What will be the future earth society?

[thelerner]

Negativity isn't always bad. In the discussion of an idea its needed, otherwise a discussion devolves into group think. I do apologize for the sarcasm, but your argument seemed to be saying one side thinks people should live, the other side says no. I mentioned giving out flocks of chickens (through Heifer) not to say 'mine is bigger' but to move the discussion in the direction of solid things that can be done now.

 

Truthfully I haven't read the whole thing (separate paragraphs please), but I have spent time skimming it. As philosophy its good, in reality I think its dubious. Human nature works against it.

 

But its worth discussing. There are ideas from it that I think can be adapted to smaller settings. When times are hard some of Venus's ideas evolve naturally.

 

I've been employee, manager and boss. I've worn many shoes in my life. Many people are inherently lazy, myself included. In a world where I could get equal pay or in Venus's case stuff for working an easy job and short hours I would. If I was less lazy and perhaps brilliant and it would give me the opportunity to have even better stuff then I had at the moment, or better stuff then the people around me, I'd take it.

 

I don't think those are minority traits in humanity. Outlaw money and people would quickly recreate it.

 

Getting real

 

If someone said today, they'd bought 600 square miles in Australia and were creating a sovereign nation based on Venus, would you go? A condition would probably be you'd have to sell everything you owned and give it to them as terms of entry. The costs of starting up a spankin new society is enormous.

 

Think about..uh..tampons. Say you 40,000 people, 20,000 woman. Who designs and says how many there are. Are you the one working the expected 10 hours a day in the factory or the one who puts in 2 hours when they feel like it and go home? How do you feel when a guy walks out of the market place with 3,000 of them and tells you he's using them to build a kayak (unrolling and repasting as skin).

 

These and there ilk are the real questions in my opinion. Your philosophical ones feel like a smoke screen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looking through your other questions:

SDog:"You ask about who has the power?

 

Let me ask you... if this is a concern to you Michael, who has the power right now?

Can you honestly say?"

 

Me: I don't remember asking that question. Can you be more specific, power of what? We can back it up to the constitution and get into my rights to own property and stuff. It can't be taken away without due process. I have the power to travel, buy what I can afford, read, free speech etc.

 

I'm actually incredibly powerful. My control over the environment at the moment is frickin amazing. I can make the lights go on and off, temperature rise and fall. I'm not being sarcastic, but I have powers that would make the kings of old pale with envy.

 

One power I don't have and don't want is to force other people to be like me. I can offer a flock to a family in the Sudan, but They are going to have to be incharge of there education and mostly there own welfare. It would be stupid of me to impose my culture, religion or ideals on them.

 

 

We circle back to how to help the less fortunate. I think Capitalism (with all its problems) has lifted more people out of poverty then anything else. For better or worse it clicks with the human condition. I think Communism historically did the opposite, created and spread poverty. Thats my opinion, I know its debatable.

 

So my questions are would you head to Australia to join a Venus Project? How would Venus correct the inequities in the Tampon factory or would it claim they don't exist?

 

Sincerely,

 

Michael

[Sunya]

Truthfully I haven't read the whole thing (separate paragraphs please), but I have spent time skimming it. As philosophy its good, in reality I think its dubious. Human nature works against it.

 

This is pretty accessible

 

http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/faq

 

Think about..uh..tampons. Say you 40,000 people, 20,000 woman. Who designs and says how many there are. Are you the one working the expected 10 hours a day in the factory or the one who puts in 2 hours when they feel like it and go home? How do you feel when a guy walks out of the market place with 3,000 of them and tells you he's using them to build a kayak (unrolling and repasting as skin).

 

Machines can create the tampons. We have the technology today. Most cars are made fully by machines. Sure they require servicing and all that, but with further innovation machines can repair themselves. Other machines can service them and other machines can upgrade them. Of course there will have to be some humans designing and doing some controlling of the machines, and I'm sure many engineers would volunteer for this job.

 

One power I don't have and don't want is to force other people to be like me. I can offer a flock to a family in the Sudan, but They are going to have to be incharge of there education and mostly there own welfare. It would be stupid of me to impose my culture, religion or ideals on them.

 

Who is talking about imposing culture or religion or ideals? The fact that technology will make human labor obsolete is a very real reality. The question is: what will we do about it? Are we going to continue this outdated system or create a better one?

 

We circle back to how to help the less fortunate. I think Capitalism (with all its problems) has lifted more people out of poverty then anything else. For better or worse it clicks with the human condition. I think Communism historically did the opposite, created and spread poverty. Thats my opinion, I know its debatable.

 

Communism never actually existed. You're referring to socialism, and I do agree, but communism is stateless while socialism is state-run. This idea isn't communist since communism still has money involved.

 

Capitalism worked by getting us thus far, but it has its flaws. The system tends to concentrate power and money into the hands of only a few, while the many get 'trickled down' upon. The benefit to society has only been indirect. Now we have mammoth corporations. The big fish eat the smaller fish, create bigger corporations, and, rather unfortunately, since these corporations and its members have so much power (money) they get involved with politics. Capitalism leads to Corporatocracy. It used to be great when it was just mom and pop shops competing against each other, but now we have Walmart killing small businesses. Eventually there won't be any small businesses anymore because those who have power can always out compete the lesser fish.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Sunya

[strawdog65]

Negativity isn't always bad. In the discussion of an idea its needed, otherwise a discussion devolves into group think. I do apologize for the sarcasm, but your argument seemed to be saying one side thinks people should live, the other side says no. I mentioned giving out flocks of chickens (through Heifer) not to say 'mine is bigger' but to move the discussion in the direction of solid things that can be done now.

