have fallen victim to.

Therefore, in a world governed by the VP, wouldn't similar outliers exist? Those who rejected the VP way, and preferred capitalism, despite all education (manipulation) to the contrary?

In our (flawed) modern world, the outliers are still free to speak and peacefully organize. But by the VP's own admission, this system cannot co-exist with our capitalist system. Therefore, if the VP system were adopted, how would outliers be addressed? And if given free speech and freedom to organize, wouldn't they be counteracting this education (manipulation) from day one? How could you ever win the hearts and minds of your people with these outliers running around, reminding everyone else how great capitalism used to be?

The reason so many mention the Communist revolution in regards to the VP is simple: these ethical dilemmas parallel the rise of Lenin. He too believed that he could "educate" his people into believing that his way was best, but sadly, the education didn't take in time. Lenin was unable to hold his power democratically; most of his people opposed his policies if allowed to speak openly. And even after nearly 65 years of "education", the soviets ultimately betrayed their entire economic system- and long before the fall of the Berlin wall if you want to get technical about it. China is the only remaining Communist state of any significance, and again, same dilemma: the Party is unable to hold power democratically, and their economic system has become more capitalist than ours.

During the height of the "Red Scare", the threat of a Communist worldwide takeover was at least somewhat legitimate, because, just like the VP, Communism cannot co-exist with free capitalism. The Communists had no choice but "conquer the world", or, as ultimately happened, watch their system be out-competed, out-produced and out-innovated by free markets.

It seems to me that both Peter Joseph and the "elite bankers" he opposes intend to "conquer the world". The key difference being: our people have elected to take on debt, and thus, "enslave" themselves to the current system- this was purely voluntary. Naturally Peter Joseph has no clear plan for widespread implementation yet, but if he did, I guarantee it would rival the most heinous plots attributed to the New World Order.

I'm all for technological research, urban planning, renewable energy, and automation. This is all fine and dandy, and an essential part of the 21st century. And yes, there are serious environmental issues that must be addressed eventually. However, any system that, by its own definition, cannot co-exist with a free market, is doomed to fail. Why? Because the free market has already proven itself compared to all forms of planned economies ever attempted. And although the VP itself has not yet been attempted, economically, it differs very little from failed planned economies that have been attempted.

And- let me go one better: I'd argue that at the end of the day, the free market will be one of the key components of saving the environment. Just consider these milestones, now only a few short years away:

1. A solar roof system that delivers all my needed power cheaper than coal-produced electricity

2. Hydrogen-based batteries more efficient (and env-friendly) than anything acid-based

3. Electrical vehicles that can handle a 300+ miles driving radius between recharging

And what will be the major impetus for this change? Profit and saving money, depending on what side of the equation you find yourself. Even if I HATE the environment, even if I walk around pouring oil on my lawn and punching polar bears in the face, I still like saving money.

If you want to change the opinion of Joe America- start with his wallet; either take less, or give more, and you will have his attention. 200+ years of economic history provides all the evidence of this any rational person should ever need.

Believe me: I *get* the VP. I've heard them out, and considered what they have to say. I'm perfectly able, and happy, to explain why this is a terrible idea without relying on strawmen.

[grandthefttoaster]

They believe you have to give people the right education so they have the appropriate value system that enables them to function well in that enviroment.

But I still want to know exactly how they plan to change the way people are educated. Improving schools would probably help some, but the fact is that much of what we learn is from life experiences and social interactions. So how are they going to change that? I thought I had some good questions earlier:

I noticed that there is a lot of talk about human behavior and whether it is learned from experience or whether it comes from nature. If I remember, I think that Peter Joseph once said that human behavior is 100% learned, and we can teach people to behave a certain way, and even eliminate crime. I think that most psychologists would disagree, and say that it is more like a mixture of nature and nurture. But whatever the case, I have a question that I haven't heard an answer to yet: how would you teach people to behave the way you wanted? People learn from their childhood experiences, like from friends and parents. So if someone became a criminal because of how they were raised, how would you prevent this? Would they take children away from parents to make sure they are raised so they don't become criminals? Also what if there is a guy who is a petty criminal and doesn't want to reform. Should he be put in jail for life, to keep him from corrupting others?

In the videos and websites, the Venus Project people say that all crime can be eliminated, and at the same time law enforcement and the entire legal system dissolved. So I want to know what specifically will be different in this future society to cause this. Because it can't just be the fact that they live in round cities and ride around on monorails.

Let's say they studied a person who was a criminal, and determined that he was that way because of his chldhood- since they think all behavior is learned, I think most of it would have to come from childhood. Anyway, maybe they figure this person turned out that way because his mom was a sociopath, and also he got beat up in school. So my questions are A.) how do you fix this guy, and B.) how do you prevent other people from having a childhood that makes them criminals.

[Stout]

Those are sites that deemed sacred. In Venus Project World there would be no such thing as a sacred thing/place. How could there be? Religion would be outlawed



The Venus Project allows for anyone to practice any religion they choose, somehow, they're all supposed to get along 'cause there's tons of everything for everybody and...it's cool looking too.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

[fromdownunder]

How do you even get to "Day One"

I really think that TVP is a bit like Brigadoon. you can't get there from here.

Norm

[Prometheus]

Who get's to program the Central Computer to decide how they'll split up Jerusalem?

[tsig]

The thing is they dont say that getting rid of money, government or installing super cool computers to make decisions will "remove human greed".

You should look into what they say about education if you want to understand how they feel that will be accomplished that since that is what they say that will change peoples ways of thinking, the technology and so on is just a way for the enviroment to nurture this value system.

You can't educate a human out of being human.

[tsig]

How do you even get to "Day One"

I really think that TVP is a bit like Brigadoon. you can't get there from here.

Norm

Might have to do some re-education there. You know, ship the dissidents off to camps where they are taught to accept the new value system.

[McHrozni]

Who get's to program the Central Computer to decide how they'll split up Jerusalem?

If I understand the VP correctly, there would be more than enough of Jerusalem for everybody. Somehow.
Alternatively, education would ensure no one would want more Jerusalem than they could have, I guess. Somehow this will also lead to great freedom of religion, speech and thought. The exact nature of solution remains an engima to me and probably pretty much everybody else as well, I guess.

McHrozni

[Prometheus]

If I understand the VP correctly, there would be more than enough of Jerusalem for everybody. Somehow.
Alternatively, education would ensure no one would want more Jerusalem than they could have, I guess. Somehow this will also lead to great freedom of religion, speech and thought. The exact nature of solution remains an engima to me and probably pretty much everybody else as well, I guess.

McHrozni

The simple solution, of course, is that faced with the task of providing enough Jerusalem for everyone who wants some, the Central Computer would decide to reduce the number of people who want some. Pretty much the same as we have now. ;)

[Travis]

Who get's to program the Central Computer to decide how they'll split up Jerusalem?

This is an issue I've had since the beginning. The computer will only be as impartial as it's programming allows and it follows that the programmer can influence it.