lol @ Valject
That’s pretty much what it boils down to.
lol Valject.
What is wrong with you don’t you want to be free?
That was funny, amazing. I wonder what valject thinks of this lol.
I am dumbfounded. I suppose it doesn’t matter how much sarcasm you pile into a post, there will always be people who take it seriously…but this is just embarrassing. Axlsnaks did you honestly think you were tearing someone a new one with that video? I really hope you at least didn’t spend more than just the 6 minutes filming it because even that was a total waste of time.
I can’t believe this thread was bumped for this.
From the FAQ: “Jacque Fresco, founder of The Venus Project, once lived on a Polynesian island in the South Pacific where the natives wore no clothing. This was associated with a completely different value system concerning sex and nudity. They did not behave like people do in a sexually deprived culture. The males didn’t stare at the female body, but rather looked into their eyes when speaking to them. During sex they stroked the entire body. When you pet a dog you don’t stop at the balls–you stroke the entire dog. They were uninterested in photos of nudes, male or female. They didn’t brag about sexual conquests or emphasize their sexual behavior, and it appeared to be as natural as any other activity among them. They engaged in sex when they were old enough to do so and did so without cruelty or fetishes. Those distortions mostly occur in modern “civilization” where deprivation and sexual morality are dominant.”
So, we have this girl ‘challenging’ anyone to have a constructive criticism backed up by scientific evidence, but the FAQ’s ‘evidence’ is this one guy’s experience living in one nude culture?
I think you’ll find that most hunter-gatherer or ‘tribal’ cultures exhibit most of the positive sexual behavior here described (Q# 105) regardless of whether they wear clothes. Is it possible that there is some other factor that is being overlooked?
Everything I read from this website is full of baseless claims, like “It is far more efficient to build new cities as self-contained systems from the ground up than to restore and retrofit old ones.” (Q# 12). Its more efficient? Where does that idea come from? Perhaps what they really need are footnotes?
Less than a minute in:
“Why not just put all the evidence together, and say why it’s a bad idea?”
[slaps forehead and sighs the sigh of the temporarily dispirited]
I think personally its because there really is no sexual morality here in the west. Women are only valued for their bodies in most types of media, pornography, and whatnot- its all conditioning through years of viewing that type of material. Theres a reason most women feel uncomfortable when a guy stares at her breasts and not into her eyes. I wouldn’t say that you have to have a nude culture to have positive sexual behavior at all- it all depends on what you value.
We need a pretty girl or a well charasmatic dressed man. We need to call up Shelly Roche or Jeffrey Tucker.
Well we have Dorian Electra…although admitedly she comes accross a bit creepier than is stirctly necessary…
Having heard about The Venus project several times and watched a couple of obscure videos that didn’t explain me anything about the subject I finally visited its official site and read about it. The FAQ didn’t help either, so I decided to read a rather lengthy essay, “Future and beyond”, written by Jacque Fresco (it also may serve a good purpose in future debates so that I can cite not the FAQ written by unkown guy but rather the author’s work).
What I intend to do is to present you my humble study of aforementioned essay with which I would probably engage in discussion of The Venus project on the forums of its fans.
So, the reading only proved my expression shaped by videos about this project: a nice Utopia, which is supposed to look as a feasible project, with a solid foundation in arhitecture, design, and engineering, but surely not in economics. The whole idea of intellectual systems, power grids, sea cities, and whatnot, is based on the premise of Abundance. What I was looking for on that site was explanation of how they wanted to achieve it, but all I saw were pictures of futurist looking houses and cities. They talk about advanced technologies (which are already there!) but mention only renewable resources, which is not abundance… The most part of the essay could be cited at the end of the “Economics in one lesson” as examples of common fallacies explained half a century ago.
So I’ll just go through the essay and post main fallacies that I found.
- BEYOND UTOPIA
The fact that previous attempts at social change have failed is no justification for us to stop trying. .
Yeah, history teaches nothing…
Actually, the fear of social change is somewhat unfounded when we consider that the entire history of civilization has been, in a sense, an experiment. Even the American free-enterprise system, during its earliest stages, faced a multitude of problems much more severe than they are today. These included long work hours, exploitation of child labor, inadequate ventilation in industrial plants, lack of rights for women and minorities, hazardous conditions in mines, and racial prejudice. Despite its many problems, it was the greatest social experiment in history in terms of diversity of lifestyles and individual freedoms, innovations in architecture and technology, and overall progress in general.
The author seems to overllook that free-entrepreneurship was the result of spontaneous order, not the experiment in a sense that it had been planned and carried out by someone.
- NEW FRONTIERS OF SOCIAL CHANGE
[…] Neither are there any overall social plans in government or industry to totally eliminate the negative effects of the displacement of people by machines, nor does there seem to be any genuine concern to do so.