 

Truthfully I haven't read the whole thing (separate paragraphs please), but I have spent time skimming it. As philosophy its good, in reality I think its dubious. Human nature works against it.

 

But its worth discussing. There are ideas from it that I think can be adapted to smaller settings. When times are hard some of Venus's ideas evolve naturally.

 

I've been employee, manager and boss. I've worn many shoes in my life. Many people are inherently lazy, myself included. In a world where I could get equal pay or in Venus's case stuff for working an easy job and short hours I would. If I was less lazy and perhaps brilliant and it would give me the opportunity to have even better stuff then I had at the moment, or better stuff then the people around me, I'd take it.

 

I don't think those are minority traits in humanity. Outlaw money and people would quickly recreate it.

 

Getting real

 

If someone said today, they'd bought 600 square miles in Australia and were creating a sovereign nation based on Venus, would you go? A condition would probably be you'd have to sell everything you owned and give it to them as terms of entry. The costs of starting up a spankin new society is enormous.

 

Think about..uh..tampons. Say you 40,000 people, 20,000 woman. Who designs and says how many there are. Are you the one working the expected 10 hours a day in the factory or the one who puts in 2 hours when they feel like it and go home? How do you feel when a guy walks out of the market place with 3,000 of them and tells you he's using them to build a kayak (unrolling and repasting as skin).

 

These and there ilk are the real questions in my opinion. Your philosophical ones feel like a smoke screen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looking through your other questions:

SDog:"You ask about who has the power?

 

Let me ask you... if this is a concern to you Michael, who has the power right now?

Can you honestly say?"

 

Me: I don't remember asking that question. Can you be more specific, power of what? We can back it up to the constitution and get into my rights to own property and stuff. It can't be taken away without due process. I have the power to travel, buy what I can afford, read, free speech etc.

 

I'm actually incredibly powerful. My control over the environment at the moment is frickin amazing. I can make the lights go on and off, temperature rise and fall. I'm not being sarcastic, but I have powers that would make the kings of old pale with envy.

 

One power I don't have and don't want is to force other people to be like me. I can offer a flock to a family in the Sudan, but They are going to have to be incharge of there education and mostly there own welfare. It would be stupid of me to impose my culture, religion or ideals on them.

 

 

We circle back to how to help the less fortunate. I think Capitalism (with all its problems) has lifted more people out of poverty then anything else. For better or worse it clicks with the human condition. I think Communism historically did the opposite, created and spread poverty. Thats my opinion, I know its debatable.

 

So my questions are would you head to Australia to join a Venus Project? How would Venus correct the inequities in the Tampon factory or would it claim they don't exist?

 

Sincerely,

 

Michael

 

 

Hi Michael!

 

Let me just say something first before continuing.

I really appreciate you taking an active role in this discussion, it helps

to flesh out what is being presented, and I thank you for your interest.

 

In post #46 you said that "it dances around the power" Which to me alluded to

asking who has the power. Which is everyone.

 

I know there is a lot to read, but there are also videos and other presentations

of designs and interviews with Jacque Fresco. It is difficult to have a detailed conversation

about the Venus Project without the same frame of reference to draw from when we speak.

Many of the points you are making about who would work and who would be lazy, and

money and the societal change that would take form, are answered in the Essay and other

presentations.

 

We are talking about a societal change that would take place when the world will have

reached it's breaking point and there would then be no other choice. A complete failure

of the world-wide infrastructure in place now, would be the beginning of something

like the Venus project becoming a reality. It is a model for what do we do next?

By no means is it a model where people will say " yeah I want to give up all my things and

stop being a completely selfish ass, and go live in a communal society where the good

of the many is actually the driving force".

 

Almost no one living in todays world will want to give up their "stuff".

But we can not continue to live and waste and have no concern for the people of the world,

it is a system of living that is destructive. We have only been able to do this to this point because

the numbers of people and resources have been in our favor to be wasteful and callous of others.

We are quickly approaching a new era in our history of the world, new thinking, new models

of future society will be needed to deal with the population and limited resources.

This is what the Venus Project is.

 

Would I join? Yes I would. I would be honored to be part of something so incredible.

My attachment to "stuff" is less important than something of such great importance.

And I believe that there are many who would agree with me. Life isn't about "stuff"

it IS about having a connection to what you believe is of value.

I believe this project has great value.

 

Your assertion that capitalism has helped with poverty... is false.

Do some research on the World Bank, and see what capitalism has done to the poor people

of the world, it's just slavery to the monetary system. Capitalism has NO regard for

humanity or Human rights whatsoever. It is a mistake to look at what individuals have

done to help the poor, and chock it up to good ole' Capitalism.

Especially when the capability to help the poor of the world is underused, and devalued.

 

Education, along with food and shelter are what holds all people back.

We must change the attitude that things need to be "earned". This only makes

sense in a society that values money over Human life and suffering. When people are

treated with dignity and respect by understanding that basic Human rights are more than

philosophical words, but are in fact things that are minimums to the life and growth of

all people as individuals within the society. Thats when it becomes obvious how the monetary

system has perverted what is acceptable and right. Profit and greed are what stands in the way

of feeding, educating, and making sure all people have a place to live. Removing the monetary

system, removing the idea that nothing is worth doing unless there is a profit to be made,

would go a long way towards understanding and valuing Human life.

 

 

The question about the Tampon factory is a funny one.

Especially since it totally ignores the ideas being presented.

Machines and technology would almost remove man from all menial and purely

physical labor work. But then if you had taken the time to actually read and comprehend

what is being presented, i don't think we would be discussing this so much.

