strawdog65 Posted January 1, 2011 Based on some responses to the initial post, I see that many people are just assuming to know or understand what is being presented. The Venus Project is a NEW Idea, there is much to learned by reading the available information. This is not a fly by night idea, the founder Jacque Fresco has been actively involved in the design and philosophical leap being presented, for the last 35 years. It is because of the nature of this project wanting to leave a profit based economy for a resource based economy, that those who control governments and power and the world monetary system, want this information to not reach you. Please take some time and read what this project really is. Those that are criticizing this Idea have obviously not taken any time to read and comprehend that the approach for a new paradigm in a world society has never been attempted on this scale. Nothing is written in stone, change is constant, but the base of this concept is sound. I see it is necessary to repost some of the links: http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/faq What is The Venus Project? Very Briefly, The Venus Project is an organization that proposes a feasible plan of action for social change; one that works toward a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative to strive toward where human rights are not only paper proclamations but also a way of life. The Venus Project presents a vision not of what the future will be, but what it can be if we apply what we already know in order to achieve a sustainable new world civilization. It calls for a straightforward redesign of our culture in which the age-old problems of war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but as totally unacceptable. Anything less will result in a continuation of the same catalog of problems found in today's world. The Venus Project presents an alternative vision for a sustainable world civilization unlike any political, economic or social system that has gone before. It envisions a time in the near future when money, politics, self and national-interest have been phased out. Although this vision may seem idealistic, it is based upon years of study and experimental research. It spans the gambit from education, transportation, clean sources of energy to total city systems. Many people believe what is needed is a higher sense of ethical standards and the enactment of international laws and treaties to assure a sustainable global society. Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources we would still have many of the same problems we have today. As long as a few nations control most of the world's resources and profit is the bottom line, the same cycle of events will prevail. As global challenges and scientific information proliferate, nations and people face common threats that transcend national boundaries. Overpopulation, energy shortages, global warming, environmental pollution, water scarcity, economic catastrophe, the spread of uncontrollable disease, and the technological displacement of people by machines threaten each of us. Although many people are dedicated to alleviating those conditions, our social and environmental problems will remain insurmountable as long as a few powerful nations and financial interests maintain control of and consume most of the world's resources and the monetary system prevails. If we really wish to put an end to our ongoing international and social problems, we must declare Earth and all of its resources the common heritage of all of the world's people. Earth is abundant and has plentiful resources. Our practice of rationing resources through monetary control is no longer relevant and is counter-productive to our survival. Today we have highly advanced technologies, but our social and economic system has not kept up with our technological capabilities. We could easily create a world of abundance for all, free of servitude and debt based on the carrying capacity of Earth resources. With the intelligent and humane application of science and technology, the people of the earth can guide and shape the future together while protecting the environment. We don't have enough money to accomplish these ends but we do have more than enough resources. This is why we advocate a Resource-Based Economy. http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/about Resource Based Economy All social systems, regardless of political philosophy, religious beliefs, or social customs, ultimately depend upon natural resources, i.e. clean air and water, arable land and the necessary technology and personnel to maintain a high standard of living. Simply stated, a resource-based economy utilizes existing resources rather than money and provides an equitable method of distributing these resources in the most efficient manner for the entire population. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude. Earth is abundant with plentiful resources; today our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technologies and can make available food, clothing, housing, medical care, a relevant educational system, and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy such as geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, etc. It is now possible to have everyone enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities that a prosperous civilization can provide. This can be accomplished through the intelligent and humane application of science and technology. To better understand the meaning of a resource-based economy consider this: if all the money in the world were destroyed, as long as topsoil, factories, and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we choose to build and fulfill any human need. It is not money that people need; rather, it is free access to the necessities of life. In a resource-based economy , money would be irrelevant. All that would be required are the resources and the manufacturing and distribution of the products. When education and resources are made available to all people without a price tag, there would be no limit to the human potential. Although this is difficult to imagine, even the wealthiest person today would be far better off in a resource based society as proposed by The Venus Project. Today the middle classes live better than kings of times past. In a resource based economy everyone would live better than the wealthiest of today. In such a society, the measure of success would be based on the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power. This is the very tip of the iceberg... The thoroughness of the Idea is astounding. Please visit the Venus Project website for more info. Peace! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goonis38 Posted January 1, 2011 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 You again?...lol Ok what was my premise for "Logan's Run" ? I already stated that, it reminded me of this topic ... It my not remind you, but it did me... Oh and besides Army Brat, I forgot to say my husband is a farmer third generation, Well i don't know it depends on what kind of upbringing a person receives... And with a 25 year Special Forces dad, and a 25 year Special Forces brother, now Homeland Security... I was raised shooting, and out in nature. This is where I would find myself more in control of my life. And believe me this Texas girl knows how to make it. And this would be my personal choice over the topic at hand... Mel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goonis38 Posted January 1, 2011 Based on some responses to the initial post, I see that many people are just assuming to know or understand what is being presented. The Venus Project is a NEW Idea, there is much to learned by reading the available information. This is not a fly by night idea, the founder Jacque Fresco has been actively involved in the design and philosophical leap being presented, for the last 35 years. It is because of the nature of this project wanting to leave a profit based economy for a resource based economy, that those who control governments and power and the world monetary system, want this information to not reach you. Please take some time and read what this project really is. Those that are criticizing this Idea have obviously not taken any time to read and comprehend that the approach for a new paradigm in a world society has never been attempted on this scale. Nothing is written in stone, change is constant, but the base of this concept is sound. I see it is necessary to repost some of the links: http://www.thevenusp...ntroduction/faq What is The Venus Project? Very Briefly, The Venus Project is an organization that proposes a feasible plan of action for social change; one that works toward a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative to strive toward where human rights are not only paper proclamations but also a way of life. The Venus Project presents a vision not of what the future will be, but what it can be if we apply what we already know in order to achieve a sustainable new world civilization. It calls for a straightforward redesign of our culture in which the age-old problems of war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but as totally unacceptable. Anything less will result in a continuation of the same catalog of problems found in today's world. The Venus Project presents an alternative vision for a sustainable world civilization unlike any political, economic or social system that has gone before. It envisions a time in the near future when money, politics, self and national-interest have been phased out. Although this vision may seem idealistic, it is based upon years of study and experimental research. It spans the gambit from education, transportation, clean sources of energy to total city systems. Many people believe what is needed is a higher sense of ethical standards and the enactment of international laws and treaties to assure a sustainable global society. Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources we would still have many of the same problems we have today. As long as a few nations control most of the world's resources and profit is the bottom line, the same cycle of events will prevail. As global challenges and scientific information proliferate, nations and people face common threats that transcend national boundaries. Overpopulation, energy shortages, global warming, environmental pollution, water scarcity, economic catastrophe, the spread of uncontrollable disease, and the technological displacement of people by machines threaten each of us. Although many people are dedicated to alleviating those conditions, our social and environmental problems will remain insurmountable as long as a few powerful nations and financial interests maintain control of and consume most of the world's resources and the monetary system prevails. If we really wish to put an end to our ongoing international and social problems, we must declare Earth and all of its resources the common heritage of all of the world's people. Earth is abundant and has plentiful resources. Our practice of rationing resources through monetary control is no longer relevant and is counter-productive to our survival. Today we have highly advanced technologies, but our social and economic system has not kept up with our technological capabilities. We could easily create a world of abundance for all, free of servitude and debt based on the carrying capacity of Earth resources. With the intelligent and humane application of science and technology, the people of the earth can guide and shape the future together while protecting the environment. We don't have enough money to accomplish these ends but we do have more than enough resources. This is why we advocate a Resource-Based Economy. http://www.thevenusp...roduction/about Resource Based Economy All social systems, regardless of political philosophy, religious beliefs, or social customs, ultimately depend upon natural resources, i.e. clean air and water, arable land and the necessary technology and personnel to maintain a high standard of living. Simply stated, a resource-based economy utilizes existing resources rather than money and provides an equitable method of distributing these resources in the most efficient manner for the entire population. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude. Earth is abundant with plentiful resources; today our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technologies and can make available food, clothing, housing, medical care, a relevant educational system, and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy such as geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, etc. It is now possible to have everyone enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities that a prosperous civilization can provide. This can be accomplished through the intelligent and humane application of science and technology. To better understand the meaning of a resource-based economy consider this: if all the money in the world were destroyed, as long as topsoil, factories, and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we choose to build and fulfill any human need. It is not money that people need; rather, it is free access to the necessities of life. In a resource-based economy , money would be irrelevant. All that would be required are the resources and the manufacturing and distribution of the products. When education and resources are made available to all people without a price tag, there would be no limit to the human potential. Although this is difficult to imagine, even the wealthiest person today would be far better off in a resource based society as proposed by The Venus Project. Today the middle classes live better than kings of times past. In a resource based economy everyone would live better than the wealthiest of today. In such a society, the measure of success would be based on the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power. This is the very tip of the iceberg... The thoroughness of the Idea is astounding. Please visit the Venus Project website for more info. Peace! Hi there, I get you. I read it. and have heard of it before briefly talked about. And I did look at your web sites. I understand where you are coming from. And I am not against it. If it is for you. I personally am more like a wilderness, free spirit type. And I already resent any and all control over my life in any way. I am a member of the NRA and have CHL, and my CDL... Just because I can. And it is my right to have it. I will take what rights we have left... They have hide so much pork under every bill we sign it is crazy... I guess for me, this isn't what I like. I would rather even now. If I had the money have a house out in the woods. I love being alone... And I would hate being trapped up with a bunch of people like that... Thats like my worst nightmare man... But if it is for someone else thats cool... I'll just take the woods any day. I just got back from a trip to NM Woods, giant elk. It was awesome. I so wanted to live there... But sadly I can't right now. Someday maybe... But don't get me wrong "One man's meat, is another man's poison" thats all I'm saying. I have read some of the other post please don't think that I am bashing this idea for you or others. It could and would be a great thing for some... Warm wishes... Mel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strawdog65 Posted January 1, 2011 (edited) 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 Hi TSoDE! Just to interject: The premise of "Logans Run" It is a future society of a city under a environmental dome. They are the remnants of a society destroyed by nuclear war, I believe. The inhabitants of the city are born test tube style, normal conception has been eliminated. There is a celebration called "renewal" in which all members of society are forced to participate when they reach the age of 30 years. This is shown by a colored star imbedded into the palms of every inhabitant, the color of the implant changes as you age, when reaching 30 years of age it changes to red, I believe, and signals renewal or execution. The thing about the renewal ceremony is that you are supposed to float upwards and receive renewal and live your life continued, with your colored star returning to the color of a youth, renewal of your life. The truth is that the ceremony is a staged execution of all who reach 30 years old, made to look like a beautiful religious ceremony of renewed life. Only problem is, no one ever seems to know anyone that has been renewed. It is because the city is self contained and has limited available resources to it's automated computer systems, that the original population numbers had to be controlled for the survival of the other inhabitants. Logan (played by Michael York) is chasing a runner that is not going to willing participate in the renewal ceremony because she says it is suicide and there is no renewal only death. She tell Logan about escaping the city being possible and he begins to question his reality. When he does this, the controlling computer of the society messes with his own star implant and triggers it so he is due for renewal, so he takes the girl and runs! What follows is the struggle between him and his former police partner trying to kill him, trying to escape the confines of the city, to reach the outside world. It's a must see sci-fi movie as far as I'm concerned. Not sure how this reminded anyone of the Venus project, but is a great movie to watch! There is talk of a remake in the works! Peace! Edited January 1, 2011 by strawdog65 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goonis38 Posted January 1, 2011 Hi TSoDE! Just to interject: The premise of "Logans Run" It is a future society of a city under a environmental dome. They are the remnants of a society destroyed by nuclear war, I believe. The inhabitants of the city are born test tube style, normal conception has been eliminated. There is a celebration called "renewal" in which all members of society are forced to participate when they reach the age of 30 years. This is shown by a colored star imbedded into the palms of every inhabitant, the color of the implant changes as you age, when reaching 30 years of age it changes to red, I believe, and signals renewal or execution. The thing about the renewal ceremony is that you are supposed to float upwards and receive renewal and live your life continued, with your colored star returning to the color of a youth, renewal of your life. The truth is that the ceremony is a staged execution of all who reach 30 years old, made to look like a beautiful religious ceremony of renewed life. Only problem is, no one ever seems to know anyone that has been renewed. It is because the city is self contained and has limited available resources to it's automated computer systems, that the original population numbers had to be controlled for the survival of the other inhabitants. Logan (played by Michael York) is chasing a runner that is not going to willing participate in the renewal ceremony because she says it is suicide and there is no renewal only death. She tell Logan about escaping the city being possible and he begins to question his reality. When he does this, the controlling computer of the society messes with his own star implant and triggers it so he is due for renewal, so he takes the girl and runs! What follows is the struggle between him and his former police partner trying to kill him, trying to escape the confines of the city, to reach the outside world. It's a must see sci-fi movie as far as I'm concerned. Not sure how this reminded anyone of the Venus project, but is a great movie to watch! There is talk of a remake in the works! Peace! Lol man I don't know why, it just did... I was looking at the pics of the city I guess that triggered the movie in my mind. It is an awesome movie, that is cool you know it. I was wondering if any body would know what in heck I was talking about as far as the movie. No please don't take anything I'm saying wrong. I always have a good heart in it. You know that... Just something about the pictures more than the idea of what the city is about... i actually think that is a pretty cool idea for people who like to be around people, and work well with them. I just am the hermit that lives in the woods. I know i don't look it. Your like, "did you use someone els's pic or what?" Hugs Mel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strawdog65 Posted January 1, 2011 Lol man I don't know why, it just did... I was looking at the pics of the city I guess that triggered the movie in my mind. It is an awesome movie, that is cool you know it. I was wondering if any body would know what in heck I was talking about as far as the movie. No please don't take anything I'm saying wrong. I always have a good heart in it. You know that... Just something about the pictures more than the idea of what the city is about... i actually think that is a pretty cool idea for people who like to be around people, and work well with them. I just am the hermit that lives in the woods. I know i don't look it. Your like, "did you use someone els's pic or what?" Hugs Mel But there would be a place for everyone, its all one world. Maybe a Hermit city, where no one sees anyone else? Peace! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) ]i actually think that is a pretty cool idea for people who like to be around people, and work well with them. I just am the hermit that lives in the woods. Me too! But I still support the idea. I think that through technological innovation, if scientists and engineers ran the show rather than crooked politicians and businessmen, then the hermit's life would actually be much easier to have. BTW, I found this pretty interesting list of differences between communism and resource-based economy. It's worth reading: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=114493158578144&topic=221 I found some good quotes posted elsewhere From H. G. Wells, "The anti-progressives of the early twentieth century loved to assert that "Human Nature" never altered; to imagine that the men of the Stone Age felt and thought like bank clerks picnicking in a cave, and the ideas of Confucius and Buddha were easily interchangeable with the ideas of Rousseau, Karl Marx or De Windt. They were not simply ignorant, but misinformed about almost every essential fact in the past experiences and present situation of the race." The New Utopians by Robert Boguslaw: "As Norman R. F. Maier (and others) point out years ago, the term "Human Nature" is characteristically used as a screen to hide our ignorance about man in general. And one of the more elementary oversights made in discussions of human behavior consists of ignoring the fact that the actions of men are set in motion by external as well as internal forces." As Arthur C. Clark and many other forward writers have pointed out, anyone who brings up the human nature question is naïve. From the book Looking Forward, by Jacque Fresco: "When little was known about cultural anthropology, sociology, and psychology, it seemed quite valid to resist proposed reforms by saying, "it won't work. It is against human nature." It is difficult for many people to appreciate the fact that what they call "human nature" just doesn't exit. People are like mirrors they largely reflect their surroundings. If people were to come into the world with a fixed "nature" consisting of automatic responses, civilization would be impossible. Like the ants, we would live out our lives in patterns that are modified but little with the passing of time. The wonderful thing about us is that we come into this world with maximum flexibility." From The Best That Money Can't Buy, Page 89, by Jacque Fresco Bigotry, racism, nationalism, jealousy, superstition, greed, and self-centered behavior are all learned patterns of behavior, which are strengthened or reinforced by our upbringing. These patterns of behavior are not inherited human traits or "human nature" as most people have been taught to believe. If the environment remains unaltered, similar behavior will reoccur. When we come into the world we arrive with a clean slate as far as our relationships with others are concerned. In the final analysis, any judgment regarding undesirable human behavior serves no purpose without an attempt to alter the environment that creates it. In a society that provides for most human needs, constructive behavior would be reinforced, and people who have difficulty interacting in the community would be helped rather than imprisoned. Aspiring to a particular ethical behavior has to do with human aspirations and ideals. Functional morality is the ability to provide a process level to achieve a sustainable environment for all people. By this, we mean providing clean air and water, goods and services, and a healthy and innovative environment that is emotionally and intellectually fulfilling. It is difficult to conceive of any solutions that would serve the interest of the majority in a monetary-based system. None of this can be accomplished without a comprehensive redesign of our social system and eventual replacement of the monetary-based system by a resource-based economy. Edited January 2, 2011 by Sunya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goonis38 Posted January 2, 2011 But there would be a place for everyone, its all one world. Maybe a Hermit city, where no one sees anyone else? Peace! You are so making me lol... That was good. Can you imagine a city where no one can see anyone. That is so funny... Mel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goonis38 Posted January 2, 2011 From: http://lifeandstartr...modern-society/ How would replicators change modern society? "The replicator can make anything you desire". This was how Data explained replicators to Q, and he's right. Replicators convert energy into matter in the form you specify. They can create food, clothing, and small children (okay, maybe not). The ramifications of such a device are enormous. They would completely change the dynamics of society, especially the economics of it. Forgive us as we wax prophetically and imagine how replicators would change everything if introduced into our modern society, from their conception to their complete integration in everyday life. Conception As many forms of technology do, replicators would most likely slowly accrue component technologies over time, small, seemingly unrelated advances here and there. In the Star Trek universe, replicators are the direct descendants of transporters. Honestly, I think we'd have some sort of replicator technology before being able to transfer matter across space. And so in modern society I think this technology would evolve from another related technology such as 3d printers. It would at first only be available to the military and high profile applications but eventually someone would recognize the potential implications of the technology. Similar to how the first computers evolved, I believe the first replicators would be very large and few and far between. Used only for research at first, the scientific institutions would eventually realize their value in the economical sense and would begin charging people for use of the replicators similar to how colleges sold time on their mainframe computers to those who could afford it. Charitable Intentions Depending on the breadth of the early replicator's abilities their applications could be extremely useful in the developing world. The ability to produce food and clothing at will could provide millions of people who didn't have access to such amenities we take for granted. The replicator would be the charity worker's swiss army knife. The Federation always had claimed to have wiped out starvation and the replicator could go a long way to making this possible in our world. Can't you just see Bono replicating thousands of pounds of clothing and food and flying it to those in need? Hah, sorry U2 fans. But the point stands. Much of the issue of starvation is due to money and availability. The replicator solves the money issue, all that would be left would be to make it available to those in need. Economic Repercussions Any company producing any kind of physical tangible product would instantly have their eye on the replicator technology. Until personal replicators were affordable by people on an average income companies could take advantage of replicators as an extremely cheap way to produce their goods. In the process many people would unfortunately lose their jobs to be replaced by replicators (such as when robots replaced many people on the assembly line). In comes a Steve Jobs like character (yes, I'm taking this analogy all the way) who realizes the potential of replicators as a consumer product and is able to package and sell them to a mass market. This shakes up the entire economic landscape. Stores would become irrelevant. Suddenly consumers can create food, clothing, gadgets, anything from the comfort of their own home. Producers of consumers goods would fight for restrictions of the sales of replicators but eventually consumer demand would override everything. Many companies would go out of business. Some companies will spring up around the idea of selling replicator patterns for clothing, food, etc. An economy would develop around this idea. This shake-up is similar to what the newspaper and book publishing industry is experiencing with the introduction of the internet. There's a lot of push back but eventually they realize they have to adapt or perish. This would be an enormous socioeconomic change and our society would never be the same. Total Ubiquity Eventually replicators would become a toaster, a completely ubiquitous device in households. People would become dependent upon them and cook less and less on their own (even more so than today). The chef would rise further in stature. The home cooked meal will be coveted and a special event. The replicator would even be seen as a basic human right since it provides access to all of the basic survival necessities. Finishing the computer analogy (I swear okay, I'm done!) the replicator would be in every home. Even small children...lol You are on a roll tonight. I went to a technology conference years ago and they said that this already exist and the military uses it, on the war front. I don't know if that is true. My Military family "would tell me , but they would have to kill me" I don't know how many times i have heard that in my life... It is something to think about though... Mel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strawdog65 Posted January 2, 2011 Type I, II, III Civilizations An excerpt from the book: hyperspace by: Michio Kaku Futurology, or the