The Venus Project

[INRM]

The Venus Project's supporters include the people who've made videos like Zeitgeist right?

The Venus Project essentially wants to create more or less a totalitarian government, with every resource and person on the earth monitored 24/7 right?

[Wolrab]

The Venus Project's supporters include the people who've made videos like Zeitgeist right?

The Venus Project essentially wants to create more or less a totalitarian government, with every resource and person on the earth monitored 24/7 right?

Wrong sub forum.

[INRM]

What forum should this be in?

[AJM8125]

Conspiracy Theories. Unless this Venus Project is a 9/11 CT too. *shrugs*

[fourtoe]

This is the 911 CT sub-forum. It is a sub-forum of the CT sub-forum.

I know that Zeitgesit has a 911 CT part of it but I have no idear what the Venus Project is and whether or not it is related to 911. I'm assuming it is a CT and so it should be in the CT sub-forum only.

[Brainster]

There is a very long thread on the Zeitgeist Movement (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128702&highlight=Zeitgeist) (aka the Venus Project) in the Economics, Business and Finance forum.

[Brainache]

I thought the Venus Project was all about getting more gorgeous African American women to play professional tennis. I wondered how it could have anything to do with 9/11...

[grandthefttoaster]

What was the point of this?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Hey, what about "The Mars Project"?

"Women are from Venus, Men from Mars"

[Brainache]

Hey, what about "The Mars Project"?

"Women are from Venus, Men from Mars"

A friend of mine wanted to write a relationship self-help book called "Men Are From Mars - Women Are Stupid", but I talked him out of it.

[Brainster]

Hey, what about "The Mars Project"?

"Women are from Venus, Men from Mars"

And to get this thread on topic to the subforum, did you know that John Grey, the writer of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus is a 9-11 Denier? In fact, he financed one of the early conventions of 9-11 Denial.

[sylvan8798]

A friend of mine wanted to write a relationship self-help book called "Men Are From Mars - Women Are Stupid", but I talked him out of it.

Yeah, that might not have bode well for his future chances with the female sex.:p

[Edx]

The Venus Project's supporters include the people who've made videos like Zeitgeist right?

"Includes", yes.

The Venus Project essentially wants to create more or less a totalitarian government, with every resource and person on the earth monitored 24/7 right?

Wrong.

[defaultdotxbe]

so whats the conspiracy? who stole the arms?

[dudalb]

"Includes", yes.



Wrong.

The Venus project is a hopelessly nieve attempt to build a Utopia where everybody is guaranteed a living and nobody has to work unless they want to, and money is not needed. It's Utopian nonsense . But it is NOT a massive evil conspiracy. Just an incredibly unrealistic scheme for a Perfect World that has a much chance of working as a snowball in Hades.

[Wolrab]

Truthers go to Jupiter to get more stupider.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Truthers go to Jupiter to get more stupider.

I was gonna say something about "Uranus", but it's just too much. :D

[theprestige]

The Venus Project consists of magical robots and computers.

It is based on the premise that if you can somehow magically provide everything everybody wants, without anybody having to do any work they don't want to do, everybody will stop wanting things, with the possible exception of wanting to work harder just for the fun of it.

[dudalb]

The Venus Project consists of magical robots and computers.

It is based on the premise that if you can somehow magically provide everything everybody wants, without anybody having to do any work they don't want to do, everybody will stop wanting things, with the possible exception of wanting to work harder just for the fun of it.



And if you buy into that, I have some great Ocean Front property in Nebraska you might want to buy...........

[Edx]

The Venus project is a hopelessly nieve attempt to build a Utopia where everybody is guaranteed a living and nobody has to work unless they want to, and money is not needed. It's Utopian nonsense . But it is NOT a massive evil conspiracy. Just an incredibly unrealistic scheme for a Perfect World that has a much chance of working as a snowball in Hades.

I've read stuff from you on The Venus Project before and I dont think you give Jacque's ideas enough credit. Sure it is probably too idealistic to ever be 100% like his vision, but that doesnt mean he is worth ignoring completely in my opinion.

[Edx]

The Venus Project consists of magical robots and computers.

I'll assume you mean that a lot of Jacque's idea for his society actually working in practice hinges on technology that doesnt exist yet.

It is based on the premise that if you can somehow magically provide everything everybody wants, without anybody having to do any work they don't want to do, everybody will stop wanting things, with the possible exception of wanting to work harder just for the fun of it.

I think it is unreasonable to throw their ideas on human behaviour away. The idea that the only reason humans do anything is for monetary reward, personal property or for just general selfish gain I believe is naive.

It is hard for us in the Western Society which to a certain extent includes most of the world, to imagine how to think any other way. However there are examples of tribes of people that do not think much like we do at all. Those that are largely untouched by our "cultural brainwashing". They hold different outlooks, they hold different values. Whats important to us isnt important to them. Do you imagine its because of genetics that they are this way?

Even in this society that inspires so much warped ways of thinking we can already point to what you could call "altruistic" people that do work for little to no personal reward except helping their fellow man (or animal, or plant). We can also look at cases of young children that have been raised in extreme conditions and how different they appear to think and act.

The question to me is not if humans are capable of having the mental desire to do anything in this hypothetical society where everything is freely available. I think humans evidently have the capacity for it. The theory itself is sound. However the real question is if we are able to "reeducate" society (for lack of a better term) to be in this far "saner" mental state. This would need to happen from childhood to have the best effect, but how to go about changing the entire world? It seems rather far fetched to be feasible. That is my problem with the Venus Project which is a very real problem. My opinion is that if you want to critcise them theres lots to critcise, but with real issues not just blanketly trying to make them out to be 100% wrong about eveyrthing.

[Prometheus]

I've read stuff from you on The Venus Project before and I dont think you give Jacque's ideas enough credit. Sure it is probably too idealistic to ever be 100% like his vision, but that doesnt mean he is worth ignoring completely in my opinion.

Please point out one of his ideas that you think is workable on any level, and detail exactly how it would work.

[Travis]

I've read stuff from you on The Venus Project before and I dont think you give Jacque's ideas enough credit. Sure it is probably too idealistic to ever be 100% like his vision, but that doesnt mean he is worth ignoring completely in my opinion.

His ideas on resource inventories are nice but that can be accomplished without the whole abolishing money and government thingy. His ideas that crime and other human strife would disappear with the money and governments is not just looney but the setting up of a very dangerous idea. People sitting around singing Kumbaya and just doing what they want might work for a weekend camping trip but is completely inadequately wacko to serve as a model for society at large. As I detailed in the other thread our problems stem not from money and government but from the basic core of human nature and that will not go away if you abolish those two things.

Honestly, thinking that getting rid of money will get rid of greed and unscrupulousness is like thinking that banning football will abolish concussions.

[Edx]

Please point out one of his ideas that you think is workable on any level, and detail exactly how it would work.

I'm talking in theory, my problem with it is that I'm not sure his ideas are workable (see previous reply) except on a small scale in terms of some of his designs that he has talked about but thats just engineering.

[Brainache]

Unless someone invents a Star Trek type replicator which can produce anything from machine parts to cups of Earl Grey tea (hot), I don't see how this Venus Project could ever work.

What I want to know is: who is suppressing this replicator technology? I suspect it's the Romulans...:hypnodisk:hypnodisk:hypnodisk

[Edx]

His ideas on resource inventories are nice but that can be accomplished without the whole abolishing money and government thingy.

I dont see how his ideas (outside certain specific engineering designs) could be accomplished in todays society.

The main infuriating reason is that they would be too efficient. Simply put, it would destroy the economy.

Imagine you had designed a car that was extremely cheap, had practically zero maintance costs, required little energy and would last...say... 500 years. You know what you just did? You just killed a whole crap load of industries. No need for mechanics, the entire second hand industry would disappear and thats saying nothing for the fuel industry. Now think about more of the stuff he is talking about, it simply wouldnt work.

The current society requires that people continually buy stuff, so it requires that products be inefficant so as to allow them to break down so you have to either buy another or have it fixed. It requires that they have hundreds of different products by slightly different brands and continually remarket products with small differences or with some usuall minor technological advance in order to sell you new stuff each year with the new latest thing.

Have you ever bought a product that neglected a feature that seems so sensible, only to have it included in the next version also neglecting something else? This is especially obvious in the software industry. I am a composer and use a sequencer called Cubase, instead of releasing free updates in order to fix the bugs it already has eventualy they just release another version of the program you have to pay for in order to get the bug fix but that too...contains bugs. Its no accident that open source operating systems are generally much more efficient and stable (its just that nothing works with them).

The point is creating cheap, extremely durable efficiant products is the enemy of the economy. And that basically goes for everthing including fuel and energy. So no, Jacques ideas stop working very quickly if applied to a monetary system.

As I detailed in the other thread our problems stem not from money and government but from the basic core of human nature and that will not go away if you abolish those two things.

Honestly, thinking that getting rid of money will get rid of greed and unscrupulousness is like thinking that banning football will abolish concussions.

Well thats your misunderstanding. Removing money wont solve any of that, thats quite true and they dont suggest otherwise.

You're too focued on the aspect "money" plays in what they are talking about. Money isnt the problem its just a symptom of the problem. The idea is that money would be irrelevant in their hypothetical society.

[Prometheus]

I dont see how his ideas (outside certain specific engineering designs) could be accomplished in todays society.

I've asked several proponents of his ideas to point me to any of Fresco's work that would qualify as 'engineering'. I've read every word on the Venus Project website, and watched several videos. I've yet to see a single example. Got one?


The main infuriating reason is that they would be too efficient. Simply put, it would destroy the economy.

No. The main reason is that his 'designs' are nothing more than pretty pictures with no actual engineering or science behind them at all. They won't work.


Imagine you had designed a car that was extremely cheap, had practically zero maintance costs, required little energy and would last...say... 500 years. You know what you just did?

Violated the Laws of Thermodynamics?


You just killed a whole crap load of industries. No need for mechanics, the entire second hand industry would disappear and thats saying nothing for the fuel industry. Now think about more of the stuff he is talking about,

New technology renders existing industry obsolete all the time. Sucks for those that lose their livelihoods. Nothing to see; move along.


it simply wouldnt work.

This appears to be the only correct statement in your entire post.



The current society requires that people continually buy stuff, so it requires that products be inefficant so as to allow them to break down so you have to either buy another or have it fixed.

You are confusing cause and effect.



It requires that they have hundreds of different products by slightly different brands and continually remarket products with small differences or with some usuall minor technological advance in order to sell you new stuff each year with the new latest thing.


You'd rather technological progress simply grind to a halt? Or are you imagining that we've already got the prowess to produce the optimum version of every product with no room for improvement but we're just not doing so to make more money?



Have you ever bought a product that neglected a feature that seems so sensible, only to have it included in the next version also neglecting something else?

Yes. So what? Allowing early adopting customers to test and offer feedback on product design is a hell of a lot more efficient than trying to engineer perfection from the top down.



This is especially obvious in the software industry. I am a composer and use a sequencer called Cubase, instead of releasing free updates in order to fix the bugs it already has eventualy they just release another version of the program you have to pay for in order to get the bug fix but that too...contains bugs. Its no accident that open source operating systems are generally much more efficient and stable (its just that nothing works with them).

What is it about TVP proponents that they always want someone else to work for them for free?



The point is creating cheap, extremely durable efficiant products is the enemy of the economy. And that basically goes for everthing including fuel and energy. So no, Jacques ideas stop working very quickly if applied to a monetary system.

Generally, you've got to get something to start working in the first place before it can be made to stop working. Fresco's ideas are complete BS, and they will not work in any kind of economic system.



Well thats your misunderstanding. Removing money wont solve any of that, thats quite true and they dont suggest otherwise.

Somewhere on one of the other Venus Project threads there's a link to a video interview in which Fresco directly contradicts this assertion. I don't have time to chase it down for you at the moment, though.


You're too focued on the aspect "money" plays in what they are talking about. Money isnt the problem its just a symptom of the problem. The idea is that money would be irrelevant in their hypothetical society.

Whatever. If they ever come up with anything that rises above the 'hypothetical' you be sure and let us know.

[Klimax]

Unless someone invents a Star Trek type replicator which can produce anything from machine parts to cups of Earl Grey tea (hot), I don't see how this Venus Project could ever work.

What I want to know is: who is suppressing this replicator technology? I suspect it's the Romulans...:hypnodisk:hypnodisk:hypnodisk

That's only part of equation. You need very very powerfull generators.(Output similar to MARAs)

[gambling_cruiser]

Edx please show me any durable, efficient device that is/would be being cheap to produce.

[Edx]

I've asked several proponents of his ideas to point me to any of Fresco's work that would qualify as 'engineering'. I've read every word on the Venus Project website, and watched several videos. I've yet to see a single example. Got one?

Off the top of my head as Jacque has come up with so many I remember him talking about hurricane protected buildings which could be shaped like a kind of upside down funnel which would mean that the wind wouldnt be able to take hold of the structure. In a city system this could be a large building that people could go to in the event of a hurricane.

I also remember him talking about car bumpers that are currently located in the front and back but not in the side. If you had a car were there was bumpers all around the car fitted with electronic guidence systems this would stop people from driving incompetently and stop accidents. If you think the idea that you cant drive it yourself is unpleasent for you then this is just the way you are brought up. If kids are brought up with travel being automated such as the way it is with trains busses trams right now then they wont have anything to judge it by. In case you are thinking it, trains, busses and trams are not computer automated (in many cases) but the point is that we dont think "darn I wish I got to drive the tube train" the humans are merely there until we can figure out a way to completely automate the system. many trains dont have human drivers but due to roads being so unpredictable it may be a while before AI becomes proficient enough to be able to navigate it to replace them.

No. The main reason is that his 'designs' are nothing more than pretty pictures with no actual engineering or science behind them at all. They won't work.

Firstly, you are confusing the theory with the designs. Jacques idea for a future society works to maximise efficiency. He believes that this is not possible in a monetary society and in fact requires that efficiency be stunted on purpose in order for the system to work.In regards to his designs you assume that all he does is design pretty pictures despite being an engineer.

Violated the Laws of Thermodynamics?

Please explain how that would violate the law of thermodynamics. I have a feeling you are going to be pedantic.

You just killed a whole crap load of industries. No need for mechanics, the entire second hand industry would disappear and thats saying nothing for the fuel industry. Now think about more of the stuff he is talking about, New technology renders existing industry obsolete all the time. Sucks for those that lose their livelihoods. Nothing to see; move along.

Thats true, new technology does render existing industries obsoete, but not in such a dramatic way. The better technology does the more this happens, the only way to stop people from going out of business and therefore the economy collapsing is to stunt technological advance on purpose just to give people jobs.


The current society requires that people continually buy stuff, so it requires that products be inefficant so as to allow them to break down so you have to either buy another or have it fixed.

You are confusing cause and effect.


I dont see how, do you deny that in order for our monetary system to work goods must be bought and sold continually in order to stimulate the economy?

Look at the recession, what is it economists hope people will do? They hope that people will start spending money again. South Park parodied this concept in one of their episodes where the towns folk decided that to help the economy you must try to spend as little as possible. This of course is the worst thing you can do.


It requires that they have hundreds of different products by slightly different brands and continually remarket products with small differences or with some usuall minor technological advance in order to sell you new stuff each year with the new latest thing.
You'd rather technological progress simply grind to a halt? Or are you imagining that we've already got the prowess to produce the optimum version of every product with no room for improvement but we're just not doing so to make more money?

No, again you misunderstand. This point has nothing to do with technological progress. The current state of technology is what it is. But what is marketed to you is not the current state of technology. This is to do with economics, where companies want to be able to sell you new products each year. One of things they will do is release new products with slight technological updates, key word being slight, each year. Its in addition to all the other companies offering you slightly different versions of the same thing. But all this is great for the economy since it means people constantly want the new thing.

Have you ever bought a product that neglected a feature that seems so sensible, only to have it included in the next version also neglecting something else?
Yes. So what? Allowing early adopting customers to test and offer feedback on product design is a hell of a lot more efficient than trying to engineer perfection from the top down.

Well look at software. My sequencer Cubase is a case in point but nothing remarkable to how they operate. They released a program, say Cubase SX3. It contained bugs. They released a few updates that corrected a few of those bugs. Eventually in order to get the fix to the bugs that still remain they force you to pay for Cubase 4. This is good for them and it is good for the economy.


This is especially obvious in the software industry. I am a composer and use a sequencer called Cubase, instead of releasing free updates in order to fix the bugs it already has eventualy they just release another version of the program you have to pay for in order to get the bug fix but that too...contains bugs. Its no accident that open source operating systems are generally much more efficient and stable (its just that nothing works with them).

What is it about TVP proponents that they always want someone else to work for them for free?

Why do you ignore my point? I'm giving the example that open source operating systems generally are more efficient and stable. This isnt an accident that because they have no monetary conflict they work better.

btw, its not that I'm a proponant of the Venus Project its just if you are going to have critcisms then I think they should be reasonable ones, of which there are many.


Well thats your misunderstanding. Removing money wont solve any of that, thats quite true and they dont suggest otherwise.

Somewhere on one of the other Venus Project threads there's a link to a video interview in which Fresco directly contradicts this assertion. I don't have time to chase it down for you at the moment, though.

Then I'm afraid you're going to have to find it since I've read watched and listened to a lot of material by them and Peter Joseph. I have never once seen them suggest that just getting rid of money will solve everything.

[Edx]

Edx please show me any durable, efficient device that is/would be being cheap to produce.

"Cheap" was probably a misnomer, but the fact is that the economy cannot withstand efficient products that last.

[Disbelief]

I also remember him talking about car bumpers that are currently located in the front and back but not in the side.

They are not on the sides because that wouold ruin the aerodynamics, thus contributing to inefficiency by increasing fuel consumption.


If you had a car were there was bumpers all around the car fitted with electronic guidence systems this would stop people from driving incompetently and stop accidents.

They have cars that can drive themselves, but there is a long way to go to make them commercially viable, if ever.



If you think the idea that you cant drive it yourself is unpleasent for you then this is just the way you are brought up. If kids are brought up with travel being automated such as the way it is with trains busses trams right now then they wont have anything to judge it by. In case you are thinking it, trains, busses and trams are not computer automated (in many cases) but the point is that we dont think "darn I wish I got to drive the tube train" the humans are merely there until we can figure out a way to completely automate the system. many trains dont have human drivers but due to roads being so unpredictable it may be a while before AI becomes proficient enough to be able to navigate it to replace them.


This is true in theory, but you never did answer the question which was:

I've asked several proponents of his ideas to point me to any of Fresco's work that would qualify as 'engineering'. I've read every word on the Venus Project website, and watched several videos. I've yet to see a single example. Got one?

There is zero engineering involved in this scenario. It is all speculation and wishful thinking.

[Prometheus]

<snip>


In other words, you can't defend Fresco with any more substance (that is, none) than any one else has been able to do. I don't give a crap about daydreams of upsidedown funnels and street legal amusement park bumper cars. Show me the damned blueprints, with wind tunnel test results and environmental impact statements, and human factors assessments, and materials safety data sheets, and all the other actual work that real engineers have to deal with every day.

I don't care what Fresco claims on his poorly written resume, or how many BS patents he has pending. I've seen nothing to suggest that he is, was, or has a clue what it's like to be an actual engineer. Show me one iota of actual evidence that anything at all Fresco claims can actually work, and I might be willing to reassess that opinion. I won't hold my breath.

Sorry if I'm a bit exasperated, and I note that you claim not to be a proponent of TVP, but I've already given them all the benefit of the doubt that anyone deserves without producing some evidence. The guy is a fraud and a huckster, if not just deluded beyond help, and anyone who buys into any of it is being sorely misled, to put it charitably.

[dudalb]

What wrecks the Venus Project is the same thing that wrecks every Utopian project: Human Nature.

[Travis]

I dont see how his ideas (outside certain specific engineering designs) could be accomplished in todays society.

The main infuriating reason is that they would be too efficient. Simply put, it would destroy the economy.

Imagine you had designed a car that was extremely cheap, had practically zero maintance costs, required little energy and would last...say... 500 years. You know what you just did? You just killed a whole crap load of industries.

I question if such a car would be feasible. What you seem to forget is that it is one thing to make an advanced prototype of these things and another to mass produce them which would be necessary to meet your specification of "cheap." Making things that last forever is more an exercise in using the right materials than anything else but the materials that last are also less abundant. We use aluminum extensively in car construction because it is plentiful but the car you're talking about would have to be constructed out of things much more exotic and much less available.

Also, if we had done that in days gone by we would all still be driving these:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2557/3951070787_6a85328a24.jpg
instead of these:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3317/3623424344_37ecf503ef_o.jpg
_
Because there would have been no need for new cars and thus no need for new styling, features and designs.

So count me as one that is glad we don't all have to have these 500 year cars.

No need for mechanics, the entire second hand industry would disappear and thats saying nothing for the fuel industry. Now think about more of the stuff he is talking about, it simply wouldnt work.

No, the reasons it won't work is, as I just mentioned, people don't want cars that will be around longer than them. They want a car that is nice while it is still stylish and one they can get rid of when they grow bored with it. Preserving a repair industry is not a factor. For one thing cars have been getting more and more reliable and there are, in fact, fewer and fewer mechanics. Toyota, Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and GM don't sit around planning to keep their cars breaking down to keep mechanics employed and Kragens in business they are planning things around the core ideas of how good they can make their cars while keeping the car practical to mass produce.

The current society requires that people continually buy stuff, so it requires that products be inefficant so as to allow them to break down so you have to either buy another or have it fixed.

No, it requires them to manufacture things as good as they can and keep them practical for mass consumption. I'm betting Nike could make shoes that would never ever wear out but it would need to be made from exotic materials that would effectively kill it's cost effectiveness and no one could afford it.

It requires that they have hundreds of different products by slightly different brands and continually remarket products with small differences or with some usuall minor technological advance in order to sell you new stuff each year with the new latest thing.

So everyone is just a tool if they think their iPhones are cool and should have just been content with the old rotary dialed phones from decades ago?

Have you ever bought a product that neglected a feature that seems so sensible, only to have it included in the next version also neglecting something else?

Why didn't you note the absence of the "something else" in the first place? This sounds like Monday Morning Quarterbacking to me.

This is especially obvious in the software industry. I am a composer and use a sequencer called Cubase, instead of releasing free updates in order to fix the bugs it already has eventualy they just release another version of the program you have to pay for in order to get the bug fix but that too...contains bugs.

Software is continually evolving and that, inherently, means it will be buggy. It comes with the package when you modify and work off of pre-existing architecture sort of like creatures. Our bodies are full of bugs and inefficiencies because new bits have to evolve out of old bits.

Its no accident that open source operating systems are generally much more efficient and stable (its just that nothing works with them).

....and not working with anything is a big reason why you perceive them as more stable. When they have to inter-operate with tens of thousands of independently created programs, and deal with tens of thousands of viruses, their perceived stability will evaporate like Lindsay Lohan's career.

The point is creating cheap, extremely durable efficiant products is the enemy of the economy.

Nope, it's the enemy of mass production not the economy and there is no way to get around that, Venus Project Utopia, or not.

And that basically goes for everthing including fuel and energy.

Again, you fall into the trap of thinking these things are suppressed by a conspiracy.

So no, Jacques ideas stop working very quickly if applied to a monetary system.

They don't work when applied to any system that has to provide things for everyone. When he actually has that mythical car you were talking about, and it's made from materials that are abundant, then get back to me.

Honestly, thinking that getting rid of money will get rid of greed and unscrupulousness is like thinking that banning football will abolish concussions.Well thats your misunderstanding. Removing money wont solve any of that, thats quite true and they dont suggest otherwise.

I seem to recall a 90 minute introduction video where they claim exactly that.

You're too focued on the aspect "money" plays in what they are talking about. Money isnt the problem its just a symptom of the problem.

On this we are agreed.

The idea is that money would be irrelevant in their hypothetical society.

On this I think you are deluding yourself. Money is a means of transaction but also is tied to "worth." Which is itself derived from "cost." Two things that can't be made irrelevant by any mass of magical robots. Titanium will always be "worth" more than aluminum because of it's inherent "cost." This is going to be expressed in titanium's availability which is regulated by the means we use in transacting for it. Today that is money and you might think we can just abolish money but something is going to take it's place because simply abolishing money doesn't suddenly make scarce and hard to procure things start popping out of the ground and that includes the magical robots that are supposed to be the backbone of this new society.

[grandthefttoaster]

I think there is some truth to the idea that companies don't always create products as efficient and durable as possibe to stay in business. But the Zeitgeist/Venus people seem to exaggerates this to the point of sillyness. In Zeitgeist Addendum they actually said "The average life span for most electronics is less than three months before they are obsolete." All of the electronics in my house are obsolete according to them.

[Travis]

I think there is some truth to the idea that companies don't always create products as efficient and durable as possibe to stay in business. But the Zeitgeist/Venus people seem to exaggerates this to the point of sillyness. In Zeitgeist Addendum they actually said "The average life span for most electronics is less than three months before they are obsolete." All of the electronics in my house are obsolete according to them.

It really all depends on the business model of the company. Some emphasize cheapness which means there is going to be a significant trade off in quality. Others go for high quality and longevity but end up with something that costs more. Still others claim they have all the quality and longevity while keeping things cheap. They are called "scam-artists."

[dtugg]

I would love to see this magical car that lasts for 500 years, requires no maintenance, uses little energy, and is cheap to build.

[Brainache]

I would love to see this magical car that lasts for 500 years, requires no maintenance, uses little energy, and is cheap to build.

There you go:
http://www.thecartoonpictures.com/data/media/108/the-flintstones.jpg

Although I think there could be some maintenance issues, but nothing the consumer couldn't service themselves...

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

FLINTSTONES, MEET THE FLINTSTONES!

Love it!

[defaultdotxbe]

There you go:
http://www.thecartoonpictures.com/data/media/108/the-flintstones.jpg

Although I think there could be some maintenance issues, but nothing the consumer couldn't service themselves...
i dont know how cheap that would be to build, i used to work in a furniture store, youd be surprised how much pieces of rock and wood sell for, lol

[Edx]

They are not on the sides because that wouold ruin the aerodynamics, thus contributing to inefficiency by increasing fuel consumption.

It depends on how you design the safety systems.

They have cars that can drive themselves, but there is a long way to go to make them commercially viable, if ever.

Because they are trying to make them fit into a traffic system which is based on human drivers. You'd have to design it from the ground up.

This is true in theory, but you never did answer the question which was:

I've asked several proponents of his ideas to point me to any of Fresco's work that would qualify as 'engineering'. I've read every word on the Venus Project website, and watched several videos. I've yet to see a single example. Got one?

There is zero engineering involved in this scenario. It is all speculation and wishful thinking.

I know it was off the top of my head, but why did you snip the example of the hurricane protected building?

[Edx]

<snip> In other words, you can't defend Fresco with any more substance (that is, none) than any one else has been able to do. I don't give a crap about daydreams of upsidedown funnels and street legal amusement park bumper cars. Show me the damned blueprints, with wind tunnel test results and environmental impact statements, and human factors assessments, and materials safety data sheets, and all the other actual work that real engineers have to deal with every day.

My point was never to defend Fresco like some kind of truther might defend Steven Jones. My point was to correct peoples misconceptions of what they are all about. You dont seem to care that you dont have an accurate impression of what they believe.

In regards to Fresco releasing some of his designs that is something I want to see as well. They say it is because they dont want people stealing their ideas.

I don't care what Fresco claims on his poorly written resume, or how many BS patents he has pending.

I dont see where all the aggression against Fresco comes from. Even if his society he wants to see is too idealistic, so what? Thats the only problem I see. You're treating him like he's some "psychic" or Creationist or truther. Completely unfair.

I've seen nothing to suggest that he is, was, or has a clue what it's like to be an actual engineer.

Do you have any evidence that he isnt who he says he is or hasnt done the things he said he has done?

The guy is a fraud and a huckster

Evidence? He speaks a lot of sence to me. You guys seem to think he believes in things I know he doesnt.

[Edx]

I think there is some truth to the idea that companies don't always create products as efficient and durable as possibe to stay in business. But the Zeitgeist/Venus people seem to exaggerates this to the point of sillyness.

Have you seen the Story of Stuff (http://www.storyofstuff.com/)? Says the same things in a different way. Do you also have a problem with it?

In Zeitgeist Addendum they actually said "The average life span for most electronics is less than three months before they are obsolete." All of the electronics in my house are obsolete according to them.

Obviously I wouldnt want to think the best about Zeitgeist considering...its Zeitgeist. However the phrase isnt necessarily incorrect, it just depends what you mean by obsolete. Its a rather meaningless phrase though for sure.

[Edx]

I question if such a car would be feasible. What you seem to forget is that it is one thing to make an advanced prototype of these things and another to mass produce them which would be necessary to meet your specification of "cheap." Making things that last forever is more an exercise in using the right materials than anything else but the materials that last are also less abundant. We use aluminum extensively in car construction because it is plentiful but the car you're talking about would have to be constructed out of things much more exotic and much less available.

As I said "cheap" may have been a misnomer however it is still true that the economy cannot withstand efficient products that last.

Because there would have been no need for new cars and thus no need for new styling, features and designs.

This is one of the reasons Jacque's emphasis on the change in human society and conditioning.

In this case we are conditioned to continually want more and more stuff, to be influenced by fashions, trends and styles. This is good for the economy as, for example, if everyone was content with the same style decade after decade you would be far less likely to want to buy the latest summer dress or buy the new stylish car. The current society makes you feel like its good thing to be so obsessed with this stuff and it is in terms of the economy.

No, the reasons it won't work is, as I just mentioned, people don't want cars that will be around longer than them. They want a car that is nice while it is still stylish and one they can get rid of when they grow bored with it. Preserving a repair industry is not a factor. For one thing cars have been getting more and more reliable and there are, in fact, fewer and fewer mechanics. Toyota, Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and GM don't sit around planning to keep their cars breaking down to keep mechanics employed and Kragens in business they are planning things around the core ideas of how good they can make their cars while keeping the car practical to mass produce.

This is all true, but the problem with the argument is that that you are applying our value system in this society to the society that Jacque is talking about. If you go live with one of the few untouched tribes left in the world you'd have a problem as well, but if you were brought up in their society you'd hold different values.

Heck, you dont even need to go that far. I dont know where you are located but if I assume you're born and bred American, well go live in Pakistan or Russia or something and you'll soon realise people hold very different value systems.


The current society requires that people continually buy stuff, so it requires that products be inefficant so as to allow them to break down so you have to either buy another or have it fixed.

No, it requires them to manufacture things as good as they can and keep them practical for mass consumption. I'm betting Nike could make shoes that would never ever wear out but it would need to be made from exotic materials that would effectively kill it's cost effectiveness and no one could afford it.

The point is that for the economy to work people have to keep spending. The less people spend the worse the economy gets. Agreed? Please dont try and give me examples of exceptions to the rule, they do not disprove this.

For products to be efficiant is bad for the economy. The more products that are efficiant it gets even worse. The concept of planned obsolescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence) has been around a long time and while some countries have laws against planned obsolescence being "engineered into products" its still easy to get around it and have more or less the same effect.


It requires that they have hundreds of different products by slightly different brands and continually remarket products with small differences or with some usuall minor technological advance in order to sell you new stuff each year with the new latest thing. So everyone is just a tool if they think their iPhones are cool and should have just been content with the old rotary dialed phones from decades ago?

Why do you have to give such extreme examples? I'm talking "slight" differences and "minor" technological advances sometimes produced by the same company, which doesnt count all the hundreds of other companies that all try and sell you the same stuff. For the economy this is great, it means you always crave something. But it is not about trying to be efficiant, it is about trying to make money.


Have you ever bought a product that neglected a feature that seems so sensible, only to have it included in the next version also neglecting something else?
Why didn't you note the absence of the "something else" in the first place? This sounds like Monday Morning Quarterbacking to me.
Huh?


Software is continually evolving and that, inherently, means it will be buggy. It comes with the package when you modify and work off of pre-existing architecture sort of like creatures. Our bodies are full of bugs and inefficiencies because new bits have to evolve out of old bits.

You seem to have missed my point. They dont fix the bugs then charge you for an upgrade which you now have to pay for just to fix the bugs the previous version had. You think they dont do this on purpose?



....and not working with anything is a big reason why you perceive them as more stable. When they have to inter-operate with tens of thousands of independently created programs, and deal with tens of thousands of viruses, their perceived stability will evaporate like Lindsay Lohan's career.

Coders that make these programs tell me that Windows for example is horribly programmed. You're suggesting Windows is crappy just because it has to work with lots of different programs, I guess these open source programmers are just too stupid to know that?


The point is creating cheap, extremely durable efficiant products is the enemy of the economy.
Nope, it's the enemy of mass production not the economy and there is no way to get around that, Venus Project Utopia, or not.

So you are suggesting efficient products are good for the economy?

And that basically goes for everthing including fuel and energy.
Again, you fall into the trap of thinking these things are suppressed by a conspiracy.

I dont know why you wrote that in responce to what you quoted but regardless, there doesnt need to be a conspiracy its just the way the institutions in our society have evolved.

I seem to recall a 90 minute introduction video where they claim exactly that.

Well like I said to the last guy please give me the exact time in the exact video. Because I am 99% sure you misunderstood it. Jacque always says if you change peoples enviroment without changing the people themselves things will "slip back". So why would they say getting rid of money will solve everything? If you're going to continue to debate this I'm going to have to insist you show me what you're talking about.


The idea is that money would be irrelevant in their hypothetical society.

On this I think you are deluding yourself.

Im not saying I believe it, Im trying to correct your conception of what they believe.

Money is a means of transaction but also is tied to "worth." Which is itself derived from "cost." Two things that can't be made irrelevant by any mass of magical robots. Titanium will always be "worth" more than aluminum because of it's inherent "cost." This is going to be expressed in titanium's availability which is regulated by the means we use in transacting for it. Today that is money and you might think we can just abolish money but something is going to take it's place because simply abolishing money doesn't suddenly make scarce and hard to procure things start popping out of the ground and that includes the magical robots that are supposed to be the backbone of this new society.

And they need to come up with an answer to this that doesnt rely on nano technology replicators. This is one of my issues with the Venus Project.

[grandthefttoaster]

Have you seen the Story of Stuff (http://www.storyofstuff.com/)? Says the same things in a different way. Do you also have a problem with it?

Obviously I wouldnt want to think the best about Zeitgeist considering...its Zeitgeist. However the phrase isnt necessarily incorrect, it just depends what you mean by obsolete. Its a rather meaningless phrase though for sure.

I was agreeing with you somewhat, so I don't know why you think I have a problem. The Story of Stuff sounds interesting so I'll check it out.

Using a word like "obsolete" and a timeframe of three months for electronics is absurd, because I can't even think of many companies that come out with a updated version of the same product after three months. I think the new iPhones come out every year, and then there are things like DVD players which were around for 10 years before Blu-Ray. And DVD players and phones that are two years old are hardly obsolete, most people are fine without having the latest thing. I would only use the word obsolete to describe things like VCR's and floppy disks.

I probably should have clarified that Zeitgeist narrator Peter Joseph was the one who said this in the movie, not Fresco.