 

The Venus project is something totally new.

[joeblast]

Watch the vid I posted if you havent already - it lays out a rather concise definition of what a right is - and let's get real here, we cant be muddling terms and having no idea what the other is talking about. If you feel like inventing definitions and arbitrarily defining thing according to how you think things should be, that kinda tends to put a dampener on the conversation because half of it gets spent re-agreeing on terms instead of just using accurately applicable words in the first place.

 

Rights do not get "invented" by peoples. Laws do. If "the country of Venus" wants to write a law guaranteeing every one of its "citizens" all of these nice-to-have extras, they can absolutely do so - but just know that its citizens must provide it whether they like it or not, thus undermining the whole universiality concept of a Right. The concept of a fundamental human right unfortunately has some constraints and you cant just deem something "good to have" and thus it should become a right?! Preposterous.

 

And "rights in a legal sense.." wt? Rights are rights, laws are laws. I know its become fashionable to endlessly redefine terms to the point that definitions become all but backward, but let's keep a grasp on reality and what means something and what means something else.

 

Something that is NOT a right, like education, is a nice-to-have. But, it requires someone else to give it to you, whether they like it or not. As such, that something cannot be defined as a right because it needs to come willingly from elsewhere. Charity is not a right, welfare is not a right - it needs to come from others. Food is not a right - unless you grow it, cultivate it, harvest it yourself, it requires somebody else to give something to you. As is shelter - if you arent building yourself a shelter, someone else needs to.

 

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was not settled upon haphazardly or because it sounds nice and would make a catchy phrase. It meets requirements of how you define a right and if something is to be an innate right then it cannot come from another human being (the whole parental thing aside - but even at that - it is law that your parents must take care of you, not some sort of "right".)

 

I also have to point out that this whole Venus project requires ever single person to be willing participants, but without any real reward or incentive, the whole paradigm is going to collapse before too long. A certain small percentage will truly be able to walk that walk, but most everyone else, forget about it.

 

Terrible analogy regarding the world bank - yes it just winds up serving to keep those poor countries down, but look a little deeper - most of this aid is squandered and not because of capitalism, but because of might makes right. You dont seem to be able to separate the two concepts, SD.

 

Your heart is in the right place But the approach is...less than thorough, to say the least. See #2 in the gnomes paradigm, that's about analogous to "removing the monetary system." The world would need to be almost completely and utterly wiped out by catastrophe for this venus idea to take off in the least.

[Sunya]

Watch the vid I posted if you havent already - it lays out a rather concise definition of what a right is - and let's get real here, we cant be muddling terms and having no idea what the other is talking about. If you feel like inventing definitions and arbitrarily defining thing according to how you think things should be, that kinda tends to put a dampener on the conversation because half of it gets spent re-agreeing on terms instead of just using accurately applicable words in the first place.

 

 

I watched the video and it's not relevant. In a non-monetary system there won't be any obligation on anyone else to sustain these rights.

 

Rights do not get "invented" by peoples. Laws do. If "the country of Venus" wants to write a law guaranteeing every one of its "citizens" all of these nice-to-have extras, they can absolutely do so - but just know that its citizens must provide it whether they like it or not, thus undermining the whole universiality concept of a Right. The concept of a fundamental human right unfortunately has some constraints and you cant just deem something "good to have" and thus it should become a right?! Preposterous.

 

And "rights in a legal sense.." wt? Rights are rights, laws are laws. I know its become fashionable to endlessly redefine terms to the point that definitions become all but backward, but let's keep a grasp on reality and what means something and what means something else.

 

The rights that you claimed, the free speech, liberty, pursuit of happiness are straight out of the Bill of Rights. Did God write that? Was it written by nature? No. It was written by humans. These are concepts ingrained in you but society didn't always have them. Free speech certainly wasn't a right during the feudal age, and America wasn't created with these rights because they were "good to have". No. It was created because the current system in Europe wasn't working, and they had a better idea of how things should work, so they created a new system with new rights.

 

Something that is NOT a right, like education, is a nice-to-have. But, it requires someone else to give it to you, whether they like it or not. As such, that something cannot be defined as a right because it needs to come willingly from elsewhere. Charity is not a right, welfare is not a right - it needs to come from others. Food is not a right - unless you grow it, cultivate it, harvest it yourself, it requires somebody else to give something to you. As is shelter - if you arent building yourself a shelter, someone else needs to.

 

Why is it so hard to understand that technology will get rid of any obligation from others? You're still thinking in terms of a monetary system.

 

 

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was not settled upon haphazardly or because it sounds nice and would make a catchy phrase. It meets requirements of how you define a right

 

Except these were not rights until they became rights.

 

I also have to point out that this whole Venus project requires ever single person to be willing participants, but without any real reward or incentive, the whole paradigm is going to collapse before too long. A certain small percentage will truly be able to walk that walk, but most everyone else, forget about it.