prediction of the future from reasonable scientific judgments, is a risky science. Some would not even call it a science at all, but something that more resembles hocus pocus or witchcraft. Futurology has deservedly earned this unsavory reputation because every scientific" poll conducted by futurologists about the next decade has proved to be wildly off the mark. What makes futurology such a primitive science is that our brains think linearly, while knowledge progresses exponentially. For example, polls of futurologists have shown that they take known technology and simply double or triple it to predict the future. Polls taken in the 1920s showed that futurologists predicted that we would have, within a few decades, huge fleets of blimps taking passengers across the Atlantic. But science also develops in unexpected ways. In the short run, when extrapolating within a few years, it is a safe bet that science will progress through steady, quantitative improvements on existing technology. However, when extrapolating over a few decades, we find that qualitative breakthroughs in new areas become the dominant factor, where new industries open up in unexpected places. Perhaps the most famous example of futurology gone wrong is the predictions made by John von Neumann, the father of the modern electronic computer and one of the great mathematicians of the century. After the war, he made two predictions: first, that in the future computers would become so monstrous and costly that only large governments would be able to afford them, and second, that computers would be able to predict the weather accurately. In reality, the growth of computers went in precisely the opposite direction: We are flooded with inexpensive, miniature computers that can fit in the palm of our hands. Computer chips have become so cheap and plentiful that they are an integral part of some modern appliances. Already, we have the "smart" typewriter (the word processor), and eventually we will have the "smart" vacuum cleaner, the "smart" kitchen, the "smart" television, and the like. Also, computers, no matter how powerful, have failed to predict the weather. Although the classical motion of individual molecules can, in principle, be predicted, the weather is so complex that even someone sneezing can create distortions that will ripple and be magnified across thousands of miles, eventually, perhaps, unleashing a hurricane. With all these important caveats, let us determine when a civilization (either our own or one in outer space) may attain the ability to master the tenth dimension. Astronomer Nikolai Kardashev of the former Soviet Union once categorized future civilizations in the following way. A Type I civilization is one that controls the energy resources of an entire planet. This civilization can control the weather, prevent earth- quakes, mine deep in the earth's crust, and harvest the oceans. This civilization has already completed the exploration of its solar system. A Type II civilization is one that controls the power of the sun itself. This does not mean passively harnessing solar energy; this civilization mines the sun. The energy needs of this civilization are so large directly consumes the power of the sun to drive its machines. The civilization will begin the colonization of local star systems. A Type III civilization is one that controls the power of an entire galaxy. For a power source, it harnesses the power of billions of star systems. It has probably mastered Einstein's equations and can manipulate space-time at will. The basis of this classification is rather simple: Each level is catergorized on the basis of the power source that energizes the civilization. Type I civilizations use the power of an entire planet. Type II civilizations use the power of an entire star. Type III civilizations use the power of an entire galaxy. This classification ignores any predictions concerning the detailed nature of future civilizations (which are bound to be wrong) and instead focuses on aspects that can be reasonably understood by the laws of physics, such as energy supply. Our civilization, by contrast, can be categorized as a Type 0 civilization, one that is just beginning to tap planetary resources, but does not have the technology and resources to control them. A Type 0 civilization like ours derives its energy from fossil fuels like oil and coal and, in much of the Third World, from raw human labor. Our largest computers can- not even predict the weather, let alone control it. Viewed from this larger perspective, we as a civilization are like a newborn infant. Although one might guess that the slow march from a Type 0 civilization to a Type III civilization might take millions of years, the extraordinary fact about this classification scheme is that this climb is an exponential one and hence proceeds much faster than anything we can readily conceive. With all these qualifications, we can still make educated guesses about when our civilization will reach these milestones. Given the rate at which our civilization is growing, we might expect to reach Type I status within a few centuries. For example, the largest energy source available to our Type 0 civilization is the hydrogen bomb. Our technology is so primitive that we can unleash the power of hydrogen fusion only by detonating a bomb, rather than controlling it in a power generator. However, a simple hurricane generates the power of hundreds of hydrogen bombs. Thus weather control, which is one feature of Type I civilizations, is at least a century away from today's technology. Similarly, a Type I civilization has already colonized most of its solar system. By contrast, milestones in today's development of space travel are painfully measured on the scale of decades, and therefore qualitative leaps such as space colonization must be measured in centuries. For example, the earliest date for NASA's manned landing on the planet Mars is 2020. Therefore, the colonization of Mars may take place 40 to 50 years after that, and the colonization of the solar system within a century. By contrast, the transition from a Type I to a Type II civilization may take only 1,000 years. Given the exponential growth of civilization, we may expect that within 1,000 years the energy needs of a civilization will become so large that it must begin to mine the sun to energize its machines. A typical example of a Type II civilization is the Federation of Planets in the "Star Trek" series. This civilization has just begun to master the gravitational force-that is, the art of warping space-time via holes-and hence, for the first time, has the capability of reaching nearby stars. It has evaded the limit placed by the speed of light by mastering Einstein's theory of general relativity. Small colonies have been established on some of these systems, which the starship Enterprise is sworn to protect. The civilization's starships are powered by the collision of matter and antimatter. The ability to create large concentrations of antimatter suitable for space travel places that civilization many centuries to a millennium away from ours. Advancing to a Type III civilization may take several thousand years more. This is, in fact, the time scale predicted by Isaac Asimov in his c Foundation Series, which describes the rise, fall, and re-emergence of a galactic civilization. The time scale involved in each of these transitions involves thousands of years. This civilization has harnessed the energy source contained within the galaxy itself. To it, warp drive, ad of being an exotic form of travel to the nearby stars, is the standard means of trade and commerce between sectors of the galaxy. Thus although it took 2 million years for our species to leave the safety of the forests and build a modem civilization, it may take only thousands of to leave the safety of our solar system and build a galactic civilization. One option open to a Type III civilization is harnessing the power of supernovae or black holes. Its starships may even be able to probe the galactic nucleus, which is perhaps the most mysterious of all energy sources. Astrophysicists have theorized that because of the enormous size of the galactic nucleus, the center of our galaxy may contain millions of black holes. If true, this would provide virtually unlimited amounts of energy. At this point, manipulating energies a million billion times larger than present-day energies should be possible. Thus for a Type III civilization, with the energy output of uncountable star systems and perhaps the galactic nucleus at its disposal, the mastery of the tenth dimension' becomes a real possibility. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strawdog65 Posted January 2, 2011 A world without a monetary system. How would it be? How would goods and services be given or accquired? what would be a persons goals if they no longer had to earn an income to pay for anything? There will come a time when a monetary system is of no use to an advanced world society. The idea that a person must purchase what they need to live and survive is only acceptable to us because we know nothing else, and the technology to achieve such a society is still a long way off. But the possibility remains. What The Venus Project proposes in their ideas, is a totally new synthesis of society, government, manufaturing, and Humanity centric global resource sharing. The thought of sharing anything, especially to the western mindset, is a scary proposition. But what happens when we no longer have any choice because we have used up what easily accessable resources we had and are now at the point of having to work together to face the challenges that remain, without letting civilization decend into chaos? What then? Sharing of resources, creating new forms of energy production, using our present technology to harness the energy resources that we ignore now because there is not enough profit in it to put the work into it to produce energy. This type of attitude, that nothing is worth doing unless there is a profit to be made, is anti-Humanistic, anti-nature, anti-common sense, and totally destructive as part of the cyclic loop system that is our world, there is no "outside" of the system, it is symbiotic, cyclic, and infinitely interconnected. We