[Edx]

I was agreeing with you somewhat, so I don't know why you think I have a problem. The Story of Stuff sounds interesting so I'll check it out.

I'm thinking you have a problem because you said Zeitgeist/The Venus Project "exaggerates this to the point of sillyness", so I wanted to know if you also thought the same about the Story of Stuff which as far as I can tell is saying the same things in different ways.

Using a word like "obsolete" and a timeframe of three months for electronics is absurd, because I can't even think of many companies that come out with a updated version of the same product after three months. I think the new iPhones come out every year, and then there are things like DVD players which were around for 10 years before Blu-Ray. And DVD players and phones that are two years old are hardly obsolete, most people are fine without having the latest thing. I would only use the word obsolete to describe things like VCR's and floppy disks..

The way Peter Joseph descibed it in that quote you posted is a silly way to put it I agree.

The way I see is that all those products are made to make money, they are not made to try and create the the most efficiant phone or the most technologically advaced phone. I would guess at least 99% of all phones are designed and on the market are simply there to generate money. Companies making cheaper versions of their own phones with less features or cheaper cases and other companies try and make their own versions. But this is just phones, one of the most ridiculous products I can think of must be something like washing powder. When you go to the stores just how many do you need? Theres not only all the different sented versions but you have shelves and shelves of different brands trying to sell you the same stuff! Think of all the wasted labour and waste generated to provide all these products, but that is what the economy requires, that is what is good for the economy.

[Prometheus]

My point was never to defend Fresco like some kind of truther might defend Steven Jones. My point was to correct peoples misconceptions of what they are all about. You dont seem to care that you dont have an accurate impression of what they believe.

If I have an inaccurate impression of what Fresco believes, it comes directly from his own words. If you've got examples of him saying things that contradict what he says on his own website or in the videos that have been linked to in other threads here, then by all means present them.


In regards to Fresco releasing some of his designs that is something I want to see as well. They say it is because they dont want people stealing their ideas.

And you don't see the glaring logical contradiction here? He's talking about ushering in a new era in which people will just naturally do exactly the sort of design work he claims to have done freely, just for the pleasure of doing it, yet he's holding up his own project because he's not willing to release his designs. Whether the designs exist or not this is enough to brand him a huckster.


I dont see where all the aggression against Fresco comes from. Even if his society he wants to see is too idealistic, so what? Thats the only problem I see. You're treating him like he's some "psychic" or Creationist or truther. Completely unfair.

It's not agression, but impatience. I've now participated in several threads about this jerk, and not one person has ever been able to produce anything of any substance in his favor, but there's an awful lot of hand-waving, and an awful lot evidence that thousands of people are buying this guy's books and videos, which are utterly worthless. He's profiting at their expense, leading them to believe that he's raising money to build some city of the future, when in reality he's just selling out and retiring to South America a wealthy man. This put's him in exactly the same moral category as Kevin Trudeau or John Edward.


Do you have any evidence that he isnt who he says he is or hasnt done the things he said he has done?

The burden of proof is on him. He's the one taking peoples' money and leaving nothing to show for it.


Evidence? He speaks a lot of sence to me. You guys seem to think he believes in things I know he doesnt.

No offense, but I see no reason to think that your impressions of his beliefs are any more accurate than those he espouses himself in the video interviews I've seen. His beliefs are nonsense. I'm sorry if you can't see that. I don't have the patience to go back over the same explanations debunking TVP and Fresco that have already been presented in other threads, when you've not presented any substance here either.

[R.Mackey]

If you want to immerse yourself in multi-generational engineering, 500 year cars and crap ideas like that, there are a number of case studies available to you.

There are plenty of cars > 100 years old and still mobile. Even leaving maintenance cost out of the equation entirely, these are not practical vehicles. The requirements of automobiles have evolved radically, and you can't prevent this.

A few systems are antiquated but still more or less functional today. The B-52 heavy bomber is one example. But the current B-52H is quite different than the original B-52A, and the total effort in modifying the vehicle exceeds its original acquisition cost many times over.

Some generational systems last even longer, like the London sewerage or New York City water supply. About 150 years on these systems, and since their mission has changed little, they are still largely serviceable without much alteration. But only to a point. Both have seen lots of expansions over the years.

In short, planning for such long-lived devices is counterproductive. The up-front system engineering has to not only be impeccable, it has to be prescient. Good luck with that. The better option is to include efficient disposal and recycling as part of your design effort.

[grandthefttoaster]

The way I see is that all those products are made to make money, they are not made to try and create the the most efficiant phone or the most technologically advaced phone. I would guess at least 99% of all phones are designed and on the market are simply there to generate money. Companies making cheaper versions of their own phones with less features or cheaper cases and other companies try and make their own versions. But this is just phones, one of the most ridiculous products I can think of must be something like washing powder. When you go to the stores just how many do you need? Theres not only all the different sented versions but you have shelves and shelves of different brands trying to sell you the same stuff! Think of all the wasted labour and waste generated to provide all these products, but that is what the economy requires, that is what is good for the economy.

I think the example of washing powder or laundry detergent as I call it is sort of a different thing, because that is an example of companies making different variations of the same thing to compete with each other. The companys know that some people want lavender scent instead of regular, so they come out with it to one-up the companies that don't make lavender, and then the other companies have to make lavender version to compete. If there was only one kind of detergent made, the same amount would still be produced, because people would still wash their clothes the same amount. Probably some extra resources are wasted because of whatever extra difference there is in the manufacturing of the lavender detergent.

I agree with some of the stuff your saying about planned obsolescence, but I would point out that the nature of technology is to make itself obsolete anyway. People in 1900 probably couldn't have designed a modern car even if money was no object, technology had to develop through the years.

[Prometheus]

...
The way I see is that all those products are made to make money, they are not made to try and create the the most efficiant phone or the most technologically advaced phone. I would guess at least 99% of all phones are designed and on the market are simply there to generate money. Companies making cheaper versions of their own phones with less features or cheaper cases and other companies try and make their own versions. But this is just phones, one of the most ridiculous products I can think of must be something like washing powder. When you go to the stores just how many do you need? Theres not only all the different sented versions but you have shelves and shelves of different brands trying to sell you the same stuff! Think of all the wasted labour and waste generated to provide all these products, but that is what the economy requires, that is what is good for the economy.

You've got this all exactly backwards. The economy serves technological progress, not the other way around. All these companies competing against eacht other with similar products is simply the most efficient way to improve technology. And even beyond the fact that a world with exactly one model telephone and exactly one kind of washing powder is not even remotely desirable to anyone sane, how on earth do you propose to guarantee that the one generic model chosen for each product will be optimum without ever 'wasting' all the labour to build variations and test them against each other?

[Prometheus]

....Probably some extra resources are wasted because of whatever extra difference there is in the manufacturing of the lavender detergent....

On the contrary, it's more likely that some companies happen to be able to purchase the ingredients for the lavender version more cheaply than other manufacturers who themselves happen to have a cheaper supplier of the lemon scented version. Requiring everyone to sell the same variety would actually be less efficient because it wouldn't allow for local variation in availability of resources, and even more expensive because it would increase demand for the necessary ingredients for that variety while the ingredients to make an unchosen variety would become worthless. Talk about a waste of resources!

[grandthefttoaster]

On the contrary, it's more likely that some companies happen to be able to purchase the ingredients for the lavender version more cheaply than other manufacturers who themselves happen to have a cheaper supplier of the lemon scented version. Requiring everyone to sell the same variety would actually be less efficient because it wouldn't allow for local variation in availability of resources, and even more expensive because it would increase demand for the necessary ingredients for that variety while the ingredients to make an unchosen variety would become worthless. Talk about a waste of resources!

I guess I stand corrected.

[Edx]

If I have an inaccurate impression of what Fresco believes, it comes directly from his own words. If you've got examples of him saying things that contradict what he says on his own website or in the videos that have been linked to in other threads here, then by all means present them.

I havent yet been shown any evidence that shows a contradiction. If you have some then we can talk about it.



And you don't see the glaring logical contradiction here? He's talking about ushering in a new era in which people will just naturally do exactly the sort of design work he claims to have done freely, just for the pleasure of doing it, yet he's holding up his own project because he's not willing to release his designs. Whether the designs exist or not this is enough to brand him a huckster.

We're not in that society yet. This is the same line of argument against them regarding their use of money, because surely if they advocate a moneyless society why do they charge for their books and DVDs? Well its because we are still in a monetary system, thats not a good argument.

People also critcise his idea of society based on projecting the values of our current society onto it. Of course it wouldnt work in that case. Its like projecting our value system onto some untouched tribe of people and because we wouldnt be able to function there, declaring this tribal society as unworkable.

But it does work because the people in that society have a value system that is very different to ours. Whats important to them stems not from genetics but from how they were brought up that shaped their worldviews and whats important to them.

He's profiting at their expense,

He isnt wealthy, you really think he makes much money from the Venus Project? Because you claim he doesnt get any money from his engineering so all money should be coming from this.

that he's raising money to build some city of the future,

When has he suggested that his money is going towards that? What they have said is that eventually they want to make a "Research City" which would contain many engineering examples and like a showcase of how things would work. But the first thing they want to do is make some kind of film, but they dont ask for money they ask for people to help them if possible. Your impression of them just doesnt fit their actions. If you can prove it to me then please do, but your continued comparisions to obvious frauds and hustlers tells me you must be severely biased so as to see things that arent there.

Right now they are just trying to earn enough money to not to have to move to another location. However they dont publicize just how bad they are doing, they hate the idea of having a donation system set up because they dont want to be accused of being corrupt in the way you are accusing them of. If they are such money grabbers as the way you claim they are they sure are bad at it.


The burden of proof is on him. He's the one taking peoples' money and leaving nothing to show for it.


But you are saying he is a liar and a fraud, so what evidence have you seen to make you think he isnt really an engineer and has been lying? With Richard Gage we can see he clearly exaggerates his architectural accomplishments, can you do the same for Fresco?

No offense, but I see no reason to think that your impressions of his beliefs are any more accurate than those he espouses himself in the video interviews I've seen.

Show me them then.

[Disbelief]

It depends on how you design the safety systems.

Which points to the lack of any engineering done to this point. However, based on crash criteria, ingress/egress requirements, etc, you can not have bumpers on the side of cars.



Because they are trying to make them fit into a traffic system which is based on human drivers. You'd have to design it from the ground up.

Partially true, but you would have to do integration. You could not take all the old cars off the road one day and replace them with self-driven cars the next.



I know it was off the top of my head, but why did you snip the example of the hurricane protected building?

Because I know nothing about hurricane protected buildings, while I have quite a bit of knowledge in car design and manufacturing.

[Edx]

You've got this all exactly backwards. The economy serves technological progress, not the other way around. All these companies competing against eacht other with similar products is simply the most efficient way to improve technology.

Thats true, monetary reward does motivate people to want to improve technology. But improving technology is usually not the motive.

Thats why I would guess at least 99% of all phones produced (for example) are created and designed to make money rather than wanting to make the most efficiant or technologically advanced phone. See the difference?


And even beyond the fact that a world with exactly one model telephone and exactly one kind of washing powder is not even remotely desirable to anyone sane,

That is your own value system speaking here. You are projecting your own subjective opinions onto everyone and assuming its an objective reality.

how on earth do you propose to guarantee that the one generic model chosen for each product will be optimum without ever 'wasting' all the labour to build variations and test them against each other?

This isnt about making one kind of phone, this is about the motive for why you want to make a new kind of phone. Most phones designed are not being created to serve someone elses different personal preference that you're talking about, they are being made to compete with other phones for monetary gain.

There may even be no practical difference whatsoever, but it may be a little cheaper or look slightly different. But thats just to make money. And think of all the phones produced by intentionally dumbing down technology even by the same company just to make a cheaper version. Many times it isnt cheaper for the company to produce the cheaper goods, but they do it anyway because they want to make a cheaper product to bring in more customers.

[Edx]

Which points to the lack of any engineering done to this point. However, based on crash criteria, ingress/egress requirements, etc, you can not have bumpers on the side of cars.

I might have to write to Fresco and ask, since I am not a designer.

However if you are assuming putting bumpers on todays cars then I see your point and where your argument fails. He is suggesting you redesign the car from the ground up. But if this isnt what you mean and are suggesting that bumpers on all sides wouldnt work regardless of design, then I would have to ask him.

Because they are trying to make them fit into a traffic system which is based on human drivers. You'd have to design it from the ground up.

Partially true, but you would have to do integration. You could not take all the old cars off the road one day and replace them with self-driven cars the next.

Hence the reason why he says it is not efficient or cost effective to change old cities but to build new ones.


Because I know nothing about hurricane protected buildings, while I have quite a bit of knowledge in car design and manufacturing.

Fair enough :) But I did give the example all the same. One of my critcisms of Fresco's holding onto his designs is that I want to see him discuss them with engineers (like yourself?) so as to correct flaws and make them better or perhaps even realise that they are totally unworkable and have to go back to the drawing board. Maybe he is just too set in his ways now he is 93.

[McHrozni]

The Venus Project's supporters include the people who've made videos like Zeitgeist right?

The Venus Project essentially wants to create more or less a totalitarian government, with every resource and person on the earth monitored 24/7 right?

The Venus Project and Resource-based economy went by several names in history, most modern ones would be Anarcho-Syndicalism and before that, Communism. Somehow people think that by making a few minor modifications to how a goal should be achieved, but don't change the goal with all it's flaws in the slightest, and putting a brand new name to it make it an entirely original and new concept, unburdened with the past, and not subject to the same rules otherwise identical systems are.

Sad, but true.

McHrozni

[Edx]

I think the example of washing powder or laundry detergent as I call it is sort of a different thing, because that is an example of companies making different variations of the same thing to compete with each other.

I think that is why I gave it as an example, unless I forgot why I was doing it :)

If there was only one kind of detergent made, the same amount would still be produced, because people would still wash their clothes the same amount. Probably some extra resources are wasted because of whatever extra difference there is in the manufacturing of the lavender detergent.

First of all it is our messed up value system that makes us want all these different products. Companies design these products and then try to make us feel like its something we're missing out on unless we buy it. Before someone made "lavender" detergent was anyone really missing it? How about all the other thousands of variations? The culture we live in brainwashes us (for lack of a better term) into thinking we want things we really dont need and that our lives wont be fulfilled without them that we wont be happy unless we get them.

The people in the society that consume these products intrenches this further themselves , just look at fashion. There isnt even any point to it, people just decide that wearing high heels isnt in fashion this year so thousands and thosuands of women go out and feel they need to go buy this summers in-fashion shoes. Its what inspires so many women to want such a ridiculous amount of them, they dont feel this way because they are women but because this is how society moves women to feel. I'm rambling a bit, I hope that you see my point.

I agree with some of the stuff your saying about planned obsolescence, but I would point out that the nature of technology is to make itself obsolete anyway. People in 1900 probably couldn't have designed a modern car even if money was no object, technology had to develop through the years.

Technology will become obsolete due to technological progress, but technology in todays society... I should say... consumer products.... become obsolete for more monetary reasons than the former.

[Edx]

The Venus Project and Resource-based economy went by several names in history, most modern ones would be Anarcho-Syndicalism and before that, Communism. Somehow people think that by making a few minor modifications to how a goal should be achieved, but don't change the goal with all it's flaws in the slightest, and putting a brand new name to it make it an entirely original and new concept, unburdened with the past, and not subject to the same rules otherwise identical systems are.

Sad, but true.

McHrozni

Well it is very different to Communism since thats still has governments, money, banks etc. Technocracy is the closest you'll come to it. If you think the Venus Project is just repackaged Communism you dont know enough about it.

[Disbelief]

I might have to write to Fresco and ask, since I am not a designer.

However if you are assuming putting bumpers on todays cars then I see your point and where your argument fails. He is suggesting you redesign the car from the ground up. But if this isnt what you mean and are suggesting that bumpers on all sides wouldnt work, then I would have to ask him.

New cars are designed from the ground up all the time. For what it is worth, bumpers are practically useless in a crash anyway, as the are not structural parts. Crash worthiness is built into the structure of the vehicle itself, and if the idea is to put something in them to avoid crashes, it is pointless. All the designer would have to do is incorporate the avoidance system into the vehicle.



Hence the reason why he says it is not efficient or cost effective to change old cities but to build new ones.

There are about 500 million passenger cars in the US. An efficient manufacturing plant can produce about 400,000 cars per year, with vehicle complexity lowering this number. So, how many years to you get for transition? Do you throw up 1,000 plants to produce all the required cars in a year, and then shutter most of them when these extremely long-lifed cars are on the road? How is this in any way cost effective? What do you do with the plants once they are done producing?



Fair enough :) But I did give the example all the same. One of my critcisms of Fresco's holding onto his designs is that I want to see him discuss them with fellow engineers so as to correct flaws and make them better or perhaps even realise that they are totally unworkable and have to go back to the drawing board. Maybe he is just too set in his ways now he is 93.

Or maybe he knows that this is a non-starter and that engineers would scoff at him.

[Edx]

New cars are designed from the ground up all the time. For what it is worth, bumpers are practically useless in a crash anyway, as the are not structural parts. Crash worthiness is built into the structure of the vehicle itself, and if the idea is to put something in them to avoid crashes, it is pointless. All the designer would have to do is incorporate the avoidance system into the vehicle.

I think I'm overstating the issue of bumpers... as far as I remember this is the extent I have seen Fresco talk about the car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uXBzE5q7Pw#t=1m48s) (though there may be more).

There are about 500 million passenger cars in the US. An efficient manufacturing plant can produce about 400,000 cars per year, with vehicle complexity lowering this number. So, how many years to you get for transition? Do you throw up 1,000 plants to produce all the required cars in a year, and then shutter most of them when these extremely long-lifed cars are on the road? How is this in any way cost effective? What do you do with the plants once they are done producing?


I never said it was practically workable, :) thats my issue with the Venus Project as I think it is probably too idealistic to change the entire infastructure and value system of the whole world.

Or maybe he knows that this is a non-starter and that engineers would scoff at him.

Thats too negative an impression, from what Ive seen from I dont feel thats the case. However I would love to see him discuss engineering with some real engineers. I see why you might think that though.

[defaultdotxbe]

Thats true, monetary reward does motivate people to want to improve technology. But improving technology is usually not the motive.

Thats why I would guess at least 99% of all phones produced (for example) are created and designed to make money rather than wanting to make the most efficiant or technologically advanced phone. See the difference?
yes, 99% of phones are not the most technologically advanced because 99% of people dont need the most technologically advanced phone there is

however i agree monetary reward the primary motive for technological advancement, which is exactly why the venus project could never work

see, today people wake up in the morning and say "i'm gonna go make a better mousetrap because theres money to be made"

the venus project removes money and expects everyone to suddenly start saying "i'm going to make a better mousetrap for the sake of helping mankind catch mice" when in reality theyll say "theres no money to be made, so im gonna go watch tv"

and i dont think any amount of cultural change is going to remove that attitude from the majority of the population

[Disbelief]

I think I'm overstating the issue of bumpers... as far as I remember this is the extent I have seen Fresco talk about the car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uXBzE5q7Pw#t=1m48s) (though there may be more).


I can't look now, but I will try to check it out later.


I never said it was practically workable, :) thats my issue with the Venus Project as I think it is probably too idealistic to change the entire infastructure and value system of the whole world.

While it is too idealistic to try worldwide, why would he not strive to show the feasibility on a smaller scale? He could start his own hippy commune and build all the infrastructure over time to suit his needs.


Thats too negative an impression, from what Ive seen from I dont feel thats the case. However I would love to see him discuss engineering with some real engineers. I see why you might think that though.

But it is easy to critique his work right now, and that would most likely get easier if he provided more detail.

[Prometheus]

I havent yet been shown any evidence that shows a contradiction. If you have some then we can talk about it.

It's in other threads in this forum. There's a search function you can access at the top of the page. I'm not about to do your homework for you when you've not presented any substance at all, just like every other TVP supporter who's come along here.


We're not in that society yet.

And we never will be, because the whole idea is fundamentally flawed and can never work--also explained in detail in other threads. If you want me to waste time digging through old threads to find the relevant posts, then at the very least you've got to present a cogent argument that explains how TVP is even possible--without all the handwaving and unsupported assertions, and with some actual calculations demonstrating that either you, or Fresco or anyone else associated with this fool's errand has the slightest clue what you are talking about.


This is the same line of argument against them regarding their use of money, because surely if they advocate a moneyless society why do they charge for their books and DVDs? Well its because we are still in a monetary system, thats not a good argument.

No, it's not the same, but it doesn't surprise me in the least that anyone who can't see the obvious flaws in Fresco's ideas would also be unable to see the difference here. Fresco has to put up or shut up. Demonstrating the engineering he claims he's capable of is a necessary pre-condition to get any rational person on board with his project. He won't release his designs because either they don't exist, or he knows they won't work, or else he's completely bats. I'm actually being charitable calling him a fraud. The more you talk, the more convinced I'm becoming that not only is he not smart enough to be the huckster I gave him credit for, but he's a stark raving lunatic as well.


People also critcise his idea of society based on projecting the values of our current society onto it. Of course it wouldnt work in that case. Its like projecting our value system onto some untouched tribe of people and because we wouldnt be able to function there, declaring this tribal society as unworkable.

Human value systems are not just artificial constructs that can be readily engineered at will. They evolved over thousands of years because having them made societies better able to adapt to the conditions they found themselves in, and better able to compete for scare resources. These isolated (not 'untouched'--there aren't any of those) tribes you speak of have value systems that work in isolation. As soon as members of an isolated tribe have substantial contact with the world at large, their value systems crumble because they cannot compete.


But it does work because the people in that society have a value system that is very different to ours. Whats important to them stems not from genetics but from how they were brought up that shaped their worldviews and whats important to them.

This is hopelessly naive. Show me one example of a single group of people that has ever held to a value system that would make TVP work, that has successfully exported that value system to another people/location. Good luck.


He isnt wealthy, you really think he makes much money from the Venus Project? Because you claim he doesnt get any money from his engineering so all money should be coming from this.

Well, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you're right and he is just completely incompetent. I don't see any reason to take this as an argument in his favor, though.


When has he suggested that his money is going towards that? What they have said is that eventually they want to make a "Research City" which would contain many engineering examples and like a showcase of how things would work. But the first thing they want to do is make some kind of film, but they dont ask for money they ask for people to help them if possible. Your impression of them just doesnt fit their actions.

I'm certainly willing to admit that I might be wrong, but so far all you've done is point to a growing likelihood that my error is in giving him far too much credit rather than the other way around.


If you can prove it to me then please do, but your continued comparisions to obvious frauds and hustlers tells me you must be severely biased so as to see things that arent there.

I've only actually made such a comparison one time that I'm aware of, so I think you're wrong to use the word 'continued'. I have accused him of dishonesty because he has made numerous claims without backing any of them up, and the notion that he's going to somehow get TVP off the ground by making a movie and a theme park or 'research city' or whatever instead of just demonstrating the engineering is so off-base that he must be either a fraud or a lunatic, and my experience has been that frauds are a lot more common than genuine lunatics.


Right now they are just trying to earn enough money to not to have to move to another location. However they dont publicize just how bad they are doing, they hate the idea of having a donation system set up because they dont want to be accused of being corrupt in the way you are accusing them of. If they are such money grabbers as the way you claim they are they sure are bad at it.

Funny, I know lot's of engineers, some highly skilled and some rather sub-par hacks. None of them have any trouble at all making gobs of money actually doing real world engineering though. If Fresco can actually do any of what he claims he can do, he certainly shouldn't have any difficulty solving his money problems. I guess I'll take your word for it, then: They're completely incompetent.

[Prometheus]

yes, 99% of phones are not the most technologically advanced because 99% of people dont need the most technologically advanced phone there is....

Exactly. Remember what happened to Motorola when they tried to get the Iridium satelite phone system off the ground. They spent $5billion on satellites that they were later forced to sell for less than half a penny on the dollar because--surprise!--it turns out there just aren't that many customers who need the ability to call a fishing boat in the South Pacific from a mountain village in Afghanistan without losing the connection. :rolleyes:

[BenBurch]

Back to the premise; "Ah! Technocracy!" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0224225/

Not a new idea, in short.

It is possible that some day the machines will be so capable and efficient that we will only have to think of something and it will be ours? Maybe.

Its also possible that in such a future the machines might feel ill-used at having us as pets...

And raw materials are just not getting easier to come by, so why would the machines not have an economy of their own and money of their own? In short why would they cooperate with each other when doing so reduces their chances of survival unless something were given in return?

[Edx]

It's in other threads in this forum. There's a search function you can access at the top of the page. I'm not about to do your homework for you when you've not presented any substance at all, just like every other TVP supporter who's come along here.

What do you suggest I search for?

You are claiming that Fresco believes that simply removing money will solve all the problems. Im saying either you are misunderstanding or its a strawman. I cant tell until you show me this apparent contradiction.

He's talking about ushering in a new era in which people will just naturally do exactly the sort of design work he claims to have done freely, just for the pleasure of doing it, yet he's holding up his own project because he's not willing to release his designs We're not in that society yet.

And we never will be, because the whole idea is fundamentally flawed and can never work--also explained in detail in other threads.

That wasnt the point, I know there are valid critcisms concerning practically applying the society he wants however we are talking the theory here. I will agree with any valid critcisms, but this wasnt one of them.

This is the same line of argument against them regarding their use of money, because surely if they advocate a moneyless society why do they charge for their books and DVDs? Well its because we are still in a monetary system, thats not a good argument.

No, it's not the same, but it doesn't surprise me in the least that anyone who can't see the obvious flaws in Fresco's ideas would also be unable to see the difference here. Fresco has to put up or shut up. Demonstrating the engineering he claims he's capable of is a necessary pre-condition to get any rational person on board with his project. He won't release his designs because either they don't exist, or he knows they won't work, or else he's completely bats. I'm actually being charitable calling him a fraud. The more you talk, the more convinced I'm becoming that not only is he not smart enough to be the huckster I gave him credit for, but he's a stark raving lunatic as well.

I have no idea why you responded in this way to the quoted part of my post.

You were making the point about how humans would never do anything except for monetary gain. Whats that got to do with Frescos engineering? If you're going to say my comparision isnt valid make sure you know what point I'm talking about, which may involve remembering your own.

These isolated (not 'untouched'--there aren't any of those)

That would depend how you defined untouched, wouldnt it? You knew what I meant, perhaps you should try not to be so pedantic.

tribes you speak of have value systems that work in isolation. As soon as members of an isolated tribe have substantial contact with the world at large, their value systems crumble because they cannot compete.

The "world" as you call it is refering to the other societies like ours. You act like our society is the best and healthiest way to think. Sure we have great technology, but go back to basics. Are we really happier than those "insolated" tribes? Not so it seems judging from what we know of them.

The point I was making was that you cannot project our societies values onto anothers and then decare that society as unworkable. I would feel very out of place in Pakistan or Iraq where there value systems while still Westernised by comparision are still dramatically different to those in the United Kingdom or America. If you're going to critcise Frescos ideas you're going to have to use a different argument than this one.

But it does work because the people in that society have a value system that is very different to ours. Whats important to them stems not from genetics but from how they were brought up that shaped their worldviews and whats important to them.

This is hopelessly naive. Show me one example of a single group of people that has ever held to a value system that would make TVP work, that has successfully exported that value system to another people/location. Good luck.

Fresco likes to give the example of a tribe of people he visited I forget where I should find out, where they would just give vistors fish they caught. Why? Because there was too much, they didnt think about hording any of it away. This idea that we need to hord property is something that is learned. Some people think that no one would do any good thing unless they have some monetary insentive, but even in this society that isnt true. People do things all the time for non-monetary gain and some with seemingly disregard for their own welfare. People attitudes and beliefs can be shaped to a more healthy way of looking at the world. Usually people who are violent can be traced back to their upbringing. This idea of "human nature" being inherently bad is more or less a religious notion. I see no evidence for it and plenty that contradicts it.

I'm certainly willing to admit that I might be wrong, but so far all you've done is point to a growing likelihood that my error is in giving him far too much credit rather than the other way around.

Now you're implying he is an incompetent hustler. I see.

If you can prove it to me then please do, but your continued comparisions to obvious frauds and hustlers tells me you must be severely biased so as to see things that arent there.

I've only actually made such a comparison one time that I'm aware of,

You compared him to Kevin Trudeau and John Edward and you've been talking about him as if he's just some hustler that lies about his enginering background and just wants money by pretending he wants to build a city.

I have accused him of dishonesty because he has made numerous claims without backing any of them up,

You've made claims on this thread without backing them up, maybe I should accuse you of dishonesty as well.

and the notion that he's going to somehow get TVP off the ground by making a movie and a theme park or 'research city' or whatever instead of just demonstrating the engineering is so off-base that he must be either a fraud or a lunatic, and my experience has been that frauds are a lot more common than genuine lunatics.

Well thats your opinion, I have lots of issues with the Venus Project but I dont care for peoples opinions that arent rooted in sensible arguments. There is plenty to critcise about the Venus Project without resporting to the strange perceptions you have of them and poor arguments you've been making.


Funny, I know lot's of engineers, some highly skilled and some rather sub-par hacks. None of them have any trouble at all making gobs of money actually doing real world engineering though. If Fresco can actually do any of what he claims he can do, he certainly shouldn't have any difficulty solving his money problems. I guess I'll take your word for it, then: They're completely incompetent.

You may be right in a way about incompetence, at least in aspects of money. I remember one of his stories descibes him buying a really expensive microscope to continue research on whatever it was at the time instead of paying the rent one month and so he got into trouble.

[aviolet4u]

so whats the conspiracy? who stole the arms?


:D I literally laughed out loud at that, why don't they have a laughing smilies here?

[BenBurch]

:D I literally laughed out loud at that, why don't they have a laughing smilies here?

colon dl colon

:dl:

[Edx]

I can't look now, but I will try to check it out later.

Its not that interesting really, he really only briefly mentioned it in passing. I'll try and find out if he has talked about the car in any other place, I do recall that he did.

While it is too idealistic to try worldwide, why would he not strive to show the feasibility on a smaller scale? He could start his own hippy commune and build all the infrastructure over time to suit his needs.

haha. :D Unfortunately it requires the cooperation of at least most of the world or it doesnt work, even in his theory. For example the first city they want to build would be a "research city" and would not be a functional society you'd live in. Some of his fans have completely misunderstood this and think smaller scale "communes" can be called a Venus Project but they are just communes.
But it is easy to critique his work right now, and that would most likely get easier if he provided more detail.

I agree with the former but disagree with the latter, perhaps I'm overly optimistic and you're overly cynical ;). Though would like to see it put to the test. We shall see if anything comes of it, if they ever make this research "city" then I guess this would go a long way to showing practical demonstrations of his designs.

[GreNME]

Have you ever bought a product that neglected a feature that seems so sensible, only to have it included in the next version also neglecting something else? This is especially obvious in the software industry. I am a composer and use a sequencer called Cubase, instead of releasing free updates in order to fix the bugs it already has eventualy they just release another version of the program you have to pay for in order to get the bug fix but that too...contains bugs.

Your lack of understanding is highlighted right there. Use a better program.

Its no accident that open source operating systems are generally much more efficient and stable (its just that nothing works with them).

More nonsense. There's plenty of stuff that works with OSS, and in fact there are dozens of varied programs that do practically the same thing for just about anything you want to do. That is, in fact, why OSS remains so low in terms of overall share in a given market where no "industry standard" has been implemented-- the phenomenon of too much choice often has similar effects to too little. Where there are standard setups-- like your average LAMP web server, for example-- Linux does just fine but still requires just as much patching and updating and upgrading as the other operating systems.

As for efficiency and stability: efficiency is measured by how well it addresses a problem, and doing something for its own sake of existence is a solution in search of a problem-- that's not an open-source or closed-source issue; the only open-source software out there that's arguably more stable than anything else is OpenBSD, and that's provided it's configured properly, not running anything unstable, and not regularly tampered with at the system level-- not unlike most other operating systems.

I don't even agree with you and I could have come up with better examples than yours.

[Edx]

Your lack of understanding is highlighted right there. Use a better program.

:D:D


More nonsense. There's plenty of stuff that works with OSS, and in fact there are dozens of varied programs that do practically the same thing for just about anything you want to do. That is, in fact, why OSS remains so low in terms of overall share in a given market where no "industry standard" has been implemented-- the phenomenon of too much choice often has similar effects to too little. Where there are standard setups-- like your average LAMP web server, for example-- Linux does just fine but still requires just as much patching and updating and upgrading as the other operating systems.

My apologies, it was a comment directed towards a counter argument I thought might be made that "nothing works with" them. Of course as a composer I cant use them because for me no programs I use work with them.

As for efficiency and stability: efficiency is measured by how well it addresses a problem, and doing something for its own sake of existence is a solution in search of a problem-- that's not an open-source or closed-source issue; the only open-source software out there that's arguably more stable than anything else is OpenBSD, and that's provided it's configured properly, not running anything unstable, and not regularly tampered with at the system level-- not unlike most other operating systems.

I remember seeing a test comparing boot times of Ubuntu and Windows 7, what is the reason you think Ubuntu seems to work better and people are saying its just repackaged Vista?

I don't even agree with you and I could have come up with better examples than yours.

Thats why I like to debate stuff becuase eventually you realise what arguments or examples were good or if you need to put accross the example in a different way. Apparently I do, thanks.

[Prometheus]

What do you suggest I search for?

Try "Venus Project". Sorry I can't be any more helpful. That I don't remember any more details about who posted in which TVP thread or what the link was called is exactly why I'm unwilling to go looking again myself--unless you make it worthwhile to me by offering some kind of substantive evidence that there's anything at all behind TVP other than handwaving and pretty pictures.


You are claiming that Fresco believes that simply removing money will solve all the problems.

No I'm not. Perhaps we misunderstood each other at some point. My understanding of Fresco's position is that eliminating money is a necessary but insufficient pre-condition for building the society he wants. My opinion is that he is wrong on all counts. It's neither possible nor desirable to eliminate money, and even if it were, doing so would not make TVP any more possible. The whole thing is ridiculous from start to finish.


That wasnt the point, I know there are valid critcisms concerning practically applying the society he wants however we are talking the theory here. I will agree with any valid critcisms, but this wasnt one of them.

I'm not talking theory. His hypothetical imaginings are completely irrelevant and not worth much more than a few minutes conversation over a round of bong hits unless the practical issues are addressed first.


I have no idea why you responded in this way to the quoted part of my post.

You were making the point about how humans would never do anything except for monetary gain. Whats that got to do with Frescos engineering? If you're going to say my comparision isnt valid make sure you know what point I'm talking about, which may involve remembering your own.

Because I was not making the point that humans would never do anything except for monetary gain. That was someone else. I was making the point that his project cannot move forward without his first proving that his engineering designs exist, and will work as advertised, yet he keeps them hidden for fear that they will be stolen. This is dumb. He's never going to make any money on them, anyway, and if his claims are true then if someone else steals them and actually produces the designs the worst that can happen is that the thief will accidentally bring about conditions that will allow TVP by "wrecking the economy" with their optimal efficiency. He's wrong, of course. But if he actually believes his own BS then he ought to be happy to have his designs 'stolen'.


