The Venus Project?


im confused does it mean everybody will have anything without paying? for example does everybody will own a yacht? istnt that a little too much utopic?

reply

[deleted]

But still someone HAS to establish all the "magic-do-all-for-you-technology" and in terms of current monetary system it would cost a lot of time and money, just may consume whole life of engineers (working time).
Who is going to to it with no motivation whatsoever (money, ...) just for the purpose to SAVE all the people and future generations? Who has the resources to do so? The fact is, venus project need decades to establish "nice" life and noone except for big companies has the smart people/money/infrastructure to do it. But then again according to the film its their 1. goal NOT to do so.

Besides who decides how to use "earth resources", who may use them first? Whats with weapons, people wanting to gain control over other people to suppress them? All the other problems wont dissapear. Police is always needed, then someone has to control police, then someone controls them, someone controls how all the technology works/gets fixed and voila - we need some kind of political system, ranks, elite - classes.

reply

[deleted]

So you gonna work 8-9 hours a day for humanity? Whats with your family, friends, maybe you want to try something else? M O T I V A T I O N. What if you need food, vacation, car, medical supplies? Whos gonna give it to you, while you are busy working on machines/technology with no payment? You need somekind of payment. Now tell me who will pay you. Not smart ignoring such points.

reply

[deleted]

This kind of ignorance is the main issue of the Zeitgeist movies.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Ok, let me explain it to you. I have my doubts too about the success of this project, but although it's not perfect, it's the best we figured out so far:)
You said something about motivation. As you probably know, motivation is something driven from the brain, there is nothing you can do without a motivation.
In this case, in a society with no monetary system, obviously, money is no motivation anymore. And if you think backwards, why do you want money (or anyone else)? to have a better life. to have access to resources easier etc. well, if you would have all these things without the money as an intermediate, your motivation would still exist, right? you would work because you knew that everyone is working for you and all of us to have a better and more prosperous life. Then, the motivation would still be 'a good life', but this time, without the corrupt system as a mean.
Secondly: all those things, like food, education, health etc..these would not only still exists, but everyone would have access to it, without discrimination, because this is what project Venus eliminates from today's society: scarcity. And everyone would work for everyone because there is no money to corrupt, there is no possibility for some to be richer than others etc.
In order to understand this type of society you have to give up your mental pathways created by the society we live in: imagine there was no money, there was no God to make you feel guilty, there were no rich people who buy everything, including justice, no dying people from the lack of resources. Imagine we all tried to create something for us and for this Earth we live on.
It's sounds somewhat like an utopia, but maybe that's what we all should do, give this a chance.

reply

[deleted]

http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/03/24/solar-power-without-a-solar-panel/

The solar situation, FYI.

But the movie refers to Geothermal power. The difficulty is in its utilization. We would have to build geothermal plants and generate electricity from them.

reply

[deleted]

Logically speaking, cheaper energy sources aren't more globally applied for two reasons:

1.) Profit in a capitalistic market is the entropy of the system; i.e., waste is profit. If exchanges were completely equal, neither party would create profit. Therefore, for profit to be made, something must be lost in the exchange. Inefficiency produces greater waste than efficiency, produces greater profit.

Take transportation, for example. The most efficient method is mass transit; and efficient design would indicate a near-frictionless surface (the maglev is used in various places already, but we could even say a bus, albeit not meeting the "frictionless" part of the statement.) However, the more profitable method is to design individual vehicles that are inefficient in their energy consumption. Why? Because 20 cars sell better than 1 bus.

The "waste" in that regard is called luxury, or perhaps convenience, but it boils down to a waste of materials. And the energy; it takes the same amount of work to move a car with electricity 20 miles down the road as it does to move a car with gasoline 20 miles down the road. However, since internal combustion engines create a great deal of heat (entropy, WASTE), that in turn produces more profit, because it requires more gasoline to produce the same amount of work than electricity.

2.) If cheaper energy sources were as used as they are abundant, not only would profit drop per "unit" sold, but (this feeds into my other argument) fewer "units" would be sold if they were used more efficiently. Keep in mind that the oil market is far easier to control; the average individual would not be able to easily acquire crude oil in order to process it themselves, nor would they have refineries to process it even if they could. The supply is easy to control, the processing is easy to control; which means that scarcity is easy to engineer if need-be. See: the recent gas price hike a few months ago. Look at how easy it is for oil companies to simply manipulate the availability to the average consumer. And, as I said, the average consumer will never be able to acquire it and produce it on their own.