 

The real reward or incentive will be living in a society that focuses on innovation, progress, and the human element rather than competition and the gaining of more material stuff. After this current system falls, people will look for other options. It'll probably be a small movement but will gain in popularity, just like democracy was when it first started.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Sunya

[joeblast]

Well, here's the thing: the idea makes assumptions that are fantasy for this planet. Akin to saying "well, we could eliminate all gun crime in the US if we could only remove all of the guns" - while that may make a logically consistent theoretical argument, if A then B, it makes assumptions so far removed from reality that you are describing a thought experiment and nothing more. Before I get told "but wait - there is no money, it will all be gone and removed!" again (and who's the one focusing on money ) I dont believe I have anything more to add to this discussion so I will let you guys continue your theoretical experiment in peace

[thelerner]

[Sunya]

Well, here's the thing: the idea makes assumptions that are fantasy for this planet. Akin to saying "well, we could eliminate all gun crime in the US if we could only remove all of the guns" - while that may make a logically consistent theoretical argument, if A then B, it makes assumptions so far removed from reality that you are describing a thought experiment and nothing more. Before I get told "but wait - there is no money, it will all be gone and removed!" again (and who's the one focusing on money ) I dont believe I have anything more to add to this discussion so I will let you guys continue your theoretical experiment in peace

 

Taking away guns will not eliminate violence because the core of violence comes from people being raised with the idea that they are separate selves. They are ignorant of their true interconnected nature. Taking away money by and large will not solve all of the crime. People will have to be taught who they truly are in relation to the greater reality. This is part of the education principle. We as a society are sick. We're diseased. The idea that we are separate is not true. It's pathological, and the monetary system only further breeds that disease.

 

It's not theoretical at all. Modern psychology supports the notion that we're products of our environment. And, being on this site, you have to believe in the reality of enlightenment.

 

 

Seems to me even if Destruction lead to Venus, then eventually Venus leads back to the Same old System.

 

Based on the wikipedia quote about kibbutz, you're going to make that assessment? It's hardly relevant and only shows your negative view towards humans based as innately selfish instead of conditioned to be so.

 

Anyway, the kibbutz isn't relevant here. Nobody is talking about sharing all of your possessions and living in a shared environment. I don't understand why this concept is hard to understand. Links have been provided for you multiple times for the FAQ.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Sunya

[thelerner]

Still seems pie in the sky but I'll read through more of the 105 FAQ's. Let me just add.

 

Historically a week or two after the revolution the nice guy idealists are killed off by the hard core fanatics who sit on the side line.

[Sunya]

Geez, are you quoting Pol Pot? Sounds like it. How 'hard' will you educate people? What happens to those who don't fit into your enlightenment? Pol Pot murdered 20% of his population fighting the disease.

 

 

Historically a week or two after the revolution the nice guy idealists are killed off by the hard core fanatics who sit on the side line.

 

You're comparing teaching enlightenment ideals to a leader who killed 2 million people? I'm not talking about forcing any ideas on anybody. Pol Pot killed teachers and intellectuals. He just wanted power. This has nothing to do with power at all.

 

And it's not 'my enlightenment'. You don't seem to actually understand that enlightenment is a reality and is available to everybody. Are you sure you're posting on the right forum? I don't feel like I should be explaining this to anybody here.

 

Humans are conditioned beings. We are taught values and continually model others. Education wouldn't have to be forced upon anybody if people were taught the true value of learning and inquiry.

[Sunya]

Just so there's no further confusion, this idea is not socialism or communism. It's called technocracy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement

[thelerner]

You're comparing teaching enlightenment ideals to a leader who killed 2 million people? I'm not talking about forcing any ideas on anybody. Pol Pot killed teachers and intellectuals. He just wanted power. This has nothing to do with power at all.

 

And it's not 'my enlightenment'. You don't seem to actually understand that enlightenment is a reality and is available to everybody. Are you sure you're posting on the right forum? I don't feel like I should be explaining this to anybody here.

 

Humans are conditioned beings. We are taught values and continually model others. Education wouldn't have to be forced upon anybody if people were taught the true value of learning and inquiry.

Actually I took off the Pol Pot thing before you posted. I agree it was going too far. Though you do understand he also thought we were pathological and diseased, thus the murder. Going (stupidly) further with the Pol Pot thing, I don't think he wanted 'just power'. I think he was an idealist (&psychopath) who believed he was furthering mans salvation.

 

Maybe its paranoia but the Venus project has the Cyberneticist who uses his science and machines to make the right and proper decisions for us. The FAQ talks about the elites who will disagree with his wisdom, when infact it may well be many common men.

 

I don't understand enlightenment is reality. What I've gotten from this forum is that there are dozens of different definitions of enlightenment, and reality.. that can be an even shakier construct.

 

It feels like there are big If's being ignored. The If of technological salvation, the If of a teaching of 'true value and inquiry' leading to morality. Those two concepts are taken for granted.

 

Still I'm happy there's a foundation and planning going on. I hope as much effort is being spent on the technological side and real experimentation on True Education as is going into the Movie.

 

Yours

Michael

[strawdog65]

Well, here's the thing: the idea makes assumptions that are fantasy for this planet. Akin to saying "well, we could eliminate all gun crime in the US if we could only remove all of the guns" - while that may make a logically consistent theoretical argument, if A then B, it makes assumptions so far removed from reality that you are describing a thought experiment and nothing more. Before I get told "but wait - there is no money, it will all be gone and removed!" again (and who's the one focusing on money ) I dont believe I have anything more to add to this discussion so I will let you guys continue your theoretical experiment in peace

 

 

JB,

 

Before attempting to tear something apart, you should have at least read the information.

Then you would have had a lot of your concerns and questions already answered.

 

Negativity is the easy way.

I have yet to hear from you an alternate/ better Idea then the Venus project presents.

 

Critics are a dime a dozen, but having a new vision is beyond price.

[strawdog65]

Actually I took off the Pol Pot thing before you posted. I agree it was going too far. Though you do understand he also thought we were pathological and diseased, thus the murder. Going (stupidly) further with the Pol Pot thing, I don't think he wanted 'just power'. I think he was an idealist (&psychopath) who believed he was furthering mans salvation.