can never understand the full dynamics of any system that we can not remove our selves from. Even as observers, we are influencing all and any outcomes of future events. It is to me a sense of wu-wei and physics combined. Even if we do nothing, we are still participating in the flow of events by our own inaction. So, like it or not, WE are involved in all things happening right now, just by our very existence within this system, called planet Earth. What needs to be done for the future of mankind is beyond cost. Thoughts of profit and greed are preventors from the true path of a world that has it's humanity as it's central system. If the monetary system was removed, and goods and services were a birthright to all, then the problem of greed would be addressed as well. We feel desire and greed when we see the uneven aspect of how wealth, is for the few, while the poor make up the greatest number, but get the scraps. Eliminating desire for wealth begins with the assurance that all people's needs will be met equally. When people all over the world wake to a life of having all their necessities met , and are all able to contribute what they can, the suffering of the world will have been much abated, and so to will many of the reasons for war. What is the quality of Human nature if it is soley about greed? The Tao talks of knowing when enough is enough, but do we live our lives in accord with this aspect when we deny others the same? There is enough for everyone when we know we already have enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strawdog65 Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) From: http://www.technocracy.ca/tiki-index.php?page=IB28 Technocracity website Study the chart, "Irreversible Physical Trends Shape America's Destiny." It shows the greatest change in the history of mankind! If projected on the same scale, the lines to the left would continue at nearly the same level for 7000 years. It took many man-hours of human toil to produce a bare living. Man was the slave who had to work so that he could eat, so that he could continue to work. It is the use of non-human energy that has taken man's nose off the grindstone any particular philosophy or type of government. The three-curve chart is a statistical record of physical events that have a direct bearing on human need and human suffering. It says an emphatic no to all who claim that machines make jobs. The use of non-muscular energy has freed man from toil, has replaced human labor. A new kind of slave has taken over the old slaves' jobs by the millions. In fact, there are so many of these slaves in North America that they outnumber all the human slaves on the earth by far. These new slaves are very different from the old. They neither buy nor consume the goods they produce; there is no limit to their working hours; they do not tire; and they can accomplish things the old slaves never dreamed of or thought possible. As you probably have guessed, the new slave is the kilowatt-hour; the old slave is the man-hour. WORK LESS TO HAVE MORE The chart shows that with a continuous increase in total production and a continuing decline in man-hours per unit of production, there will be a decrease in man-hours of purchasing power with which to buy that production. This discrepancy is the measure at our social instability. It was this inability to buy our mass production that brought about the economic collapse of 1929 and the depression that followed. Since purchasing power in our present social system depends upon the sale of man-hours, consequently purchasing power drops off as more and more kilowatt-hours replace man-hours. Whereas a few years ago it took many man-hours to produce only a scarcity, the situation is now reversed. Man works less and is able to produce an abundance. When man did 98% of the work he did not have enough goods and services; now, when he does only 2% of the work, technology produces so much he doesn't know what to do with it (under a Price System, of course). These trends will continue. They cannot go back; they are unidirectional and irreversible. Science and technology have given us nearly all of the physical things by which we live. Look around you right now. How many things do you see that were produced by hand? You are surrounded by things that did not even exist a hundred years ago--most of them did not exist even fifty years ago. Most of the things are produced by different methods than were used just a few years ago, or at any time before in history. Can you realize the magnitude of the change in the methods of production which has taken place in the last half century? It is shown on the chart. Science and technology have given us these things, and if they were taken away from us we would die off so fast there would not be enough of us left to clean up the mess. With 19% of the world's land area and 9% of the world's population, the North American Continental Area possesses an ample supply of mineral resources fuels and minerals than adequate for a potentially optimum high standard of living for the entire Continental population. On top of that, we have close to two thirds of the world's total power capacity, and more than our share of scientifically trained personnel. Why, then, must some of our citizens go without sufficient food, clothing, homes, medical care, and other necessities that would guarantee, to all of us, security and a high standard of living from birth to death? It is because we are living under a "Price System" which can only operate under conditions of scarcity. That system broke down in North America about fifty years ago with the "threat" of abundance. Price System politicians try to keep adding "props" by destroying, or by giving away to other countries our food and vital resources. To create artificial scarcity was once helpful to Price System business, but it was not to the best interests of North American citizens. Even the tremendous rise in public and private debt has not been sufficient to maintain stability in the economy. This, then, is the brief answer to "Why Technocracy?" Now if you understand why it is, you are ready to ask what it is. NOW, WHAT IS TECHNOCRACY? Technocracy is a social design for living engineered for the distribution of an abundance to all our citizens from birth to death. Today we are at the crossroads of our destiny. The correct turn will take us to a higher level of life than has ever been experienced in world history. Any other road will lead to national suicide. Technocracy is a social design that is compatible with our resources and technology, and one that provides for the distribution of abundance. If you are interested in North America's future, which is your future and the future of your loved ones, it would be wise to investigate further. We are all in this together. Your help is needed to avoid chaos. Edited January 2, 2011 by strawdog65 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strawdog65 Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) Edited January 6, 2011 by strawdog65 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted January 2, 2011 to the brink I still havent heard a convincing path from point a to point b in these ideas. They are built on one near-impossibility after another, at least in any remotely near time frame. Fusion has been "just around the corner" for 30, 40, 50 years already - and to suggest that we'll find a way in the next ~50 years to manipulate matter into whatever we desire is all but fantasy - kinda like in the 1980s we'd envision flying cars in this present day. Unless you are doing the schooling, the research, the theory, the experiment, you're just sitting by watching on the sidelines waiting for the hail mary victory. "I have shown you the way, but you must walk through it yourself" or something of the like, a quote from Buddha. If one is accustomed to having to ask in order to receive, then they'll also be playing that out as the death process unfolds. I've never read Ayn Rand or 1984, but I'm quite familiar with how real history has twisted well intentioned ideas ten thousand different ways. The universal teachings of compassion and wisdom will propagate and flourish whether the society is capitalist or not. I still dont understand the hellbent notion on eliminating money. It is a tool and nothing more, it allows an obscuring to take place so that one mustnt always trade an apple for an orange, he can simply buy the apple with his disposable income that is of widely agreed upon value. Of course society will grow and change with the advent of fusion and molecular reassembly - and society may indeed come to some fashion of this idea in some form or another in the future - but to presently put the cart before the horse only makes work damn near impossible for the horse. As such it would be for citizens being subjected to this idea, unless of course its just some little "nation" you're building somewhere, in which case, have at it - but to suggest that this is some new viable order for the US or even the globe is absolutely preposterous, especially if there is some force pushing this order on people - I'd be quite willing to bet the vast majority of people wouldnt want this. People are still going to be working and making money long past the time we have vast amounts of plentiful and cheap energy to play with. The entire vantage point looking at all the myriad negatives with the current society and then engaging in a thought experiment to "cure all the ills of society through a new paradigm" is still but looking for a specific set of negatives the present system contains and trying to introduce a specific set of positives - it proposes a new order through which everyone will be happy by specifically eliminating targeted "undesirables" yet doesnt address other core issues that have the potential to render the entire idea implausible. (Stalin, Hitler, Mao also specifically targeted "undesirables" in their quest to produce a new order in their countries...) The Crux: How's that going to work without an unlimited supply of free energy being harnessed and distributed to everyone? So - remove the hugely generous boon of having just about everything one would normally have to work for provided free of charge, and you're left with...what? Care to try to conceive this vision without all of these technical freebie wildcards that will magically make the entire process easy, cheap, and smooth? Incidentally, the only proof that the idea isnt communist is a few words, "this isnt communism" but there is nothing more to refute the claim. Have you looked up what communism is? Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a stateless and classless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate. Before claiming that the idea isnt simply some form of modified communism, it would help to understand what a definition of communism is and how your idea differs - then you could give point by point rebuttals of why instead of a simple insistence and trying to claim that your ideas werent read or understood, thus making it a simple "failure of branding" or "the target audience wasnt communicated to efficiently enough." (where have I heard that one before? ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strawdog65 Posted January 2, 2011 from: http://technocracy-technate.blogspot.com/ Getting something for nothing: Excerpted from Prescription For Survival M. King Hubbert geoscientist & advocate of the technocracy technate design. In the distribution to the public of the products of industry, the failure of the present system is the direct result of the faulty premise upon which it is based. This is: that somehow a man is able by his personal services to render to society the equivalent of what he receives, from which it follows that the distribution to each shall be in accordance with the services rendered and that those who do not work must not eat. This is what our propagandists call 'the impossibility of getting something for nothing.' Aside from the fact that only by means of the sophistries of lawyers and economists can it be explained how, on this basis, those who do nothing at all frequently receive the largest shares of the national income, the simple fact is that it is impossible for any man to contribute to the social system the physical equivalent of what it costs the system to maintain him from birth till death--and the higher the physical standard of living the greater is this discrepancy. This is because man is an engine operating under the limitations of the same physical laws as any other engine. The energy that it takes to operate him is several times as much as any amount of work he can possibly perform. If, in addition to his food, he receives also the products of modern industry, this is due to the fact that material and energy resources happen to be available and, as compared with any contribution he can make, constitute a free gift from heaven. Stated more specifically, it costs the social system on the North American Continent the energy equivalent to nearly 10 tons of coal per year to maintain one man at the average present standard of living, and no contribution he can possibly make in terms of the energy conversion of his individual effort will ever repay the social system the cost of his social maintenance. Is it not to be wondered at, therefore, that a distributive mechanism based upon so rank a fallacy should fail to distribute; the marvel is that it has worked as well as it has. Since any human being, regardless of his personal contribution, is a social dependent with respect to the energy resources upon which society operates, and since every operation within a given society is effected at the cost of a degradation of an available supply of energy, this energy degradation, measured in appropriate physical units such as kilowatt-hours, constitutes the common physical cost of all social operations. Since also the energy-cost of maintaining a human being exceeds by a large amount his ability to repay, we can abandon the fiction that what one is to receive is in payment for what one has done, and recognize that what we are really doing is utilizing the bounty that nature has provided us. Under these circumstances we recognize that we all are getting something for nothing, and the simplest way of effecting distribution is on a basis of equality, especially so when it is considered that production can be set equal to the limit of our capacity to consume, commensurate with adequate conservation of our physical resources. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strawdog65 Posted January 2, 2011 Incidentally, the only proof that the idea isnt communist is a few words, "this isnt communism" but there is nothing more to refute the claim. Have you looked up what communism is? Before claiming that the idea isnt simply some form of modified communism, it would help to understand what a definition of communism is and how your idea differs - then you could give point by point rebuttals of why instead of a simple insistence and trying to claim that your ideas werent read or understood, thus making it a simple "failure of branding" or "the target audience wasnt communicated to efficiently enough." (where have I heard that one before? ) Hi JB! Happy New year to you. As far as the communism bit: How does The Venus Project Compare with Communism? Communism being similar to a resource-based economy or The Venus Project is an erroneous concept. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders. The Venus Project's aim is to surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons and the military would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people. The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities are managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments. We would surpass the need for human participation in the production of goods and services. There is no taxation or obligation of any kind. 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. The machines' main purpose is for the manufacturing and distribution of goods and services while maintaining a clean environment with service to all and profits to none. When people have access to resources, most crimes will disappear. The need for police, military, and prisons will eventually vanish with it. Of course this will coincide with the necessary changes in education. I hope this helps to clarify some points. We realize this is a simplified description of how it differs from communism. Hope this helps as to how it is different. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strawdog65 Posted January 2, 2011 I still havent heard a convincing path from point a to point b in these ideas. They are built on one near-impossibility after another, at least in any remotely near time frame. Fusion has been "just around the corner" for 30, 40, 50 years already - and to suggest that we'll find a way in the next ~50 years to manipulate matter into whatever we desire is all but fantasy - kinda like in the 1980s we'd envision flying cars in this present day. Unless you are doing the schooling, the research, the theory, the experiment, you're just sitting by watching on the sidelines waiting for the hail mary victory. The entire vantage point looking at all the myriad negatives with the current society and then engaging in a thought experiment to "cure all the ills of society through a new paradigm" is still but looking for a specific set of negatives the present system contains and trying to introduce a specific set of positives - it proposes a new order through which everyone will be happy by specifically eliminating targeted "undesirables" yet doesnt address other core issues that have the potential to render the entire idea implausible. (Stalin, Hitler, Mao also specifically targeted "undesirables" in their quest to produce a new order in their countries...) The Crux: How's that going to work without an unlimited supply of free energy being harnessed and distributed to everyone? So - remove the hugely generous boon of having just about everything one would normally have to work for provided free of charge, and you're left with...what? Care to try to conceive this vision without all of these technical freebie wildcards that will magically make the entire process easy, cheap, and smooth? Hi JB! You bring some great points up. Sorry, you are misunderstanding something somewhere, about "undesirables". This is not part of anything I have said or posted. As far as the future energy capabilities, don't you think that maybe we should leave the pessimism to the scientists that are bringing the advancements about? I doubt you are even remotely qualified to say what will or will not come to pass. Unless you are a scientist working in the very fields necessary to bring about the replicators/ molecular assemblers of our future? The possibility of limitless energy production has been known for many years. JB, I think you are just being sour about a future I see as being bright. It is your right to be as you wish. I am an optimist. Peace! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strawdog65 Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) from the Venus Project website: Total City Systems It would be far easier and would require less energy to build new, efficient cities than to attempt to update and solve the problems of the old ones. The Venus Project proposes a Research City that would use the most sophisticated available resources and construction techniques. Its geometrically elegant and efficient circular arrangement will be surrounded by, and incorporated into the city design, parks and lovely gardens. This city will be designed to operate with the minimum expenditure of energy using the cleanest technology available, which will be in harmony with nature to obtain the highest possible standard of living for everyone. This system facilitates efficient transportation for city residents, eliminating the need for automobiles. The Venus Project's Circular City arrangement is comprised of the following: Hover over different areas of the city to see the section names. 1. The central dome or theme center will house the core of the cybernated system, educational facilities, access center, computerized communications networking systems, health and child care facilities. 2. The buildings surrounding the central dome provide the community with centers for cultural activities such as the arts, theater, exhibitions, concerts, access centers, and various forms of entertainment. 