As for the solar power panels, here is a MUCH better article (the one I linked earlier was very lacking, you're right):

http://www.physorg.com/news103997338.html

EDIT:

"But if it works, I'm all for it. My question earlier had more to do with utopians who focus only on the destination and not the journey. The Venus Project website says absolutely nothing about making the ultimate goals feasible."

I agree with you. However, the problem is that we, as a culture, have become too materialistic. It is hard to foresee how it could work while we are still blinded by what society has told us must be true. It is up to us to pave the way, if we will choose to do so, to free future generations. How many patriots have done the same in the past? Remember that the value of a thing is only what you are willing to pay for it. If that is sweat, so be it. If it is blood, so be it. But if you cannot think of a price worth paying for a gamble at a better future for someone you may never meet, then who can?

reply

[deleted]

Look up open source... free programs written by civilians in their own time for free. They do it becuase they love it and want to produce a better product than what currently exists.

If you think that a couple geeks in a basement can't make something better than a corporation like Microsoft or Adobe then have a look at Xvid, an open source video format that competes directly with DivX, a corporately developed product. In comparison tests, Xvid has been demonstrated as a superior product with better quality, faster processing and a more robust feature list, despite starting from the same original source.

Some people like to invent things, regardless of whether they get paid for it. Development will still occur, but it will be a pursuit of passion and rather than profit.


'Before this war is over, the world will know that few stood against many.' - 300

reply

[[Police is always needed, then someone has to control police, then someone controls them, someone controls how all the technology works/gets fixed and voila - we need some kind of political system, ranks, elite - classes.]]

This is not true at all. There will most probably be no need of a police if there was no money. Without money there wouldn't be as much crime, there would be nothing to steal, no robbery, less violence. Crime is pretty much the creation of a monetary system. Sure we people has something called instincts like that feeling we sometimes can get of just smashing someones face in.
So there would probably be some need of a few rules. The people would work as the judge and the police themself if a rule were broken. Like if there would be a fight or a murder it would be up to the community to judge him.

Political system is not needed neither is ranks or elite. The whole reason behind getting rid of the monetary system is to get rid of the class systems as they serve no purpose at all but dividing people and create misery.
A leader or a few leaders would probably be chosen within the communities as this is a natural instict with humans. It is proven in sociological studies that a lone person is quicker to act if they would spot a person in danger than if that person would be within a group or among other people. If within a group people tend to wait for the others reaction. Since the beginning of man the instinct of leadership has been there but it only works within a small community. In a large population like a country with millions of people one leader don't work. There have been times without money before and i think you can make an understanding of how people would act by looking back. Tribesfolk always had or have their chief. Different tribes usually went to war over turf so for the venus project to work i think pretty much everyone has to be in on it. Ownership of land is something that i think shouldn't be allowed. The things humans has gotten into war for in the past is Power,Land,Religion and most of those things transfer into money, I think all of those things need to be rid of.

I myself dont think the Venus Project is possible in the times we live in now, People have to pretty much destroy themselfs first and start again from scratch.


reply

"This is not true at all. There will most probably be no need of a police if there was no money."

Uh-huh? What about serial killers, thrill assassins, mass murderers, rapists, home invaders, gang bangers, etc?

reply

"Uh-huh? What about serial killers, thrill assassins, mass murderers, rapists, home invaders, gang bangers, etc? "

You completely missed the point.....or you just didn't bother to think. The monetary system creates an IMMENSE amount of crime. The examples you are giving, which are generally mentally-ill individuals, are a small selection of the population. Do you realize how small a policing force it would require to deal with the "extreme exceptions" of society?
It's funny that people are willing to mock even the "movement" into a more unified society. If all the worlds problems can't be immediately answered and spelled out for them, they would rather remain in the current state of affairs than even daring to dream of a radical change.
Perhaps technology will find a cure for these negative mental conditions to which you refer. Which will then lead into a very interesting argument about "identity". Until then, think before you type.

"Now get some sleep, you've got a 9AM rat helmet!"

reply

[This is not true at all. There will most probably be no need of a police if there was no money. Without money there wouldn't be as much crime, there would be nothing to steal, no robbery, less violence. Crime is pretty much the creation of a monetary system]

No police? What about pedophiles,rapists,murder lets say out of jealousy and so on?Those are not crimes that happen because of money.Unfortunately there will always be need for police,law court,prisons..or do they plan to let child rapists roam free?
I wish that The Venus Project could come true but i`m afraid it cant.