Famous “Curse of machines”…
The ultimate survival of the human species depends upon planning on a global scale and to cooperatively seek out new alternatives with a relative orientation for improved social arrangements. […]
All the limitations imposed upon us by our present-day monetary system could be surpassed by adopting a global consensus for a worldwide resource-based economy, in which all the planetary resources are viewed and treated as the common heritage of all the earth’s inhabitants.
Sounds like socialism. Why don’t they just admit it instead of inventing such fancy terms like “resource-based economy”
- THE OBSOLETE MONETARY SYSTEM
Here are amazing views about capitalism.
In a monetary-based system, the major concerns of industry are profit […] The social problems that arise from mass unemployment of people, who are rendered obsolete by the infusion of automation, are considered irrelevant, […] It does not serve the interest of a monetary based society to engage in the production of goods and services to enhance the lives of people as a goal.
The greedy entrepreneurs think only about the profit. The author fails to understand that computers, cars, washing machines and other profitable items, and the capitalism in general, changed the standard of living, which resulted in the dramatic increase of the Earth’s population. Yet he maintains:
Until the last few decades, the monetary system functioned to a degree. The global population of three billion was not over consuming world resources and energy, global warming was not evident, and air and water pollution were only recognized by a relative few. The start of the 21st century however finds global population at an exponentially rising six billion, with resources and energy supplies dwindling, global warming a reality, and pollution evident worldwide.
And my favourite indicator of author’s economic ignorance:
In today’s culture of profit, we do not produce goods based on human need.
No conceivable relationship between human need backed by purchasing power, i.e. demand, and profit…
- RESOURCE-BASED ECONOMY
…the belief that advanced technologies would lead to an improvement in the quality of life for most people is not the case in a monetary system. More and more companies are adopting the tremendous benefits of automation, resulting in increased production with fewer employees. Corporations’ short-term concern with profit will ultimately result in the demise of the world monetary based economies. If the monetary system continues to operate, we will be faced with the condition of more technological unemployment, today referred to as downsizing. From 1990 to 1995, companies dismissed a staggering 17.1 million employees, many of these due to automation. Automation will continue to replace people well into the foreseeable future, resulting in the lack of purchasing power for these displaced workers.
Again, the “Curse…”
During the 1930’s, at the height of the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration enacted new social legislation designed to minimize revolutionary tendencies and to address the problems of unemployment. Jobs were provided through the Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, National Recovery Act, transient camps, and Federal Arts projects. Ultimately, however, World War II pulled the U.S. out of that worldwide depression. If we permit current conditions to take their natural course, we will soon be faced with another international recession of potentially greater magnitude. At the time of this depression the US had only 600 first class fighting aircraft at the beginning of World War II, we rapidly increased production to 90,000 planes per year. Did we have enough money to pay for the required implements of war? The answer is no. Neither did we have enough gold. But, we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources and personnel that enabled the U. S. to achieve the production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately, such an all-out effort is only considered in times of war or disaster.
Even though in 1940s American economy didn’t reach the sacred state of “resourse-based”, the author (as well as a Lord Keynes) views it as resource abundant. In my opinion, no need to discuss it as, again, everything was said by Hazlitt.
Simply stated, a resource-based economy utilizes existing resources rather than money, and provides an equitable method of distribution in the most humane and efficient manner for the entire population.
Despite my efforts I can’t conprehend the distinguishment that Jacque Fresco make between “monetary-” and “resource based”, as money is just means of exchange of resources.
To better understand the meaning of a resource-based economy consider this: If all the money in the world were to suddenly disappear, as long as topsoil, factories, and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we chose to build and fulfill any human need.
:\
And now some more quotes about author’s views on entrepreneurship.
As we outgrow the need for professions that are based on the monetary system, such as lawyers, accountants, bankers, insurance companies, advertising, sales personnel, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste and non productive personnel could be eliminated. Enormous amounts of time and energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competing products. Instead of having hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel that are required to turn out similar products, only very few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. In a resource-base economy planned obsolescence would not exist.
… even though one needs free market in the first place to determine the best manufacturers.
- MOTIVATION, INCENTIVE & CREATIVITY
The aim of a resource based economy is to encourage and develop a new incentive system, one no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people to pursue different goals, such as self-fulfillment and creativity, the elimination of scarcity, the protection of the environment, and the alleviation of suffering in their fellow human beings.
Wait a minute… Resource-based economy, buit on the premise of resource abundance, has a goal of elimination of scarcity?
- THE HUMAN ASPECT
[…] Monetary economics have to a large extent undermined family cohesion. Parents lack adequate time to spend with their children, and they are constantly stressed by ever-rising medical bills, insurance payments, educational expenses, and the high cost of living. It is in this area that one of the most profound benefits of this new civilization could be realized. The proposed shorter workdays would provide more time for family relationships. Free access to goods and services would make the home a much more pleasant place, with the removal of economic stress that causes so much family turmoil.