That would depend how you defined untouched, wouldnt it? You knew what I meant, perhaps you should try not to be so pedantic.

Actually, I did not know what you meant. Your arguments thus far have been so full of misunderstanding that I had no reasonable way of guessing whether you actually believed that there are tribes that have not had any contact at all with the outside world, or were simply misusing the word. However, I am confident that you are now misusing the word pedantic. If I had merely commented on your misuse of 'untouched' without any other relevant commentary, or tried to make that misuse a topic of discussion in itself, then I would have been engaging in pedantry.


The "world" as you call it is refering to the other societies like ours. You act like our society is the best and healthiest way to think. Sure we have great technology, but go back to basics. Are we really happier than those "insolated" tribes? Not so it seems judging from what we know of them.

This is just flat out wrong. I am not referring to societies "like ours" alone. I am referring to all other societies. If I'd meant to say "societies like ours" then I would have said so instead of saying "the world." I do not believe, nor do I act as though our society is the best or healthiest way to think. But I'm 100% positive that it's better than what Fresco's ideas would produce, and it's a damned sight better than any of the isolated tribes still in existence in remote areas. If you think otherwise you'll have to demonstrate that you know quite a bit more about them and work that professional anthropologists have done studying them than you've demonstrated thus far.


The point I was making was that you cannot project our societies values onto anothers and then decare that society as unworkable. I would feel very out of place in Pakistan or Iraq where there value systems while still Westernised by comparision are still dramatically different to those in the United Kingdom or America. If you're going to critcise Frescos ideas you're going to have to use a different argument than this one.

Well since that characterization forms no part of any of my arguments, I don't think I'll need to bother with it at all. I've lived in several countries with dramatically different value systems than the one I was raised in, and I know exactly how out of place that can make one feel. I've seen nothing to suggest that Fresco has any idea how any value system other than his own operates, and by all accounts his own values are pretty warped.


Fresco likes to give the example of a tribe of people he visited I forget where I should find out, where they would just give vistors fish they caught. Why? Because there was too much, they didnt think about hording any of it away. This idea that we need to hord property is something that is learned. Some people think that no one would do any good thing unless they have some monetary insentive, but even in this society that isnt true. People do things all the time for non-monetary gain and some with seemingly disregard for their own welfare. People attitudes and beliefs can be shaped to a more healthy way of looking at the world. Usually people who are violent can be traced back to their upbringing. This idea of "human nature" being inherently bad is more or less a religious notion. I see no evidence for it and plenty that contradicts it.

As you point out yourself, even in our society people do things for altruistic reasons without monetary incentive, so in fact, the tribe you describe is not an example of a markedly different value system. I give away extra food practically every day, and I don't know anyone who thinks it's a good idea to horde excess fish--except perhaps my cat.

I don't know where you got the idea that I think human nature is inherently bad--I've never said so, nor does that strange notion form any part of my objection to Fresco. However you're wrong that "usually" violence can be traced back to upbringing. Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't. There are plenty of cases where no one has any idea how it came about.


Now you're implying he is an incompetent hustler. I see.


Implying is an unnecessarily polite word. I'm flat out asserting that he most definitely is one or the other--perhaps not both, but I won't make the mistake of giving him the benefit of the doubt any longer.


You compared him to Kevin Trudeau and John Edward and you've been talking about him as if he's just some hustler that lies about his enginering background and just wants money by pretending he wants to build a city.

Yes. Though as I stated above, I'm also willing to entertain the idea that he's just deluded and/or dumb. Among the available options, fraud seems like both the most likely and
the most respectable.


You've made claims on this thread without backing them up, maybe I should accuse you of dishonesty as well.

You can certainly do so if you like, but allow me to point out that for me to accuse a public figure of dishonesty is within the Membership Agreement here, while accusing another forum member without backing the accusation up with evidence is not. And though I don't care enough to report you if you do, someone else might.


Well thats your opinion, I have lots of issues with the Venus Project but I dont care for peoples opinions that arent rooted in sensible arguments. There is plenty to critcise about the Venus Project without resporting to the strange perceptions you have of them and poor arguments you've been making.

This is just bizarre. You don't like my opinions because you can't see the sensible arguments they're based on, yet you're happy to let Fresco slide even though he's got no sensible arguments either. Typically, a TVP proponent will respond to this claim by telling me I should go buy one of his books or videos. Will you be the same as all your predecessors, or will you actually pony up and present such an argument--with substantive evidence to back it up?

You've repeated several times now that you "have issues" with aspects of TVP, and you get all defensive everytime anyone points out that TVP has nothing but "issues", yet you still haven't presented or pointed out anything substantive to explain why you do think that there's anything to it at all. I'd be happy to compromise with you: You post ANYTHING of substance in support of any aspect of TVP or any of Fresco's claims, and I'll go back and search through old threads for some of the things I've been talking about.


You may be right in a way about incompetence, at least in aspects of money. I remember one of his stories descibes him buying a really expensive microscope to continue research on whatever it was at the time instead of paying the rent one month and so he got into trouble.

He does tell lot's of good stories, doesn't he?

[Brainster]

I dont see how his ideas (outside certain specific engineering designs) could be accomplished in todays society.

The main infuriating reason is that they would be too efficient. Simply put, it would destroy the economy.

Imagine you had designed a car that was extremely cheap, had practically zero maintance costs, required little energy and would last...say... 500 years. You know what you just did? You just killed a whole crap load of industries. No need for mechanics, the entire second hand industry would disappear and thats saying nothing for the fuel industry. Now think about more of the stuff he is talking about, it simply wouldnt work.

And whoever invented it would make a boatload of money. That's the part you're ignoring: competition and the opportunity to strike it rich. Toyota came to the US with efficient, low-maintenance vehicles and what happened? They started outselling everybody else, and cashed in big. That's not to say that your example doesn't have other problems. Nobody would really want a vehicle that lasts for 500 years, for the simple reason that it would be outmoded by advancing technology well before it was ready for the scrap heap. In my lifetime I've seen many changes to cars: fuel injection, air bags, seat belts, catalytic converters and anti-lock brakes, electronic door openers, not to mention stuff that could be added on to existing vehicles like FM receivers, MP3 players, etc.

A lot of obsolescence is not planned, it just happens because of advancing technology. Who in 1986 would have been telling Bill Gates that he had to add hyperlinking capabilities to Microsoft Word?

[GreNME]

I remember seeing a test comparing boot times of Ubuntu and Windows 7, what is the reason you think Ubuntu seems to work better and people are saying its just repackaged Vista?

Well, I won't get into a full technical breakdown of the flaws of that kind of thing-- in part because it's the wrong subforum and in part because it's a lot of Coke/Pepsi argument-- but boot times have nothing to do with efficiency or stability. The reason people say stuff about pretty much any thing or brand they don't use or like is the well-documented phenomenon of brand loyalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty). As for what I think about Ubuntu seeming to work "better," my thoughts are basically that it's a nice, refined desktop OS but isn't quantitatively better or worse than its commercial counterparts of OS X or Windows (from a technical perspective). My own opinion is use what you like as long as it gets the job done the way you want. Expecting anything past that, however-- like user support or dependability in varied situations-- depends on factors both with one's self (meaning one's computing behavior) and whatever support exists for the software in whatever form.

Thats why I like to debate stuff becuase eventually you realise what arguments or examples were good or if you need to put accross the example in a different way. Apparently I do, thanks.

Trust me, software is one area that seriously does not work as an example of your point. Even UNIX, the decades-old grandfather of Linux and OS X (and father of FreeBSD), has gone through hundreds if not thousands of patches and several updates and upgrades to its versions. It's an industry standard that is well-respected, but is immensely different from (and yet immensely similar to) its original conception back in the late-60's/early-70's. Progress implies change when it comes to software, and while the degree or direction of the change may differ depending on the software, change is still a constant.

[Sunray Breaker]

Please point out one of his ideas that you think is workable on any level, and detail exactly how it would work.

This is the first debunked woo that pulled me over to the skeptics side. I thought coming into JREF that you guys would love the Venus Project, but after a few ignorant rambles I sort realized hwo silly it all was.

That being said I do think Jacque Fresco has some pretty good ideas for self assembling structures (which science is already working on with biomimicry <---waiting to hear someone's opinions on biomimicry!!!)

His ideas for creating a type of radar system for vehicles, to decrease car accidents.

His ideas for designing a bathroom, where the water from your shower, flows into your toilet and is reused for more efficiency.

Designing a system where recycling isn't encouraged, but designed into the system itself.

I'd rather hear the Skeptics tackle his less propagandized film, Future By Design. Which is basically just a presentation of all of his ideas, some of which I still think could provide some good ideas.

I'm yet to hear anyone comment on his actual science. Some of these ideas sound not only logical but possible.

And yes, this is related....
PLEASE PEOPLE, COMMENT ON MY FRIGGIN BIOMIMICRY THREAD!!! Out of all the coolest stuff in biology, it's one of the more fascinating methods out there...I'm dying to hear what you folks have to say about the two videos I posted.

[Sunray Breaker]

Here's the link:

Why hasn't anyone paid attention to this? Are organically grown computers, metals and plastics, programmable cells, biodegradable equivalents to steel, not an interesting topic?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150812

[grandthefttoaster]

I'd rather hear the Skeptics tackle his less propagandized film, Future By Design. Which is basically just a presentation of all of his ideas, some of which I still think could provide some good ideas.

Is it online?

[Sunray Breaker]

yes...I posted the link to the thread. There's two videos from the TED talks featuring Jenine Benyus, an advocate for biomimicry. She brings up some pretty amazing advances that labs have made recently using these types of techniques.

[grandthefttoaster]

yes...I posted the link to the thread. There's two videos from the TED talks featuring Jenine Benyus, an advocate for biomimicry. She brings up some pretty amazing advances that labs have made recently using these types of techniques.

I think you'd better read my post again.:D

[Edx]

Try "Venus Project". Sorry I can't be any more helpful. That I don't remember any more details about who posted in which TVP thread or what the link was called is exactly why I'm unwilling to go looking again myself--unless you make it worthwhile to me by offering some kind of substantive evidence that there's anything at all behind TVP other than handwaving and pretty pictures.

I'm afraid to say I'm not going to waste my time trawling through such a massvie thread to find some obscure quote that has undoubatbly been taken out of context or misunderstood.

No I'm not. Perhaps we misunderstood each other at some point.

Perhaps you were not paying attention to what you were replying to.

This is the conversation flow.

Honestly, thinking that getting rid of money will get rid of greed and unscrupulousness is like thinking that banning football will abolish concussions.

Removing money wont solve any of that, thats quite true and they dont suggest otherwise.

Somewhere on one of the other Venus Project threads there's a link to a video interview in which Fresco directly contradicts this assertion. I don't have time to chase it down for you at the moment, though.


Travis claims that he said "exactly" that removing money will solve everything in a video, a claim you appear to echo. You claim that Fresco may contradict himself obviously refering to this claim that you think Fresco or maybe Peter Joseph has said that simply removing money will solve everything.

My understanding of Fresco's position is that eliminating money is a necessary but insufficient pre-condition for building the society he wants.

Thats good, so why did you say...

"Somewhere on one of the other Venus Project threads there's a link to a video interview in which Fresco directly contradicts this assertion."

What were you talking about and how would it contradict what I said? You appear to show some understanding of what he thinks about money in this post now, what was the reason you said what you said previously?

My opinion is that he is wrong on all counts. It's neither possible nor desirable to eliminate money, and even if it were, doing so would not make TVP any more possible. The whole thing is ridiculous from start to finish.

Thats your opinion of his ideas and thats fine, but if you're going to say things about him I know to be untrue then I have a problem. If you can show he has been contradictory then thats fine.

That wasnt the point, I know there are valid critcisms concerning practically applying the society he wants however we are talking the theory here. I will agree with any valid critcisms, but this wasnt one of them.

I'm not talking theory.

Why not? In theory I think you can see that a lot of what he says would work under certain conditions, practically getting the world into a position to fulfill those conditions is another matter. Do you see the difference?

Because I was not making the point that humans would never do anything except for monetary gain. That was someone else. I

You did however implied it when you asked me this:

"Show me one example of a single group of people that has ever held to a value system that would make TVP work"

Why else would you need to ask that? What value system do you suggest the Venus Project requires to function that is impossible?

You also implied it before this when you said the following:

He's talking about ushering in a new era in which people will just naturally do exactly the sort of design work he claims to have done freely, just for the pleasure of doing it,

Yet according to you everything he says is unworkable, so this must apply to this theory as well.


But if he actually believes his own BS then he ought to be happy to have his designs 'stolen'.

Just as he shouldnt charge for his books or DVDs either I suppose?

Actually, I did not know what you meant.

"Untouched" or "isolated", its really just semantics since the use of both can mean the exact same thing. But now you know what I meant, so lets move on.



The "world" as you call it is refering to the other societies like ours. You act like our society is the best and healthiest way to think. Sure we have great technology, but go back to basics. Are we really happier than those "insolated" tribes? Not so it seems judging from what we know of them.

This is just flat out wrong. I am not referring to societies "like ours" alone. I am referring to all other societies. If I'd meant to say "societies like ours" then I would have said so instead of saying "the world." I do not believe, nor do I act as though our society is the best or healthiest way to think. But I'm 100% positive that it's better than what Fresco's ideas would produce, and it's a damned sight better than any of the isolated tribes still in existence in remote areas. If you think otherwise you'll have to demonstrate that you know quite a bit more about them and work that professional anthropologists have done studying them than you've demonstrated thus far.

It is your own personal subjective opinion that our value systems are "better" than the isolated tribes still in existence. This is an ego trip that so many people in this society imagine that their way of thinking is the "bestest" and truest way of thinking. The way you talk about it sounds very much how religious people talk about their beliefs. We may have planes, trains and automobiles but when you get down to it we arent happier than they are. In fact I'd say we are probably lot more unhappy due to the stresses our society brings.

I remember watching a program about a tribe of people that are refered to as the happiest people in the world (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/strange-island-pacific-tribesmen-come-to-study-britain-401461.html). But they dont have fashion, cars or ipods, how could they be happy?! Of course if happyness followed the state of technology then western society should be the happiest society in all of history! Obviously this is not the case. We only THINK it does, but it evidently does not.


The point I was making was that you cannot project our societies values onto anothers and then decare that society as unworkable. I would feel very out of place in Pakistan or Iraq where there value systems while still Westernised by comparision are still dramatically different to those in the United Kingdom or America. If you're going to critcise Frescos ideas you're going to have to use a different argument than this one.

Well since that characterization forms no part of any of my arguments, I don't think I'll need to bother with it at all.

Yes it does reflect your argument since I was replying to your criticism of his ideas that projected our societies value systems onto his and concluding it is unworkable.

That is an illogical argument as I described. If you can find a logical way of making the same point then please try it again.

I've seen nothing to suggest that Fresco has any idea how any value system other than his own operates,

Well I havent got that impression and I have listened and watched a helleva lot of material.

and by all accounts his own values are pretty warped.

Such as? The whole "hustler" "lying fraud" thing, I guess.

As you point out yourself, even in our society people do things for altruistic reasons without monetary incentive, so in fact, the tribe you describe is not an example of a markedly different value system. I give away extra food practically every day, and I don't know anyone who thinks it's a good idea to horde excess fish--except perhaps my cat.

So what do you want me to show you? First you ask me for a single example then you suggest I need to show you more. So just how much more?

The point surely is that people do things for non-monetary gain (which apparently you agree with) and that enviroment will shape peoples value systems.

I see nothing that Fresco suggests on this issue that in theory wouldnt work, the practical work of changing peoples value systems in the whole world to make the Venus Project society feasible would be the valid point of critcism as I see it. But if you feel you have an example of a value he requires in his society that is completely unreasonable to expect a society to have then please tell me what that is because I'd really like to know if I havent considered it.

I don't know where you got the idea that I think human nature is inherently bad--I've never said so, nor does that strange notion form any part of my objection to Fresco. .

All critcisms of Fresco's "human behaviour" ideas and concepts I've seen have been about how its human nature to hord property, human nature to be greedy, human nature to be corrupt, that it is human nature that would cause humans to necessarily sit on our asses all day and do absolutey nothing if there was no monetary insentive to give us a reason to.

So thats what I mean when I say that those suggesting this line of critcism are saying that human nature moves us to do what we could class as "bad things" and that no alteration of the enviroment will change that.

However you're wrong that "usually" violence can be traced back to upbringing. Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't. There are plenty of cases where no one has any idea how it came about

There are many factors that stimulate a violent person, sometimes it is not clear in the persons upbringing what could cause it since it is hard to really look into the serious in's and out's of someones life. If someone looked at me and tried to found out why I think certain ways I would be able to tell them a lot but doing it on their own would render a lot of erroneous connections.

Sometimes you might have a person that may have a genetic propencity to be depressed. But unless certain factors in that individuals enviroment stimulate it this person wont necessarily be depressed. This also goes for violent behaviour. It also seems to be true for many medical illness' as well, such as diabetes or heart disease. Just because you have a genetic propencity for these conditions doesnt mean you will get them. Eating poor food and bad exercise would however give you a much greator chance of suffering from them. Obviously medical conditions arent always caused by enviromental factors so things like brain tumors or strokes probably wouldnt be a good example here. Stress is also a big factor in determining not just your state of mind but your health it seems and theres a variiety of studies that links stress to poor health. The point here being that this can also have an effect on bringing out certain genetic propensities including mental ones.

You can also look at it like this. There are certain people that have a genetic propencity to put on weight, however most people that are fat are not fat because of their genetics. Many fat people will claim that its their genetics and that it doesnt matter what they eat they just keep putting on weight. But whenever you really look at their lifestyle there is always poor diet and exercise. If there really are people in the world that are fat for 100% genetic reasons I suspect these would be so few as to be practically non-existent.




Now you're implying he is an incompetent hustler. I see.

Implying is an unnecessarily polite word. I'm flat out asserting that he most definitely is one or the other--perhaps not both, but I won't make the mistake of giving him the benefit of the doubt any longer.

Well you can say what you believe all day unless you give better reasons for thinking that its not going to be very convincing. You accuse him of allsorts that doesnt match in the least what I have seen from him and you ascribe beliefs to him I know he doesnt have while you show a lack of understahding of many of his ideas. Valid critcism comes from adequate understanding of whatever it is you are giving critcisms to which you dont appear to have from what I can see.


You can certainly do so if you like, but allow me to point out that for me to accuse a public figure of dishonesty is within the Membership Agreement here, while accusing another forum member without backing the accusation up with evidence is not. And though I don't care enough to report you if you do, someone else might.

I wouldnt accuse you of dishonesty, I'm just highlighting the fact that you made a claim about Fresco early on in this thread (including Travis) and neither of you want to take the time to drop something in this thread that would to me be something of a bombshell and discredit him. I dont understand why you would write all these long posts and not just go find it.

Typically, a TVP proponent will respond to this claim by telling me I should go buy one of his books or videos. Will you be the same as all your predecessors, or will you actually pony up and present such an argument--with substantive evidence to back it up?

I havent bought any of his videos of books amd neither it seems have most of the people in the Zeitgeist Movement which a lot of the time dont see to have even watched most of the freely available material online. Reading his book probably would be worthwhile to understand more of what he is talking about, however is unnecessary to understand most of it.

I havent actually debated the Venus Project before but I always planned on doing so to see what the best arguments against it were. So far I have only seen people reflect my own concerns but most seems to stem from some illogical argument that misses the point.


You've repeated several times now that you "have issues" with aspects of TVP, and you get all defensive everytime anyone points out that TVP has nothing but "issues",

There is a difference between something being 100% wrong about everything and something being wrong because it has some serious issues. An idea can be wrong for "x" reasons while not be wrong for "y" reasons... but it can still be wrong in the end because of "x". The Venus Project I feel is probably unworkable as a practical solution as I have said many times, however I agree with a lot of the ideas he talks about so when someone criticises them based on what I feel are strawmen or misunderstandings then I want to respond to that.

As I have said if you have valid critcisms I am all ears, if you can prove to me your criticism is valid I'm all ears. I dont want to believe in something that isnt true, thats why I stopped being a truther. I'm not going to defend Fresco religiously, but you have to show me a good reason to think there are more critcisms of them than I have considered.


I'd be happy to compromise with you: You post ANYTHING of substance in support of any aspect of TVP or any of Fresco's claims, and I'll go back and search through old threads for some of the things I've been talking about.

I thought that is what we have been debating in this thread.

You may be right in a way about incompetence, at least in aspects of money. I remember one of his stories descibes him buying a really expensive microscope to continue research on whatever it was at the time instead of paying the rent one month and so he got into trouble.
He does tell lot's of good stories, doesn't he?

Maybe he made that story up so he can look foolish.

[dudalb]

I think we are getting a good example of "The True Believer" syndrome here, folks.

[Edx]

Is it online?

Yes, not legally obviously but here's part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqQKc-wT2pw) on youtube.

[Edx]

I think we are getting a good example of "The True Believer" syndrome here, folks.

Whatever you say dudalb :rolleyes:

Considering how I have highlighted many serious issues with the Venus Project's ideas I'd say this characterization is pretty silly.

[Earthborn]

Yes, not legally obviously but here's part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqQKc-wT2pw) on youtube.Why not legally? What is the reason that the guy -- who thinks all resources should become the common heritage of all humankind -- does not put his own films in the public domain? If he wants to build a society without money, why does he ask money for all his works?

[Edx]

Why not legally?
Its a film about The Venus Project but is not made by the Venus Project.

The copyright is still owned by William Gazecki or the studio that made it. As far as I know they havent given permission to freely distribute it so technically they could ask to have it removed.

What is the reason that the guy -- who thinks all resources should become the common heritage of all humankind -- does not put his own films in the public domain? If he wants to build a society without money, why does he ask money for all his works?

Aside from the fact that this film is not his to give away, like I said to someone else we are living in a monetary society we cant function giving stuff away unless you are Alex Jones and are using that as some kind of marketing stratagy.

[Travis]

As I said "cheap" may have been a misnomer however it is still true that the economy cannot withstand efficient products that last.

The economy would be fine provided people really wanted such things and I propose that they, generally, do not.

This is one of the reasons Jacque's emphasis on the change in human society and conditioning.

In this case we are conditioned to continually want more and more stuff, to be influenced by fashions, trends and styles. This is good for the economy as, for example, if everyone was content with the same style decade after decade you would be far less likely to want to buy the latest summer dress or buy the new stylish car. The current society makes you feel like its good thing to be so obsessed with this stuff and it is in terms of the economy.

You seem to think the economy shapes the way we act instead of it reflecting who we are. No sooner than the first human figured out the process of carving than we started carving newer and bigger things. We are wired that way. The economy provides us with new things because we want new things. People renovate their houses and get new cars even before the old one has broken down because we get tired of things being the same. Being content with things staying exactly the same always is actually a pretty good diagnostic symptom of many personality disorders. Normal people just aren't like that.

This is all true, but the problem with the argument is that that you are applying our value system in this society to the society that Jacque is talking about. If you go live with one of the few untouched tribes left in the world you'd have a problem as well, but if you were brought up in their society you'd hold different values.

Those "untouched tribes" are just like us only without technology. They have all the same problems, greed, jealousy, rape, theft and murder that we have. The Ya̧nomamö are some of the most violent people on Earth and do so without our money and shopping malls.

Heck, you dont even need to go that far. I dont know where you are located but if I assume you're born and bred American, well go live in Pakistan or Russia or something and you'll soon realise people hold very different value systems.

Are you insinuating that there is no greed, rape, theft or murder in Pakistan or Russia? Believe me, some things are very universal.


The point is that for the economy to work people have to keep spending. The less people spend the worse the economy gets. Agreed? Please dont try and give me examples of exceptions to the rule, they do not disprove this.

The less people spend on your product is bad for you. But a good way to get them to spend the money on you is to have something that is of good quality but that is only effective to a point because "quality" has a cost. At some point you will price your product out of everyone's reach.

For products to be efficiant is bad for the economy. The more products that are efficiant it gets even worse. The concept of planned obsolescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence) has been around a long time and while some countries have laws against planned obsolescence being "engineered into products" its still easy to get around it and have more or less the same effect.

It's impossible to engineer a product to break at certain time. All you can do is make it out of products with a certain lifespan but those lifespans are part of the evaluation of the "cost" of the product in question. You still seem to be missing the link between material scarcity, production cost and product longevity. Remember why we don't build cars out of titanium?


Why do you have to give such extreme examples? I'm talking "slight" differences and "minor" technological advances sometimes produced by the same company, which doesnt count all the hundreds of other companies that all try and sell you the same stuff. For the economy this is great, it means you always crave something. But it is not about trying to be efficiant, it is about trying to make money.

You really think people would be cool with a complete lack of variation? You really think the only reason Ford didn't have CD players and MP3 jacks in their 1986 Ford Taurus was because they were "holding out" to include in future models? You keep acting like there is a conspiracy against "efficiency" when the only enemy of it is our own fickleness. A Rolls Royce lasts forever yet people who buy them eventually get rid of them or get something else because in the end they get tired of driving the same damned car year in and year out.

So you are suggesting efficient products are good for the economy?

It's good for the business models of certain companies. But my point was that over-engineered products are usually not mass producible and that is what limits them. Again, think of the Nike shoe that never wears out that is useless since the materials for it would be very scarce and the product would only be able to be made in limited numbers.

And that basically goes for everthing including fuel and energy.
Again, you fall into the trap of thinking these things are suppressed by a conspiracy.
I dont know why you wrote that in responce to what you quoted but regardless, there doesnt need to be a conspiracy its just the way the institutions in our society have evolved.

You implied that improvements for fuel and energy are suppressed out of some need for economic inefficiency and that is popular conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory with no evidence or merit but a conspiracy theory nonetheless.

Well like I said to the last guy please give me the exact time in the exact video. Because I am 99% sure you misunderstood it. Jacque always says if you change peoples enviroment without changing the people themselves things will "slip back". So why would they say getting rid of money will solve everything? If you're going to continue to debate this I'm going to have to insist you show me what you're talking about.

In the 90 minute introduction video there is a segment that states that our problems exist because of money and our wars only exist because of our governments. I don't know where you might find the video, it's linked in one of these threads.

[Prometheus]

Perhaps you were not paying attention to what you were replying to.

More likely you didn't understand it.


This is the conversation flow.




Travis claims that he said "exactly" that removing money will solve everything in a video, a claim you appear to echo. You claim that Fresco may contradict himself obviously refering to this claim that you think Fresco or maybe Peter Joseph has said that simply removing money will solve everything.

So you don't understand the difference between the phrases, "get rid of greed and unscrupulousness" and, "solve anything"? No wonder you can't see what's wrong with Fresco.


Thats your opinion of his ideas and thats fine, but if you're going to say things about him I know to be untrue then I have a problem. If you can show he has been contradictory then thats fine.

If you believe the load of manure he's selling, then you have a problem regardless of anything I say.


Why not? In theory I think you can see that a lot of what he says would work under certain conditions, practically getting the world into a position to fulfill those conditions is another matter. Do you see the difference?

There is no substantive difference. As the old saw goes, if a frog could fly, it wouldn't bump its as a-hoppin'. TVP cannot work under any set of circumstances that can ever actually occur. Arguing about which impossible scenarios might hypothetically follow from which other impossible scenarios is useless navel-gazing.



You did however implied it when you asked me this:

"Show me one example of a single group of people that has ever held to a value system that would make TVP work"

No. I implied no such thing. That you inappropriately inferred such from my words is not my responsibility.


Why else would you need to ask that? What value system do you suggest the Venus Project requires to function that is impossible?

Honestly, I don't believe I've ever heard of any existing or historically known human value system that would make the Venus Project work. Perhaps one is possible, but it's certainly not up to me to find or devise one.


You also implied it before this when you said the following:

He's talking about ushering in a new era in which people will just naturally do exactly the sort of design work he claims to have done freely, just for the pleasure of doing it,

Nope. Same problem as above. You're seeing things that aren't there. Go figure. :rolleyes:


Yet according to you everything he says is unworkable, so this must apply to this theory as well.

Yes.


Just as he shouldnt charge for his books or DVDs either I suppose?

I'd imagine they make good paperweights or doorstops, so, no, they're not entirely worthless. Regardless, I've already explained to you that I don't profer that particular argument against him, so I'm not sure why you need to repeat that irrelevant line--are you perhaps just rehashing a shortlist of talking points that you've been fed but don't really understand?


"Untouched" or "isolated", its really just semantics since the use of both can mean the exact same thing. But now you know what I meant, so lets move on.

So we'll add 'semantics' to the list of words you misuse too, then.


It is your own personal subjective opinion that our value systems are "better" than the isolated tribes still in existence. This is an ego trip that so many people in this society imagine that their way of thinking is the "bestest" and truest way of thinking.[QUOTE]

My opinion is backed up by objective observation. My value system has succeeded and spread far beyond that of any isolated tribe (duh!) and it supports systems that enable a great many more people to follow their dreams, live longer, healthier lives, and find happiness. Does this fact massage my ego? You bet! And for a whole host of damned good reasons, too.


The way you talk about it sounds very much how religious people talk about their beliefs.

:i:


We may have planes, trains and automobiles but when you get down to it we arent happier than they are. In fact I'd say we are probably lot more unhappy due to the stresses our society brings.

I'm certainly not going to try to speak for you. Swallowing Fresco's line is certainly pathetic. But I am most definitely happier than anyone living in a tree in the Amazon.


I remember watching a program about a tribe of people that are refered to as the happiest people in the world (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/strange-island-pacific-tribesmen-come-to-study-britain-401461.html). But they dont have fashion, cars or ipods, how could they be happy?! Of course if happyness followed the state of technology then western society should be the happiest society in all of history! Obviously this is not the case. We only THINK it does, but it evidently does not.

Okay, I guess we'll add 'evidently' to that list of words we're compiling as well. :rolleyes: I remember seeing a National Geographic program about a tiny lemur titled "King Kong In My Pocket"
So 'evidently' King Kong is real too, eh?


Yes it does reflect your argument since I was replying to your criticism of his ideas that projected our societies value systems onto his and concluding it is unworkable.

Same problem as above re: imply/infer.


That is an illogical argument as I described. If you can find a logical way of making the same point then please try it again.

On The List, they go....


Well I havent got that impression and I have listened and watched a helleva lot of material.

Now here's a statement that I don't doubt in the least.



Such as? The whole "hustler" "lying fraud" thing, I guess.


More like the whole, let's engineer human psychology so that everyone agrees to play nice and nobody wants anything they can't have thing.


So what do you want me to show you? First you ask me for a single example then you suggest I need to show you more. So just how much more?

I'm getting tired of repeating the word 'substantive'. How about this: Try something that involves numbers, then we'll work our way up from there.


The point surely is that people do things for non-monetary gain (which apparently you agree with) and that enviroment will shape peoples value systems.

I see nothing that Fresco suggests on this issue that in theory wouldnt work, the practical work of changing peoples value systems in the whole world to make the Venus Project society feasible would be the valid point of critcism as I see it. But if you feel you have an example of a value he requires in his society that is completely unreasonable to expect a society to have then please tell me what that is because I'd really like to know if I havent considered it.

Shall we dance around in circles a few more times. This could almost be fun if it weren't so sad. Fresco is the one making extraordinary claims, so Fresco is the one who has to come up with examples and evidence. Thanks for playing.



All critcisms of Fresco's "human behaviour" ideas and concepts I've seen have been about how its human nature to hord property, human nature to be greedy, human nature to be corrupt, that it is human nature that would cause humans to necessarily sit on our asses all day and do absolutey nothing if there was no monetary insentive to give us a reason to.

Really? That's all you've seen? I suggest you look around a bit more.


So thats what I mean when I say that those suggesting this line of critcism are saying that human nature moves us to do what we could class as "bad things" and that no alteration of the enviroment will change that.

Why on Earth do you think it's productive to sit around and keep harping on a few bad arguments against Fresco's ideas when there are so many good ones to be had. It's really perverse, you know.



<snip>

Well you can say what you believe all day unless you give better reasons for thinking that its not going to be very convincing.

:i:


<snip>
The Venus Project I feel is probably unworkable as a practical solution as I have said many times, however I agree with a lot of the ideas he talks about so when someone criticises them based on what I feel are strawmen or misunderstandings then I want to respond to that.

And I have said many times that I am only interested in the practicality issues. All of my comments speak to practicality, and none are in any way concerned with theoretical flights of fancy. Arguing about whether any of this junk could ever work "in theory" when we know that it can never work in practice is about as useful as sitting around in your mom's basement arguing about whether or not the uniforms on Star Trek would ever be considered fashionable to a Klingon.


As I have said if you have valid critcisms I am all ears, if you can prove to me your criticism is valid I'm all ears. I dont want to believe in something that isnt true, thats why I stopped being a truther. I'm not going to defend Fresco religiously, but you have to show me a good reason to think there are more critcisms of them than I have considered.


Absolute lack of evidence in his favor isn't enough of a criticism?


I have been doing that in this thread, we are debating them right now.

Fail.


Maybe he made that story up so he can look foolish.

If so, the story was unnecessary.

[Edx]

The economy would be fine provided people really wanted such things and I propose that they, generally, do not.

You dont think people want efficient products?

The best thing for the economy is for you to continally spend, spend, spend and products that require less maintence or dont require you to buy upgrades will mean you will spend less... the more products or services are efficiant the worse it is for the economy unless some other area can rework itself to compensate.

Think how much money the government will loose if the entire country were to not require petrol anymore? They'd have to find some other source of that income but what if more and more "big earners" as it were became cheaper? This will happen and is happening gradually but at some point they will have to deal with it and it will be quite serious.

The economy provides us with new things because we want new things. People renovate their houses and get new cars even before the old one has broken down because we get tired of things being the same. Being content with things staying exactly the same always is actually a pretty good diagnostic symptom of many personality disorders. Normal people just aren't like that.

Not all cultures think that way, you imagine this is genetic I assume?

Those "untouched tribes" are just like us only without technology. They have all the same problems, greed, jealousy, rape, theft and murder that we have. The Ya̧nomamö are some of the most violent people on Earth and do so without our money and shopping malls.

Some are some arent, why focus on the former and deny the latter? I've seen programs where some guy goes to visit these people and they dont think like us at all. I gave the example of the people of the island of Tanna (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/strange-island-pacific-tribesmen-come-to-study-britain-401461.html) that are called "the happiest people in the world". I watched a documentary about several of them coming to the UK to visit, they have a vastly different value system.



Are you insinuating that there is no greed, rape, theft or murder in Pakistan or Russia? Believe me, some things are very universal.

I dont understand how you can misunderstand me so badly.

I gave those countries as examples of societies that while still rather westernised compared to, say, the people of Tanna, they too have different value systems.

The point I keep making that you apparently keep missing is that you cant project our values onto a society and suggest that therefore because people from our society wouldnt function there that that society must therefore be unworkable.

The less people spend on your product is bad for you. But a good way to get them to spend the money on you is to have something that is of good quality but that is only effective to a point because "quality" has a cost. At some point you will price your product out of everyone's reach.

I had asked you a question:

The point is that for the economy to work people have to keep spending. The less people spend the worse the economy gets. Agreed?