 

Maybe its paranoia but the Venus project has the Cyberneticist who uses his science and machines to make the right and proper decisions for us. The FAQ talks about the elites who will disagree with his wisdom, when infact it may well be many common men.

 

I don't understand enlightenment is reality. What I've gotten from this forum is that there are dozens of different definitions of enlightenment, and reality.. that can be an even shakier construct.

 

It feels like there are big If's being ignored. The If of technological salvation, the If of a teaching of 'true value and inquiry' leading to morality. Those two concepts are taken for granted.

 

Still I'm happy there's a foundation and planning going on. I hope as much effort is being spent on the technological side and real experimentation on True Education as is going into the Movie.

 

Yours

Michael

 

Michael,

 

I understand that both you and Joeblast are genuine in your concerns.

And this is a great thing, it shows me that you are both people that believe

in what is true to you with much conviction. People like yourselves will

be important to the success of any future society.

 

I know you are both meaning well by your disdain for an Idea you feel is a sham,

or wasted effort because you feel that the same players will end up having control

of whatever system the future will bring, but is that enough of a reason to kill an Idea

that has the promise of changing the world for the better?

 

The reality is there is much technological work to be accomplished.

As well as more technology to be discovered. Technological hurdles are

something we can work out.

 

The sociological issues are more of a concern to me.

 

It is true that there is the belief that mankind will have to come to the brink

before change is expected.

 

But when has mankind ever willingly changed?

I think there is quite a precedent for unwillingness to change being met

with no choice in the matter. Advancement in all things arrives of it's own

accord, and so to is true of the next step in world society. Can anyone say

that vast and sweeping changes will not occur? Maybe in our lifetimes.

 

Nothing is going to happen overnight, or even quickly, without the incentive

of us having no other choice, because it will mean the survival of the Human

race. When it is survival, why would these ideas not be allowed to be given a

chance to work?

 

Anything like the Venus Project happening is a long ways off for us.

But that may not be the case of generations to come.

 

What other options would you bring to the table?

Do you believe that the monetary system and the socio-economic

structure that we exist within now, is the path of the future?

 

How are we as a society not culpable for the failures within our society?

And why would we not change things for the better for everyone?

 

I personally believe that we as the dominant controlling race of this planet,

can and should do better than we currently do in taking care of this world

and all of the life upon it.

 

We have to think big and we have to start somewhere.

[strawdog65]

Just so there's no further confusion, this idea is not socialism or communism. It's called technocracy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement

 

 

Hi Sunya!

 

I wanted to thank you for seeing this idea of the Venus Project with such

clarity and honest hope for the future of our race.

 

I realize that because we are all individuals coming from different

frames of reference, and this Idea may be abhorrent and scary to many people,

because the change would be so great compared to the world of today.

 

You get what I got from this Idea... it is an incredible inspiration!

It gives me hope that an idea may be able to change the world for

the better, after all.

 

Sunya, thank you for helping me to provide answers to the critics.

 

Those that focus their minds on always finding fault, and feeding negativity

do so at the risk of never seeing the possibilities that exist to an optimist.

 

I choose to be an optimist.

 

 

Peace to you Sunya!

[strawdog65]

 

 

Something that is NOT a right, like education, is a nice-to-have. But, it requires someone else to give it to you, whether they like it or not. As such, that something cannot be defined as a right because it needs to come willingly from elsewhere. Charity is not a right, welfare is not a right - it needs to come from others. Food is not a right - unless you grow it, cultivate it, harvest it yourself, it requires somebody else to give something to you. As is shelter - if you arent building yourself a shelter, someone else needs to.

 

 

 

Hi Joeblast!

 

I watched the video. It changes nothing.

It is just further evidence of a sickness of the mind, that exists

within our culture because of an inability to think outside of the box

we are told to remain within.

 

Rights are what the society determines them to be, nothing more.

 

The reason that everyone would have a right to food, shelter, and education

is because the value of the Human being within the society will have been

changed. How we value Human life dictates how we appropriate "rights".

When talking about an entirely new form of society, it makes sense to leave

your own preconceptions of what was before, at the door.

What say you?

If we are starting something new, why would we apply the failures of the

past to this new paradigm? Doesn't make much sense does it?

 

It is the ignorance of saying food, shelter, and education are not rights to

anyone unless they earn them, that highlights why our world is so messed

up right now.

 

There is no hope for any future society that does not elevate ALL of its people.

 

A world society must treat all Humans with worth and value.

Just because we in our present society have placed education, food, and shelter

only into the hands of those that can pay, does not mean it is a concept that

is of use in the future. Especially when it is counter productive to our survival.

 

There will be no monetary system.

 

Machines and technology will supply the labor.

 

There will be NO THING to pay for because all will be given and shared freely.

Money and the monetary system is a construct, and nothing more.

 

It is a closed mind that does not see the illusion of how we now live our lives,

without also understanding we are the arbiters of change. You and I.

Edited January 1, 2011 by strawdog65

[strawdog65]

The idea that we can continue with the present form of country

based government, into perpetuity, is this really what we believe?

 

When the Earth is seen from space where are the borders of countries?

 

How is an arbitrary line drawn on a map anything more than an animalistic

form of marking one's territory. Borders and demarcation of territory

are all parts of the Human animal instinct, but this view was originated with

the idea that all things are separate, and so too would be countries and states.

 

This Idea is outmoded.

Borders and separation are only in the human mind.

This is one planet, one world, one ethnically diverse people who are only

separated by their inability to communicate by a common, universal language.

 

One day I believe there will come to be an "Earth standard" language.