Why is there a need of job when everything is abundant?
- The Venus Project
The function of The Venus Project is to design, develop, and prepare plans for the construction of an experimental city based on the -principles outlined above. Here we have constructed nine experimental buildings, are developing alternative energy systems, city designs, transportation, manufacturing systems, and more.
Again, nothing about the real technology that will eliminate scarcity.
And finally:
The Venus Project does not advocate dissolving the existing free-enterprise system
As a conclusion… In my opinion, the Venus Project can work only in 2 cases.
-
The technocrats (it is evident that they will be in power in that system) will finally find the way to produce goods out of thin air thus reaching true abundance.
-
System of education together with propaganda will teach people what are their true needs. For example, exuberance will be vice, ascetic way of life will be accepted as a norm. The systems already described in the Venus Project will substantially decrease costs of production, so there might be some state of virtual abundance conceived by citizens as a true one.
The funny thing is that looking through “Venus” forum I actually found some hint in favour of the second option:
We need to formulate a strategy that outlines a path that inevitably leads to an RBE.
The keyword here is inevitably as uncertainty and doubt must be addressed.We already have an end goal of an RBE thanks to Jacque Fresco and many members generally agree the monetary system will collapse without our help.
However if we are to limit the amount of suffering experienced during the transition, and successfully transition to an RBE (rather than reform the Monetary System) we must outline and promote accessible alternatives to replace Monetary Based Practices that provide necessities to people.
In addition, major obstacles to change must be defined and addressed if these alternatives are to be successful.
So let’s begin
The first obstacle to creating a Resource Based Economy is of course, RESOURCES.
In order to obtain resources without the use of force, manipulation, or coercion a major value shift in the general population is necessary. In order to address this value shift, we must first understand the distinction between Human Needs and desires. Needs are the nature we are born with and when satisfied lead to a fulfilling life. Desires are what we learn to want.
Desires in the current society often are disconnected from needs. This is why the richest people in society may have an abundance of access to material wealth yet remain unsatisfied and unfulfilled. Some of their needs may be fulfilled while others remain scarce due to unhealthy patterns. The dependence on these patterns is what perpetuates their addictions to acquisition, power, etc. At least one need is met even if it comes at the cost of several others. This is how desires become harmful because the benefits of certain needs are exaggerated at the expense of others.
P.S. I somewhere heard about the idea that some system will collapse without one’s help… But, as it has been stated at the beginning of the essay by Fresco
The fact that previous attempts at social change have failed is no justification for us to stop trying.
Venus project is pie in the sky communist utopia.
Did you watch Stefan Molyneux take on their followers? I recommend listening to that some what debate it was quite interesting and it gave me a slightly better idea of the venus project than i had got from listening to the creator of the zeitgeist documentaries.
The biggest problem with the venus project is the transition from the quasi capitalist society that we have today to their communist utopia. It would be impossible to transition to it without the initiation of force. There is also no evidence or data that has shown that the systems or technology exists to allocate resources to meet the needs of every one on the planet. Even if we take a small country and try to create a system or technology the producers and allocate the needs of the population, it would not be possible without initiation of force.
There is also the problem of needs, they say that needs will be met, but they don’t say is that the the computer systems or some unknown entity will specify what everyone needs are. What happens if everyone wants a jacuzzi and a big boat, what happens if someone wants to produce music or art, how does that need get allocated.
The idea that no one will need to work because “all needs will be met” works on an inadequate definition of human need and desire.
Nope. Could you provide me with the link?
But you see that no matter how perfect is the distribution system you need somehow to get these resources. And as long as they are scarce, there is no communism.
I think there might be one before this or one after it, but i can’t find it and don’t have the time at this second to watch it to find out.
ROFL 
Thanks for the link. Really great conversation that helped to understand… well, not the resource-based economy, but the psychology and the way of thinking of the supporters of the Venus project. Here is what I understood.
I’am afraid there are no economists in the delelopment team as well as among supporters. The arguments they use in order to challenge capitalism show that they lack the true understanding of how economy works. It was funny to watch Stefan Molyneux, who appeared to be a great speaker and true Austrian economist, trying to get explanation of how their economy would work without prices. I think Stefan should have explained them the notion of opportunity cost and persuade them to use it in the discussion.
These only proved my first impression that these guys are technocrats who believe that yet non-existent AI will solve all their problems. Molyneus made a great point when he said that during 40-years history of Venus project nobody came up with a workable algorithm or at least theory of managing the economy. He also, in my opinion. drew the line between libertarian and their approach. Libertarians/Austrians don’t know how the future will look like nor they propose some models of it. But they do believe in some basic principles that guide them in their life.
This conversation actually discouraged me from engaging in some kind of debates with Venus fans. Even if Stefan Molyneus spent 2 hours with no success, then it is completely in vain. They won’t change their views, neither read they some econ books, at least Economics in one lesson.