So do you agree or not?

It's impossible to engineer a product to break at certain time. All you can do is make it out of products with a certain lifespan but those lifespans are part of the evaluation of the "cost" of the product in question.

Take a look at the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence)there are many ways planned obsolescence is utilised. Just because it is difficult to engineer a product to break at a certian time doesnt mean planned obsolescence doesnt happen. I dont know why you have to give extreme examples to try and prove me wrong.

we get tired of things being the same. Being content with things staying exactly the same always is actually a pretty good diagnostic symptom of many personality disorders. Normal people just aren't like that....

...You really think people would be cool with a complete lack of variation?

People brought up in todays society probably wouldn't of course.

But we are bombarded with this false belief that we need to feel inadequate unless we have a billion different DVD players to choose from. Its not human nature for women to want a closet full of shoes and still want more, thats what society moves many women to think like. This isnt really "reality" its just what we've been conditioned into thinking is important in life.


You really think the only reason Ford didn't have CD players and MP3 jacks in their 1986 Ford Taurus was because they were "holding out" to include in future models?

Its never the only reason, the main thing I'm saying is that the main reason for 99% of all cars being designed and produced is to make money not to be the best. Obviously monetary reward does inspire people to further technology but it also motivates people to create useless technology or products that we dont need or that serves no real purpose except a monetary one.

You keep acting like there is a conspiracy against "efficiency" when the only enemy of it is our own fickleness.

Once again there is no "conspiracy" or at least nothing that would qualify as being one under the definition of this forum.

Imagine this; when you work in advertising you are being on some basic level intelectually dishonest. You know that you are trying to get people to spend money on a product not because its the best product but because thats what you're paid to do. If for some reason this still sounds silly remember the last time you bought something you saw in a commercial and wondered why it looked so much better on the screen. McDonalds for example has great pictures of perfect burgers on their posters and their fries are all perfectly straight, but you never get them looking like that.

There doesnt need to be a conspiracy involving a few men at the top holding secret meetings as to how they can pull the wool over their customers eyes. Its just done this way and people are used to it, its how the institutions are set up.

Advertising is just one example theres many others like banking or insurance.

A Rolls Royce lasts forever yet people who buy them eventually get rid of them or get something else because in the end they get tired of driving the same damned car year in and year out.

Theres so many interconnecting factors that you dont seem to be able to see here. There is a certain amount of planned obselesence at work but also as I have been saying due to the nature of our society the values in society are self perpetuated and conditions itself for people to want to "get tired of driving the same damned car year in and year out", even if its something like a Rolls Royce.

I think its completely unhealthy to want a ridiculously huge mansion in several countries with 10, 20 or 30 super cars, a private jet, a few yachts and still more money than you'll ever need but this is something our society puts on a pedestile as something to aspire to have. This is one of the reasons why people generally dont feel like they will be truly happy until we get to that position even if they know it will never happen. So subconsiously they aspire for the better TV, the better car, the better house always trying to crawl their way up the social ladder to hopefully get a taste of having what the super rich have. But even then people at that position still want more.

This is a subjective reality but isnt human nature, its what we have all learned in society to be like. Pockets of society in parts of London have very violent youths, but this isnt their genetics this is the enviroment they are brought up in creating these people. Its a cycle that is very hard to fix because the parents were usually brought up in the same way and they socialise with the same kind of people and are in a run down area with little money.


It's good for the business models of certain companies. But my point was that over-engineered products are usually not mass producible and that is what limits them. Again, think of the Nike shoe that never wears out that is useless since the materials for it would be very scarce and the product would only be able to be made in limited numbers.

Think of it like this. Industries like the automotive industry or the agriculture industry have replaced their workforce over a hundred years by machines doing the work of what used to be real people. Why do they do that? Because in these jobs machines are faster more accurate - they are more efficiant. This just makes the company more money because the product is cheaper to produce unless they charge people less for said product which technically they could now do.

So if energy companies were to have the technology to provide far cheaper sources of energy which will happen eventually, the question might be... will they pass the cheaper cost of energy onto the consumer? If they do, this means that there is less money being spent.

The more and more this happens the less and less people need to spend and due to machines replacing hundreds and thosuands of human workers they now have to find other places to work. Maintence will only cover so many jobs since if it didnt it wouldnt be cost effective to get machines in the first place. The only solution I see would be to create more reasons for people to spend the money elsewhere, which will probably mean perpetuating more of the negative aspects that I've been talking about.

You implied that improvements for fuel and energy are suppressed out of some need for economic inefficiency and that is popular conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory with no evidence or merit but a conspiracy theory nonetheless.

It is a popular conspiracy theory but there is some truth to it. It however doesnt stem from a few men in a darkend room with low hushed voices, it stems from corporations just acting the way the system inspires them to act. Energy companies get billions from petrol sales each year they arent going to give that up easily, neither did the Tobacco industry which is why they hired scientists to try and suggest that smoking didnt really cause cancer.

Energy companies realise now they have to act like they are okay about green technologies becuase that is what the customers want to see. But think about companies like McDonalds, I realise it isnt an energy company but they have the same kind of attitude. In Britain at least they have a marketing campaign which has been going on for a few years that I remember focusing on trying to give themselves a better name. They realise that customers dont like battery hens, they like British meat, they like their beef from good parts of the cow. So thats why they are trying to show they are givng their customers by advertising free range eggs, only using British beef etc. They dont want to use free range eggs because they believe thats better than using eggs from caged hens. The only reason they are doing this is because they feel they will loose sales, its a marketing stratagy. Whether their food is good or bad they will always pretend their food is absolutely fine, money is their motivation not peoples health and definitely not making good food.

So to bring this back to energy companies, they work to suppress green technologies or downplay global warming as being a consequence of burning fossil fuels like Tabacco industries worked to suppress the dangers of smoking and McDonalds works to suppress the unhealthyness of its food. No "conspiracy" required unless you want to define it as such but that would be rather watering down the definition.

In the 90 minute introduction video there is a segment that states that our problems exist because of money and our wars only exist because of our governments. I don't know where you might find the video, it's linked in one of these threads.

Find the exact part in the video so you can show me exactly where they said that simply removing money and governent would solve everything. This is what you said they said, "exactly". So please do it or accept that this is a mischaracterisation.

[Edx]

More likely you didn't understand it.

Then I would ask you to explain why you said what you said, but I assume you wont bother.

So you don't understand the difference between the phrases, "get rid of greed and unscrupulousness" and, "solve anything"? No wonder you can't see what's wrong with Fresco.

You said that you had seen a video that showed Fresco believes that simply removing money will solve everything.

Are you going to prove that or not?

Do you take back that claim?


No. I implied no such thing. That you inappropriately inferred such from my words is not my responsibility.


Nope. Same problem as above. You're seeing things that aren't there. Go figure. :rolleyes:


Yes.

Bizzare. First you say I incorrectly inferred something you didnt mean, then you agree with the statement anyway straight afterwards. How do you do that?

Do you know what you were agreeing to? I said:

Yet according to you everything he says is unworkable, so this must apply to this theory as well.


The theory I'm refering to is that humans WILL do things for reasons other than for monetary gain. In the last reply you seemed to agree with this and in this reply said you never suggested otherwise, but then straiught aftwards contradict yourself by saying "yes" to the above statement.

So I dont know what you believe! Which is it? Do you believe that humans will work for other motivations aside from financial gain or not?


-are you perhaps just rehashing a shortlist of talking points that you've been fed but don't really understand?

Perhaps you just want to obstinately rail against Fresco refusing to admit that anything he says might be correct in any way?


So we'll add 'semantics' to the list of words you misuse too, then.


Uh, no. Do you know what semantics means? Untouched or isolated can mean the same thing, its sematics to act like you're getting one up on me by trying to point out that I mean isolated. I said move on since you now know what I meant.



It is your own personal subjective opinion that our value systems are "better" than the isolated tribes still in existence. This is an ego trip that so many people in this society imagine that their way of thinking is the "bestest" and truest way of thinking.

My opinion is backed up by objective observation. My value system has succeeded and spread far beyond that of any isolated tribe (duh!) and it supports systems that enable a great many more people to follow their dreams, live longer, healthier lives, and find happiness. Does this fact massage my ego? You bet! And for a whole host of damned good reasons, too.


So many people have the same value system as you therefore its the best? Hmm, sounds a lot like the argument Christians use to say that because lots of people believe in Jesus therefore he must exist. But you couldnt possibily be using the same logical fallacy as they do. I must be too stupid to realise how great your argument is to see it as anything more than some kind of group think mentality. Yours is the best way and everyone should think like you do. Your attitude about this comes accross as quite narcissistic, but what do I know!

I'm certainly not going to try to speak for you. Swallowing Fresco's line is certainly pathetic. But I am most definitely happier than anyone living in a tree in the Amazon.

And how would you know that? Rather presumptuous, arent you? I doubt I will need to reply to you for much longer since you seem to show little concern with listening to anything I'm saying and seem to refuse to admit any error or that maybe your value system isnt the best most healthy for a human to have. Its okay you know, accepting I may make a correct point about - something - anything - doesnt mean I'm going to say "therefore the Venus Project is the only logical solution" y'know.


Okay, I guess we'll add 'evidently' to that list of words we're compiling as well. :rolleyes: I remember seeing a National Geographic program about a tiny lemur titled "King Kong In My Pocket"
So 'evidently' King Kong is real too, eh?

I see, so you appear to be suggesting that the people of Tanna dont really exist...

That is an illogical argument as I described. If you can find a logical way of making the same point then please try it again.
On The List, they go....

So you are suggesting the argument you made was logical and that my counter argument was in actuality the illogical one? Perhaps you could explain why exactly that is.

I'm getting tired of repeating the word 'substantive'. How about this: Try something that involves numbers, then we'll work our way up from there.

If you cant accept basic stuff I'm saying then I'm not surprised nothing else they say resonates with you. Have you watched Story of Stuff (http://www.storyofstuff.com/)? Do you think thats all nonsence as well? Just like to check. Btw, they are not associated with The Venus Project so its safe to accept they may make some good points, you know, about something, somewhere...

But if you feel you have an example of a value he requires in his society that is completely unreasonable to expect a society to have then please tell me what that is because I'd really like to know if I havent considered it.

Shall we dance around in circles a few more times. This could almost be fun if it weren't so sad. Fresco is the one making extraordinary claims, so Fresco is the one who has to come up with examples and evidence. Thanks for playing.

Im really confused as to why you won't answer the question...

What values does Jacque require in humans that you feel would be unreasonable (or impossible if you like) to expect a society have?

Do you feel it is an unreasonable question?

All critcisms of Fresco's "human behaviour" ideas and concepts I've seen have been about how its human nature to hord property, human nature to be greedy, human nature to be corrupt, that it is human nature that would cause humans to necessarily sit on our asses all day and do absolutey nothing if there was no monetary insentive to give us a reason to.

Really? That's all you've seen? I suggest you look around a bit more.

The idea is that The Venus Project would never work because human nature is inherently bad. Yes thats what it all seems to come down to and thats why I said that which is why you asked, remember?

Why on Earth do you think it's productive to sit around and keep harping on a few bad arguments against Fresco's ideas when there are so many good ones to be had. It's really perverse, you know.

Strange, this is my point. Why give me bad arguments against Fresco when theres plenty of valid critcisms?

I'd post an Irony meter graphic for you here, but I'm not so childish ;)


And I have said many times that I am only interested in the practicality issues. All of my comments speak to practicality, and none are in any way concerned with theoretical flights of fancy. Arguing about whether any of this junk could ever work "in theory" when we know that it can never work in practice is about as useful as sitting around in your mom's basement arguing about whether or not the uniforms on Star Trek would ever be considered fashionable to a Klingon.

The reason is because some of his critcis feel the need to want to say every single thing he says is wrong. I do not understand this attitude. Im surprised you havent said he cant really draw well and make fun of his dotty mind as of late.

Why is it not enough to say that "practically his society would never work"? If you accept some of the theory or some points he makes is valid that doesnt mean you have to believe everything or accept any conclusions he drawns you know. But its like you feel like you cant accept anything as valid ever. You cant seem to even accept that Fresco doesnt actually believe that simply removing money would solve all of the worlds problems and that you were wrong earlier in the thread.

So unless you start to act a bit more reasonably then we wont be needing to say much more to each other.

[theprestige]

The idea that more efficient tools ruin the economy is kinda silly, in my opinion.

I work as a systems administrator. My job is, essentially, to maintain robots that do the work of a thousand accountants. Or a thousand file clerks. Or a thousand telephone switchboard operators. There are millions of these robots, worldwide. And yet, somehow (periodic economic downturns aside), the global economy keeps on growing, and there's generally no shortage of useful work to be done.

[grandthefttoaster]

Why not legally? What is the reason that the guy -- who thinks all resources should become the common heritage of all humankind -- does not put his own films in the public domain? If he wants to build a society without money, why does he ask money for all his works?

I have to admit that of all the arguments I could come come up with against this guy, this is one is really dumb. I think if he is serious about these ideas, he should just ask his thousands of fans to buy a few books, and then use the money to actually build some kind of future city.

[Edx]

I have to admit that of all the arguments I could come come up with against this guy, this is one is really dumb. I think if he is serious about these ideas, he should just ask his thousands of fans to buy a few books, and then use the money to actually build some kind of future city.

But as you can see he is damned if he does damned if he doesnt, apparently.

[Edx]

The idea that more efficient tools ruin the economy is kinda silly, in my opinion.

I work as a systems administrator. My job is, essentially, to maintain robots that do the work of a thousand accountants. Or a thousand file clerks. Or a thousand telephone switchboard operators. There are millions of these robots, worldwide. And yet, somehow (periodic economic downturns aside), the global economy keeps on growing, and there's generally no shortage of useful work to be done.

This will work for a time. But as I said in my posts above eventually energy will be much cheaper and because of machines a vast amount of jobs will have been lost. So consequently less is being spent on energy and people have less jobs to go too. The only solution I see would be to create more reasons for people to spend the money elsewhere, which will probably mean perpetuating more of the negative aspects that I've been talking about.

[Prometheus]

<snip>

people of the island of Tanna (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/strange-island-pacific-tribesmen-come-to-study-britain-401461.html) that are called "the happiest people in the world".

<snip>


The Cargo Cultists made famous by Richard Feynman?! :jaw-dropp You could hardly have picked a worse set of poster-children for TVP's claims! These are guys that literally sit around on their asses wondering why anyone would ever do any work at all--conveniently forgetting that they use their own wives as slaves so the men don't have to work! Plus they're a bunch of stark raving religious nutjobs to boot! Oh, and the villages they live in are actually restricted from acquiring any technology or trappings of the modern world because the government of Vanuatu wants to preserve their culture--they don't even have a choice in the matter. :D



Then I would ask you to explain why you said what you said, but I assume you wont bother.

I would ask you to explain why you think I said something I did not, but you'll probably just misunderstand the request.


You said that you had seen a video that showed Fresco believes that simply removing money will solve everything.

Are you going to prove that or not?


Feel free to actually link to the spot where I'm supposed to have said that. Since I didn't say it, it may take you awhile.


Do you take back that claim?

No.


Bizzare. First you say I incorrectly inferred something you didnt mean, then you agree with the statement anyway straight afterwards. How do you do that?

If that were actually what happened, I'd explain it by saying that your incorrect inference was not a part of my original argument, but it happens to be true. Nothing strange about that at all.


Do you know what you were agreeing to? I said:

Yet according to you everything he says is unworkable, so this must apply to this theory as well.


The theory I'm refering to is that humans WILL do things for reasons other than for monetary gain. In the last reply you seemed to agree with this and in this reply said you never suggested otherwise, but then straiught aftwards contradict yourself by saying "yes" to the above statement.

I'm well aware of what I said. Try to keep up: That people sometimes do things for reasons other than monetary gain is not a theory, and it's not original to Fresco. Hell, it's not even news. It's commonly known, readily observable fact. The notion that this fact somehow supports Fresco or TVP is the part that is unworkable. Nothing to see here. Move along.


So I dont know what you believe! Which is it? Do you believe that humans will work for other motivations aside from financial gain or not?

Obviously, yes they will--sometimes.


Perhaps you just want to obstinately rail against Fresco refusing to admit that anything he says might be correct in any way?

You know, broken clocks and all that. Fresco may say lot's of things that happen to be correct. None of them support TVP or how it might be implemented, that's all. When I complain that "everything he says is unworkable" in the context of a discussion about TVP, it's normal discourse to assume I'm talking about anything he says about TVP. To interpret my words otherwise is either disingenuous, or ignorant.


Uh, no. Do you know what semantics means? Untouched or isolated can mean the same thing, its sematics to act like you're getting one up on me by trying to point out that I mean isolated. I said move on since you now know what I meant.

Semantics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics)
The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal inquiries, over a long period of time. In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols as used by agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts.,,,

As I explained above, that's not what happened in the exchange in question.



So many people have the same value system as you therefore its the best?


No. Again, feel free to link to where you think I said that, so I can point out exactly how you are mistaken.


Hmm, sounds a lot like the argument Christians use to say that because lots of people believe in Jesus therefore he must exist. But you couldnt possibily be using the same logical fallacy as they do.

If you're going to keep throwing strawmen at me, at least try to come up with some that actually resemble my arguments at least in part, eh?


I must be too stupid to realise how great your argument is to see it as anything more than some kind of group think mentality. Yours is the best way and everyone should think like you do. Your attitude about this comes accross as quite narcissistic, but what do I know!

Sadly, if you're trying to imply that the arguments I've presented here are not very good ones, then you are absolutely correct. But don't take heart yet, as that truth is more damaging for you than it is for me. I've been setting up pins that ought to be dead easy for anyone who knows what they're talking about to bowl over with their eyes closed, but you haven't managed an effective assault on any of them. If you're the least bit competent and Fresco has any substance at all going for him, you should be able to tear what I've presented in this thread to shreds quite easily. That you so far cannot is rather telling.


And how would you know that? Rather presumptuous, arent you? I doubt I will need to reply to you for much longer since you seem to show little concern with listening to anything I'm saying and seem to refuse to admit any error or that maybe your value system isnt the best most healthy for a human to have. Its okay you know, accepting I may make a correct point about - something - anything - doesnt mean I'm going to say "therefore the Venus Project is the only logical solution" y'know.

This is funny. In just the last few posts I've admitted several errors, and agreed with several of your points; sure they've all been minor and not germane to the question of how on earth TVP is supposed to work, but nonetheless, you're just making a fool out of yourself accusing me of the opposite when anyone can just read a couple of pages and see the truth.


I see, so you appear to be suggesting that the people of Tanna dont really exist...

They exist. They're well known. Their existence does not mean what you seem to think it means. The point of the comment you are replying to here was that you seem to credulously assume that because some movie director decided to label them "The Happiest People On Earth" that that characterization must be true.

So tell me, whose research is that characterization based on? How did the researchers operationalize the concept of happiness? What measurement did they use? Which other populations did they apply the same measurement to? What variables were controlled for? Which potential confounding variables did they not account for? What is the confidence level of their measurement? How many degrees of freedom did the study have? Which statistical analyses were applied to the data? Has the raw data been published anywhere? Has the research been peer-reviewed and replicated?
Are you at all aware that things people say on television are not necessarily entirely accurate?


So you are suggesting the argument you made was logical and that my counter argument was in actuality the illogical one? Perhaps you could explain why exactly that is.

Did you actually make a formal argument? I didn't. Perhaps I missed yours amid all the other stuff. Could you point it out?


If you cant accept basic stuff I'm saying then I'm not surprised nothing else they say resonates with you. Have you watched Story of Stuff (http://www.storyofstuff.com/)? Do you think thats all nonsence as well? Just like to check. Btw, they are not associated with The Venus Project so its safe to accept they may make some good points, you know, about something, somewhere...

It figures you'd think SOS somehow supports TVP. :rolleyes:

Yes, the world has big problems. TVP will not solve any of them. Get over it.


Im really confused as to why you won't answer the question...

What values does Jacque require in humans that you feel would be unreasonable (or impossible if you like) to expect a society have?

Do you feel it is an unreasonable question?

Yes, I think it's an unreasonable question. It's disingenuous at best, and serves only to distract from the truth that TVP can't work under any known set of human values.


The idea is that The Venus Project would never work because human nature is inherently bad. Yes thats what it all seems to come down to and thats why I said that which is why you asked, remember?

Yes, I remember the first time you set up that strawman, and the second time you did so. I also remember how I explained that that argument is not one of mine. Why do you keep insisting that I attempt to justify an argument that I_DO_NOT_MAKE?


Strange, this is my point. Why give me bad arguments against Fresco when theres plenty of valid critcisms?

You can't seem to deal with even the bad arguments effectively. Why bother putting in the work to present any good ones--especially given that you haven't bothered to do so either?


I'd post an Irony meter graphic for you here, but I'm not so childish ;)


:i: (You seem to want me to do all your other homework for you, so I may as well put your smilies in as well)


The reason is because some of his critcis feel the need to want to say every single thing he says is wrong. I do not understand this attitude. Im surprised you havent said he cant really draw well and make fun of his dotty mind as of late.

On the contrary, I think he's an excellent graphic artist, and a pretty good story-teller. I've seen actual evidence of those two skills, so I'm happy to admit that he actually has them. Show me evidence of any other skills you think he has, and if it holds up to scrutiny I'll be happy to give him credit for them as well.


Why is it not enough to say that "practically his society would never work"?


Er...because that's the one claim you've made about him that is unqualifiedly true?


If you accept some of the theory or some points he makes is valid that doesnt mean you have to believe everything or accept any conclusions he drawns you know. But its like you feel like you cant accept anything as valid ever.

I've repeatedly asked for any sort of cogent argument or substantive evidence of any such hypothetically correct points he might make. If you ever actually present one, and it holds up under scrutiny, I'll be happy to admit as much.


You cant seem to even accept that Fresco doesnt actually believe that simply removing money would solve all of the worlds problems and that you were wrong earlier in the thread.

One thing for sure, if TVP turns out to need a lot of straw to make it work, you should be able to keep it well supplied.


So unless you start to act a bit more reasonably then we wont be needing to say much more to each other.

Well, since you hate the irony meter I guess I've got no response.

[Earthborn]

Its a film about The Venus Project but is not made by the Venus Project.It is however sold on the Venus Project website (http://www.thevenusproject.com/store?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=21&category_id=6).

The copyright is still owned by William Gazecki or the studio that made it. As far as I know they havent given permission to freely distribute it so technically they could ask to have it removed.I guess Gazecki doesn't believe in the concept either.

we are living in a monetary society we cant function giving stuff awayIf we can't function giving stuff away, then the Venus Project is doomed, because there would be no way from getting where we are today to where the Venus Project wants us to be. At some point there has to be a transitionary period where the monetary system is phased out, and the resource based economy phased in, but both exist side by side. And there is no reason to assume that period can't be right now.

Here's why: in the 1990s there was a Dutch television show called "De Uitdaging" (The Challenge). It was a sort of reality game show in which the presenter Angela Groothuizen was the only candidate. At the start of each episode she got a letter that described her challenge; some sizeable project for a charitable organisation to be built in no time at all. Something like "There are some mentally handicapped children. Build them a huge house... in a week."
She had to find, motivate and organise people to provide the labour, and she had to find the materials. She had to find ways to regulate the entire logistics of what amount to a mega-project. And here is why it is similar to the Venus Project's ultimate goal: she had to do it without offering anyone any money whatsoever. Every piece of equipment, every building material, all labour, the food for everyone working... it all had to be donated freely and voluntarily for no reward other than a minuscule chance of not being edited out of the actual program, or having one's brand name bleeped out on non-commercial television. She almost always pulled it off, and if the deadline wasn't met all those people would stick around and finish the job anyway.

We may be living in a monetary society, but this does not mean at all that we can't function by giving stuff away. This show could have been a reminder that it actually is possible to organise and motivate people without money, and therefore be an example of how the Venus Project might actually work. But sadly, it shows that the Venus Project is doomed to fail, because the people who claim to believe in it, apparently don't believe in it enough to make it a reality without asking money for it. Some Dutch bimbo previously known for being in a lame-o 1980s girl band appears to have pulled off something on a weekly basis what the great futurist, engineer, inventor, visionary Jacque Fresco only dreams of doing while glueing models of little retro-futuristic houses together: actually getting things done without the aid of money.

[Earthborn]

I think if he is serious about these ideas, he should just ask his thousands of fans to buy a few books, and then use the money to actually build some kind of future city.That is his plan (http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/aims-proposals), yes. But if his thousands of fans really believe in this money-free resource based economy, why don't they just band together and build that experimental research city right now? Why does the start of a moneyless society have to begin with "fund-raising efforts" ? If it is such a great idea, it should be possible to convince people to donate the resources for free.

Since it supposedly is a really environmentally friendly society, it could easily start by recycling stuff that people are now throwing away. The administration of the early resource based economy could easily be done on old computers that people would pay to get rid off.

[AWPrime]

I think it is unreasonable to throw their ideas on human behaviour away. The idea that the only reason humans do anything is for monetary reward, personal property or for just general selfish gain I believe is naive.Naive? Its called pessimism.

Imagine you had designed a car that was extremely cheap, had practically zero maintance costs, required little energy and would last...say... 500 years. You know what you just did? You just killed a whole crap load of industries. In engineering its a simple fact that the more durable a product is the more expensive it is. So your thought is BS.

[fullflavormenthol]

My issue with the VP ideas on human behavior are that they are just wrong given the data. I hate to tell you that some things are just a part of the human conditiion regardless of culture. It reminds me of the people that claimed that gender was taught, and that was all the vouge in the 70s and 80s until it was shown to be wrong...to late for the victims of that ideology.

[Disbelief]

This is the first debunked woo that pulled me over to the skeptics side. I thought coming into JREF that you guys would love the Venus Project, but after a few ignorant rambles I sort realized hwo silly it all was.

That being said I do think Jacque Fresco has some pretty good ideas for self assembling structures (which science is already working on with biomimicry <---waiting to hear someone's opinions on biomimicry!!!)

His ideas for creating a type of radar system for vehicles, to decrease car accidents.

His ideas for designing a bathroom, where the water from your shower, flows into your toilet and is reused for more efficiency.

Designing a system where recycling isn't encouraged, but designed into the system itself.

I'd rather hear the Skeptics tackle his less propagandized film, Future By Design. Which is basically just a presentation of all of his ideas, some of which I still think could provide some good ideas.

I'm yet to hear anyone comment on his actual science. Some of these ideas sound not only logical but possible.



I am not familiar with him, except from here, but I have a question that Prometheus talked about before. Where are the designs? People have all kinds of ideas, but they mean nothing unless there is some kind of follow up to put the idea into action.

As an example, I was required to do a feasibility paper in a technical writing class in college (about 20 years ago). My paper was a self-driven car, utilizing technology that was only available at the time. Since the paper was only meant as an overview and not the engineering details, it was really just a pie in the sky idea. Should I try and take credit for coming up with the ideas that groups are using to make self-driven cars reality?

By the way, I would imagine that the car makers are waaaaaaaaay ahead of Fresco when it comes to accident avoidance systems. Like I said before, how can we do any more in depth critiquing if we can not see any designs/engineering?

[Sunray Breaker]

I am not familiar with him, except from here, but I have a question that Prometheus talked about before. Where are the designs? People have all kinds of ideas, but they mean nothing unless there is some kind of follow up to put the idea into action.

His only designs are his little working models and blueprints...unfortunately.

Should I try and take credit for coming up with the ideas that groups are using to make self-driven cars reality?
Not at all, but you could patent or sell the idea to company.

By the way, I would imagine that the car makers are waaaaaaaaay ahead of Fresco when it comes to accident avoidance systems. Like I said before, how can we do any more in depth critiquing if we can not see any designs/engineering?

Very good point...I'm Still waiting to hear SOMEONE comment on biomimicry!!! Really cool stuff, that skeptics are ignoring to debunk bigfoot photos!!!

[Edx]

The Cargo Cultists made famous by Richard Feynman?! :jaw-dropp You could hardly have picked a worse set of poster-children for TVP's claims! These are guys that literally sit around on their asses wondering why anyone would ever do any work at all--conveniently forgetting that they use their own wives as slaves so the men don't have to work! Plus they're a bunch of stark raving religious nutjobs to boot! Oh, and the villages they live in are actually restricted from acquiring any technology or trappings of the modern world because the government of Vanuatu wants to preserve their culture--they don't even have a choice in the matter. :D

Rather predictably you fail to understand reason I give them as an example. There will never be a perfect example that encompasses everything, however we can see by looking at a variety of examples that there is nothing inherently unreasonable in what Fresco expects of human society that enviroment could shape.

Feel free to actually link to the spot where I'm supposed to have said that. Since I didn't say it, it may take you awhile.

I'm probably wasting my time asking, but I said that Fresco doesnt believe that simply removing money will solve everything and you kept telling me in some video on another thread "directly contradicts" this assertion. So would you mind telling me what you meant by that, then?


Do you take back that claim?
No.

:confused: Above you implied you never meant what I thought you meant, and then you go ahead contradict yourself again. I seriously think you're just winding me up now.


If that were actually what happened, I'd explain it by saying that your incorrect inference was not a part of my original argument, but it happens to be true. Nothing strange about that at all.

Care to deal with the argument then? Oh thats right, I guess you dont remember what it is because you're too busy trying to find ways to act like I'm wrong about absolutely everything.


I'm well aware of what I said. Try to keep up: That people sometimes do things for reasons other than monetary gain is not a theory, and it's not original to Fresco. Hell, it's not even news. It's commonly known, readily observable fact. The notion that this fact somehow supports Fresco or TVP is the part that is unworkable. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Great so you accept that something he says is valid...

Why wouldnt this fact support any of their ideas? People like dudalb think that people would sit around on their asses all day because humans wont do anything unless its for monetary gain. You just accepted that isnt true.

You know, broken clocks and all that. Fresco may say lot's of things that happen to be correct. None of them support TVP or how it might be implemented, that's all. When I complain that "everything he says is unworkable" in the context of a discussion about TVP, it's normal discourse to assume I'm talking about anything he says about TVP. To interpret my words otherwise is either disingenuous, or ignorant.

Yet showing that people would in fact work for reasons not for monetary gain is not relevant? Seems very relevant to me and apparently to his critics that suggest the opposite. Maybe you should ask those that make those arguments why they think its so relevant.



Semantics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics)


As I explained above, that's not what happened in the exchange in question.



Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics)


3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

Note: Semantics is commonly used to refer to a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues: “To argue whether the medication killed the patient or contributed to her death is to argue over semantics.”

So many people have the same value system as you therefore its the best?

No. Again, feel free to link to where you think I said that, so I can point out exactly how you are mistaken.

You said:


My value system has succeeded and spread far beyond that of any isolated tribe (duh!)

What would you mean when you said its spread beyond any isolated tribe, if not to suggest that this somehow shows your value system is superior?


If you're going to keep throwing strawmen at me, at least try to come up with some that actually resemble my arguments at least in part, eh?

Funny! I've been arguing against your strawmen of the venus project this entire thread.

This is funny. In just the last few posts I've admitted several errors, and agreed with several of your points;

Which ones? Because of the ones you appear to agree with you turn straight around and contradict yourself again.

If you're not trying to be intentionally obtuse then apparently we arent able to understand each other.

They exist. They're well known. Their existence does not mean what you seem to think it means. The point of the comment you are replying to here was that you seem to credulously assume that because some movie director decided to label them "The Happiest People On Earth" that that characterization must be true.

So tell me, whose research is that characterization based on? How did the researchers operationalize the concept of happiness? What measurement did they use? Which other populations did they apply the same measurement to? What variables were controlled for? Which potential confounding variables did they not account for? What is the confidence level of their measurement? How many degrees of freedom did the study have? Which statistical analyses were applied to the data? Has the raw data been published anywhere? Has the research been peer-reviewed and replicated?
Are you at all aware that things people say on television are not necessarily entirely accurate?

Apparently you didnt watch the program, its okay. I'm explaining why other cultures can have vastly different value systems which means they care about things that we wouldnt care about.


Did you actually make a formal argument? I didn't. Perhaps I missed yours amid all the other stuff. Could you point it out?

I'd wish you'd pay attention:


I said:
The point I was making was that you cannot project our societies values onto anothers and then decare that society as unworkable. I would feel very out of place in Pakistan or Iraq where there value systems while still Westernised by comparision are still dramatically different to those in the United Kingdom or America. If you're going to critcise Frescos ideas you're going to have to use a different argument than this one.

Do you agree with this point or not, if not why not?

It figures you'd think SOS somehow supports TVP. :rolleyes:

Yes, the world has big problems. TVP will not solve any of them. Get over it.

We have been discussing issues that the Story of Stuff talks about in this thread and you've been telling me I've got it so completely wrong on all counts. So I again have to ask you if you have a problem with the Story of Stuff?

What values does Jacque require in humans that you feel would be unreasonable (or impossible if you like) to expect a society have?

Do you feel it is an unreasonable question?

Yes, I think it's an unreasonable question. It's disingenuous at best, and serves only to distract from the truth that TVP can't work under any known set of human values.

Why on earth is it an unreasonable question?

You asked me this:

Show me one example of a single group of people that has ever held to a value system that would make TVP work,

You seem to want me to show you an example of a society that has - all - the values of the Venus Project.

Isnt the entire point rooting back to what I just asked you?

What values does Jacque require in humans that you feel would be unreasonable (or impossible if you like) to expect a society have?

If there is no answer to this then whats your problem with it?

Yes, I remember the first time you set up that strawman, and the second time you did so. I also remember how I explained that that argument is not one of mine. Why do you keep insisting that I attempt to justify an argument that I_DO_NOT_MAKE?


It follows from your arguments.

You understand that Fresco requires of his Venus Project society that everyone have a certain value system. You also suggest that this value system is unreasonable to expect from a society which is why you asked me for a single example of a society that ever held to those values.

So what specific values are you talking about? Give me some examples.

If you dont want me to misunderstand you then try answering these questions.

I've repeatedly asked for any sort of cogent argument or substantive evidence of any such hypothetically correct points he might make. If you ever actually present one, and it holds up under scrutiny, I'll be happy to admit as much.


And everytime I try and get you to think about a specific point such as when we talk about value systems you somehow obfuscate the issue and deny everything and dont answer questions.

[Edx]

My issue with the VP ideas on human behavior are that they are just wrong given the data. I hate to tell you that some things are just a part of the human conditiion regardless of culture.

I've been trying to get Prometheus to give me a solid example of this that shows why the theory wouldnt work. Maybe you can?

[Edx]

It is however sold on the Venus Project website (http://www.thevenusproject.com/store?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=21&category_id=6).

Then they must have permission to sell it.

I guess Gazecki doesn't believe in the concept either.

Gazecki probably doesnt own the copyrights to the film either.

However it hasnt been removed from youtube neither have the Venus Project removed any of their own DVD's and videos from youtube. I'm saying Future by Design has the greatest potential for being removed since that isnt owned by them.

If we can't function giving stuff away, then the Venus Project is doomed, because there would be no way from getting where we are today to where the Venus Project wants us to be. At some point there has to be a transitionary period where the monetary system is phased out, and the resource based economy phased in, but both exist side by side. And there is no reason to assume that period can't be right now.