This will go a long way towards eliminating the backwards thinking of

"I am separate and apart from you".

We as a people are going to leave Earth and expand outwards as we have

always done, it is a Human instinct to explore and expand and propagate

ourselves and our culture. Space is just the next step, after Earth is

filled to capacity there will be little choice but to go. When we leave our

homeworld, when we are able to finally see the Earth as just a world,

a world of one people, will borders and territories really make much sense?

 

As long as we are perpetuating the consumerism view of desiring things,

we will never know any means of contentment and satisfaction within

whatever society the future will bring.

 

We need to change our world by changing our view of what is meant by living our lives.

 

Our society of working for money to pay bills and buy things, is stupendously

wasteful and demeaning to the value of life. Everyone has a right to live and have

their necessities provided for at no cost.

 

What you have to try to understand is that we live within a manufactured idea.

The idea that we must work to provide for ourselves, made sense when we

had to work the land and physically provide food and shelter.

The providing today is manufactured.

 

We have all become slaves to working to pay for things.

We are indentured slaves, and because we are able to roam within the

established boundries of our roomy cages, we are unaware of our servitude.

 

The future will need to be different and new.

 

 

peace!

Edited January 1, 2011 by strawdog65

[Nanashi]

"I think we agree, the past is over" -- GW Bush

 

Another, from the famous philosopher:

 

[joeblast]

Kinda funny how all of the "big ticket issues" the project has are met with "but we're changing the whole system, the entire paradigm, so your issue/concern will be null and void, utterly inapplicable. Everyone will follow in on the grand wonderful scheme, and...it'll just be good, trust me, because everyone will simply take care of one another and this technology will come out of the blue and save us from having to do any work."

 

That kinda sounds like a prison of sorts to me, fellas. The "reasons" given in support of the project are next-to-meaningless platitudes that simply do not withstand the rigors of reality that say an Engineer would have to account for in designing a well functioning machine.

 

Communist Technocracy sounds like something out of a horrific novel when placed next to a democratic republic where each individual is free to pursue his dreams - at least in the latter one will be able to pursue those dreams.

 

In my experience those who think communist ideas are desirable/good/viable tend to be envious, jealous, of those that "have" and think its BS that they've "been allowed" to amass "all this wealth" as if there is a fixed amount of wealth and its a zero sum game where one having more necessarily means another having less....but, to be envious of another's luxury the point of wanting the entire structure that makes it possible to collapse is a bit far, and that's the root of what I see in this project. Many a good hearted idea has been bent to evil means in the past and this is one that would also eventually succumb to it. I find you guys rather naive to even think that this project idea is somehow impervious to it.

 

I understand history is a bit rough, but to wish for a severing of history and a supplanting of a "new reality" on this planet goes too far and I find the whole idea detestable. If you think that its not communist simply because "there's no money involved" then...boy, every concern raised gets the goalposts moved so that the concern is inapplicable - that stinks rotten to high heaven to me! Oversimplifications based on wild givens & assumptions.

 

 

 

I dont understand how a well thought out selection of criteria for what differentiates a right (not necessarily the rights themselves) vs a simple law means its "just an arbitrary definition." If men can simply define rights based on whatever the majority believes at a given point in time then there is nothing innate about those definitions, a "right" one day may be taken on or off the table based on what those in power believe at the time. That's why a right was defined as something individual - because if you're referring to these other "collective rights" - well, those are laws, and societies establish their collective rights in the rule of law - but you cannot define a "collective right" (i.e. law) as an individual right. Laws are built on top of the individual right. That's why a society can say "let's make a law that every one of our citizens should have a baseline measure of education" and they define what that baseline measure is. That is something that changes based upon the society and what their standards are. In discussing individual rights they must be able to stand in the absence of societal rights, otherwise they are just societal rights, e.g. "laws" to enforce the "societal right."

 

 

 

 

"We are indentured slaves, and because we are able to roam within the

established boundries of our roomy cages, we are unaware of our servitude."

 

I find your definition of this new paradigm to be akin to slavery. Everyone helps out, right, but what if I have other crap to do? What if my skills lie in other areas from where it is dictated that "they are needed"? What makes this any different than another society that HAS money - people must do X, Y, Z in order to survive. People need to do ABC, DEF, LMN, whatever, to survive - so at the bottom of it the idea isnt really even anything new, you're really just trying to eliminate "the root of all evil" - money - along with greed, etc - but in reality you're attacking a symptom and not the problem itself, failing to grasp basic things about human nature in the process, telling us in effect that one jail cell will be far more preferable to another.

 

To which I reply, hogwash Of course our societies are far from perfect, but they will not ever be - this is not the pure land realm of buddhas here, this is earth. Positive values and altruism are boundless ideas and they do not need a structure to force them - forced charity is theft, forced altruism is a form of slavery, and a forced way of life is a form of prison. The winding and sometimes treacherous path of life is but karma, the winds of which make navigability tougher at some times than others.

 

We live within a manufactured idea Well, what is this Venus project if not a "manufactured idea?"

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

JoeB, you wouldn't happen to be an Ayn Rand devotee, would you?

[Sunya]

Joeblast,

 

Not that your words aren't compelling, they are, but frankly we're not having a discussion here. This is the 5th page of the thread already and you're still talking about a completely different idea than the one that is being presented. How many times must it be stated to you that this is NOT a communist idea? You really just wasted all that time writing that long post when you could've just read the links already to understand what the Venus Project is about. Did you even read it?