Sorry for my bad english

reply

The problem I have with the Venus Project is that they don't get it too many details. As other's have pointed out, just like the current system is breaking, there are many ways to break the one they propose.

Most people don't work as a hobby. Most people work because they must. In a resource based economy, most people will consume without producing. The only way this can work is if the hobbyist producers produce enough to sustain everyone else as well as them, which may be possible with large improvements of technology.

But unfortunately it is not an equilibrium state. As we have seemingly abundant resources, our demands tend to increase. There must be a mechanism to limit demand or produce more by forcing the rest of the population to produce or both like we have currently. Any top down mechanism like communism will in my opinion eventually fail as the cost of implementing such a mechanism to function flawlessly is just very high.

reply

And who and how exactly all those things that require effort, will be for free for everyone? Who will produce them?

Are you aware that the same ideas had the socialists countries of Russia, then Fidel Castro in Cuba..and they tried it out, and did'nt worked?

reply

The Venus Project is impossible to achieve. A few people are trying to create something that imitates...Heaven - their ideas are smaller than a fraction of what Heaven is.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

havent you guys seen terminator, this will never work

reply

I wish for my grandchildren to live in such a world, meh.

"Who would work?"

If all mundane processes would be handled by machines and ALL necessities of life would be free then "average" people would not have to work , and many would retreat into leisure oriented activities like: watching movies, getting fat, bathing in the sun, or more productive activities like: singing, painting, writing, taking care of infants, basic supervision of machines and so forth. Depending on what one such "average" adult would like he would orient himself into without any strings, reaping the benefits of all society as a whole without any strings attached.

However;

Truly "smart" people would think ahead and invest time into educating themselves to perform specialized activities / research , these would be the backbone of such a society , without them OUR current model would not be , we would be bathing in the sun , outside of caves ... living at most 30ish years , with 1-3 out of 8 offspring surviving to adulthood ... just like beasts.

Point is , in such a society , if you would consider yourself "normal" you'd feel relief at not being forced to damage the model ... but enjoy it as is ... and contribute with kids.

After all , 100.000 "average" people being guided to "invent" relativity would probably have failed , if a contest between them and Einstein would have been held. UNLESS these 100.000 people would be given enough time to give birth to someone grater then Einstein, in that case they might stand a chance. That's the point.

"Motivation?"

For the average person I say " What is your motivation for breathing in the first place ? " .

For the smart person there is no need for one. After all, he's/she's already smart so there is no need to ask in the first place.

----

I found this movie to be "pretty good" 7/10.

reply

No, i just would want a yacht so i could travel around on the oceans.

reply

So would this movement to resource-based society be dependent on every human on earth having a change of heart and working for only the progress of humanity as a whole? Is this notion reconcilable with human nature?

Guy 1: Oh My God, I found a penny!
Guy 2: You B@stard!

reply

Once I started hearing this *beep* resource society theory I almost had to punch the tv. It is the most retarded thing ever. They keep complaining about the political systems in the world and this is the s**t they come up with?

Firstly, suppose that all resources do become abundant according to their outrageously idealistic society. Wait a second, isn't land and time a resource? I can save time if I get someone/something to tie my shoe laces for me each morning. Thus I save time which I can use to do other stuff like play tennis. Therefore there isn't a complete abundance until I can get someone to do everything that I don't want to do. But who's gonna do it for me? If I told someone to lick my shoes, would they do it just cos I told them? No. I need to give them incentive. Ooops, here comes the monetary system again and corruption.
And what if everyone wanted to live in a house down at a beach. Oh no, there's not enough beaches for everyone. But wait, I thought we eliminated scarcity. How will we decide who gets to have the beach house and who doesn't? Hmmmm.
Maybe I'll decide tomorrow I would like to make The White House my home. I want to inhabit that plot of land. Crap, a whole bunch of other people are already there. But I thought we eliminated scarcity? Guess again.