Thats why they need a better plan, or it wont work. Im quite skeptical if its even possible at all.

However expecting them to not use money in this society right now is very silly.


She had to find, motivate and organise people to provide the labour, and she had to find the materials. She had to find ways to regulate the entire logistics of what amount to a mega-project. And here is why it is similar to the Venus Project's ultimate goal: she had to do it without offering anyone any money whatsoever. Every piece of equipment, every building material, all labour, the food for everyone working... it all had to be donated freely and voluntarily for no reward other than a minuscule chance of not being edited out of the actual program, or having one's brand name bleeped out on non-commercial television. She almost always pulled it off, and if the deadline wasn't met all those people would stick around and finish the job anyway.

Thats a great example maybe I will suggest to them and see what they say. However I'd like to see examples of what it was they had to build and what counts as a "mega-project".

[Disbelief]

His only designs are his little working models and blueprints...unfortunately.

Where are his models of self-driven cars and how would these trump actual full-scale working prototypes.


Not at all, but you could patent or sell the idea to company.

Um, no, since the ideas are so general as to be practically useless. How would I pitch this to a company, "Hey, I think you should put radar in your cars to detect other cars so you don't need a driver! How much will you pay me for this!" I do like the fact that I used the idea of tying a detector to the cruise control is in actual use.



Very good point...I'm Still waiting to hear SOMEONE comment on biomimicry!!! Really cool stuff, that skeptics are ignoring to debunk bigfoot photos!!!

Since I have little knowledge of biomimicry, and little inclination to learn more, I won't respond.

[Edx]

Um, no, since the ideas are so general as to be practically useless. How would I pitch this to a company, "Hey, I think you should put radar in your cars to detect other cars so you don't need a driver! How much will you pay me for this!" I do like the fact that I used the idea of tying a detector to the cruise control is in actual use.


No they are more specific than that, I do suggest you watch Future by Design the link is given in this page.

[Prometheus]

The Cargo Cultists made famous by Richard Feynman?! :jaw-dropp You could hardly have picked a worse set of poster-children for TVP's claims! These are guys that literally sit around on their asses wondering why anyone would ever do any work at all--conveniently forgetting that they use their own wives as slaves so the men don't have to work! Plus they're a bunch of stark raving religious nutjobs to boot! Oh, and the villages they live in are actually restricted from acquiring any technology or trappings of the modern world because the government of Vanuatu wants to preserve their culture--they don't even have a choice in the matter. :D

Rather predictably you fail to understand reason I give them as an example. There will never be a perfect example that encompasses everything, however we can see by looking at a variety of examples that there is nothing inherently unreasonable in what Fresco expects of human society that enviroment could shape.

When you continuously fail to provide coherent reasoning, of course it's easy to predict that others will not understand what the heck you're talking about. The examples you have provided do not appear to in any way support any part of TVP. If you feel otherwise, you need to provide a detailed, cogent argument along with each example. You've complained about some other posters' objection that under TVP people would just sit around and not work, but let others do everything for them, then you provide an example of a tribe that does exactly that--the men sit around and do nothing while forcing their wives to do all the work--without any explanation of why you mention them, beyond the fact that you saw them on TV and some credulous movie director believes they are happier than everyone else.

What exactly about this tribe do you think supports TVP?

It's not enough to say that "nothing Fresco expects is inherently unreasonable." He's making a claim that something can be done which no one has ever been able to do in the past. This is an extraordinary claim. Whether it seems reasonable to you or not, it remains unsupported. You have to show that it actually is reasonable, not just that it might not be unreasonable. You can't do this by just repeating the same hypothetical flights of fancy over and over. Describe some scientific research which actually shows that humans will do what Fresco says they will do under the conditions that he intends to create, and please provide citations for that research so that we can check it out and see if it really does conclude what you think it does.


Feel free to actually link to the spot where I'm supposed to have said that. Since I didn't say it, it may take you awhile.

I'm probably wasting my time asking, but I said that Fresco doesnt believe that simply removing money will solve everything and you kept telling me in some video on another thread "directly contradicts" this assertion. So would you mind telling me what you meant by that, then?


And you think I'm winding you up? This is like the third or fourth time you've asserted that I said something I never said and expected me to explain the fantasy you've got going on in your own head. Let's compare the original exchange with your repeated mischaracterization of it, shall we:

Travis said:
As I detailed in the other thread our problems stem not from money and government but from the basic core of human nature and that will not go away if you abolish those two things.

Honestly, thinking that getting rid of money will get rid of greed and unscrupulousness is like thinking that banning football will abolish concussions.

To which you responded:


Well thats your misunderstanding. Removing money wont solve any of that, thats quite true and they dont suggest otherwise.

And I responded to you:


Somewhere on one of the other Venus Project threads there's a link to a video interview in which Fresco directly contradicts this assertion. I don't have time to chase it down for you at the moment, though.

Please note the highlighting I've added. Nothing at all about "solving everything" which you keep repeating. The exchange is about greed and unscrupulousness, together with some problems of human nature which Travis alludes to from another thread, only. Not 'everything'. Further, in your reply to Travis you said that removing money won't solve "any" of that--not all of it. In order for there to be an example of Fresco contradicting you, all it has to include is a claim by Fresco that removing money will somehow alleviate at least one of the problems Travis is talking about. Not everything.

My claim is that there is a video interview in which Fresco does exactly that: claim that removing money will alleviate at least one of the problems Travis is talking about--nothing more. Granted, I have not bothered to search through a bunch of old threads and link to it, and that is bad form on my part. My intransigence on this matter stems directly from the fact that you have not done anything to deserve any better treatment from me, such as, for example, not repeatedly mischaracterize my words after repeated requests for you to stop doing so.

If you want me to treat you with any respect, then you'll have to earn my respect. A very good way to do so would be to stop putting words in my mouth. Don't even try to paraphrase or summarize what I say--you're not good at it (as I've just shown above, you don't even paraphrase yourself correctly); stick to exact quotations, please--with links so that I don't have to keep scrolling around in order to verify that the quotations you use are actually correct.



Do you take back that claim?
No.

:confused: Above you implied you never meant what I thought you meant, and then you go ahead contradict yourself again. I seriously think you're just winding me up now.

As I've just demonstrated above, I never made the claim that you repeatedly and improperly ascribe to me. I can't take back something I never said. And I have not contradicted myself anywhere here. You've claimed so repeatedly, and every single time you made the claim, any apparent contradiction has been the result of you misquoting or mischaracterizing statements made by both me, and yourself. And you wonder why I'm not being more amicable?


If that were actually what happened, I'd explain it by saying that your incorrect inference was not a part of my original argument, but it happens to be true. Nothing strange about that at all.

Care to deal with the argument then? Oh thats right, I guess you dont remember what it is because you're too busy trying to find ways to act like I'm wrong about absolutely everything.

Huh? What argument am I supposed to be dealing with--my own? That's your job. In this exchange I merely point out that you completely fail to address my point to the fact that you've drawn an inappropriate inference. Why should I respond to that inappropriate inference?

If you want me to respond to whatever the heck you think is wrong with my original point, you'll have to first go back to my original point and provide an actual argument for me to respond to, and you'll have to demonstrate that you're actually responding to my words instead of to some twisted strawman version of them.



I'm well aware of what I said. Try to keep up: That people sometimes do things for reasons other than monetary gain is not a theory, and it's not original to Fresco. Hell, it's not even news. It's commonly known, readily observable fact. The notion that this fact somehow supports Fresco or TVP is the part that is unworkable. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Great so you accept that something he says is valid...

Why wouldnt this fact support any of their ideas? People like dudalb think that people would sit around on their asses all day because humans wont do anything unless its for monetary gain. You just accepted that isnt true.


I'm also willing to bet that he can correctly describe the weather outside his window. Does that somehow support TVP as well? I'm not responding to dudalb's claims. Why should I? If someone else comes in and says that, "TVP won't work because Fresco doesn't know whether or not it's raining," but in fact Fresco can look out his window and see that it's raining that doesn't mean Fresco is correct about anything other than the fact that it's raining. The other guy's objection was not necessarily a good one. That doesn't mean that proving it wrong somehow supports the position he was arguing against. This is a common logical fallacy called an Argumentum ad Logicam (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html)



You know, broken clocks and all that. Fresco may say lot's of things that happen to be correct. None of them support TVP or how it might be implemented, that's all. When I complain that "everything he says is unworkable" in the context of a discussion about TVP, it's normal discourse to assume I'm talking about anything he says about TVP. To interpret my words otherwise is either disingenuous, or ignorant.

Yet showing that people would in fact work for reasons not for monetary gain is not relevant? Seems very relevant to me and apparently to his critics that suggest the opposite. Maybe you should ask those that make those arguments why they think its so relevant.

Again, there's no reason why I should have support other peoples' arguments. You're claiming that the observed fact that some people sometimes work for other reasons than personal gain somehow supports TVP. You need to support this statement by showing how it supports TVP. It's also true that TVP couldn't possibly exist if all life on earth were extinct. The fact that all life has not gone extinct does not support TVP. Affirming a necessary but insufficient condition is not enough--hence the term 'insufficient'.





Semantics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics)


As I explained above, that's not what happened in the exchange in question.



Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics)


3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

Note: Semantics is commonly used to refer to a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues: “To argue whether the medication killed the patient or contributed to her death is to argue over semantics.”

You don't like the definition I linked to, so you provide your own, and yet it seems that you don't even understand the definition you link to to replace mine. I guess I'll have to just let this one slide since it's obvious that any further attempt to correct you is just going to make you more confused.

I can't help but point out, however, that the example sentence given in the dictionary you link to uses the 'semantics' incorrectly:
“To argue whether the medication killed the patient or contributed to her death is to argue over semantics.” This distinction is actually a substantive one as "killed" implies 100% responsibility for the death, while "contributed to" implies shared responsibility--not at all an insignificant distinction in terms of legality. I guess I can't fault you for misunderstanding the term when you've been misled by a shoddy dictionary. Where's that Irony Meter when I need it?




So many people have the same value system as you therefore its the best?

No. Again, feel free to link to where you think I said that, so I can point out exactly how you are mistaken.

You said:


My value system has succeeded and spread far beyond that of any isolated tribe (duh!)

What would you mean when you said its spread beyond any isolated tribe, if not to suggest that this somehow shows your value system is superior?

Obviously, I mean that it's succeeded and spread far beyond that of any isolated tribe. That's why I chose those words. Note that I did not use the word "best" which you again improperly ascribe to me. There's a big difference between suggesting that one item is better than a small number of other items in some specific way(s) and asserting that the first item is "best" in an absolute sense. "Best" means better than all others, not better than some others. We're never going to get very far if I have to keep explaining your own words to you--and not even the difficult words at that.




If you're going to keep throwing strawmen at me, at least try to come up with some that actually resemble my arguments at least in part, eh?

Funny! I've been arguing against your strawmen of the venus project this entire thread.

You may have been. Who knows--since you've not actually been able to support a single claim that any of my characterizations of TVP have been inaccurate, while I have repeatedly demonstrated that your characterizations of my points have been so. But I agree that if you ever manage to do so it would certainly be ironic.


This is funny. In just the last few posts I've admitted several errors, and agreed with several of your points;


Which ones? Because of the ones you appear to agree with you turn straight around and contradict yourself again.

You've misplaced the words "appear to" in that sentence; they belong before "contradict". And I've already shown that several such apparent contradictions were the result of your errors, not mine.


If you're not trying to be intentionally obtuse then apparently we arent able to understand each other.

You've got that half-right, anyway. :rolleyes:


They exist. They're well known. Their existence does not mean what you seem to think it means. The point of the comment you are replying to here was that you seem to credulously assume that because some movie director decided to label them "The Happiest People On Earth" that that characterization must be true.

So tell me, whose research is that characterization based on? How did the researchers operationalize the concept of happiness? What measurement did they use? Which other populations did they apply the same measurement to? What variables were controlled for? Which potential confounding variables did they not account for? What is the confidence level of their measurement? How many degrees of freedom did the study have? Which statistical analyses were applied to the data? Has the raw data been published anywhere? Has the research been peer-reviewed and replicated?
Are you at all aware that things people say on television are not necessarily entirely accurate?

Apparently you didnt watch the program, its okay. I'm explaining why other cultures can have vastly different value systems which means they care about things that we wouldnt care about.

I guess we'll have to go ahead and add "explaining" to that ever-growing list of words that you don't use correctly. That lot's of different value systems exist is an observed fact. You've done nothing by way of explaining why that's the case. That would require at least several hundred pages of doctoral dissertation quality research--or you could just link to some journal articles written by professional cultural anthropologists and/or evolutionary psychologists who've already done that work, instead of just linking to a TV program.

Regardless, the fact that different value systems exist in no way supports TVP. Some part of the explanation for why different systems exist, might turn out to be another necessary but insufficient precondition for TVP, but you're not even close to that point yet, and even if you ever get there, there's still that pesky little word, "insufficient".



Did you actually make a formal argument? I didn't. Perhaps I missed yours amid all the other stuff. Could you point it out?

I'd wish you'd pay attention:


I said:
The point I was making was that you cannot project our societies values onto anothers and then decare that society as unworkable. I would feel very out of place in Pakistan or Iraq where there value systems while still Westernised by comparision are still dramatically different to those in the United Kingdom or America. If you're going to critcise Frescos ideas you're going to have to use a different argument than this one.

Do you agree with this point or not, if not why not?

And I've already answered this irrelevant question. Yes. You cannot project one society's value system onto another society and declare the second society to be unworkable. So what. I have not done so, and it wouldn't matter if I did because that's got nothing to do with TVP. TVP won't work for fundamental reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with differing value systems between different societies.



It figures you'd think SOS somehow supports TVP. :rolleyes:

Yes, the world has big problems. TVP will not solve any of them. Get over it.

We have been discussing issues that the Story of Stuff talks about in this thread and you've been telling me I've got it so completely wrong on all counts. So I again have to ask you if you have a problem with the Story of Stuff?

Some of SOS is correct. Some of it not so much. Some of it I have no idea whether it's correct or not. All of it seems grossly over-simplified. No I will not sit down and transcribe the whole video and point out which parts are which. The whole thing is, at best, one possible premise in an argument that might be formulated as to why a wholesale paradigm shift (of which TVP is just a single example) should be attempted. Even if everything in SOS is 100% correct, that still doesn't support TVP in any way.



What values does Jacque require in humans that you feel would be unreasonable (or impossible if you like) to expect a society have?

Do you feel it is an unreasonable question?

Yes, I think it's an unreasonable question. It's disingenuous at best, and serves only to distract from the truth that TVP can't work under any known set of human values.

Why on earth is it an unreasonable question?

Er...because, "It's disingenuous at best, and serves only to distract from the truth that TVP can't work under any known set of human values." Sorry but this is a new low in the reading comprehension department, even for you.



You asked me this:

Show me one example of a single group of people that has ever held to a value system that would make TVP work,

You seem to want me to show you an example of a society that has - all - the values of the Venus Project.

No. However it might 'seem' to you. All I want is the same damned thing I've asked repeatedly of you and every other TVP proponent I've ever encountered. Substantive evidence that TVP can work. In this particular iteration I'm responding to you're contention that somehow the existence of different sets of values can support TVP, and your use of examples of different value systems. I am claiming that all of this is irrelevant. I would like you to attempt to falsify my claim by showing me some way in which some existing or previously-existing set of values would be sufficient to make TVP work.



Isnt the entire point rooting back to what I just asked you?

What values does Jacque require in humans that you feel would be unreasonable (or impossible if you like) to expect a society have?

It doesn't matter. Again, TVP cannot work regardless of which values you choose.


If there is no answer to this then whats your problem with it?

My problem with it is that you keep bringing it up. Why?


Yes, I remember the first time you set up that strawman, and the second time you did so. I also remember how I explained that that argument is not one of mine. Why do you keep insisting that I attempt to justify an argument that I_DO_NOT_MAKE?


It follows from your arguments.

At this point, you'll have to forgive me if I don't just assume you know how to trace which implications might follow from a particular argument. I'm just going to ignore this unless you can actually back it up.


You understand that Fresco requires of his Venus Project society that everyone have a certain value system. You also suggest that this value system is unreasonable to expect from a society which is why you asked me for a single example of a society that ever held to those values.

No. I understand that Fresco thinks a certain common value system would be required for TVP to work. I "suggest" that it's irrelevant which values you talk about, because TVP cannot work for practical reasons that have nothing to do with different values. Again. Fresco (and you) seem to believe otherwise. My questions regarding values are all aimed at trying to get you to explain how that might be the case. As yet, you have completely failed to do so.


So what specific values are you talking about? Give me some examples.

Choose any examples that you like and show how they are relevant. I'm saying there aren't any.


If you dont want me to misunderstand you then try answering these questions.

I'm gonna have to start using the Irony Meter again.


I've repeatedly asked for any sort of cogent argument or substantive evidence of any such hypothetically correct points he might make. If you ever actually present one, and it holds up under scrutiny, I'll be happy to admit as much.


And everytime I try and get you to think about a specific point such as when we talk about value systems you somehow obfuscate the issue and deny everything and dont answer questions.[/QUOTE]

Because, as I've mentioned several times already, I'm not intereste in thinking about hypotheticals. I'm interested in practicalities, and examining evidence--of which you and every other TVP proponent--have provided exactly...none.

[Stout]

hey..a Venus project thread. Every time I run across one of these that silly song Star Trekkin pops into my head and hangs out for days.

One change I noticed on the VP website. The part where Fresco says the technology to implement his ideas exists, but is being kept from "us" by big somethingorother is gone.

I see the Florida property is still up for sale, but he's upped the price to 650K (http://www.flalandsale.com/), and he's still got that photograph with that example of extreme privilege, if you will, a private helicopter, up on the property for sale page.

Weren't they supposed to be setting up a colony in Peru ?

Cool art though.:)

[Travis]

You dont think people want efficient products?

The best thing for the economy is for you to continally spend, spend, spend and products that require less maintence or dont require you to buy upgrades will mean you will spend less... the more products or services are efficiant the worse it is for the economy unless some other area can rework itself to compensate.

Look, I will concede that a world in which things never break down would be a world with a very different economy. However a world in which people were immortal would also have a very different economy too. Since neither are attainable this entire thing is really just an intellectual exercise.

Think how much money the government will loose if the entire country were to not require petrol anymore? They'd have to find some other source of that income but what if more and more "big earners" as it were became cheaper? This will happen and is happening gradually but at some point they will have to deal with it and it will be quite serious.

Take this statement:

"Think how much money the government will loose if the entire country were to not require petrol anymore?"

...and let's just change one thing:

"Think how much money the government will loose if the entire country were to not require steam power anymore?"

Technological paradigm shifts happen. Replace "steam power" with "horses" and so on.

The economy provides us with new things because we want new things. People renovate their houses and get new cars even before the old one has broken down because we get tired of things being the same. Being content with things staying exactly the same always is actually a pretty good diagnostic symptom of many personality disorders. Normal people just aren't like that.
Not all cultures think that way, you imagine this is genetic I assume?

Yes I do. In the same way our brain is hardwired to find patterns in meaninglessness we are hardwired to need changing stimulus. Why do you think people held in solitary confinement always end up going insane? I mean, if what you allege is correct then you should be able to find me one advanced, educated culture in which people are content with nothing ever changing. Find me one.

The point I keep making that you apparently keep missing is that you cant project our values onto a society and suggest that therefore because people from our society wouldnt function there that that society must therefore be unworkable.

I didn't claim that they are unworkable. I claimed that they are not as different as you think they are and that it is through our common bonds that things do work.

I had asked you a question:

The point is that for the economy to work people have to keep spending. The less people spend the worse the economy gets. Agreed?

So do you agree or not?

Yes, if everyone horded all their money things would be very bad for the economy. Things would also be bad for the people doing the hording, however. So what's your point?

Take a look at the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence)there are many ways planned obsolescence is utilised. Just because it is difficult to engineer a product to break at a certian time doesnt mean planned obsolescence doesnt happen. I dont know why you have to give extreme examples to try and prove me wrong.

Even if you proved that it was endemic it wouldn't mean your fanciful ideas that all sorts of great new technology is being suppressed by some conspiracy against efficiency.

People brought up in todays society probably wouldn't of course.

Yes, because our society today is just some unholy aberration. :rolleyes: Please find me one society that doesn't have to use intense social pressures to keep change and progress at bay.

But we are bombarded with this false belief that we need to feel inadequate unless we have a billion different DVD players to choose from.

You claim that belief is "false." I'd like some evidence for that.

Its not human nature for women to want a closet full of shoes
and still want more, thats what society moves many women to think like.

You claim that is not "human nature." I'd like some evidence for that.

This isnt really "reality" its just what we've been conditioned into thinking is important in life.

Conditioned by whom?

Its never the only reason, the main thing I'm saying is that the main reason for 99% of all cars being designed and produced is to make money not to be the best. Obviously monetary reward does inspire people to further technology but it also motivates people to create useless technology or products that we dont need or that serves no real purpose except a monetary one.

Define a "useless" product. Next, demonstrate a product "we don't need."

Imagine this; when you work in advertising you are being on some basic level intelectually dishonest. You know that you are trying to get people to spend money on a product not because its the best product but because thats what you're paid to do.

It is possible that the advertisers think the product they are advertising is "the best."

If for some reason this still sounds silly remember the last time you bought something you saw in a commercial and wondered why it looked so much better on the screen.

I've never had that happen to me. But, then again, I don't usually buy things based on what I see in advertisements.

There doesnt need to be a conspiracy involving a few men at the top holding secret meetings as to how they can pull the wool over their customers eyes. Its just done this way and people are used to it, its how the institutions are set up.

Have you ever introduced yourself to someone you are hoping to date and immediately tell them every bad thing about yourself? Those in glass houses...

Theres so many interconnecting factors that you dont seem to be able to see here. There is a certain amount of planned obselesence at work but also as I have been saying due to the nature of our society the values in society are self perpetuated and conditions itself for people to want to "get tired of driving the same damned car year in and year out", even if its something like a Rolls Royce.

Do you have a favorite book? Whatever it is, imagine I barred you from ever reading another book ever again but you can read that favorite book over and over. Would you be okay with that? I mean it is your favorite book and aren't we just "conditioned" to need other books to satisfy our reading needs? :rolleyes:

I think its completely unhealthy to want a ridiculously huge mansion in several countries with 10, 20 or 30 super cars, a private jet, a few yachts and still more money than you'll ever need but this is something our society puts on a pedestile as something to aspire to have.

First off I question on what grounds you declare it to be unhealthy. Second off I question your assertion that we are supposed to "aspire" to that type of lifestyle. Who says we are supposed to aspire to that? It seems to me that type of lifestyle is more often criticized for it's waste than anything else.

Think of it like this. Industries like the automotive industry or the agriculture industry have replaced their workforce over a hundred years by machines doing the work of what used to be real people. Why do they do that? Because in these jobs machines are faster more accurate - they are more efficiant.

Weren't you just arguing that our economy is structured against efficiency?

This just makes the company more money because the product is cheaper to produce unless they charge people less for said product which technically they could now do.

But.....but this almost sounds like capitalistic enterprise has made more things available to more people!


Okay, I have a few questions.

How would things like a black market be dealt with in a Venus Project society?
Who decides how resources will be allocated in a Venus Project society?
By what criteria will they decide how resources are allocated?
How would The Venus Project be brought to and integrated into places like Sudan or Chad?
How will the Venus Project deal with religion and religious belief?
How is original research accomplished in a Venus Project society?
Is there such a thing as "intellectual property" in a Venus Project society?
Are there prisons in a Venus Project society?
What will prevent this moneyless, resource based culture from collapsing as all previous ones (such as the one on Easter Island) have?

[Schwarzwald]

The Venus Project and the Zeitgeist, while nice and theory, is flooded with naturopaths who think every single aspect of current life is wrong.

98.5% of the people you will find on their boards are anti vaccinationists, 9/11 conspiracists, natural hygiene believers... etc..


On the bright side, they are the easiest group to troll on the internet. They fall for it way too much.

[Katopale]

Edx,

Why would you want to compose music?

Symphonies written hundreds of years ago are still working just fine.

So there is no need.;)

[Travis]

Edx,

Why would you want to compose music?

Symphonies written hundreds of years ago are still working just fine.

So there is no need.;)

Nice. :D

[Prometheus]

I guess we'd have to really, really like cover bands.

[Edx]

Edx,

Why would you want to compose music?

Symphonies written hundreds of years ago are still working just fine.

So there is no need.;)

hehe. Only thing I'm good enough at and enjoy enough to make money with :) If people are willing to pay me to do it, I'm not gonna stand in their way! :D

[Edx]

The Venus Project and the Zeitgeist, while nice and theory, is flooded with naturopaths who think every single aspect of current life is wrong.

98.5% of the people you will find on their boards are anti vaccinationists, 9/11 conspiracists, natural hygiene believers... etc..


On the bright side, they are the easiest group to troll on the internet. They fall for it way too much.


Tell me about it! I just posted on the Zeitgeist UK forum and had a short rant (http://www.thezeitgeistmovementuk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&p=3239#p3239)about their welcome video on the front page which at the very start has a clip pushing 911 conspiracies from ZG1. Zeitgeist is truly doomed unless they change their ways which will only come from the top (ie Peter Joseph) but he seems absolutely unwilling (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=187962&limit=10&limitstart=20#188458) to do so. It will be fun to watch what happens though.

edit: it seems you need to register to see the "introduce yourself" part of the forum

[Edx]

double post

[Edx]

Take this statement:

"Think how much money the government will loose if the entire country were to not require petrol anymore?"

...and let's just change one thing:

"Think how much money the government will loose if the entire country were to not require steam power anymore?"

Technological paradigm shifts happen. Replace "steam power" with "horses" and so on.

I see your point, however green energy is and will be comparably a lot cheaper than burning fossil fuels. Its just at the moment we cant generate enough of it. Thats why the energy companies are not exactly willing to give up their oil business.


Not all cultures think that way, you imagine this is genetic I assume?

Yes I do. In the same way our brain is hardwired to find patterns in meaninglessness we are hardwired to need changing stimulus. Why do you think people held in solitary confinement always end up going insane? I mean, if what you allege is correct then you should be able to find me one advanced, educated culture in which people are content with nothing ever changing. Find me one.

In that case an African native child from a hundred years of nomadic stock brought up in a posh english household with servants and limousines will still have the same value system as if he was brought up in Africa as a wandering nomadic tribesman?


The point I keep making that you apparently keep missing is that you cant project our values onto a society and suggest that therefore because people from our society wouldnt function there that that society must therefore be unworkable.
I didn't claim that they are unworkable. I claimed that they are not as different as you think they are and that it is through our common bonds that things do work.

There are common elements of course, just as their would be in Jacques society. But you are saying because the people in our society couldnt funtion well there that this means the theory is unworkable.



Yes, if everyone horded all their money things would be very bad for the economy. Things would also be bad for the people doing the hording, however. So what's your point?


Just glad you accept that. My point is that it seems due to technology increasing eventually we must either limit technology on purpose somehow just to give people jobs, give people something else to spend their money on and/or find some other aspect that will replace what the technology took away from the economy.


Even if you proved that it was endemic it wouldn't mean your fanciful ideas that all sorts of great new technology is being suppressed by some conspiracy against efficiency.


Stop using the word conspiracy. I explained what I meant, I'm not going to waste my time doing it again.

But we are bombarded with this false belief that we need to feel inadequate unless we have a billion different DVD players to choose from.

You claim that belief is "false." I'd like some evidence for that.

Wow, seriously?

You think advertising doesnt really make us want things we dont really need? You think all humans feel this way? If you really believe this then I've got all I need to out of this discussion.

Its not human nature for women to want a closet full of shoes
and still want more, thats what society moves many women to think like.

You claim that is not "human nature." I'd like some evidence for that.

Because not every women is obsessed with shoes and not every women is obsessed with fashion and not every women has a shallow belief system.

Look at women who are this way, I have never seen a case where it isnt patently obvious where they got those values from. Maybe their mothers took them to beauty padgents, maybe their mothers collected shoes, maybe they had a school filled with people that was concerned with all that stuff and this influenced her.

This isnt really "reality" its just what we've been conditioned into thinking is important in life.
Conditioned by whom?

The society. I know you really want me to talk about a conspiracy theory but it aint gonna happen since thats not what I think.

We're all "conditioned", whether thats in a healthy way in a happy middle class home, or in a negative way like a child brought up by drug dealers in the violent poor end of town, to the even more extreme child brought up by animals because their parents abandoned them. Its all conditioning.

Define a "useless" product. Next, demonstrate a product "we don't need."

There is no such thing as a useless product or a product we dont need, in terms of the economy.

However, I'm not talking about that. So in other terms as I have already given examples of these things. We dont need such a huge amount of different products that all do the exact same thing just because companies want to offer a product with a slightly but ultimately irrelevant difference.I gave the example of washing powder detergent. This isnt about offering choice based on funtionality or even personal preference or even most of the time on the price of the product. Have you never tried to buy something and had a hundred different products so you'd imagine you'd have a good choice, yet you still have no idea what to buy because "ITS ALL THE SAME!!".

Then we have the example of companies that specialise in pointless products. One such example is Betterware (http://www.betterware.co.uk/) they sell a lot of different things and some of the stuff looks at least usefull, but so many of them are downright stupid.

Imagine this; when you work in advertising you are being on some basic level intelectually dishonest. You know that you are trying to get people to spend money on a product not because its the best product but because thats what you're paid to do.
It is possible that the advertisers think the product they are advertising is "the best."

Good lord, I'm sorry but that really is hopelessly naive.

If you become an advertiser you are a "whore" in the same way Im a "whore" when I write music for people. An advertiser might like the product as I might like the film, but this is irrelevant.

People come to the advertising agency and they tell you to advertise their product to make it sell. You say fine, just show me the money. You dont say "only if I like it". Unless, maybe you think business really works this way?

Next time you watch a movie trailer, do you think the advertising agency cares one hoot about if the movie is actually good? They are paid to do a job.

I've never had that happen to me. But, then again, I don't usually buy things based on what I see in advertisements.

Fine, I'll rephrase. Have you ever bought something and then seen the advert and thought something like ... hmm you know what, its just instant coffee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GllsSikjZxI)... not really as special as the advert made out. Remember being a kid and seeing commercials that seriously exaggerated the product? How about commercials for cereales like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REpiQnnp6p8), dont you think... its just freakin breakfast cereal its not an adventure! Or this ridiculously over the top (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCwn1NTK-50)commercial for the boardgame Crossfire.

If we had no advertising, which wouldnt work in this society, we would choose products based on price and funtionality or simply because we like it rather than the hype and image of it generated by the false picture created by the advertising. A lot of the time it isnt even consciously thought about, we all have an impression of a product based on the commercial, poster or advert. This is why so many people still buy branded pain killers sometimes paying 10times as much as the supermarkets brand just because they assume its better.

There doesnt need to be a conspiracy involving a few men at the top holding secret meetings as to how they can pull the wool over their customers eyes. Its just done this way and people are used to it, its how the institutions are set up.
Have you ever introduced yourself to someone you are hoping to date and immediately tell them every bad thing about yourself? Those in glass houses...

I don't follow.

Do you have a favorite book? Whatever it is, imagine I barred you from ever reading another book ever again but you can read that favorite book over and over. Would you be okay with that? I mean it is your favorite book and aren't we just "conditioned" to need other books to satisfy our reading needs? :rolleyes:

To a certain extent thats true actually, but Fresco isnt saying there should one kind of product and no variety forever. You have misunderstood him or not listened to enough of what he has said if you really believe that. Now he may believe in an unrealistic way to provide the society with these things but that is a different issue.

I think its completely unhealthy to want a ridiculously huge mansion in several countries with 10, 20 or 30 super cars, a private jet, a few yachts and still more money than you'll ever need but this is something our society puts on a pedestile as something to aspire to have.

First off I question on what grounds you declare it to be unhealthy. Second off I question your assertion that we are supposed to "aspire" to that type of lifestyle. Who says we are supposed to aspire to that? It seems to me that type of lifestyle is more often criticized for it's waste than anything else.

First, the fact that you think its not just contributes to the previous comments from you that make me think you have a very warped way of thinking. It is unhealthy because we feel like we are never happy until we have it and even then somehow it still doesnt fill the void. Consider why you so often hear that high winners in the lottery usually end up blowing the whole lot on some frivolous idiotic persuit. The value system in society should emphasie more "healthy" things. Happyness is not about having lots of money, it is not about having big cars or a huge house. Plenty of people really are truly happy without that, how can that be? And how can it be trhat so many with money have so many mental issues with depresion and so on? Money, fame, property. We can think this is the source of happyness, but it isnt really.

No one usually outright says we are to aspire to that, it is however something that is put on a pedistle as something we look up to. Making tons of money is good and something to aspire to, are you seriously saying society doesnt project this value? You should start paying attention and maybe you will start to notice this if somehow you cant.

Think of it like this. Industries like the automotive industry or the agriculture industry have replaced their workforce over a hundred years by machines doing the work of what used to be real people. Why do they do that? Because in these jobs machines are faster more accurate - they are more efficiant.

Weren't you just arguing that our economy is structured against efficiency?

Please do me the courtesy of waiting for me to finish my point ...

This just makes the company more money because the product is cheaper to produce unless they charge people less for said product which technically they could now do.

But.....but this almost sounds like capitalistic enterprise has made more things available to more people!

And what is wrong with the rest of my point you snipped?

Okay, I have a few questions.

Apparently you missed the part where I say I'm not advocating the Venus project just correcting misconceptions.

How would The Venus Project be brought to and integrated into places like Sudan or Chad?

No idea, how many times do I have to say that I dont see how it could actually be practically implemented?

Im not going to try answering these questions since you dismissed my points and even started replying with a rebuttle when I hadnt finished yet with points that dont show me you didnt read them.

I dont really have any time to respond to any of these long posts anymore, and judging from our conversation thus far I doubt it would be very fruitfull to continue. And I'm certainly not replying to Prometheus since he clearly has no intention of having any form of real discussion and is clearly just trying to wind me up.

Btw, those questions you asked showed me you dont actually know what the Venus Project says at all. Its okay to disagree with them, but you dont know what they think so no wonder you seem to disagree with them as much as you seem to.

[Stout]

The Venus Project and the Zeitgeist, while nice and theory, is flooded with naturopaths who think every single aspect of current life is wrong.

98.5% of the people you will find on their boards are anti vaccinationists, 9/11 conspiracists, natural hygiene believers... etc..


On the bright side, they are the easiest group to troll on the internet. They fall for it way too much.

Of course.

Part of the whole "society sucks and needs to undergo radical changes" mindset is convincing yourself that you have some special insights like "everything the media tells you are lies" or "we're all indoctrinated"

Indoctrinated to what? is my usual question and if the answer is something like consumer capitalism, then I usually ask if the person making that statement is familiar with the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism.