 

 

I understand history is a bit rough, but to wish for a severing of history and a supplanting of a "new reality" on this planet goes too far and I find the whole idea detestable. If you think that its not communist simply because "there's no money involved" then...boy, every concern raised gets the goalposts moved so that the concern is inapplicable - that stinks rotten to high heaven to me! Oversimplifications based on wild givens & assumptions.

 

I bet you found it a bit rough when the American and French Revolutions brought down monarchies and set up democracy, right? How dare they supplant a "new reality"?

 

I find your definition of this new paradigm to be akin to slavery. Everyone helps out, right, but what if I have other crap to do? What if my skills lie in other areas from where it is dictated that "they are needed"?

 

Why are you still stuck on this whole "need" thing? Nobody is talking about need. If you desire to go into academia and do research in a topic to contribute to a field, you don't have to see which field is in need of contribution. You just study and learn the topic that most interests you and then go and contribute in it.

 

If you ever "other crap to do" then you do it. Overabundance of resources creates freedom not slavery. You're a slave now to scarcity and conditioned to believe that resources will always be limited.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Sunya

[manitou]

My feeling about all of this is so simplistic it borders on stupid.

 

Looking at this planet with a really long lens, is there any reason on earth we humans can't find a way to make sure everybody here has something to eat and basic access to a medical clinic, at least? Would that be so very difficult to do on a world basis once we put our global mind to it?

[strawdog65]

Kinda funny how all of the "big ticket issues" the project has are met with "but we're changing the whole system, the entire paradigm, so your issue/concern will be null and void, utterly inapplicable. Everyone will follow in on the grand wonderful scheme, and...it'll just be good, trust me, because everyone will simply take care of one another and this technology will come out of the blue and save us from having to do any work."

 

That kinda sounds like a prison of sorts to me, fellas. The "reasons" given in support of the project are next-to-meaningless platitudes that simply do not withstand the rigors of reality that say an Engineer would have to account for in designing a well functioning machine.

 

Communist Technocracy sounds like something out of a horrific novel when placed next to a democratic republic where each individual is free to pursue his dreams - at least in the latter one will be able to pursue those dreams.

 

In my experience those who think communist ideas are desirable/good/viable tend to be envious, jealous, of those that "have" and think its BS that they've "been allowed" to amass "all this wealth" as if there is a fixed amount of wealth and its a zero sum game where one having more necessarily means another having less....but, to be envious of another's luxury the point of wanting the entire structure that makes it possible to collapse is a bit far, and that's the root of what I see in this project. Many a good hearted idea has been bent to evil means in the past and this is one that would also eventually succumb to it. I find you guys rather naive to even think that this project idea is somehow impervious to it.

 

I understand history is a bit rough, but to wish for a severing of history and a supplanting of a "new reality" on this planet goes too far and I find the whole idea detestable. If you think that its not communist simply because "there's no money involved" then...boy, every concern raised gets the goalposts moved so that the concern is inapplicable - that stinks rotten to high heaven to me! Oversimplifications based on wild givens & assumptions.

 

 

 

I dont understand how a well thought out selection of criteria for what differentiates a right (not necessarily the rights themselves) vs a simple law means its "just an arbitrary definition." If men can simply define rights based on whatever the majority believes at a given point in time then there is nothing innate about those definitions, a "right" one day may be taken on or off the table based on what those in power believe at the time. That's why a right was defined as something individual - because if you're referring to these other "collective rights" - well, those are laws, and societies establish their collective rights in the rule of law - but you cannot define a "collective right" (i.e. law) as an individual right. Laws are built on top of the individual right. That's why a society can say "let's make a law that every one of our citizens should have a baseline measure of education" and they define what that baseline measure is. That is something that changes based upon the society and what their standards are. In discussing individual rights they must be able to stand in the absence of societal rights, otherwise they are just societal rights, e.g. "laws" to enforce the "societal right."

 

 

 

 

"We are indentured slaves, and because we are able to roam within the

established boundries of our roomy cages, we are unaware of our servitude."

 

I find your definition of this new paradigm to be akin to slavery. Everyone helps out, right, but what if I have other crap to do? What if my skills lie in other areas from where it is dictated that "they are needed"? What makes this any different than another society that HAS money - people must do X, Y, Z in order to survive. People need to do ABC, DEF, LMN, whatever, to survive - so at the bottom of it the idea isnt really even anything new, you're really just trying to eliminate "the root of all evil" - money - along with greed, etc - but in reality you're attacking a symptom and not the problem itself, failing to grasp basic things about human nature in the process, telling us in effect that one jail cell will be far more preferable to another.

 

To which I reply, hogwash Of course our societies are far from perfect, but they will not ever be - this is not the pure land realm of buddhas here, this is earth. Positive values and altruism are boundless ideas and they do not need a structure to force them - forced charity is theft, forced altruism is a form of slavery, and a forced way of life is a form of prison. The winding and sometimes treacherous path of life is but karma, the winds of which make navigability tougher at some times than others.

 

We live within a manufactured idea Well, what is this Venus project if not a "manufactured idea?"

 

 

Hi JB!

 

Dude, for someone that was ready to walk away from this discussion, you sure have a lot to say!

 

I welcome further discussion of this idea.

 

The reason for the paradigm change is because we are reaching a point in time where

doing business as usual(separate countries/governments, lack of human value, lack of seeing

the importance of education , food, and shelter for all) is taking this world to the brink.

We will need to learn how to share resources, and work for the greater good of all mankind,

if our survival as a species is to continue. No one is talking about forcing anyone to do anything at all.

If in a future society where humans have been removed from the labor process of creating goods, and

providing many services because of technology, what do you think we will do? Is not the cultivation of

our minds the next logical step? Or are you supposing that we should purposely keep menial jobs for

those we deem to be too dim to learn and cultivate?