3. Next is the design and development complex for this research and planning city. The design centers are beautifully landscaped in natural surroundings. 4. Adjacent the research facilities are dining and other amenities. 5. The eight residential districts have a variety of free form unique architecture to fulfil the various needs of the occupant. Each home is immersed in lovely gardens isolating one from another with lush landscaping. 6. Areas are set aside for renewable clean sources of energy such as wind generators, solar, heat concentrating systems, geothermal, photovoltaic and others. 7. Next are the indoor hydroponic facilities and outdoor agricultural belts which will be used to grow a wide variety of organic plants without the use of pesticides. 8. A circular waterway for irrigation and filtration surrounds the agricultural belt. 9. The outermost perimeter is utilized for recreational activities such as biking, golfing, hiking and riding, etc. All the facilities are available to everyone without cost in a resource based economy. The sole purpose of this sophisticated technology is to free people from boring monotonous tasks, make available a much higher standard of living, and provide more leisure time. With an opportunity for constant growth and achievement people could have the time and freedom to choose the lifestyle they find most fulfilling. The city is designed to serve the needs of every member of society. Cybernated Government We are fast approaching a time when human intelligence will be incapable of interacting with the rapidly occurring events in the physical world. The human mind is far too simple to handle and put to practical use the voluminous information needed to operate a highly technical and advanced world society. The processing required would have to deal with trillions of bits of information per second, far too complex for human systems, particularly with the infusion of nanotechnology. The Venus Project calls for a cybernated society in which computers could replace the outmoded system of electing politicians that in most cases represent the entrenched vested interests. This new technology will not dictate or monitor individual's lives, as in The Venus Project this would be consider socially offensive and counterproductive. Books such as 1984 and Brave New World, and motion pictures such as Blade-Runner and Terminator 2 have spawned fear in some people regarding the takeover of technology in our society. The Venus Project's only purpose is to elevate the spiritual and intellectual potential of all people, while at the same time providing the goods and services that will meet their individual and material needs. Cybernation is the linking of computers with automated systems. Eventually the central cybernated systems will coordinate all of the machinery and equipment that serve the entire city, the nation and ultimately the world. One can think of this as an electronic autonomic nervous system extending into all areas of the social complex. For example, in the agricultural belt the computers could automatically monitor and maintain the water table, soil chemistry, and coordinate the planting and harvesting of crops. In the residential sector, the system could maintain environmental cleanliness and the recycling of waste materials. In addition, to ensure the efficient operation of the city's various functions, all of the processes and services could be equipped with electronic environmental feedback sensors. These sensors could be coordinated with redundant, back-up systems that could operate in the event of failure or breakdown of the city's primary systems. Only when cybernation is integrated into all aspects of this new and dynamic culture can computers appropriately serve the needs of all people. No technological civilization can ever operate efficiently and effectively without the integration of cybernetics as an integral part of this new world civilization. These proposals, from an engineering standpoint, seem fantastic and unfeasible within the present monetary system; and they are. The sums involved in ventures of this magnitude would be too huge and inconceivable. No government today can possible afford this prodigious undertaking. All of this could only be accomplished in a resource-based world economy where all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of the earth's peoples. University of Global Resource Management This University of Global Resource Management and Environmental Studies, or "world-university," is a testing ground for each phase of development. This would be a dynamic, continually evolving research institute open to all of society. Student performance would be based on "competence accreditation," and research findings would be periodically applied directly to the social structure to benefit all members of the world society. People will live in these experimental cities and provide feedback on the liability and serviceability of the various structures. This information would be used to formulate modifications to structures so that maximum efficiency, comfort, and safety is assured. This facility is also used to develop modular construction systems and components that can be installed to serve a wide range of needs and preferences. In most instances, the external appearance of the buildings will reflect the function of the building - they are designed "from the inside out." Skyscraper These skyscrapers would be constructed of reinforced and pre-stressed concrete, steel and glass. They will be stabilized against earthquakes and high winds by three massive, elongated, tapered columns. These support structures will surround the cylindrical central tower, which is 150 feet wide. This tripod-like structure is reinforced to diminish compression, tension, and torsion stresses. These super-size skyscrapers will assure that more land will be available for parks and wilderness preserves, while concurrently helping to eliminate urban sprawl. Each one of these towers will be a total enclosure system containing an access center, as well as childcare, educational, health, and recreational facilities. This will help alleviate the need to travel to outside facilities. If we do not maintain a balance between the population and the earth's carrying capacity we may have to move our cities not only skyward and seaward, but subterranean as well. Subterranean Cities In-hospitable regions of the planet, such as polar and desert regions, cities below the surface of the earth would become an entirely comfortable home for many. Numerous elevators allow residents to enjoy skiing and other recreational activities on the surface. The primary source of power for these cities, where feasible, would be geo-thermal energy. Edited January 6, 2011 by strawdog65 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strawdog65 Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Edited January 6, 2011 by strawdog65 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strawdog65 Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) from: http://www.technocracy.ca/tiki-index.php?page=Human+Motivation by: Bill DesJardins Human Motivation in a Technate or Why People Will Work for Free/ part 1 One of the most common concerns people have about Technocracy's design is that of the proposed “guaranteed income” that is part of Energy Accounting. The reasons for this, they often say, are because people are lazy and/or selfish, and will only work when there is something to be gained from it. Sure there are those who do things for so called “higher” reasons, such as altruism, sense of duty or honour, or perhaps just a simple work ethic, but these are the exception to the rule, are they not? Such people are of such a minority that they are often depicted as people like Mother Theresa. If you give an entire population an income, there will not be enough of these people to actually support the rest, especially once they realize that they are the minority, and the “leeches” and “loafers” are having a great time at their expense. They will become disenfranchised and soon say, “Why even bother?” Technocracy did not leave the behaviour of the human animal out of their investigations. Since it was for human society that they were building this design, it was well regarded that understanding them would be intrinsic to creating a society that would both allow them to function as productive members of society, and be able to enjoy it at the same time. In fact, a great deal of attention was given to this area of study, and is part of the Technocracy Study Course, which every Technocrat takes in order to become familiar with the design that they are advocating. Both the nature and behaviour of humans is studied, from a biological point of view, psychological one, as well as sociological. If you have a Study Course text book, you can find much of this information in Lesson 20, as well as scattered throughout most of the rest of the lessons. So the question remains as to why the Technocrats would build a design that incorporates a guaranteed income if it was not so that it was feasible. The simple answer is of course that their studies showed that this was indeed not the case. What I hope to do here is elaborate as well as demonstrate this point to the satisfaction of those who are so concerned. First of all let us look at the reasons why it is generally believed that a guaranteed income is not feasible. Most of the people I have spoken with generally point to two rather large examples, the welfare recipients in North America, and the workers of the old USSR. Far too often we see people partake of both Canada’s and the US’s welfare programs and take them for granted. They are intended as a buffer for those temporarily between work until such time as they can find new jobs. However, many of them either take a long time to do so, perhaps even years, or even never find work of all. Accordingly, the respective governments try to weed out those who take advantage of the system, which is unfortunate because these measures make welfare harder to obtain for those who legitimately need it. Still, their success rate is far from ideal, and there yet remain many who simply behave as parasites on the system that they rest of us support. Another