[Edx]

Please note the highlighting I've added. Nothing at all about "solving everything" which you keep repeating. The exchange is about greed and unscrupulousness, together with some problems of human nature which Travis alludes to from another thread, only. Not 'everything'. Further, in your reply to Travis you said that removing money won't solve "any" of that--not all of it. In order for there to be an example of Fresco contradicting you, all it has to include is a claim by Fresco that removing money will somehow alleviate at least one of the problems Travis is talking about. Not everything.




I know I said I wouldnt reply to you, but since this all started with this point I feel the need to respond.

Its really very simple.

Travis said:

"thinking that getting rid of money will get rid of greed and unscrupulousness is like thinking that banning football will abolish concussions. "

Fresco has never once said that getting rid of money will get rid of greed and unscrupulousness. This is a misrepresentation.

Fresco has said that getting rid of money is necessary to getting rid of greed and unscrupulousness, but there are a whole host of factors apart from that. Simply getting rid of money itself will not get rid of any abhorrent behviour. Maybe you honestly cannot see the difference, or maybe you dont care.

So anyway, ... I replied....

Removing money wont solve any of that, thats quite true and they dont suggest otherwise.

You then replied to me saying...

Somewhere on one of the other Venus Project threads there's a link to a video interview in which Fresco directly contradicts this assertion. I don't have time to chase it down for you at the moment, though.

And of course in this post you still havent shown me this video of specifically what statement or section you are talking about and neither has Travis who claimed the same thing. If either of you can do that, fine. But based on everything I know about this it is undoubtedly a mischaracterisation.

[Prometheus]

<snip>

So once again, you've demonstrated that you can't even directly quote anyone without screwing up. Reading generally only works if you actually look at all the words you see--not just the ones you like. If you can't even get through a short forum post without getting confused, you might seriously consider whether you actually understand anything of Fresco's either. It doesn't seem like you do.

[AWPrime]

I see your point, however green energy is and will be comparably a lot cheaper than burning fossil fuels. Its just at the moment we cant generate enough of it. Thats why the energy companies are not exactly willing to give up their oil business.Unless this green energy is some type of super reactor it won't have the same investment return of fossil fuels in their high days, as green power requires are larger investment for the same return.


In that case an African native child from a hundred years of nomadic stock brought up in a posh english household with servants and limousines will still have the same value system as if he was brought up in Africa as a wandering nomadic tribesman?Both cultures are still very naturally produced, they can't be compared to the imaginary culture of the venus project and such. I suggest you find a culture that is compatible to the target culture of the venus project.


My point is that it seems due to technology increasing eventually we must either limit technology on purpose somehow just to give people jobs, give people something else to spend their money on and/or find some other aspect that will replace what the technology took away from the economy.Pure nonsense, everybody knows that one must constantly learn. Poeple will not end their careers with the exact same knowledge base as they have learned in school.


You think advertising doesnt really make us want things we dont really need? You think all humans feel this way? If you really believe this then I've got all I need to out of this discussion.Only if one has a mind of a child.


Because not every women is obsessed with shoes and not every women is obsessed with fashion and not every women has a shallow belief system.

Look at women who are this way, I have never seen a case where it isnt patently obvious where they got those values from. Maybe their mothers took them to beauty padgents, maybe their mothers collected shoes, maybe they had a school filled with people that was concerned with all that stuff and this influenced her.Even 'down to earth' women have at least a dozen pairs of shoes.


We're all "conditioned", whether thats in a healthy way in a happy middle class home, or in a negative way like a child brought up by drug dealers in the violent poor end of town, to the even more extreme child brought up by animals because their parents abandoned them. Its all conditioning. How kids are raised does have a effect, but there are limits to conditioning.


Have you never tried to buy something and had a hundred different products so you'd imagine you'd have a good choice, yet you still have no idea what to buy because "ITS ALL THE SAME!!".

Then we have the example of companies that specialise in pointless products. One such example is Betterware (http://www.betterware.co.uk/) they sell a lot of different things and some of the stuff looks at least usefull, but so many of them are downright stupid. That is merely your opinion.


If we had no advertising, which wouldnt work in this society, we would choose products based on price and funtionality or simply because we like it rather than the hype and image of it generated by the false picture created by the advertising. A lot of the time it isnt even consciously thought about, we all have an impression of a product based on the commercial, poster or advert. This is why so many people still buy branded pain killers sometimes paying 10times as much as the supermarkets brand just because they assume its better.Over the top advertisement only works on children. Or people still stuck with the same mentality.

[elbe]

I see your point, however green energy is and will be comparably a lot cheaper than burning fossil fuels. Its just at the moment we cant generate enough of it. Thats why the energy companies are not exactly willing to give up their oil business.

I don't think so. Coal and Oil are cheaper than solar and wind to produce a comparable amount of energy (and Oil has the added bonus of somewhat easy transport). Solar could potentially be cheaper, from our nigh-infinite source, but the tech just isn't there yet, and it requires more advanced battery tech just to transport it.

Personally, I support an orbital solar collector that transports the energy down to us using a microwave beam. But then I support all technologies that can be easily converted into death rays.

[defaultdotxbe]

I don't think so. Coal and Oil are cheaper than solar and wind to produce a comparable amount of energy (and Oil has the added bonus of somewhat easy transport). Solar could potentially be cheaper, from our nigh-infinite source, but the tech just isn't there yet, and it requires more advanced battery tech just to transport it.

Personally, I support an orbital solar collector that transports the energy down to us using a microwave beam. But then I support all technologies that can be easily converted into death rays.
dont forget nuclear energy

Go Green. Go Nuclear!

[Katopale]

I would like Edx to provide one example of a human culture that doesn't prize things that are rare or novel, yet serve no necessary purpose.
Your arguments contain more value judgments than I would expect from someone working in a creative field.

Unless your still a student.

[theprestige]

I would like Edx to provide one example of a human culture that doesn't prize things that are rare or novel, yet serve no necessary purpose.
And I would like to see EDX support his claim that "green energy is and will be comparably a lot cheaper than burning fossil fuels".

I'm also interested in the idea that rarity and novelt experiences are unnecessary for human health and happiness.

[fullflavormenthol]

I think it is telling that many people involved with TVP/ZM are conspiracy theorists, because many of the basic premises of the Venus Project require a rather large suspension of disbelief. What bothers me is that proponents of TVP demand one single piece of evidence to contadict their beliefs in utopia, as if the sum of the fields psychology, sociology, human communications, etc don't already show the inherent flaws in TVP. This brings us back to the mindset that says that the sum of human knowledge to this point is effectively a lie, part of conditioning, and society can be "reinvented" to function perfectly. It is that special form of arrogance that only the naive possess.

Personally I have noticed that the understanding of psychology seems to derive from the idea that all behavior is nuture, which was the vogue in psychology for decades. Unfortunatly for many people who have not kept up with the literature they will be upset to find that we now understand that there are universal behaviors in human individuals and societies. Hence one major flaw within TVP, and something its proponents refuse to acknowledge.

[Edx]

So once again, you've demonstrated that you can't even directly quote anyone without screwing up. Reading generally only works if you actually look at all the words you see--not just the ones you like. If you can't even get through a short forum post without getting confused, you might seriously consider whether you actually understand anything of Fresco's either. It doesn't seem like you do.

Show me where I misquoted you or anyone else or "screwed" up in any other way on this point. Please do tell me what I'm missing.

I quoted the exact quotes.

Dont worry, I know you wont bother. Would be nice if you proved me wrong though.

@everyone else: I'll have to get to your other questions some other time.

[Prometheus]

Show me where I misquoted you or anyone else or "screwed" up in any other way on this point. Please do tell me what I'm missing.

I quoted the exact quotes. :i:

Dont worry, I know you wont bother. Would be nice if you proved me wrong though.

@everyone else: I'll have to get to your other questions some other time.

Sorry, for adding the Irony Meter into your post, but it really does belong there.

You're knowlege of me is apparently as lacking as your ability to display any intellectual honesty.

Here:

You took this this detailed description, with working links and complete context:


The Cargo Cultists made famous by Richard Feynman?! :jaw-dropp You could hardly have picked a worse set of poster-children for TVP's claims! These are guys that literally sit around on their asses wondering why anyone would ever do any work at all--conveniently forgetting that they use their own wives as slaves so the men don't have to work! Plus they're a bunch of stark raving religious nutjobs to boot! Oh, and the villages they live in are actually restricted from acquiring any technology or trappings of the modern world because the government of Vanuatu wants to preserve their culture--they don't even have a choice in the matter. :D

Rather predictably you fail to understand reason I give them as an example. There will never be a perfect example that encompasses everything, however we can see by looking at a variety of examples that there is nothing inherently unreasonable in what Fresco expects of human society that enviroment could shape.

When you continuously fail to provide coherent reasoning, of course it's easy to predict that others will not understand what the heck you're talking about. The examples you have provided do not appear to in any way support any part of TVP. If you feel otherwise, you need to provide a detailed, cogent argument along with each example. You've complained about some other posters' objection that under TVP people would just sit around and not work, but let others do everything for them, then you provide an example of a tribe that does exactly that--the men sit around and do nothing while forcing their wives to do all the work--without any explanation of why you mention them, beyond the fact that you saw them on TV and some credulous movie director believes they are happier than everyone else.

What exactly about this tribe do you think supports TVP?

It's not enough to say that "nothing Fresco expects is inherently unreasonable." He's making a claim that something can be done which no one has ever been able to do in the past. This is an extraordinary claim. Whether it seems reasonable to you or not, it remains unsupported. You have to show that it actually is reasonable, not just that it might not be unreasonable. You can't do this by just repeating the same hypothetical flights of fancy over and over. Describe some scientific research which actually shows that humans will do what Fresco says they will do under the conditions that he intends to create, and please provide citations for that research so that we can check it out and see if it really does conclude what you think it does.


Feel free to actually link to the spot where I'm supposed to have said that. Since I didn't say it, it may take you awhile.

I'm probably wasting my time asking, but I said that Fresco doesnt believe that simply removing money will solve everything and you kept telling me in some video on another thread "directly contradicts" this assertion. So would you mind telling me what you meant by that, then?


And you think I'm winding you up? This is like the third or fourth time you've asserted that I said something I never said and expected me to explain the fantasy you've got going on in your own head. Let's compare the original exchange with your repeated mischaracterization of it, shall we:

Travis said:
As I detailed in the other thread our problems stem not from money and government but from the basic core of human nature and that will not go away if you abolish those two things.

Honestly, thinking that getting rid of money will get rid of greed and unscrupulousness is like thinking that banning football will abolish concussions.

To which you responded:


Well thats your misunderstanding. Removing money wont solve any of that, thats quite true and they dont suggest otherwise.

And I responded to you:


Somewhere on one of the other Venus Project threads there's a link to a video interview in which Fresco directly contradicts this assertion. I don't have time to chase it down for you at the moment, though.

Please note the highlighting I've added. Nothing at all about "solving everything" which you keep repeating. The exchange is about greed and unscrupulousness, together with some problems of human nature which Travis alludes to from another thread, only. Not 'everything'. Further, in your reply to Travis you said that removing money won't solve "any" of that--not all of it. In order for there to be an example of Fresco contradicting you, all it has to include is a claim by Fresco that removing money will somehow alleviate at least one of the problems Travis is talking about. Not everything.

My claim is that there is a video interview in which Fresco does exactly that: claim that removing money will alleviate at least one of the problems Travis is talking about--nothing more. Granted, I have not bothered to search through a bunch of old threads and link to it, and that is bad form on my part. My intransigence on this matter stems directly from the fact that you have not done anything to deserve any better treatment from me, such as, for example, not repeatedly mischaracterize my words after repeated requests for you to stop doing so.

If you want me to treat you with any respect, then you'll have to earn my respect. A very good way to do so would be to stop putting words in my mouth. Don't even try to paraphrase or summarize what I say--you're not good at it (as I've just shown above, you don't even paraphrase yourself correctly); stick to exact quotations, please--with links so that I don't have to keep scrolling around in order to verify that the quotations you use are actually correct.




...and mischaracterized it by removing part of Travis' post ("As I detailed in the other thread our problems stem not from money and government but from the basic core of human nature and that will not go away if you abolish those two things.") which formed a necessary part of the context:



<snip>

Travis said:

"thinking that getting rid of money will get rid of greed and unscrupulousness is like thinking that banning football will abolish concussions. "

Fresco has never once said that getting rid of money will get rid of greed and unscrupulousness. This is a misrepresentation.

Fresco has said that getting rid of money is necessary to getting rid of greed and unscrupulousness, but there are a whole host of factors apart from that. Simply getting rid of money itself will not get rid of any abhorrent behviour. Maybe you honestly cannot see the difference, or maybe you dont care.

So anyway, ... I replied....

Removing money wont solve any of that, thats quite true and they dont suggest otherwise.

You then replied to me saying...

Somewhere on one of the other Venus Project threads there's a link to a video interview in which Fresco directly contradicts this assertion. I don't have time to chase it down for you at the moment, though.





You also ignore my actual explanation altogether and you removed links back to the exchanges in question, making it more difficult for others who read this to see how dishonest you're being. Pretty cowardly in my opinion--or perhaps incompetent; I guess the jury is still out on just what your problem is.

The truly pathetic thing about this whole tantrum you're throwing is that it really is obvious you're just focussing on this one, comparatively insignificant disagreement in order to distract from the fact that you've still not provided any evidence of anything for us to examine, despite several requests, and despite my having told you that I'd be willing to waste my time going back through old threads to find that video if you do so.

If you really are confident that you know what you're talking about, then that's a wonderful opportunity to make me eat crow that you're passing up on. Post some evidence in support of TVP or any of Fresco's original ideas, and if it passes muster I'll be forced to go looking for that video. If I don't find it, or if it turns out my memory of what Fresco says in it is inaccurate, I'll admit I was wrong.

Contrary to your apparent opinion of me, I actually like being proven wrong. There are quite a few members here who are far more astute than I, who have handed my ass to me on a platter and forced me to admit my errors several times, and I love it when that happens. That's how I learn; how about you?

[Edx]

And I would like to see EDX support his claim that "green energy is and will be comparably a lot cheaper than burning fossil fuels".

For the same reason that halogen bulbs are now a lot cheaper than they used to be, the new LED bulbs will come down in price in time as well. Its the same reason that solar panels are a lot cheaper than when they first came out.

For the same reason that cars like Hondas hydrogen fueled electric car will be cheaper. All technology is initially expensive due to all the years of expensive R+D that went into designing it, but the prices come down eventually. The consequences of cars like Hondas seems to me to be far different from when this happens in the computer industry.

For example when Nvidia's graphcs card become cheaper its because others in the industry have created more powerfull ones or they have released their own more powerfull cards. Intel keeps designing faster and more powerfull chips which then make their old chips obsolete and eventually super cheap by comparison. This is okay, because its all the same industry, the only issue is if companies cant keep up. The cost of Nvidia's top of the line graphics card will usually always be around the same, it is the technology that will change. However this is not the case with the example I'm giving here.

When cars like the Hondas hydrogen car (and more designs will come (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138752)) become cheaper and more accessable to normal people this creates something of a problem for the energy industry. Not only will they presumably not receive any money from the initial purchace of these cars they then loose customers for their oil which they obviously no longer require. This makes the car even cheaper in the long run than the initial cost of the vehicle. This also obviously has an effect on the government since they get so much taxes from the sale of oil, so if the country required a significantly less amount of oil and this requirement continued to decrease they would steadily continue to loose all that potential taxable income. So while right now they offer certain insentives for people to buy more fuel efficient cars, if this happened on a large scale for technology that meant a significant drop in the need for oil on a large scale then this would be very bad economically.

I dont want to speculate here anymore on what the solution could in the system we have but this still seems like it will be a big issue eventually and governments and energy companies for their own sakes will have to do something about it to compensate.

I'm also interested in the idea that rarity and novelt experiences are unnecessary for human health and happiness.

I see no reason why you couldnt still have rare and novel experiences in the Venus Project society. Unless you find it a good experience just because no one else can afford to experience it. We humans could live two lifetimes and still not discover every amazing "experience" about this planet or ourselves.

[Edx]

Sorry, for adding the Irony Meter into your post, but it really does belong there.

You're knowlege of me is apparently as lacking as your ability to display any intellectual honesty.


And your behaviour here is extraordinarily childish, I bet you get some kind of self congratulatory buzz out of adding an irony meter graphic to everything as if it makes you look smart.

You took this this detailed description, with working links and complete context:

Why did you quote so much of our posts? This isnt relevant to the initial issue we're now discussing at all. Nevertheless you ask me what my point was regarding Tanna, when I clearly explained it not just to you but also when I gave the same example to Travis. I say you are winding me up beause this is exactly how Creationists and truthers act when they want to be obtuse as possible so as to not listen to anything I'm saying. If someone doesnt want to have a sensible discussion then I dont want to try, I'm not going to waste my time if they are just going to act like you.

...and mischaracterized it by removing part of Travis' post ("As I detailed in the other thread our problems stem not from money and government but from the basic core of human nature and that will not go away if you abolish those two things.") which formed a necessary part of the context:


This is ridiculous. How does this make any difference whatsoever? This helps my point not yours.

Travis said
As I detailed in the other thread our problems stem not from money and government but from the basic core of human nature and that will not go away if you abolish those two things.

Honestly, thinking that getting rid of money will get rid of greed and unscrupulousness is like thinking that banning football will abolish concussions.


Read that bit again....

"our problems stem not from money and government ... that will not go away if you abolish those two things."

This is what you dont get;Fresco never once claimed anything different, in fact he says the same thing in different words.

The difference is clearly Travis thinks "human nature" is inherently bad (ie."greed and unscrupulousness") and so wouldnt be able to change. This is what Fresco disagrees with. Fresco however will agree that our problems dont stem from money or government and that removing that alone wont solve all "our problems".

So once again, Travis was wrong and you were wrong for claiming that Fresco actually believes different. Disagree? Then once again show me the damn video with the damn quote. This is like trying to get a straight answer from a truther trying to defend a quotemine. I want to see what he said that made you misunderstand him.

You also ignore my actual explanation altogether and you removed links back to the exchanges in question, making it more difficult for others who read this to see how dishonest you're being.


What on earth are you talking about? This thread is only now 4 pages long and its all on the first page, I'm sure thats really difficult for people to find. I do apologise that I didnt add little links back to the exact posts but neither, if you recall, did you.


The truly pathetic thing about this whole tantrum you're throwing is that it really is obvious you're just focussing on this one, comparatively insignificant disagreement in order to distract from the fact that you've still not provided any evidence of anything for us to examine,

No actually yours is the distraction since if you really believe that Fresco thinks that money and government is the source of our problems and that simply removing it would get rid of greed and unscrupulousness in humans then you clearly have no idea what the Venus project actually is all about and what Jacque actually believes. I have no desire to debate someone on a subject they dont understand and apparetly has no compulsion to find out.

Since you have such a basic misconception and are so obstinant about acceptiing it I have no choice but to assume you must have even more misconceptions about other things they say and dont want to learn why and where.

I'm talking with a truther through email for about 6 or so exchanges now that insists that FEMA said that Building 7's collapse was of "low probability of occuring". He just does not want to admit its a quotemine and that they never meant that, I suspect, for the same reason you cant admit Fresco doesnt actually believe what you think he does about money. You keep trying to defend a strawman.


I actually like being proven wrong.

Yea yea.. just like Peter Joseph does who says the same thing. Clearly he doesnt really want to be proven wrong which is why he refuses to accept there is any significant errors in Zeitgeist.

You demonstrate a complete unwillingness to correct your misconceptions or admit I have possibily made a good point about anything, ever. This is why i wanted you to watch Story of Stuff and tell me if you find any issues with that, since I've really not been saying anything different from what they did.

[Edx]

Your arguments contain more value judgments than I would expect from someone working in a creative field.


What kind of value judgements are you refering to? Assuming everyone holds the same values as you do or that yours is the best, seems rather presumptuous to me. Ive been told on here the reason why people hold to different value systems is because of genetics, not because society conditions people into thinking a certain way. I would have thought that people on the JREF more than anyone would understand that due to understanding how religion conditions people.

Unless your still a student.

Nope. And since I know a lot of other composers I should say I think its rather presumptous of you to suggest they are somehow more enlightened or whatever it is you seem to be suggesting they are. I've seen people believe all sorts. I assume thats true for other creative people as well :)

[AWPrime]

For the same reason that halogen bulbs are now a lot cheaper than they used to be and the new LED bulbs will come down in price in time as well.

For the same reason that cars like Hondas hydrogen fueled electric car will be cheaper. All technology is initially expensive due to all the years of expensive R+D that went into designing it, but the prices come down eventually. The consequences of cars like Hondas seems to me to be far different from when this happens in the computer industry.R&D costs are only part of a price, the lower return in energy investment will make green energy more expensive.


This also obviously has an effect on the government since they get so much taxes from the sale of oil, so if the country required a significantly less amount of oil and this requirement continued to decrease they would steadily continue to loose all that potential taxable income. So while right now they offer certain insentives for people to buy more fuel efficient cars, if this happened on a large scale for technology that meant a significant drop in the need for oil on a large scale then this would be very bad economically.Sorry but this is a complete misunderstanding of reality. With higher efficiency more work can be done with the same amount of energy, and thus with higher efficiency a government will get more tax money.

[Edx]

R&D costs are only part of a price, the lower return in energy investment will make green energy more expensive.

And it will very expensive for a while, thats what happens with all new technology. Since everyone would want a car that didnt require reliance on expensive oil you think once that becomes affordable that they wouldnt sell a lot of them? I'm sure they will always be more expensive than a cheap car that runs on petrol, since I could pick one up for 50 quid today if I want. The thing would probably break down rather quickly but the point being that these green energy cars wouldnt require such expensive upkeep so hence would be a lot cheaper in the long run making them well worth spending some more money. One of the main reasons I havent got a car is that its so damn expensive to maintain. I'd sure as hell spend many times the amount I would consider normally on a car if it meant I never had to pay for petrol and I'm sure other people would as well.

Sorry but this is a complete misunderstanding of reality. With higher efficiency more work can be done with the same amount of energy, and thus with higher efficiency a government will get more tax money.

Requiring less energy means less money for energy companies and less taxable income for the government. I guess you could suggest that people would spend their money on other things, that would at least be a sensible argument but still predict would not be enough to replace the revenue lost through taxes on oil and still doesnt help the energy companies and what to do with the declining custom for their oil.

[AWPrime]

And it will very expensive for a while, thats what happens with all new technology. Since everyone would want a car that didnt require reliance on expensive oil you think once that becomes affordable that they wouldnt sell a lot of them? I'm sure they will always be more expensive than a cheap car that runs on petrol, since I could pick one up for 50 quid today if I want. The thing would probably break down rather quickly but the point being that these green energy cars wouldnt require such expensive upkeep so hence would be a lot cheaper in the long run making them well worth spending some more money. One of the main reasons I havent got a car is that its so damn expensive to maintain. I'd sure as hell spend many times the amount I would consider normally on a car if it meant I never had to pay for petrol and I'm sure other people would as well. I am going to have to demand that you give use a reason why green energy cars by definition require less maintenance costs. Because now this all sounds like wishful thinking.


Requiring less energy means less money for energy companies and less taxable income for the government. I guess you could suggest that people would spend their money on other things, that would at least be a sensible argument but still predict would not be enough to replace the revenue lost through taxes on oil and still doesnt help the energy companies and what to do with the declining custom for their oil.Why don't you take a little bit of time to look into the Jevons paradox, then you would know that you are completely wrong.

[Edx]

I am going to have to demand that you give use a reason why green energy cars by definition require less maintenance costs. Because now this all sounds like wishful thinking.

Do you have any reason to think they will require more maintence costs? Even if Hondas or Tesla's designs will still require just as much maintence as petrol based cars and even if that never changes no matter what kind of engine we put in there, the fact is petrol is very expensive so not having to use it means it would make the upkeep vastly less expensive. How can you not agree to that?

Why don't you take a little bit of time to look into the Jevons paradox, then you would know that you are completely wrong.
I had a quick look on wiki, I dont see how it disproves my argument so maybe you dont understand what that argument is. Cant you explain in simple terms why my argument you replied to is "completely wrong"?

What will happen to the energy companies if less and less people require petrol? They will loose money, correct? Dont you at least agree on that?

[McHrozni]

Well it is very different to Communism since thats still has governments, money, banks etc. Technocracy is the closest you'll come to it. If you think the Venus Project is just repackaged Communism you dont know enough about it.

One of the goals of Communism was to do away with money, state and all instruments of both, among others. True, Communists didn't do that, they had enough good sense to determine just how disastrous that would be, but Communist theory was essentially the same as this Venus project.

This opinion is reinforced by the fact that the authors of the Venus project web site can't tell the difference between Socialism and Communism, and the differences they point out between Venus project and Communism are the same as the differences between Communism and Socialism, in that order.

McHrozni

[Edx]

One of the goals of Communism was to do away with money, state and all instruments of both, among others. True, Communists didn't do that, they had enough good sense to determine just how disastrous that would be, but Communist theory was essentially the same as this Venus project.

And can you explain how they planned on doing those things? Because the differences start to dwarf the similarities once you start doing that.

Just because there is a similarity to some social system doesnt mean it is the same system with a different name.

[defaultdotxbe]

I would like Edx to provide one example of a human culture that doesn't prize things that are rare or novel, yet serve no necessary purpose.
Your arguments contain more value judgments than I would expect from someone working in a creative field.

Unless your still a student.
since Edx didnt answer ill throw the amish out there

i think the most important difference between the amish and the venus project is the amish must choose to join the church (IE they have the option to leave the community)

will the venus project have an opt-out?

[defaultdotxbe]

And can you explain how they planned on doing those things? Because the differences start to dwarf the similarities once you start doing that.

Just because there is a similarity to some social system doesnt mean it is the same system with a different name.
and leninism isnt trotskyism, but both are marxism, and marxism isnt maoism, but both are communism, and venus project isnt communism, but both are socialism

no, its not the same system, but its of the same family

[Katopale]

What kind of value judgements are you refering to? Assuming everyone holds the same values as you do or that yours is the best, seems rather presumptuous to me.

How in the world did you conclude from my post that I think everyone should hold my value system or that it is the best?

You are making value judgments concerning what is offered to consumers and the way people choose to consume.
Advertising and social pressure do indeed influence what people choose to buy, but so does an inherent attraction to novelty.


Ive been told on here the reason why people hold to different value systems is because of genetics, not because society conditions people into thinking a certain way. I would have thought that people on the JREF more than anyone would understand that due to understanding how religion conditions people.


False dilemma. No one has said "only" genetics. Are you claiming only conditioning?

Nope. And since I know a lot of other composers I should say I think its rather presumptous of you to suggest they are somehow more enlightened or whatever it is you seem to be suggesting they are. I've seen people believe all sorts. I assume thats true for other creative people as well :)

Does the pleasure someone gets from a new pair of shoes create more genuine happiness than the pleasure someone gets listening to your music?

And is the creative satisfaction of designing a shoe or a laundry detergent fragrance less than that of composing music?

[Edx]

since Edx didnt answer ill throw the amish out there

i think the most important difference between the amish and the venus project is the amish must choose to join the church (IE they have the option to leave the community)

will the venus project have an opt-out?

I sort of answered it in another post to someone else then realised this one had a different question here, though thanks for your example :)

Well from what I remember Fresco saying is that if you want to live in the city and in what the society provides you can, or if you want to go live in a mud hut in Alaska you can too. It is a good question though of what happens if you want to use the technology the society provides if you want to go do or build something that seems counter intitive to the societies principals... (and in a society that has no laws)...

The idea is that people would have learned not to hold to values that would make them want to do something that would be bad for humanity or bad for the enviroment. However while I think that works in theory and would work to a certain point, believing that some people wouldnt cause trouble in some sence is rather idealistic without forcing them to be "reeducated". Fresco insists that would be unnecessary though I dont see how the problem would be fixed otherwise, and it does seem like a very big problem indeed.

[Katopale]

since Edx didnt answer ill throw the amish out there

i think the most important difference between the amish and the venus project is the amish must choose to join the church (IE they have the option to leave the community)

will the venus project have an opt-out?

Yes because all those beautiful quilts are exactly the same and the furniture is built off of blueprints delivered by god.:rolleyes:

[AWPrime]

Do you have any reason to think they will require more maintence costs? Even if Hondas or Tesla's designs will still require just as much maintence as petrol based cars and even if that never changes no matter what kind of engine we put in there, the fact is petrol is very expensive so not having to use it means it would make the upkeep vastly less expensive. How can you not agree to that?First of all green energy will be as expensive or even more so than fossil fuels. Secondly maintenance costs have nothing to do with fuel costs.


I had a quick look on wiki, I dont see how it disproves my argument so maybe you dont understand what that argument is. Cant you explain in simple terms why my argument you replied to is "completely wrong"?

What will happen to the energy companies if less and less people require petrol? They will loose money, correct? Dont you at least agree on that?
1. According to the paradox the total amount consumed can actually increase.
2. More work will be done with the same amount of energy, and the profits from the extra work will be taxed.
3. There is far more value from what can be done with oil then oil itself, thus increased efficiency likely means more tax income for the government.


Here is a quote from wiki:
In economics, the Jevons Paradox (sometimes called the Jevons effect) is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource. It is historically called the Jevons Paradox as it ran counter to popular intuition. However, the situation is well understood in modern economics. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given use, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource – which increases demand and speeds economic growth, further increasing demand. Overall resource use increases or decreases depending on which effect predominates.

The Jevons Paradox has been used to argue that energy conservation is futile, as increased efficiency may actually increase fuel use. However, this ignores other benefits from increased efficiency, such as increased quality of life. Furthermore, fuel use will decline if increased efficiency is paired with a green tax that keeps cost of use the same. Also, the Jevons Paradox only applies to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency; corporate or government policies that impose efficiency standards normally increase costs, and so do not display the Jevons Paradox.In either case the government gets more tax money.

[Edx]

How in the world did you conclude from my post that I think everyone should hold my value system or that it is the best?

I apologise I was refering to what people like Travis were telling me. I didnt mean to suggest you believed that.

You are making value judgments concerning what is offered to consumers and the way people choose to consume.

I havent seen any reason to doubt the way I see the people choosing to consume. Like Travis trying to suggest that advertisers advertise because they think the product is the best one not becuase they are paid to do it.

Advertising and social pressure do indeed influence what people choose to buy,

At least you can accept something Im saying is correct, people like Travis just want to suggest eveything I'm saying is wrong no matter what. Thank you for that.

but so does an inherent attraction to novelty.

I believe I responded to that here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5241368&postcount=130)second point.

False dilemma. No one has said "only" genetics.

Yes they have suggest essentially that as several times I have asked if such and such people believe the thing they do because of genetics and I have been told yes that is why they believe it.

Are you claiming only conditioning?

It need not be black and white, but I cant see any reason why conditioning isnt more powerfull than genetics in shaping our value systems. Kids from run down areas being violent isnt a coincidence.

Does the pleasure someone gets from a new pair of shoes create more genuine happiness than the pleasure someone gets listening to your music?

Not a good example I'm afraid, since its also quite clear that humans learn what is and what isnt nice music to listen to.

I cant stand traditional chinese music, it sounds like a complete and total mess. People in the west cant really understand it, but use those same instruments with a more western "sound" then it becomes more palatable. Even in western culture we have changes in what is and what isnt considered nice music. Decades ago parents thought their kids music 'Rock and Roll' was just a lot of noise, later those same kids thought the same about electronic music. Each generation has slightly different social beliefs and likes and dislikes than their parents.


And is the creative satisfaction of designing a shoe or a laundry detergent fragrance less than that of composing music?

I'll forget about the detergent comparison since I think you'd be quite hard pressed to find anyone that would get into designing detergent because they are passionate about the stuff rather than for some monetary corporate insentive. Similarly no one would really care about being an accountant unless they got paid for it, although thats a more extreme example than this.

Having said that designing shoes which would also include fashion designing in general is comparable to composing in this sence. However I would compose music if I was paid for it or not, artists would continue to paint whether they were paid or not. The same goes for various other professions and interests including science. Sure the monetary insentive is a strong one and does inspire people not only get involved but to push themselves, but that is hardly the only reason one bothers to do anything.

[defaultdotxbe]

im just going to juxtapose a few of your quotes here, for effect

Assuming everyone holds the same values as you do or that yours is the best, seems rather presumptuous to me.

Well from what I remember Fresco saying is that if you want to live in the city and in what the society provides you can, or if you want to go live in a mud hut in Alaska you can too.

The idea is that people would have learned not to hold to values that would make them want to do something that would be bad for humanity or bad for the enviroment.

[McHrozni]

And can you explain how they planned on doing those things? Because the differences start to dwarf the similarities once you start doing that.

Just because there is a similarity to some social system doesnt mean it is the same system with a different name.

The goal of the Venus project is Communism. It differs from Marxist-Leninism in that it doesn't believe a dictatorship of the proletariat and stuff that follows is necessary, but the end result is the same. Venus project is very similar to Anarcho-Syndicalism in this regard, whose end goal is likewise Communism, but it also advocates a different path towards it. That doesn't mean these three labels are distinct, they are just variations of the same basic thing.

Communism didn't fail because Marxist and Lenininst theories are flawed, it didn't fail because of Stalin, it didn't fail because of western reaction. It failed because it is a system built on fantasy and wishful thinking, because it assumes people will be the happiest if they don't have a goal in life. This isn't just a flaw, it's an absurdly severe flaw that is easily seen by anyone not blinded by the authoritative writings of communist authors. Do I need to point out why is that wrong, or do you see the flaw for yourself?

There are, of course, other flaws in the system, including selfish human nature and such, but this one a more than sufficient to utterly destroy the theory and, indeed, the goals of all such movements. Had Communism been ever achieved, it would be the worst possible society to live in. It's not a nice theory that doesn't work, it's an extremely poor theory that can't work at all.

I better explain the usage of the label Communism for their goal. It is the most widely known name for the system these movements hope to achieve. Perhaps it's not the best label, but it's one that does the job well enough.

McHrozni

[theprestige]

For the same reason that halogen bulbs... Its the same reason that solar panels... For the same reason that cars like Hondas hydrogen fueled electric car... For example when Nvidia's graphcs card...
This is an argument by analogy. I'm not interested in light bulbs or solar panels or electric cars or graphics cards.

I'm interested specifically in your specific claim about green energy vs. fossil fuels.

Also, if you're going to argue from authority ("it's true because I say it's true"), then could you please present someone who is an actual authority on the subject. To be honest, I don't really trust you to know what you're talking about...

... Especially when your analogy is a failure on at least two counts. One is that you use examples of technology getting cheaper over time, which I'll concede is probably a reasonable assumption. But the question is, will one technology get cheaper than another technology? Sure, Honda's electric cars will get cheaper over time. But will they ever get cheaper than rail for transporting thousands of cubic feet of cargo over hundreds of miles? Keep in mind that rail technology will also be getting cheaper.

The other way in which your analogy fails is that the driving force behind making everything cheaper over time is a capitalist market focused on selling as much stuff to as many people as possible.

In order for the Venus Project to succeed, it must encourage the very system it seeks to replace, at least until that system produces the technologies TVP is premised on. And the moment TVP replaces that system, the ongoing innovation and price reduction process will grind to a halt, and TVP, for all its initial success, will stagnate at that level indefinitely.