 

In this future society, with advancements to technology, food supply will be able to meet future demands.

It is because of the lack of efficiency in our food production, and the fact that food is being hoarded because

of a profit based economy is necessary to create the needed scarcity by which the product can then be sold

to the highest bidder. Food is wasted many times over all over america. The rich countries hoard the food they

have and there is little to no sharing. This is a wasteful and destructive way of living. The distribution of food

is not something anyone cares about unless they can profit from it. The elimination of a profit based economy

to be replaced by a resource based economy would change the dynamics from one of making profit, to one of

all Humans having value and a right to basic needs such as food.

 

You describe what is suggested as another type of prison cell.

You are making an assumption based on this illusion of what we in america call "freedom".

 

Our society is not a free society.

 

You believe you are free because you continue to think within the box that are the "laws"

and and slogans which are dictated by nationalism.

 

You live by law and rule that has been created by men.

There is nothing innately natural about our society.

It is a structured illusion that we are told to believe in, and we are indoctrinated to do so from our birth.

Try seeing outside of the box you call "freedom" and "america" and "rights".

These have all been imposed upon you.

 

No one alive today has chosen to live the way they do. It is an imposition, which we can not refuse.

We are in servitude to the master of our society... Money and the monetary system.

You say that within this "democracy" that each individual is allowed to pursue their dreams.

 

How is that true to those less fortunate then yourself?

Not everyone has the ability to become successful by the standards which are imposed upon us by this

society. If an individual is not financially successful, and can not afford to pay for an education,

or a place to live, or food, does this make that individual worthless and of no value to their society?

Does this mean that it is their own fault that they are not successful?

 

Right now, today, there are many people out of work, unable to find jobs, are these people of no worth?

 

Is it their own fault that because we exist at the whim of a profit based economy, that they are unable to support

themselves or their families?

 

I think you JB should re-examine your thought processes in this regard.

Maybe you will see that in the best of times a profit based economy seems to work to those of us who are the

receivers of the wealth and goods, we are able to pay for, but there are always those who are the poorest of

world society that are never able to have the barest of necessities that we take for granted every day. And

because of a lack of education and opportunities available to them, they will never have a chance to change

their lives for the better, especially when there is no profit to be made in it. Is this their fault?

Is their suffering their own making?

I can see no way that these people can change their existence when known suffering is ignored and used

as a form of world domination. No world society can claim to be beneficial unless those of the world who

have the least are are lifted out of subsistence so they can contribute to the society they are part of in a

meaningful way. Human suffering caused by profit based world economics is a crime.

 

I believe the suffering of many people world wide is exacerbated by the attitude that nothing

is worth doing if there is no profit to be made in it.

 

A world economy based on profit is the bane of Human existence.

We can do better.

 

You ask what makes this Idea different and why is it not akin to a new form of slavery.

 

The difference lies in the foundation of the new society.

Basic needs should never be left to having to be "earned".

Being born, being a Human being, having innate Value to your

society will dictate basic needs be part of our existence.

Food, shelter, education is for everyone.

 

When you remove the worry of providing these most basic items from the everyday existence of the individual,

you remove the impetus for much of the felt discontent based on not having these things.

 

This is a huge societal influence. All Humans are of value, and will treated as such. Without having to be

forced into providing these most basic of needs, mankind will be freer than ever before.

We as individuals will be able to pursue our interests in any fields we wish.

 

Imagine a world in which mankind will be interested in science and

the arts not because they are having to make a profit, but because there

is actual true interest and a love of what you are doing.

 

Is this not freedom?

 

Who among us is able to pursue their interests without always having to worry about money?

How are we free at all if everything has a cost preventing us from actually doing and being what we are on the inside?

 

From what I have read of your belief of what the Venus Project

means to you, I believe you are more than anything afraid of the

unknown aspect of societal change.

 

Fear of anything is a limiting factor.

Fear limits our very perceptions of what the world around is,

fear dwindles our view from being open to new ideas

to fearing any change at all.

 

Whether we want change, or fear change, I promise you it is the only constant in our very existence.

 

If you do not see the merit within the idea that is The Venus project, then I implore you to please

present something as an alternate model for a future societal model. I believe that if you want to

criticize an Idea, you should have an alternate Idea available as an example of what else is possible.

Without doing so, you are just like any other critic who says no to something based on their own

dislikes without any commentary that is of constructive use.

 

Please present an alternate vision of a possible future society so we may discuss and compare.

 

 

Peace!

Edited January 1, 2011 by strawdog65

[goonis38]

Hi there,

That so reminds me of that movie "Logans Run" I think that kind of control, and way of society really isn't to far from the direction things are going. I have seen things turning to more government, less people. For years now...

 

Is it for me, would I accept it. Absolutely not for me or my family. But I think that most of society could live under that kind of control quite easily...

 

Army brat here, I can live off the land and would rather do so. Than be under some kind of false eden, as that, but that is just me...

Take care all Mel

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Hi there,

That so reminds me of that movie "Logans Run" I think that kind of control, and way of society really isn't to far from the direction things are going. I have seen things turning to more government, less people. For years now...

 

Is it for me, would I accept it. Absolutely not for me or my family. But I think that most of society could live under that kind of control quite easily...

 

Army brat here, I can live off the land and would rather do so. Than be under some kind of false eden, as that, but that is just me...

Take care all Mel

 

Melanie, what do you mean you "can live off the land"? How does being an army brat prepare you for living off the land? What was the premise of 'Logan's Run'? Thanks,

 

Mr Songs