favorite example is the former Soviet Union, at least how most people in western countries understand it. Under this country's communist policies, everyone was guaranteed a job, and if jobs were not available, then jobs were created for them. After all, if they didn't have jobs, they could not spend their money, and that as we all know is bad for the economy. Also, why simply pay them this money for nothing when you can at least ensure that they are doing something useful? The end result, however, was far from satisfactory. Most of the work done by these workers was second-rate at best, and absolutely shoddy at worst. I was told of a custom in the Soviet Union of giving a newly married couple a cat as a marriage present. The cat would then be tossed into the newlywed's brand new house or apartment, as a test to see if the floor would support its weight. I have since been told by people who have lived in the Soviet Union that this story is nothing more than a myth, but it serves to illustrate a point most people in North America believe anyway. So surely, why would a group of intelligent and highly qualified people such as the designers of Technocracy want to design a society that required people such as these to build and maintain this great technological wonderland? Surely even they could realize the dangers inherent in such a leap of trust? The answer to this conundrum lies in the lesser known aspects of human behaviour, the ones often not seen or just discounted. Allow me to illustrate for a moment on the nature of common observation verses true nature. Let us take the nature of a bar of metal, for instance, lead. Now suppose one were to ask the average person on the street what the obvious properties of lead were, they would likely say something like that it was hard, and heavy, with a dull look to it. If you were to then ask another person at random, they would probably agree with this assessment. In fact, it would be very likely that even after asking a hundred, or even a thousand different people this question, or more, that you would find few, if any, that would disagree. The reason for this is that many of them have observed lead in various conditions, perhaps even multiple times, and have found these properties to be rather consistent. The same is true for the observations made by most people regarding the feasibility of guaranteed income, and would likely incur the same results. Now, suppose that I were to show these people a sample of lead that I had in a special container. I would then proceed to pour out this material onto the ground, where it would glow a bright orange and form a puddle there, perhaps causing a bit of smoke or steam, depending on what it came in contact with. This demonstration would no doubt be a bit of a shock to each of these people, as it clearly shows how very wrong they were, but there is also little doubt that many of them would announce that they were only speaking of lead at room-like temperatures, and not molten ones. Most people don't deal with molten lead because they work and live in environments that are too cool for lead to melt, thus they rarely think of its properties in hotter conditions. People who work in the lead industry, however, regularly encounter it this way, and if asked the same question we initially asked everyone else, their response would more likely have been something like, “That depends on what temperature the lead is.” So what does this example illustrate exactly? That certain things behave in a certain manner often due to the environment that they are in. It is often hard to change this behaviour within that environment, much like it is difficult to “pour” lead in its solid state. Only by changing the environment of the lead, i.e. the temperature, can we make it behave in the other ways common to it in those conditions. So too is this true of animals, including the human race. There are many varied conditions and environments that human beings have adapted to in order to survive, and these adaptations required changes of behaviour. Thus, is it not possible then that the behaviour of “leeching off of the system” might too also change, given the correct change of environmental conditions? Before we answer that question, let us now divert to another topic for a short time, that of human motivators. Again, looking at the common objections to guaranteed income we find that something most people will argue is that people will not work when there is no incentive. This very statement implies that either there is no other motivations for people to do something other than incentives (negative or positive), or at least that it is dominant enough that any others would be insufficient to significantly change this view. I would now like to direct your attention to a piece of computer software call “Linux.” Linux is an operating system that allows a computer to work and interface with other software and hardware connected to it. Without an operating system, a computer wouldn't be able to do anything. A computer's operating system can define it's flexibility, limitations, and stability. Thus, at one time, competition was fierce between the various makers of these software. Linux is an OS designed by a Finnish programmer named Linus Torvalds. He developed the OS as an alternative to the UNIX operating system (common among universities and larger companies) for his own use. He designed it to have features that he himself wanted, such as being able to work on smaller processors, and generally never really thought about marketing it. After speaking with several people about the project, their enthusiasm convinced him to release his product under the GNU Public Licence (GPL), (see www.gnu.org) for free. Under this licence, anyone may contribute to the development of this software either for their own use or public distribution. In fact, one of the major stipulations of this licence is that all the code released under it by the author(s) cannot be sold. Since its inception in 1991, Linux has become one of the biggest and most powerful operating systems in the world, and despite this, Linus doesn't receive a single cent for it. How did it become so popular? Was it all Linus' work that did it? Not at all. The GPL that Linux was released under guaranteed that the Linux code would be free to obtain, change, and update. Hundreds of thousands of programmers worldwide have been working on the project, making it better, faster, more stable, and more flexible. Today Linux can be found on everything from car engines to supercomputers. Thousands of programs have been developed to work with Linux, or enhance it, most of them also released under the GPL or similar free-software licences. (A nice brief history of Linux can be found on this web page, at least as of the writing of this article: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux) And out of all these people, none of them have ever made any money for their work. So why do they do it? Are they just weird? Aberrations from the norm? Bored rich kids with nothing better to do? Far from it. Linux programmers range from starving-students, to university professors, to businessmen, and many others. What could motivate such a diverse and numerous group of people from around the world to do quality work for nothing? Technocracy has long established that there are in fact two distinct classes of human motivation. One is the familiar incentive. The other, is initiative. While incentives are outwardly directed, such as fear, punishment, praise or reward, initiative is inwardly based. These motivators come from within the person, that drive them to do what they do largely due to their personality. It is what inspires the artist to paint, or the performer to sing. It is why great visionaries of the past built large monuments and created beautiful buildings. It can include the need to build, to explore, to create, or to improve. It includes all the lofty goals that we see in those few, strange people who try to help humanity without expectation of reward. But this is still a very uncommon thing, is it not? Or is it? Where else can one find these “weirdos” who work for nothing? One often needs go no further than the Internet. FreeBSD, for example, is another operating system that is also released under a free-software licence. So is Net BSD. And FreeDOS. And QNX. And for each of these there is a community of active programmers working away to build and improve these projects. But is this simply limited to operating systems? Not at all. Hundreds of thousands of software titles are created and released for free, ranging from word processors, accounting software, hardware utilities and drivers, databases, Internet browsers, network servers, even games. Each one created by anywhere from a single programmer to teams of thousands or more. The free software phenomenon is much larger than most companies would like you to believe, and for obvious reasons. But this is not just limited to software design either. On the Internet you can find people creating numerous other projects for use by others, often for free. Web page designers, graphics designers, animators, cartoonists, and fiction and documentation writers are just some of the types of people you will find contributing their works for free. Most of the time all they will ask for is that proper credit be assigned, or even a simple acknowledgement in an e-mail. I recall seeing one program designer that released his program for almost free. He called it “postcardware,” and only asked that you send him a postcard from wherever in the world you were. So is this a strictly Internet-based mentality? Granted, it is very prevalent on the Internet due to the fact that information can be so easily exchanged. There is no need for production costs or shipping; all one needs is a connection to the Internet, and perhaps some software that they would likely have already. However, there are still millions of volunteers all over the world giving their time, expertise, and skills to whatever they think will help others. Statistics Canada reported that in 1996 over half of the population of Canada had donated some of their time to volunteer work. Edited January 3, 2011 by strawdog65 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