Indeed, there are people all over the world working on all the components TVP needs: Magical computers and robots. Super-efficient transportation. High-yield, low-cost energy sources. Appliances that are durable, efficient, and inexpensive. They will achieve these goals, and the ones beyond, long before TVP gets off the ground. They'll do it for their own reasons, and the world will be better off for it--better off than TVP will ever make it.

[Edx]

First of all green energy will be as expensive or even more so than fossil fuels.

And it will be that way forever? Is that something inherent to all green tech no matter what the design? Is that based on some scientific principle?

Secondly maintenance costs have nothing to do with fuel costs.

However I did say the word "upkeep" which does include fuel costs.

I asked you if there was any inherent reason that would make green cars require the same or more maintenance than petrol based cars.

1. According to the paradox the total amount consumed can actually increase.
2. More work will be done with the same amount of energy, and the profits from the extra work will be taxed.
3. There is far more value from what can be done with oil then oil itself, thus increased efficiency likely means more tax income for the government.

Even if I accept all that this has no bearing on the consequences for the energy company.

However I guess we would have to see just what proportion of governmental income comes from oil taxes.

Here is a quote from wiki:
In either case the government gets more tax money.

It also says this:

"In The Coal Question, Jevons argued that improvements in fuel efficiency do not reduce the use of fuel, "It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth."[1]"

Now unless I misunderstand, in applying the above to this discussion seems to mean that reducing the need for petrol ... doesnt reduce the use of petrol. Which makes no sence to me.
Another quote:

(e.g. if cars are more efficient, it will simply lead to more driving).[6][7]

True but what if these cars did not require oil, no matter how many cars are bought and driven because of that technology it wont in fact increase any sales of oil.

But if he is talking about something else then perhaps what he is talking about is not quite as relevant as you make out?

[Edx]

This is an argument by analogy. I'm not interested in light bulbs or solar panels or electric cars or graphics cards.

Why not? What is the difference? All those technologies and every technology has been initally expensive.

If you have a valid reason for why green energy cars will stay prohibitively expensive forever simply because that is what is inherent to green energy technology as a consequence of what is scientifically possible then please tell me what that is.

Also, if you're going to argue from authority ("it's true because I say it's true"), then could you please present someone who is an actual authority on the subject. To be honest, I don't really trust you to know what you're talking about...

I dont know where you got that impression in my post.

... Especially when your analogy is a failure on at least two counts. One is that you use examples of technology getting cheaper over time, which I'll concede is probably a reasonable assumption.

Wonderfull. So apparently you accept that eventually green energy cars will be much cheaper, maybe you even accept that it will eventually be affordable to many people.

Now do you suggest they will never get cheap enough - ever - to replace petrol based cars as the main technology in this area?


But the question is, will one technology get cheaper than another technology? Sure, Honda's electric cars will get cheaper over time. But will they ever get cheaper than rail for transporting thousands of cubic feet of cargo over hundreds of miles? Keep in mind that rail technology will also be getting cheaper.

But we already have rail transport requiring x amount of oil and the commerical car market requiring y amount of oil. This woudn't be a new market springing up.

If you have a technology that can make the oil requirement for the car market vastly descrease then what is the reason why we cant come up with a technology that can base trains on green energy as well? Is this something that is inherently impossible? It may take many years but you act like it will never and could never happen. All it takes is some inventor like the Honda guys to get working on train engines and then governments slowly upgrading infrastructure.

The other way in which your analogy fails is that the driving force behind making everything cheaper over time is a capitalist market focused on selling as much stuff to as many people as possible.

Sure thats actually something I've been saying this whole thread.

In order for the Venus Project to succeed, it must encourage the very system it seeks to replace, at least until that system produces the technologies TVP is premised on. And the moment TVP replaces that system, the ongoing innovation and price reduction process will grind to a halt, and TVP, for all its initial success, will stagnate at that level indefinitely.

I think this is what causes you guys to dismiss eveything I'm saying because to accept that anything I say might be an accurate assesment of our soceity would somehow mean in your eyes an endorsement of the Venus Project which you cant allow. It doesnt seem to matter how many times I have to deny that logic or say that i dont think its practical to ever work.

So anyway, I will have to ask you to watch Story of Stuff (http://www.storyofstuff.com/) (only 20 mins) and tell me if you disagree with them as well. And dont worry they arent associated with the Venus Project.

[Edx]

The goal of the Venus project is Communism.

If you want to call it that then fine, but it seems you are just labelling it because you dont want to see it as at all different.

There are, of course, other flaws in the system, including selfish human nature and such,

We've been discussing that, I disagree.

Perhaps it's not the best label, but it's one that does the job well enough.

No it isnt because instead of judging it in its own right the tendencay is to point to Communism as an example of a failed system and proclaim that therefore the Venus Project is as well. Communism is also a loaded word. To judge the Venus Project in its own right and decide its unworkable, that however is reasonabe.

[McHrozni]

If you want to call it that then fine, but you are just labelling it because you dont want to see it as different.

Really? Please outline the differences between the Venus project and Communism (not transitional periods, the final thing) as described by Marx, Engels and Lenin. The leading proponents of the Venus project can't do so, but perhaps you can.

We've been discussing that, I disagree.

That is within your rights. You're wrong, but unless you start hurting somebody, that is fine.

No it isnt because instead of judging it in its own right the tendencay is to point to Communism as an example of a failed system and proclaim that therefore the Venus Project is as well. Communism is also a loaded word. To judge the Venus Project in its own right and decide its unworkable, that however is reasonabe.

For that to be true, significant differences between Communism and the Venus project must exist. I know of none that would be significant. Do you?

McHrozni

[Edx]

Really? Please outline the differences between the Venus project and Communism (not transitional periods, the final thing) as described by Marx, Engels and Lenin. The leading proponents of the Venus project can't do so, but perhaps you can.

Well I admit to be a bit rusty to the ins and outs of Communism, maybe you can correct me if I've got it wrong. The Venus Project suggets that all the worlds resources be monitored by a "cybernated" system which would then allocate resources based on scientific reasoning. In Communism, these decisions would still be made by people in some form of political system. Can you explain if that does not describe Communism? Incidently what role does technology have in Communism?


That is within your rights. You're wrong, but unless you start hurting somebody, that is fine.

Well I'd like to know why I'm wrong if I am but Im not going through it again from scratch. If you have a read back and want to pick up a point then you're welcome.

For that to be true, significant differences between Communism and the Venus project must exist. I know of none that would be significant. Do you?

Do you not see a differece between Technocracy and Communism either?

[McHrozni]

Well I admit to be a bit rusty to the ins and outs of Communism, maybe you can correct me if I've got it wrong. The Venus Project suggets that all the worlds resources be monitored by a "cybernated" system which would then allocate resources based on scientific reasoning. In Communism, decisions would still be made by people in some form of political system. Can you explain if that does not describe Communism? What role does technology have in Communism?

Em, no.
In Communism, all resources are sufficient to cover all needs of all people. There is no need to make decisions since there is enough of everything for everybody. Technology has the role of making sure these resources are available to all.
Essentially the same stuff, really.

Well I'd like to know why I'm wrong if I am but Im not going through it again from scratch. If you have a read back and want to pick up a point then you're welcome.

Sure, could you point the numbers of the relevant posts, perhaps, so I can only read the specific parts? Or maybe who you talked to about that maybe?

Do you not see a difference between Technocracy and Communism?

Of course I do. I also see the difference between an elephant and a submarine, which is just as valuable and relevant for the question at hand.

To explain this position, the core assumption of Venus project and Communism is the same: people will not be selfish, greedy and unhappy (etc), if they are provided with everything they could possibly desire. It doesn't matter if Communism states that in such a society no leadership would be necessary, and the Venus project calls for experts to lead such a society, since the failure is already there: stripped of goals and unable to improve on their lives people can not and will not be happy. This isn't a flaw, it is an evolutionary necessity to develop technology in the first place.

McHrozni

[Katopale]

I havent seen any reason to doubt the way I see the people choosing to consume.

So you, Edx, can be sure when an individual has purchased too many shoes or cars due to the pressure of societal values. And you can be sure of the shallow satisfaction they have in such purchases. And there is no value judgment involved?

I brought up novelty because you seemed to ignore it as a reason people bought "unnecessary things", not because I thought it couldn't exist in TVP.



Yes they have suggest essentially that as several times I have asked if such and such people believe the thing they do because of genetics and I have been told yes that is why they believe it.

I read it as people trying to get you to acknowledge genetics as a factor.

[QUOTE]It need not be black and white

I think that is what people are trying to tell you.




Not a good example I'm afraid, since its also quite clear that humans learn what is and what isnt nice music to listen to.

I cant stand traditional chinese music, it sounds like a complete and total mess. People in the west cant really understand it, but use those same instruments with a more western "sound" then it becomes more palatable. Even in western culture we have changes in what is and what isnt considered nice music. Decades ago parents thought their kids music 'Rock and Roll' was just a lot of noise, later those same kids thought the same about electronic music. Each generation has slightly different social beliefs and likes and dislikes than their parents.


"Does the pleasure someone gets from a new pair of shoes create more genuine happiness than the pleasure someone gets listening to music?"
was a bad example because taste in shoes is an international and historical constant? It was a question about value judgments.

I'll forget about the detergent comparison since I think you'd be quite hard pressed to find anyone that would get into designing detergent because they are passionate about the stuff rather than for some monetary corporate insentive. Similarly no one would really care about being an accountant unless they got paid for it, although thats a more extreme example than this.


No value judgments there.:rolleyes:

[AWPrime]

And it will be that way forever? Is that something inherent to all green tech no matter what the design? Is that based on some scientific principle?There are a few factors which make fossil fuel extremely cheap. Its easily exploitable, easy to transport, easy to use, versatile and has a very high energy density. Also green alternatives must first store the power, while its already stored in fossil fuels.

There is no known green alternative in sight that can duplicate this. The only reason why green alternatives are slowly getting into the market is because fossil fuels are starting to get scarce and the ugly side of supply and demand kicks in.


However I did say the word "upkeep" which does include fuel costs.

I asked you if there was any inherent reason that would make green cars require the same or more maintenance than petrol based cars.The technology isn't fully developed so there is no way to say, therefore you shouldn't make any claims (positive or negative) in that area.


Even if I accept all that this has no bearing on the consequences for the energy company.

However I guess we would have to see just what proportion of governmental income comes from oil taxes.

It also says this:

"In The Coal Question, Jevons argued that improvements in fuel efficiency do not reduce the use of fuel, "It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth."[1]"

Now unless I misunderstand, in applying the above to this discussion seems to mean that reducing the need for petrol ... doesnt reduce the use of petrol. Which makes no sence to me.Why doesn't it make sense to you?


Another quote:

(e.g. if cars are more efficient, it will simply lead to more driving).[6][7]

True but what if these cars did not require oil, no matter how many cars are bought and driven because of that technology it wont in fact increase any sales of oil.Then the government will get their tax money from the companies that support the technologies for that type of car. Only the players in the play change, not the play itself.

[defaultdotxbe]

Well I admit to be a bit rusty to the ins and outs of Communism, maybe you can correct me if I've got it wrong. The Venus Project suggets that all the worlds resources be monitored by a "cybernated" system which would then allocate resources based on scientific reasoning. In Communism, these decisions would still be made by people in some form of political system. Can you explain if that does not describe Communism? Incidently what role does technology have in Communism?
by the same logic what we call "democracy" today isnt, because we use punch cards and touch screens instead of blocks of wood and wax like the ancient athenians

[Edx]

Em, no.
In Communism, all resources are sufficient to cover all needs of all people. There is no need to make decisions since there is enough of everything for everybody. Technology has the role of making sure these resources are available to all.
Essentially the same stuff, really.

I dont think you understand me, so I'll rephrase. In Communism who decides where to build cities, what to build, if there is a natural disaster where and what resources to allocate etc?

Sure, could you point the numbers of the relevant posts, perhaps, so I can only read the specific parts? Or maybe who you talked to about that maybe?

Actually theres so many I'm not sure which one to specifically give you, bescides Im already talking to loads of people so dont really want to make life harder for myself by asking for more comments :)

Of course I do. I also see the difference between an elephant and a submarine, which is just as valuable and relevant for the question at hand.

And that would be a very large difference, so what is the difference between Technocracy and the Venus Project? Because if Technocracy is as different to Communism the same way an elephant is different to a submarine then that would have to be quite substantial. It seems to me that if you're going to compare the Venus Project to anything it would be Technocracy.

To explain this position, the core assumption of Venus project and Communism is the same: people will not be selfish, greedy and unhappy (etc), if they are provided with everything they could possibly desire. It doesn't matter if Communism states that in such a society no leadership would be necessary, and the Venus project calls for experts to lead such a society, since the failure is already there: stripped of goals and unable to improve on their lives people can not and will not be happy. This isn't a flaw, it is an evolutionary necessity to develop technology in the first place.

And you can also find strong similaritiy to Technocracy. So is it just basically Communism or is it just basically Technocracy? Or perhaps it is something that takes ideas from lots of different people.

Ed

[Edx]

by the same logic what we call "democracy" today isnt, because we use punch cards and touch screens instead of blocks of wood and wax like the ancient athenians

Im confused as to how to relate this comment to what I wrote...

[defaultdotxbe]

Im confused as to how to relate this comment to what I wrote...
your simply changing the technology used to implement the system, not the system itself

[McHrozni]

I dont think you understand me, so I'll rephrase. In Communism who decides where to build cities, what to build, if there is a natural disaster where and what resources to allocate etc?

No one. This is a major flaw of Communism, which the Venus project manages to avoid. It doesn't matter so much, because this never was part of my criticism of the system here.

Actually theres so many I'm not sure which one to specifically give you, bescides Im already talking to loads of people so dont really want to make life harder for myself by asking for more comments :)

OK, we can manage without, I'm sure.

And that would be a very large difference, so what is the difference between Technocracy and the Venus Project? Because if Technocracy is as different to Communism the same way an elephant is different to a submarine then that would have to be quite substantial. It seems to me that if you're going to compare the Venus Project to anything it would be Technocracy.


And you can also find strong similaritiy to Technocracy. So is it just basically Communism or is it just basically Technocracy? Or perhaps it is something that takes ideas from lots of different people.

Venus project attempts to take the political structure from Technocracy and marry it to a Communist society, stating that such society "would work extremely well". A Communist society as envisioned was never realized, but the core failures of the theory occurred elsewhere, precisely where the Venus project takes the Communist viewpoint. That's why I'm comparing it to Communism, even though it also has elements of Technocracy. Communism didn't fail because it stated no leadership was the best, quite to the contrary, attempts at Communism always had very strong leadership in place. It failed because it completely misunderstood how humans functioned. The Venus project makes the same mistake, which is partially why I'm comparing it to Communism, it would fail for the same reasons, likely in the same (or very similar) way.

McHrozni

[Edx]

So you, Edx, can be sure when an individual has purchased too many shoes or cars due to the pressure of societal values. And you can be sure of the shallow satisfaction they have in such purchases. And there is no value judgment involved?

Look at it like this:

What reason aside from social pressures do some pockets of society want to buy ridiculous amounts of shoes? Surely its social conditioning or its genetic, if its both which do you honestly think contibutes more? Are you suggesting them wanting to have a closet full of shoes and still wanting more is a genetic trait in only those individuals?

I brought up novelty because you seemed to ignore it as a reason people bought "unnecessary things", not because I thought it couldn't exist in TVP.

Didnt you read my responce?

I'm also interested in the idea that rarity and novelt experiences are unnecessary for human health and happiness.
I see no reason why you couldnt still have rare and novel experiences in the Venus Project society. Unless you find it a good experience just because no one else can afford to experience it. We humans could live two lifetimes and still not discover every amazing "experience" about this planet or ourselves.

It seems to me that because of our social conditioning that some people find pleasure in certain things that other people dont. We can see this far more lookling closely at pockets of our own society. For example we have the fashion obsessed people or the women who just cant have enough shoes, but we also have people who come from violent backgrounds who genuinely get pleasure from hurting people. To me it seems that humans can grow to feel happy about certain activites and not so about others and this depends mostly on how they were brought up and the experiences in their life.

What I'm saying is that if you are brought up in a society that espouses a certain kind of value system then they would not feel the need to, say, aspire to want to live in a ridiculous masion, want 20 different cars or have servants waiting on their every whim. We need only look back to past cultures that had very different value systems, I know its a pet example of Frescos but I think its a good one. You have the Romans feeding the Christians to the lions in the Colosseum, this was popular and normal and people would have got just as "happy" seeing that each week as we might watching football in a Stadium. They might have said to you, "humans love to see other humans torn apart by lions it makes them happy you cant engineer that out of a society!" Heck, in our world today we still have societes that have public executions, but can you imagine a live beheading in New York or London? Of course not, our society would be appalled by such abhorrent behaviour. This isnt due to a change in genetics, surely you dont think it is?


I read it as people trying to get you to acknowledge genetics as a factor.

Yet they gave no reason why they thought that and deny or ignore all the examples I gave that could show the contrary.


I think that is what people are trying to tell you.

Then why are they so strongly denying everything I'm saying? Since I have been saying as much for pages now.

I have not denied genetics, as I have said before I do think people can have a genetic propencity for things like violent behaviour or depression, but like diabetes of heart disease you wont necessaily be depressed or violent unless your enviroment stimulates that.

"Does the pleasure someone gets from a new pair of shoes create more genuine happiness than the pleasure someone gets listening to music?"
was a bad example because taste in shoes is an international and historical constant? It was a question about value judgments.

It isnt a international and historical constant thats my point, it isnt even a constant in humans today since not everyone is obsessed with shoes or fashion. Also if you look at people that way I have never seen a case where it wasnt obvious where they got that behaviour from.


I'll forget about the detergent comparison since I think you'd be quite hard pressed to find anyone that would get into designing detergent because they are passionate about the stuff rather than for some monetary corporate insentive. Similarly no one would really care about being an accountant unless they got paid for it, although thats a more extreme example than this.

No value judgments there.:rolleyes:

What happened to the rest of my post?

But this isnt a "value judgement", Im not even sure I'm completely sure what you even mean by that anymore. No one becomes an accountant or a banker for any other reason than they like working with figures and they like money that it brings. Designers want to design interesting things, they design detergent because they are paid to do it.

[Edx]

your simply changing the technology used to implement the system, not the system itself

Ok I understand you now. But like I said to McHrozni you could just as easily say that the Venus Project is the same thing as Technocracy with a social argument. Unless you also think a Technocracy is also just Communism with bells and whistles.

[elbe]

Ok I understand you now. But like I said to McHrozni you could just as easily say that the Venus Project is the same thing as Technocracy with a social argument. Unless you also think a Technocracy is also just Communism with bells and whistles.

Technocracy just describes implementation, not structure. Computers could rule over man with an iron fist or create a free market libertopia. The structure of the VP is communism, the implementation is just different than previous ones.

Of course you could easily argue that it would be a better implementation of communism than anything else, and, if it were at all feasible, it might be, but it's not so it doesn't really matter.

[Edx]

Technocracy just describes implementation, not structure. Computers could rule over man with an iron fist or create a free market libertopia. The structure of the VP is communism, the implementation is just different than previous ones.

Of course you could easily argue that it would be a better implementation of communism than anything else, and, if it were at all feasible, it might be, but it's not so it doesn't really matter.

If you want to describe the Venus Project as a design based on various principals of Communism and utilising technology in a way similar to Technocracy that I think would be fair. I just dont like the way McHrozni says it. Perhaps it is splitting hairs...

[elbe]

If you want to describe the Venus Project as a design based on various principals of Communism and utilising technology in a way similar to Technocracy that I think would be fair. I just dont like the way McHrozni says it. Perhaps it is splitting hairs...

Well he's right, you know. No matter how it's implemented a communist society just doesn't work. Humans and communism don't get along well. I think it's something of a shame, philosophically there are some good aspects to communism, but human's are just wired differently. Blame evolution. The only way I could see the VP working is if it did, in fact, have Trek level tech were everyone can have anything, anything they want, but society would likely stagnate like that.

[defaultdotxbe]

Well he's right, you know. No matter how it's implemented a communist society just doesn't work. Humans and communism don't get along well. I think it's something of a shame, philosophically there are some good aspects to communism, but human's are just wired differently. Blame evolution. The only way I could see the VP working is if it did, in fact, have Trek level tech were everyone can have anything, anything they want, but society would likely stagnate like that.
im reminded of a bash quote:

linkraceist: my printer is being rather communist atm
necrokiss: lol, how so?
linkraceist: in theory, there is nothing wrong with it
linkraceist: but when i try to use it, everything goes wrong

[Prometheus]

.... as if it makes you look smart.

I generally rely on others in my vicinity making themselves look foolish so that I can appear smart in comparison. That's why I enjoy the Venus Project threads so much, despite the fact that nothing useful ever comes out of them. I've not been disappointed so far.

But it figures you've got no sense of humor as to the Irony Meter. If the world I lived in made as little sense as yours seems to, I'd be humorless as well.


This is ridiculous. How does this make any difference whatsoever? This helps my point not yours. <snip>

:rolleyes: So then I was correct that you'd just continue harping on this insignificant point rather than bother finding some actual evidence, eh? Whatever. You're not fooling anyone here.



No actually yours is the distraction since if you really believe that Fresco thinks that money and government is the source of our problems and that simply removing it would get rid of greed and unscrupulousness in humans then you clearly have no idea what the Venus project actually is all about and what Jacque actually believes. I have no desire to debate someone on a subject they dont understand and apparetly has no compulsion to find out.

So you're not going to take me up on my offer and present some evidence?

The highlighted portion, which you keep repeating despite numerous corrections, is a strawman. That is not my position. It has never been my position. No matter how many times you dishonestly attempt to attribute that position to me, it will never be my position. That's why I requested that you stop trying to paraphrase me--you're obviously incapable or unwilling to do so correctly.


You demonstrate a complete unwillingness to correct your misconceptions or admit I have possibily made a good point about anything, ever. This is why i wanted you to watch Story of Stuff and tell me if you find any issues with that, since I've really not been saying anything different from what they did.

:i: (You're right; it does give me a buzz--See? I can admit that you've made a good point.)

[Travis]

I apologise I was refering to what people like Travis were telling me. I didnt mean to suggest you believed that.

Excuse me. But where did I suggest one value system was better than any others?

I havent seen any reason to doubt the way I see the people choosing to consume. Like Travis trying to suggest that advertisers advertise because they think the product is the best one not becuase they are paid to do it.

Again you put words in my mouth. Here's what I really said and what I was replying to:

Imagine this; when you work in advertising you are being on some basic level intelectually dishonest. You know that you are trying to get people to spend money on a product not because its the best product but because thats what you're paid to do. It is possible that the advertisers think the product they are advertising is "the best."

I never said that all advertisers think their product is the best I was pointing out that you were fallaciously alleging that all advertisers think their product is crap. Some product is the best and it will have advertisers too and if you can't deal with that fact then fine but don't react by spreading lies.

At least you can accept something Im saying is correct, people like Travis just want to suggest eveything I'm saying is wrong no matter what. Thank you for that.

:rolleyes: History is not on the side of The Venus Project but it does not mean you, EDX, are always going to be wrong in the same way that I'm not always right.

Yes they have suggest essentially that as several times I have asked if such and such people believe the thing they do because of genetics and I have been told yes that is why they believe it.

Huh. Pointing out that you are ascribing human failings all to nurture must mean I am on the "it's all nature" side? False dichotomy.

It need not be black and white, but I cant see any reason why conditioning isnt more powerfull than genetics in shaping our value systems. Kids from run down areas being violent isnt a coincidence.

How is that evidence that it is all, or mostly, conditioning?

Not a good example I'm afraid, since its also quite clear that humans learn what is and what isnt nice music to listen to.

So, the fact that my musical taste is completely at odds with all of my friends is because of....?

I cant stand traditional chinese music, it sounds like a complete and total mess. People in the west cant really understand it, but use those same instruments with a more western "sound" then it becomes more palatable. Even in western culture we have changes in what is and what isnt considered nice music. Decades ago parents thought their kids music 'Rock and Roll' was just a lot of noise, later those same kids thought the same about electronic music. Each generation has slightly different social beliefs and likes and dislikes than their parents.

That there are certain trends within the market of popular music is not in dispute but that does not mean that all people choose their musical likes based on "conditioning."


Having said that designing shoes which would also include fashion designing in general is comparable to composing in this sence. However I would compose music if I was paid for it or not, artists would continue to paint whether they were paid or not.

Really? You say that with such assurance. Who would you be composing music for? Who would the painter being painting for? Who gets the painters paintings? Where would both of you get your supplies? It would be very "inefficient" to make resource allocations to subsidize artistic indulgences you know.

The same goes for various other professions and interests including science.

It would be very inefficient to continue to study gamma ray bursts. It's nice knowledge to have but surely this society of "efficiency" has other, more utilitarian, needs to address with its resources.

Sure the monetary insentive is a strong one and does inspire people not only get involved but to push themselves, but that is hardly the only reason one bothers to do anything.

Here we get to the bottom of what has been bothering me. You keep making these judgments about all people based on your opinions. You would keep making music so you think all musicians would. Until you can divorce your POV from these arguments there isn't much value in continuing them.

[Travis]

This thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137042) has the video where government is blamed for wars and money is blamed for human failings.

[grandthefttoaster]

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?

[fullflavormenthol]

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?
Well...you can enforce all kinds of weird behaviors if you isolate people from human contact and use different stimuli to enforce different behaviors. Sort of like banging symbols behind an infant everytime you show him the color white so that they scream and wet themselves in the presence of that color*. Seriously it is hard to overcome nurture behavior from a young age, and that is assuming that everything TVP proponents believe is nurture is nurture (it isn't).

*Actually happened.

[Edx]

This thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137042) has the video where government is blamed for wars and money is blamed for human failings.

Hold the phone, thats a very general concept but very different to your initial claim. Do you even have a specific quote? Since I read the whole thread and couldnt see anything that relates to this. Maybe you dont see any difference, in which case I rest my case about you as you clearly have no intention of wanting to understand.

[grandthefttoaster]

Well...you can enforce all kinds of weird behaviors if you isolate people from human contact and use different stimuli to enforce different behaviors. Sort of like banging symbols behind an infant everytime you show him the color white so that they scream and wet themselves in the presence of that color*. Seriously it is hard to overcome nurture behavior from a young age, and that is assuming that everything TVP proponents believe is nurture is nurture (it isn't).

*Actually happened.

Well I'm not an expert on nature vs. nurture but my point is that I want to know how they plan "educate" people to behave the way they want. Because the only way I can think of is to have some kind of 1984 society where people are brainwashed.

[Katopale]

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?

I am also curious along these lines, but from a different angle. How many aspects of life would need to be controlled to produce people who have "the right" values?

How are the arts nurtured in such a society? I echo Travis' concern about the distribution of resources for artistic endeavors. The Russian revolution produced a sort of "artistic utopia" early on but later gave way to restricted and propagandistic forms. Socialist Realism, art for the masses.

Wouldn't the need to nurture "the right values" lead to a similar experience?

Sorry if these sound like Sociology 101 questions. I make my living in the arts and the TVP sounds frightening from my point of view.

[fullflavormenthol]

Well I'm not an expert on nature vs. nurture but my point is that I want to know how they plan "educate" people to behave the way they want. Because the only way I can think of is to have some kind of 1984 society where people are brainwashed.
I agree, and I think I was just avoiding coming right out and writing it; because there isn't anyway to do what TVP says they will do. You can't convince everyone, and I have no clue what TVP would do about it. They would kind of have to kill anyone who wasn't a true believer wouldn't you think?

I agree there is a hole in the logic of Fresco so big the Earth itself would fall in.

[Edx]

Excuse me. But where did I suggest one value system was better than any others?

Sorry looking back I seem to have confused you and Prometheus on this count, you both make similar points but it was he that did that. I take it back.

Again you put words in my mouth. Here's what I really said and what I was replying to:

Imagine this; when you work in advertising you are being on some basic level intelectually dishonest. You know that you are trying to get people to spend money on a product not because its the best product but because thats what you're paid to do.

It is possible that the advertisers think the product they are advertising is "the best."

I never said that all advertisers think their product is the best I was pointing out that you were fallaciously alleging that all advertisers think their product is crap. Some product is the best and it will have advertisers too and if you can't deal with that fact then fine but don't react by spreading lies.


Its simple Travis, you made an utterly irrelevant point. Some prostitutes probably like screwing some of their clients, so what? That doesnt mean they arent doing it for the money.What possible legitimate point can you be making?

:rolleyes: History is not on the side of The Venus Project but it does not mean you, EDX, are always going to be wrong in the same way that I'm not always right.

And yet you simply cannot admit that I have made a good point about anything in this thread, so just so you can act like you disagree with me throw out irrelevant points in responce like I see you did above, or refuse to acknowlege that Fresco doesnt believe what you said he believes.


Huh. Pointing out that you are ascribing human failings all to nurture must mean I am on the "it's all nature" side? False dichotomy.

I never said you guys said it was all nature, I said you guys essentially said it was. You even do it in this post. But theres past comments like this:

In this case we are conditioned to continually want more and more stuff, to be influenced by fashions, trends and styles. This is good for the economy as, for example, if everyone was content with the same style decade after decade you would be far less likely to want to buy the latest summer dress or buy the new stylish car. The current society makes you feel like its good thing to be so obsessed with this stuff and it is in terms of the economy.
The economy provides us with new things because we want new things. People renovate their houses and get new cars even before the old one has broken down because we get tired of things being the same. Being content with things staying exactly the same always is actually a pretty good diagnostic symptom of many personality disorders. Normal people just aren't like that.

Not all cultures think that way, you imagine this is genetic I assume?

Yes I do. In the same way our brain is hardwired to find patterns in meaninglessness we are hardwired to need changing stimulus. Why do you think people held in solitary confinement always end up going insane? I mean, if what you allege is correct then you should be able to find me one advanced, educated culture in which people are content with nothing ever changing. Find me one.

I suggest that simply writing off behaviour as genetic is not giving an answer and is as good as saying god did it. Theres plenty of reasons to think genetics play no dominant role at all in shaping human value systems and plenty of those reasons making that suggestion look ridiculous.

How is that evidence that it is all, or mostly, conditioning?
It is one example, however what are the chances that the violent youth gangs all stem from the same kind of neighbourhoods usually filled with drugs with parents of the same social classes and attending the same schools. Is it genetics or conditioning that makes people religious? Is there a religious gene too? There is obviously a propencity for people to be religious, that doesnt mean you will be religious or even stay religious. It depends on what you are taught and what you experience in your life. If you are conditioned in a fundamentalist enviroment chances are you will be a fundamentalist. Thats why theres so many of them in the Middle East since thats an extreme enviroment that breeds these kinds of values. How far do you want to take this? There must be a gene involving the obsessive shoe collecting, or maybe a gene that makes people confortable with nudity, or a gene that makes people see no reason why stealing is all that wrong. But can this really be blamed on genetic "human nature"? Or doesnt it make more sence that this is caused by culture and society? I see absolutely no reason to think the former.



So, the fact that my musical taste is completely at odds with all of my friends is because of....?

Me too, but surely you arent telling me thats genetics as well? So theres a classical music gene, a metal gene, an electronica gene, and a mix of all of them gene, a traditional chinese music gene? You just have different tastes than them due to the fact that your experiences were different. If music taste was genetic then it would have to mean your parents and grandparents had different music genes to you. It makes no sense at all!

I also never said you would be exactly the same to everyone in your society, that clearly isnt the case. But generally if you look at the society you live in you will always find yourself more similar to those people that live in similar ones to you. The further out you go looking at ones that are more and more different than yours means that people are always going to have less and less in common with you.

That there are certain trends within the market of popular music is not in dispute but that does not mean that all people choose their musical likes based on "conditioning."

So you are in fact saying that music taste is genetic? Thats incredible to me that anyone can think that.




Really? You say that with such assurance.

I know my own mind, thankyou very much. In your effort to want to make out that I'm wrong about everything dont try and tell me what I believe.

Who would you be composing music for?

The same reason I started. Because I like music, because I had ideas I wanted to get down, becuase I wanted to learn to be better, because its a thrill to make music work with a film.

Seriously, go on a music forum and ask them if they would still write music if they didnt get paid for it. I've seen questions like this come up before and the answers people give are always the same. Money is great but they love music regardless. The fact that you even have to ask questions like this shows me you probably arent working in a creative field.

Who would the painter being painting for? Who gets the painters paintings?
Theres been plenty of examples of painters and composers that werent recognised and lived as struggling poor artists (why do you think that cliche exits?) dont make me give you examples of those that werent even recognised until after they died. I am very surprised you are even disputing this. I suggest you go educate yourself about why people do art, write music etc. Money is not the primary motivation for why they like to do these things.

Where would both of you get your supplies? It would be very "inefficient" to make resource allocations to subsidize artistic indulgences you know.

And there we are another Venus Project dig... Im not going to respond to it as this is irrelevant to the point.

If I had to get another job and didnt get paid for music, I would still write music. People who get paid to snowboard would still snowboard, people who get paid to dig up dinosaur bones wouldnt stop being interested in dinosaurs because no one paid them, people who get paid to do crazy stunts would still feel like doing crazy stunts. I'm not presuming anything, that is what these people tell me and have told others and that is what I know about myself. Have you never tried talking to these people? Have you never paid attention to how passionate about their activities they are?

Its no good trying to argue I dont really meant it when I say I would still do it for no money. Try talking to people sometime. And yes I speak generally because that is what you do in looking at societies and culture.

[Edx]

Well...you can enforce all kinds of weird behaviors if you isolate people from human contact and use different stimuli to enforce different behaviors. Sort of like banging symbols behind an infant everytime you show him the color white so that they scream and wet themselves in the presence of that color*. Seriously it is hard to overcome nurture behavior from a young age, and that is assuming that everything TVP proponents believe is nurture is nurture (it isn't).

*Actually happened.

Thanks for this. It seems others here are very resistent to the idea.

They would kind of have to kill anyone who wasn't a true believer wouldn't you think?

Well thats overly extreme, you would just have to enforce some kind of reeducation I guess, but then that would completely go against all their principals. Assuming no one will need this reeducation is rather opimistic to put it mildly.

[theprestige]

Thanks for this. It seems others here are very resistent to the idea.


Well thats overly extreme, you would just have to enforce some kind of reeducation I guess, but then that would completely go against all their principals. Assuming no one will need this reeducation is rather opimistic to put it mildly.
So is TVP going to forcibly reeducate people to embrace Fresco's values, or not?

[Edx]

So is TVP going to forcibly reeducate people to embrace Fresco's values, or not?

Please pay attention, Im skeptical of the Venus Project. The Venus Project says there is no need for laws or any need for people to be forcibly reeducated like some kind of Dystopian fiction.

I'm saying I dont see how you can have his society and not require occasionally (at least) forsibly reeducating people but that opens a massive can of wormy problems for the entire concept. (But they definitely wouldnt need to kill people.)

[grandthefttoaster]

Please pay attention, Im skeptical of the Venus Project. The Venus Project says there is no need for laws or any need for people to be forcibly reeducated like some kind of Dystopian fiction.