Then they say in their society there would be no need for laws because crimes stem from greed and profits. Okay, well say my wife sleeps with another man and I catch them and decide to murder them in a rage. Her infidelity has nothing to do with greed or profits or the monetary system, yet it would drive me to commit a heinous crime. What would we do with no laws then? I could go on a kill crazy rampage with no consequences.
It doesn't even have to be something that extreme. Human drama will always exist. What if I get into an argument with someone when I'm drunk and decide to stab him with a bottle. No consequences right? What about road rage? Why don't I just ram my car into someone else's. There's no such thing as insurance or anything. Cars are so abundant that I can just go down and get a brand new one for no money and no cost. In fact, Maybe I'll just play bumper cars on the freeway every wednesday. How about that? Don't tell me there aren't people stupid enough to do that. What about graffiti and vandalism. Is that for profits? Just stupid people being stupid. People will be even more stupid with no consequences. I might decide to drive my car through the public library because it's something I always wanted to do. No profits involved. I just feel like doing it. Since there's no laws, I might as well.
And are attractive women of absolute abundance? Don't tell me it's not human nature for a male to want to have sex. Are they saying they can get me 100 women for me to *beep* in this resource society? Well if they can't what's stopping me from going round at night and raping these women. There won't be laws.
Wait, but then we do need laws. Who will create these laws? Oops, isn't that a job? Or worse yet, won't law makers create corruption. And who's to decide what laws are correct. Oh no, here we go with politics again. We're right back where we started. Oh dear.
But then again, according to them, we shouldn't be creating laws to prevent things like drink driving. We should find physical ways to solve the problem like pulling them to the side of the road. Isn't forcing people to do something inhibiting our freedoms? How can we stop people from raping women? Put a lock on people's undies? I'd just threaten them with death. Give an electric shock if the thought crosses someone's mind? Doesn't sound practical. And worse yet it sounds like something the thought police would do. Quickly sounding like a DYSTOPIA and big brother.
Then again, who's to say that raping women is even a bad thing? We start getting philosophical and arguing what is right and wrong. Some muslims have sex slaves and multiple wives arguing that they need to have sex every day. Who's gonna say what they're doing is wrong. Who's to say that someone beating their kid is right or wrong. We have to have society decide what's right and wrong. Ooops that's politics again.

Also, if we are to advance technology, who's gonna do it. And who's going to provide the labour to advance our society that far. It sure ain't going to be that *beep* old man in the movie. He's just gonna sit on his ass pointing his finger. Everyone will just say "someone else can do it". And who's to decide what technology is best and what city designs will be the best and what we really need in society? I want a golf course at so-and-so location but someone else wants a farm. Different people will have different beliefs and opinions. Not everyone thinks the same. I guess we will have to have a vote or something and come to a consensus. Oh s**t. That's politics. Fail. Or we'll have that old man calling the shots telling everyone his vision. Oh wait, that's dictatorship. *beep* If it was me, I'd just sit back while other people voluntarily create my utopia for me. What will I gain from being lazy while everyone works? Well since there is no monetary system, I won't be getting ANYTHING right? Well, I'd be getting time. Time is a resource. While everyone works 10hours a day like dumb *beep* to create this society for the old man like slaves of ancient egypt I'll be sitting in the sun relaxing with my free TIME. I don't even need resource incentives to make me do nothing. Maybe I just feel like being lazy and NOT breaking my back for everyone else. How will you solve that problem?

Then, provided we actually get to the point at which we have robots doing everything for us and society is extremely advanced. Who's gonna get up off their ass to maintain the machines and make sure everything is working correctly. Oh no, there's a bug in the train signals and trains are gonna ram into each other. Who's gonna go and fix it. Well, ya know, I'm not getting paid, and I have everything I want right here, so yeah, someone else can do it.
Machines break down. They need to be fixed. That creates a job. Who's gonna do it? It sure won't be me. The only way this would work is if we create machines so advanced they can maintain all the other machines in society so as to create a lazy society where people do nothing. To achieve that we'd need to pretty extraordinary artificial intelligence. Good luck with that.

And they also say that countries and cultures are all discriminating because they try to preserve their way of life because of greed and profits. People try to preserve their wealth because of the monetary system and that this is not inbuilt into humans. I'm sorry, but self-preservation is very much a human instinct. It's an instinct for all animals otherwise we'd just roll over and die. That was a really stupid argument.

And this person totally ignores the desire for power that people have and their desire to control other people and tell them what to do. The only reason that this is related to money is because money gives people power. You would be naive to think that you can create world peace by eliminating money. There are people that inherently like to control people which has nothing to do with money at all. Some people become policeman just because they want to go on a power trip. How about s**tty managers that tell people to do s**tty things just because they can? Is it for more money? Nope. How about bullies who like to torment social outcasts? Do they get more money from that? Nope.
What about popularity and social acceptance? Do we desire these things because of money? Nope.
So will removing money get rid of all corruption? Unlikely.

Seriously. How can someone be so old and yet be so stupid and f'd up.


Well what are the use of my brains if I'm tied up with a dumb cluck like you?

reply

Worst reply on this forum.
Did you even read the previous replies to the OP?

reply