I'm saying I dont see how you can have his society and not require occasionally (at least) forsibly reeducating people but that opens a massive can of wormy problems for the entire concept. (But they definitely wouldnt need to kill people.)

They haven't said they want to forcibly reeducate people, but they talk about how human behavior is the result of conditioning. So I'm wondering how they think humans will be conditioned to fit into their new society.

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.

[McHrozni]

If you want to describe the Venus Project as a design based on various principals of Communism and utilising technology in a way similar to Technocracy that I think would be fair. I just dont like the way McHrozni says it. Perhaps it is splitting hairs...

Communism is a social system, whereas Technocracy is a political system. True, both have their most optimal political or social systems prescribed (none and capitalism, usually), but that doesn't make them mutually exclusive.

In a parallel example, you can also have capitalism in a democracy (South Korea in 2005) or in a one party dictatorsihp (South Korea in 1965).

It's not splitting hairs, it's calling a spade a spade.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

They haven't said they want to forcibly reeducate people, but they talk about how human behavior is the result of conditioning. So I'm wondering how they think humans will be conditioned to fit into their new society.

Seeing as their new political system borders on totalitarism (it certainly is authoritharian to the core), I can think of a few ways that were historically used to make people fall in line that don't involve reeducation.
The experts are saying the world population is too large, after all. It fits together quite nicely.

McHrozni

[grandthefttoaster]

Seeing as their new political system borders on totalitarism (it certainly is authoritharian to the core), I can think of a few ways that were historically used to make people fall in line that don't involve reeducation.
The experts are saying the world population is too large, after all. It fits together quite nicely.

McHrozni

I'd rather discuss their ideas and claims than make assertions.

[Schwarzwald]

The Venus Project is going to collapse once its retarded users realize its ideals will never be attainable in reality within the forseeable future.

[McHrozni]

I'd rather discuss their ideas and claims than make assertions.

A democratic Technocracy is a logical impossibility. Any Technocratic system is necessarily authoritarian. Obviously it can be more or less authoritarian, but seeing these:
13. Outgrowing nationalism, bigotry, and prejudice through education.
14. Eliminating elitism, technical or otherwise.
15. Arriving at methodologies by careful research rather than random opinions.

shows that debate wouldn't be exactly encouraged, hence my assertion the system would be rather totallitarian in nature.

I do agree, however, that this Venus project thing is not so much interested in describing the specifics of their system, as it is focused soely on how technologically advanced their world would be.

See this example:

# What kind of change do you expect in transport?

Transportation will be rapid, clean, silent, and safe. In the new cybernated cities, mag-lev transveyors will move horizontally, vertically, and circumferentially within and without. Over long distances, people can travel in trains inside tunnels. The trains could electrically repel air away from their surface, thereby diminishing skin resistance and permitting speeds up to three thousand miles an hours. This could replace most aircraft.

If this is realistically possible, it doesn't require some fancy revolution in society.

Also, look at this, it is supposed to be a differance from Communism:
The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities would as quickly as possible be managed and operated by computerized systems.
and
We advocate no government by human systems. They have always proved inadequate. Computerized systems and cybernetics would be applied to the social system and must comply with the carrying capacity of our global resources.

Basically, it advocates a dictatorship, alledgedly in benefit to all, by a computer system. How is that different from a dictatorship by a human being is beyond me, especially since this computer system would necessarily have a creator or creators, and people who maintain it.

Curiusly, it also states later that "no one" makes descisions, and goes on to say that computers would make descisions (along a propaganda rant as to how great and optimal that would be). Though self-contradictory contradictory, the picture is clear, it advocates a either purely authoritarian system, or perhaps a pure Communist one, depending on which of the two contradictory options you choose to take.

And so on, and on. To sum it up: They take away your ability to choose, and call it freedom.

Commies did the same thing, for the same reasons and in a very similar way. The only differance that I can see between Venus project and Communism is that Cycber-thingie which would make all relevant descisions. Contrast this with the dictatoship of the proletariat - what are the conceptual differances again? Both are expected to make the best descisions for all, after all.

The new society is the same, the role of technological advancement is the same, as are the reasons why the present society is flawed, it is only adjusted for the modern age. I imagine this is about how the Communist manifesto would look like, had the technology been available at the time.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

The Venus Project is going to collapse once its retarded users realize its ideals will never be attainable in reality within the forseeable future.

No, it won't. It will remain a marginal movement of whishful tihnkers, and be left at that. It has nothing to offer, yet it sounds so nice, just Communism to many.

McHrozni

[grandthefttoaster]

The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities would as quickly as possible be managed and operated by computerized systems.
and
We advocate no government by human systems. They have always proved inadequate. Computerized systems and cybernetics would be applied to the social system and must comply with the carrying capacity of our global resources.

Basically, it advocates a dictatorship, alledgedly in benefit to all, by a computer system. How is that different from a dictatorship by a human being is beyond me, especially since this computer system would necessarily have a creator or creators, and people who maintain it.

This is another problem I see with the Venus Project. In that Future by Design movie he kept talking about how politicians can't solve problems, and society should be run by the scientific method, not opinions. I think this would be a misuse of science, because things like values are not objective, and can't be determined by the scientific method. For example, some people might believe that drugs should be legal, while others say they should be illegal. So how can we scientifically know what is right? First you would have to somehow test to see what happens if drugs were legal, because most of them have never been legal. Then what would happen is that you would have all kinds of variables, legal drugs might result in less resources being spent fighting drugs, but also lower education. So how would you decide scientifically what is better? I think the answer is that you can't because the idea of "better" would just be an opinion. Science should be used as a tool to help find what works, but not as an authority- then it wouldn't even be science.

I think the rhetoric about communism is unnecesary, because I think when the Venus-people read this, more time will be spent aguing about labels such as communism than discussing the topics themselves. Just my $0.02

[McHrozni]

This is another problem I see with the Venus Project. In that Future by Design movie he kept talking about how politicians can't solve problems, and society should be run by the scientific method, not opinions. I think this would be a misuse of science, because things like values are not objective, and can't be determined by the scientific method. For example, some people might believe that drugs should be legal, while others say they should be illegal. So how can we scientifically know what is right? First you would have to somehow test to see what happens if drugs were legal, because most of them have never been legal. Then what would happen is that you would have all kinds of variables, legal drugs might result in less resources being spent fighting drugs, but also lower education. So how would you decide scientifically what is better? I think the answer is that you can't because the idea of "better" would just be an opinion. Science should be used as a tool to help find what works, but not as an authority- then it wouldn't even be science.

That would be my opinion as well. In principle in science there always will be discord. It is very rare that experts univerally agree on something, and this never (or almost never) occurs within a short period of discovery or development of a method, but only a long time later. Action is usually needed much sooner than the deaths of opponents of a certain theory.

I think the rhetoric about communism is unnecesary, because I think when the Venus-people read this, more time will be spent aguing about labels such as communism than discussing the topics themselves. Just my $0.02

This certainly is true if you look at their web page, where quite a bit is devoted to discussing the differances between Marxism and Resource-based economy. The differances are all identical those between Socialism and Communism, which is why I focused on the social aspect of the Communist society. That system has many failings, this is one of the most important ones, which Venus project also shares and completely fails to address.

Notice how quickly Edx started ignoring the point that was made. It is not in the doctrine, and he would have to come up with a way to defend the undefendable by himself. Very few people will be able to come up with something at all, and no one would be able to come up with anything worthwhile. I can say this with a very large degree of certainty, since the theory is old enough for something to have surfaced by now.

McHrozni

[grandthefttoaster]

This certainly is true if you look at their web page, where quite a bit is devoted to discussing the differances between Marxism and Resource-based economy. The differances are all identical those between Socialism and Communism, which is why I focused on the social aspect of the Communist society. That system has many failings, this is one of the most important ones, which Venus project also shares and completely fails to address.

Good point, I noticed they seem to emphasize how people who call them communists are completely wrong, but while they are not the same, there are some parallels. I'd also compare them to anarchists, because they want to eliminate stuff like law enforcement.

Notice how quickly Edx started ignoring the point that was made. It is not in the doctrine, and he would have to come up with a way to defend the undefendable by himself. Very few people will be able to come up with something at all, and no one would be able to come up with anything worthwhile. I can say this with a very large degree of certainty, since the theory is old enough for something to have surfaced by now.

I feel the obligation to defend this guy, because he once showed me where he posted on the Zeitgeist forums, and he was one of the only people who wasn't a mindless Zeitgeist robot. So I wouldn't say he's following a doctrine, just maybe he's a little more idealistic than realistic.

[McHrozni]

Good point, I noticed they seem to emphasize how people who call them communists are completely wrong, but while they are not the same, there are some parallels. I'd also compare them to anarchists, because they want to eliminate stuff like law enforcement.

The main differance between Communists and Anarchists is in the way they want to reach the Perfect society. The actual description of this Perfect society is pretty much the same, which is why I dump them together. All these groups fail miserably at what humans desire in the first place, and in the same way, which is why I feel quite safe doing so.

I feel the obligation to defend this guy, because he once showed me where he posted on the Zeitgeist forums, and he was one of the only people who wasn't a mindless Zeitgeist robot. So I wouldn't say he's following a doctrine, just maybe he's a little more idealistic than realistic.

Perhaps, I don't know him so well. He still quickly began to avoid the issue, though. That may signify indoctrination, or it may just show he didn't think the Venus project through as would be necessary, and was taken aback by this sudden criticism he never encountered before.
In any event, the criticism stands, and any Zeitgeist bot will quite certainly have the same response in terms of content.

McHrozni

[elbe]

Well I'm not an expert on nature vs. nurture but my point is that I want to know how they plan "educate" people to behave the way they want. Because the only way I can think of is to have some kind of 1984 society where people are brainwashed.

I don't think it would need to go that far, but it would need strongly enforced laws. Just within the last century, I believe, there is evidence that enforced laws can influence how society behaves. Encouraging the "right" behavior and stigmatizing the "wrong" behavior.

[grandthefttoaster]

I don't think it would need to go that far, but it would need strongly enforced laws. Just within the last century, I believe, there is evidence that enforced laws can influence how society behaves. Encouraging the "right" behavior and stigmatizing the "wrong" behavior.

That's probably true, but 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.

[dudalb]

The Venus Project is going to collapse once its retarded users realize its ideals will never be attainable in reality within the forseeable future.


It will never get anyplace but I don't know if it is going to dissapear. "There is a sucker born every minute" is ,sadly, a pretty good comment on human gullibility. Particularly among the young. People of college student age are prone to fall of any good sounding idealisitic bunkum that comes along.

[Sunray Breaker]

Biomimicry dammit!!!

[Earthborn]

Biomimicry dammit!!!Sounds like a perfectly good title for a new thread. Just saying. :p

[Sunray Breaker]

Sounds like a perfectly good title for a new thread. Just saying.
Its a great name for thread I started two weeks ago that no one has bothered to even address...It's driving me crazy!!! Biomimicry is an amazing concept which uses microrganisms, programmable cell technology and natures own blueprints for the natural world, to create some amazing things.

This is all being done in labs throughout the world and seems pretty credible.

Just a couple of things they are currently working on:

Natural fiberoptics (using programmable cells they acquire from certain types of sealife, that create their own natural fiber optics

Biodegradable plastics (based on the same natural process used to form things like mother of pearl and sea shells.

Paintless coloring (using the same process nature uses with reflection, making the few layers of coating on your computer out of this material to reflect the light naturally to create color, rather than using the heat, beat or treat chemical methods.

Using the same methods that plants do to create natural photovoltaic paints.

The only reason I discuss it here, is because no one has bothered to look at the damn biomimicry thread and I'm trying to get some feedback on it.

Here's the thread again. Two TED talks, 20 min each, presented by Jenine Benyus:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150812

(Benyus has authored six books on biomimicry, including Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. In this book she develops the basic thesis that human beings should consciously emulate nature's genius in their own designs.

She graduated summa cum laude from Rutgers University with degrees in natural resource management and english literature/writing. Benyus teaches interpretive writing, lectures at the University of Montana, and works towards restoring and protecting wild lands. She serves on a number of land use committees in her rural county, and is president of Living Education, a nonprofit dedicated to place-based living and learning.

All I ask is that you folks take fourty minutes out of your day and listen to some of the really cool ideas this woman has and has (apparently quite successfully) worked on.

[Sunray Breaker]

There's something about biomimicry that chases everyone away....HELLO?

[Travis]

I read a thesis once on using bio-memetics in architecture. I used to have it saved but the hard drive it was on has long since been junked.


By the way, I brought up my concerns with the computer dictator a long time ago in the other thread:

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?

[Prometheus]

Bio-memetics is cool. In fact, if any field is ever going to bring about at least the technology that TVP would require, it'll likely be BM. But as with the computer overlord, if tech ever get's to that point it won't have any need to keep us around, and why would it want to; about the only thing we could ever do for it is (maybe) turn it off.

[McHrozni]

That's probably true, but 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.

Near as I can tell, fancy architecture in round cities and monorails will cure that. Alledgedly.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

I don't know if this is a joke or not, but ...

According to the Venus project website, their research center is for sale. Yes, they're selling their top prize, the research center that should, alledgedly, prove their ideas about a Resource based economy are true.

McHrozni

[Prometheus]

I don't know if this is a joke or not, but ...

According to the Venus project website, their research center is for sale. Yes, they're selling their top prize, the research center that should, alledgedly, prove their ideas about a Resource based economy are true.

McHrozni

It's been up for sale for more than a year. Nobody wants it--go figure. I hear they recently raised the asking price, too.

[McHrozni]

It's been up for sale for more than a year. Nobody wants it--go figure. I hear they recently raised the asking price, too.

Hm, I see.
This is apparently their way of researching, sell these houses to people to show them how great your ideas are.

McHrozni

[Edx]

They are selling because they cant afford to stay there.

I'll have to come back to some of these points another time.

[Rogue1stclass]

Seems like I've seen this somewhere before. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_(role-playing_game))

[defaultdotxbe]

It's been up for sale for more than a year. Nobody wants it--go figure. I hear they recently raised the asking price, too.
according to archive.org its been up for over 2 and a half years, with varying prices from $550,000 to $955,000 (currently $650,000)

oddly it was originally listed as 22+ acres and now its 21+ acres

[grandthefttoaster]

They are selling because they cant afford to stay there.

Sound like a great opportunity for their fans to show that they actually are willing to work to create this new society. Start by saving the Venus compound instead of just creating more videos and websites.

[Edx]

Sound like a great opportunity for their fans to show that they actually are willing to work to create this new society. Start by saving the Venus compound instead of just creating more videos and websites.

And if they were money grabbers like certain people here have suggested they wouldnt be so conserned about appearing that way by not wanting to beg for money. I went to their London lecture and you know how many times they tried to ask for donations? They didnt. I remember discussions on this by members who wanted to contribute and were frustated that they werent being given a way to do it. Apparently they get a lot of hate mail as it is.

[drkitten]

And if they were money grabbers like certain people here have suggested they wouldnt be so conserned about appearing that way by not wanting to beg for money. I went to their London lecture and you know how many times they tried to ask for donations? They didnt.

Oh, yeah. "Playing hard to get." One of the oldest confidence tricks in the book, I'm afraid.

If you appear to need money, but not to "want" money, that makes it sound like you have integrity, which means, of course, that your pigeon is impressed with your honesty and that convinced that you would make a good steward for the money he is about to entrust to you for your project.

You end up getting fewer contributions, but much more, if you play this particular game right.

[Prometheus]

according to archive.org its been up for over 2 and a half years, with varying prices from $550,000 to $955,000 (currently $650,000)

oddly it was originally listed as 22+ acres and now its 21+ acres

I wonder how their changing asking price tracks with other real estate prices in the area. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they keep it priced just above whatever the market would bear, so as to appear they need to sell even though they have no intention of doing so. OTOH, I'm not at all convinced that they're that smart....

[Stout]

Oh, yeah. "Playing hard to get." One of the oldest confidence tricks in the book, I'm afraid.

If you appear to need money, but not to "want" money, that makes it sound like you have integrity, which means, of course, that your pigeon is impressed with your honesty and that convinced that you would make a good steward for the money he is about to entrust to you for your project.

You end up getting fewer contributions, but much more, if you play this particular game right.

I'm guessing, just guessing here, but what are the chances that Frecsco's books and DVDs were for sale at the lecture. There is a donation page set up on the VP site so if someone were wanting to kick in, there's your opportunity.

I'm wondering whether Fresco actually needs money. he seems to be doing all right jetting around the world doing the conference thing. I just got back from a link I followed on the VP website listing a conference (http://greatmystery.org/events/cancun2012.html)where Fresco is appearing in Cancun.

For an environmentalist, Fresco sure appears to have a large carbon footprint.

[dudalb]

It's been up for sale for more than a year. Nobody wants it--go figure. I hear they recently raised the asking price, too.

:dl:

[dudalb]

They are selling because they cant afford to stay there.

I'll have to come back to some of these points another time.

The laws of economics, which they spend a great deal of time trying to deny, finally caught up with them.

[dudalb]

Oh, yeah. "Playing hard to get." One of the oldest confidence tricks in the book, I'm afraid.

If you appear to need money, but not to "want" money, that makes it sound like you have integrity, which means, of course, that your pigeon is impressed with your honesty and that convinced that you would make a good steward for the money he is about to entrust to you for your project.

You end up getting fewer contributions, but much more, if you play this particular game right.


It's a basic tactic for the big time con men:Don't appear too greedy.

[Edx]

Oh, yeah. "Playing hard to get." One of the oldest confidence tricks in the book, I'm afraid.

If you appear to need money, but not to "want" money, that makes it sound like you have integrity, which means, of course, that your pigeon is impressed with your honesty and that convinced that you would make a good steward for the money he is about to entrust to you for your project.

You end up getting fewer contributions, but much more, if you play this particular game right.

Im sorry but you dont know what you're talking about. If they are all about the money they sure are incompetent at it.

[Edx]

I'm wondering whether Fresco actually needs money. he seems to be doing all right jetting around the world doing the conference thing. I just got back from a link I followed on the VP website listing a conference (http://greatmystery.org/events/cancun2012.html)where Fresco is appearing in Cancun.

Except he doesnt pay for the flights or hotels.


For an environmentalist, Fresco sure appears to have a large carbon footprint

So apparently he is meant to give everything away and not use cars or planes.

[drkitten]

Im sorry but you dont know what you're talking about.

Physician, heal thyself.... If the best argument you have that they're not running an elaborate confidence game is the fact that they don't take direct donations at events where they sell their DVD's,.....


If they are all about the money they sure are incompetent at it.

Really? In what way are they "incompetent"?

For example,

Except he doesnt pay for the flights or hotels.

... sounds like a right cagey confidence trickster. He gets to go to Cancun, and some other pigeon picks up the tab?

How is that "incompetent"?

[Edx]

Physician, heal thyself.... If the best argument you have that they're not running an elaborate confidence game is the fact that they don't take direct donations at events where they sell their DVD's,.....

I didnt see any DVDs or books at the London lecture available to buy nor did I see them trying to flog them. So if there were some available, they sure werent very prominent.

Really? In what way are they "incompetent"?

If they wanted to get money they could have easily set up various ways of dong that while not upsetting their fans. The best argument YOU seem to have that they arent con artists is that they can travel for free to do these lectures.

Ive seen how they operate. They do not act like husslers. Show me some evidence if you have any. If they lack funds yet would like to do lectures, how do you expect them to afford to come and do them? You are looking from afar already biased that they MUST be con artists so arent willing to imagine that they arent.

[grandthefttoaster]

I'm wondering whether Fresco actually needs money. he seems to be doing all right jetting around the world doing the conference thing. I just got back from a link I followed on the VP website listing a conference (http://greatmystery.org/events/cancun2012.html)where Fresco is appearing in Cancun.

I don't know if Fresco is a con man or not, but why is someone who advocates a future based on science and technology getting second billing at a 2012-nonsense conference? (http://greatmystery.org/events/cancun2012.html)

[drkitten]

If they wanted to get money they could have easily set up various ways of dong that while not upsetting their fans.

Sounds like they have done.


Ive seen how they operate. They do not act like husslers.

Most good hustlers don't. The ones that do generally aren't very good, by definition.

If they lack funds yet would like to do lectures, how do you expect them to afford to come and do them?

The usual method is foundation grants, which also will support the actual research they're supposed to be doing.

That, by the way, is the tip-off that they're running a huge scam. For an ostensibly research-based organization, they're remarkably light on research (where are the journal articles they're generating?) and remarkably heavy on "ways to give us money," which I can find at the top of every page of their web site.

In that regard, they do not differ significantly from the Discovery Institute.

[Stout]

Except he doesnt pay for the flights or hotels.



No, the conference atendees pay for those with the price of their tickets.

So apparently he is meant to give everything away and not use cars or planes.

He's expected to actually live his ideology. Have you seen the VP property for sale web page ? Did you see the photo with the private helicopter proudly displayed at the top of the page ?

You have now, good.

So why then, should I ever consider taking Fresco's particular brand of eco socialism seriously when he's going to flaunt the ultimate symbol of capitalist excess, the private helicopter. ?

Why can't Fresco make his appearances by video conferencing, powered by some sort of alternative energy source, say solar ? In his ideal world, this is what would be happening, no, wait, we'd all be flying around on electric planes powered by alternative energy but since we don't have that technology yet why shouldn't he just make do with what we have available in this day and age ?

[Stout]

I don't know if Fresco is a con man or not, but why is someone who advocates a future based on science and technology getting second billing at a 2012-nonsense conference? (http://greatmystery.org/events/cancun2012.html)

He must share a common market with the end of days types. Nice resort though, but I won't be attending as +2 grand for a three day conference and some bus tours is a little beyond my comfort level. I could go scuba diving in the Caribbean every day for two months for that cash.

[dudalb]

So Franco is a featured speaker on a 2012 Bullcrap conference??????

:dl:

Should'nt that tell you something about his creditbility?

[defaultdotxbe]

I wonder how their changing asking price tracks with other real estate prices in the area. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they keep it priced just above whatever the market would bear, so as to appear they need to sell even though they have no intention of doing so. OTOH, I'm not at all convinced that they're that smart....
im not sure how interested they are in selling it, im not sure if its listed anywhere else but the flalandsale.com page doesnt give any address or location of the property (other than central florida) so you cant even find out if its competively priced

[Stout]

It's in/near Venus Florida and I suspect a call to a real estate agent looking for properties of that size, in that area might give you a rough idea whether it's priced competitively or not. You'd really have to go look at it as all those "water features" conjure up images of swampland.

[Prometheus]

im not sure how interested they are in selling it, im not sure if its listed anywhere else but the flalandsale.com page doesnt give any address or location of the property (other than central florida) so you cant even find out if its competively priced

21 Valley Lane, Venus, Florida 33960

Looks like a dump on Google Earth.

Zillow lists it as a single 2-room residence with a lot size of 5.44 acres and a tax assessed value of $110k. I guess the other 16 acres are a separate property?

[Edx]

I don't know if Fresco is a con man or not, but why is someone who advocates a future based on science and technology getting second billing at a 2012-nonsense conference? (http://greatmystery.org/events/cancun2012.html)

That is indeed pretty stupid of him. I will be writing to see what rationalisation they give for doing it there, I know he doesnt believe in any of that nonsence. In the London lecture someone asked him about UFOs and he went off about how some guy he knew said he had a piece of an alien craft so he said show me, turned out it was a piece of an aircraft as Fresco knew the part. He also explained how from an engineering standpoint tales of what its like inside a UFO makes no sense for such a high tech species.

[Edx]

Sounds like they have done.

No.

In that regard, they do not differ significantly from the Discovery Institute.

Sorry but I am very familiar with the Discovery Institute and these guys are not comparable. Im sorry theres so many cynical people around here.

[Edx]

No, the conference atendees pay for those with the price of their tickets.

Yup.

He's expected to actually live his ideology.

Expected by whom? No one can live his ideology in this monetary system. Expecting him to use no money and not use cars planes or trains is a ridiculous critcism.

Have you seen the VP property for sale web page ? Did you see the photo with the private helicopter proudly displayed at the top of the page ?

And? Who says he still has that or why he had it there in the first place? You're just assuming, of course.

[Stout]

.

Expected by whom? No one can live his ideology in this monetary system. Expecting him to use no money and not use cars planes or trains is a ridiculous critcism.
.

Expected by me. He obviously has to use money unless he wants to practice subsistence farming on that 21 acres. I expect him to at least make a pretense of trying to live within his own environmental standards, which would involve him eschewing flying, even if it is "for business".

I'm just hitting on the environmental angle here, there's plenty on this thread dealing with the conflicts between Fresco's ideology and the human condition. He really should focus his energies on living an environmentally friendly lifestyle, which would include trying out an intentional community devoted to his ideas on the property he already owns.

Show us it can be done. Inspire us with real world examples of sustainability.

And? Who says he still has that or why he had it there in the first place? You're just assuming, of course.

You didn't check, did you ?
Do I need to go find the link and post it for you ? (http://www.flalandsale.com/)
It's right there at the top of the page, in living colour.
Why do YOU suppose he has it there ? A sculpture made of found objects as an anti capitalist statement ?

[Earthborn]

Expected by whom? No one can live his ideology in this monetary system.He might not succeed perfectly but he might give it a shot. That was my point when I used that Dutch TV show as an example; the monetary system doesn't prevent people from exchanging goods and services without monetary compensation, so if according to his ideology everyone must live like that permanently, he should set an example and not ask a hundred dollars for a teensy mini-poster. If that's how he expects to built a money-less society, his plan won't go anywhere in a hurry.

If he gives it a fair try, I don't think anyone will hold it against him if he doesn't succeed perfectly to live without money within the present monetary system, but in advocating an society in which money and greed have been eliminated, he should try not to appear greedy... for money.

[Edx]

You didn't check, did you ?
Do I need to go find the link and post it for you ? (http://www.flalandsale.com/)
It's right there at the top of the page, in living colour.
Why do YOU suppose he has it there ? A sculpture made of found objects as an anti capitalist statement ?

Good thing we werent having a more indepth discussion I would have wasted a lot of time debating who said what.

I never denied that he had the picture of the helicopter. Read my post again.

[Edx]

He might not succeed perfectly but he might give it a shot. That was my point when I used that Dutch TV show as an example; the monetary system doesn't prevent people from exchanging goods and services without monetary compensation, so if according to his ideology everyone must live like that permanently, he should set an example and not ask a hundred dollars for a teensy mini-poster. If that's how he expects to built a money-less society, his plan won't go anywhere in a hurry.

If he gives it a fair try, I don't think anyone will hold it against him if he doesn't succeed perfectly to live without money within the present monetary system, but in advocating an society in which money and greed have been eliminated, he should try not to appear greedy... for money.

Expecting him to live without money in this society wouldnt prove anything, however it is a reasonable to ask what renewable energy technologies they use themselves.

So to be fair some of these are legitimate criticisms. I will see if I can get them to respond to some of them, if they are legitimate they will care how they appear to the world.

[grandthefttoaster]

Expecting him to live without money in this society wouldnt prove anything, however it is a reasonable to ask what renewable energy technologies they use themselves.

According to this (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=3&id=164865) it looks like they don't use renewable energy.

[Stout]

Good thing we werent having a more indepth discussion I would have wasted a lot of time debating who said what.

I never denied that he had the picture of the helicopter. Read my post again.

Cheers Edx, you were talking about the helicopter itself, and I was talking about the optics of his having that photograph up on his site. True, we don't know why, or if, he still has it there but you have to admit though, it looks pretty bad.

IMO Fresco would get more traction advocating ideas like hydroelectric power over weird concepts like damming the Bearing Strait as we have the technology here and now ( this post brought to you by clean, renewable hydroelectric ) ans it runs 24/7. Solar is a nice idea, however unless you have a basement full of batteries, then we have a problem at night and wind makes a nice supplement, but are you willing to live in the dark on those days when there's no wind.

I'd go for the nuclear option, and I'm surprised Fresco hasn't tabled it. Oh, the stigma, that's why.

You may say there's a lot of cynics on this site, and on this issue you'd be right however that cynicism is born out out of a penchant for realism. :)

Realistically speaking, the only way to combat this whole AGW thing in the here and now is to reduce consumption. We need more action on the personal level, especially from those acting on the political level. Show us what needs to be done, lead by example, don't just tell us.

[Stout]

So to be fair some of these are legitimate criticisms. I will see if I can get them to respond to some of them, if they are legitimate they will care how they appear to the world.

Excellent.

Roxanne is a member of this forum and has posted on these threads before.

[drkitten]

Sorry but I am very familiar with the Discovery Institute and these guys are not comparable.

Not remotely comparable. The Discovery Institute does better research, is on a better financial footing, and has much better press coverage, and is much more honest.

Im sorry theres so many cynical people around here.

I'm sorry there are so many TVP pigeons around here.

[dudalb]

Im sorry theres so many cynical people around here.

If by cynical you mean we are not falling for a pie in the sky,unrealistic plan for Utopia that
A. Depends on technology that we are nowhere near having in a practical form and
B. Has an incredibly nieve and unrealistic view of human nature, damn straight.

[grandthefttoaster]

He might not succeed perfectly but he might give it a shot. That was my point when I used that Dutch TV show as an example; the monetary system doesn't prevent people from exchanging goods and services without monetary compensation, so if according to his ideology everyone must live like that permanently, he should set an example and not ask a hundred dollars for a teensy mini-poster. If that's how he expects to built a money-less society, his plan won't go anywhere in a hurry.

If he gives it a fair try, I don't think anyone will hold it against him if he doesn't succeed perfectly to live without money within the present monetary system, but in advocating an society in which money and greed have been eliminated, he should try not to appear greedy... for money.
I actually don't think it is really hypocritical for them to use money, because they still live in the current system, where people pretty much are forced to use money, at least if they want to own property. However, earlier I said that they should build a community that reflects their ideas of a society. Here is why:

The Venus Project says that they want to create a world where the scientific method is used to make all decisions on running society, rather than opinions. I said before that this would be completely misusing science, because science is just a tool, and while science can help form an opinion, it can't authoritatively declare what is the "right way" to run society, that's a value judgement. Nevertheless, in science you form a hypothesis, and then test it. So in order for the Venus Project to say "this new society would work better than the current one", according to their own rules, they have to somehow test this theory. Otherwise it is just an opinion -surprise! Right now the parts of the world with the highest standards of living are places like Western Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, USA. So using the Venus Project's idea of the scientific method, shouldn't modern western society be the ideal society, instead of some untested idea? I've never seen plans to actually do any kind of research or anything except "spreading the word", like some kind of church or something. As far as I can tell, whenever the Venus Project talks about the scientific method, they are really saying "well we've just decided that this is the best way for everyone to live, and that's that". They don't seem to understand science at all. That condescending jerk Peter Joseph is the worst at this.

I'm sorry there are so many TVP pigeons around here.
I think that is a bit unfair, but I would like to hear a response to my points here and on page 5, because they seem more important than who owns a helicopter.

[Stout]

I think that is a bit unfair, but I would like to hear a response to my points here and on page 5, because they seem more important than who owns a helicopter.

I don't think it's unfair, it was a direct response to a comment about "cynics"

Other than that, I completely agree with your above post. :)

Cue John Lennon's song, Imagine.

[Rogue1stclass]

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.

[dudalb]

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.


1000% agreed.
The only thing I would add is that the Venus Project is also totally dependent on Technology that is decades away from being practical, or in some instances just plain impossible.
I have to disagree about EPCOT being the lamest Disney Theme Park. "California Adventure" takes that prize.

[grandthefttoaster]

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.

Read my last post, there is no commune, just his futuristic house, which is for sale anyway. They plan to convince the world of their ideas before they actually do anything.

[dudalb]

Read my last post, there is no commune, just his futuristic house, which is for sale anyway. They plan to convince the world of their ideas before they actually do anything.

So they are trying to sell the world on their plan without offering any solid evidence that it will actually work????
Good Luck with that............

[Prometheus]

I actually don't think it is really hypocritical for them to use money, because they still live in the current system, where people pretty much are forced to use money, at least if they want to own property. However, earlier I said that they should build a community that reflects their ideas of a society. Here is why:

The Venus Project says that they want to create a world where the scientific method is used to make all decisions on running society, rather than opinions. I said before that this would be completely misusing science, because science is just a tool, and while science can help form an opinion, it can't authoritatively declare what is the "right way" to run society, that's a value judgement. Nevertheless, in science you form a hypothesis, and then test it. So in order for the Venus Project to say "this new society would work better than the current one", according to their own rules, they have to somehow test this theory. Otherwise it is just an opinion -surprise! Right now the parts of the world with the highest standards of living are places like Western Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, USA. So using the Venus Project's idea of the scientific method, shouldn't modern western society be the ideal society, instead of some untested idea? I've never seen plans to actually do any kind of research or anything except "spreading the word", like some kind of church or something. As far as I can tell, whenever the Venus Project talks about the scientific method, they are really saying "well we've just decided that this is the best way for everyone to live, and that's that". They don't seem to understand science at all. That condescending jerk Peter Joseph is the worst at this.


I think that is a bit unfair, but I would like to hear a response to my points here and on page 5, because they seem more important than who owns a helicopter.

This is the crux of TVP's unworkability. The system they envision requires that everyone have the same value system. They don't want to enforce this common value system, however. They believe that values are strictly a product of environment, and that it must therefore be possible to engineer an environment which will cause everyone to develop this common value system upon which TVP is predicated. This envisioned purpose-built environment in turn requires technology and logistics that are far beyond what we're capable of right now.

I think the level of technology TVP requires may be available in the future, but I remain unconvinced that human values are entirely dependant on environment or that, once engineered, they'll remain stable across time and distance. I'm also not convinced that the logistics will ever be possible.

The whole moneyless thing is a red herring. If it's possible to develop the necessary technology and engineer the necessary value system, then it won't matter whether money is used as an exchange medium or not.

[Stout]

What he needs to do is convince western anarchists to give up their privileged lives and follow him to Somalia where his lead by example style will gain him millions of converts.

[dudalb]

What he needs to do is convince western anarchists to give up their privileged lives and follow him to Somalia where his lead by example style will gain him millions of converts.



Until the local Warlords move in on the action........

[Rogue1stclass]

Read my last post, there is no commune, just his futuristic house, which is for sale anyway. They plan to convince the world of their ideas before they actually do anything.

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.

[Rogue1stclass]

1000% agreed.
The only thing I would add is that the Venus Project is also totally dependent on Technology that is decades away from being practical, or in some instances just plain impossible.

Even total conversion of matter and energy and microfactories that can instantly create anything we wish won't help.

Creativity and innovation are properties of individuals, not societies. The works of those individuals will always be more sought after, even given infinite resources. It's an inherent inequality that cannot be corrected for except by attempting to destroy these qualities before they can manifest. And when you start trying that, well, your utopia has gone dystopia.

I have to disagree about EPCOT being the lamest Disney Theme Park. "California Adventure" takes that prize.

Never been there. Living in Central Florida, I sometimes forget other Disney parks exist.

Still EPCOT's not that bad anymore. Went there on my birthday this year specifically to drink around the World Showcase.