Notices
Results 1 to 43 of 43
Like Tree15Likes
  • 2 Post By David88
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By zinjanthropos
  • 1 Post By David88
  • 1 Post By David88
  • 1 Post By MeteorWayne
  • 2 Post By David88
  • 1 Post By MeteorWayne
  • 1 Post By David88
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By Deno
  • 1 Post By Lucas.

Thread: The Venus Project

  1. #1 The Venus Project 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    I am a huge proponent of the Venus Project. I've spent alot of time on it. I'd like to start a conversation about it.

    I think Jacque Fresco is a brilliant man that is still ahead of his time.

    The Venus Project The Paradise or Oblivion video is a good introduction to what he proposes.

    Why are your opinions on The Venus Project, if you've heard of it?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Ok then go on tell me about it, otherwise I'm going to declare it a scam to sell realestate and quickly move on, only joking there by the way.


    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Ok then go on tell me about it, otherwise I'm going to declare it a scam to sell realestate and quickly move on, only joking there by the way.
    The Venus Project is based of the idea of Resource Based Economy.

    Basically it would be an economy that only runs off of available resources, not money. The availability of resources, the demands on the environment and the demands of people would determine what is possible and what is not. Not corporations or self-interests.

    No one would actually be in charge - only the best possible choice at the time through science and reason.

    This would require a global survey of all available resources.

    Certain needs would have priority over certain resources. For example medical and emergency equipment would use the Gold,silver, rare earth metals, etc. before other areas of the economy would get them. I think in the future many synthetic materials will be made to compensate for shortages however.

    All jobs that can be done by machines will be which is about 90% of jobs done today.

    Education wouldn't be held hostage in Universities, anyone who wanted to learn could. That is essential for this system to work.

    Nothing on store shelves would have a price-tag, alot of items would exist in "library-type" places to utilize as much use out of products as possible. for ex: You go to the golf course and the clubs are there, you use them and turn them in

    Products would be made to last and recycled when obsolete.

    Cities would be built intelligently, cars would be automated to reduce the 1.5million people that are killed in car accidents every year.

    No more militarys, corporations, nations or governments.

    These are just some aspects it would take me awhile to explain everything, which I can do over a period of time. But I think that visiting His site and seeing it for yourselves would allow you to make a better argument for or against it.
    Ascended and Deno like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Now you've explained it actually sounds quite interesting, I think the scale seems a little ambitious, but certainly some really interesting ideas.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Sounds like more utopian nonsense.

    The problem with these ideas of paradise is that they contain little problems I refer to as humans.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Sounds like more utopian nonsense.

    The problem with these ideas of paradise is that they contain little problems I refer to as humans.
    It's not Utopian. It's just a system that would work ALOT better than what exists now. Look into it further and see the psychological and sociological aspects of the system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Still, it would require an incomprehensible amount of global cooperation. The idea of "no military or government" alone is completely implausible. Where there is no military, someone would form a military to enact control. It's human nature to dominate.

    The only way this could work is in a highly controlled population in a remote area or in a colony on another planet. The human factor will always corrupt a "perfect" system through greed or domination.

    While I agree the idea is great on paper and could be in a TV show set in the far distant future where man has evolved beyond our current driving motivations, I think it's completely illogical to suggest that our current population of skin bags could handle something like this. Hell, our nation falls apart at the mere mention of socialized healthcare.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Still, it would require an incomprehensible amount of global cooperation. The idea of "no military or government" alone is completely implausible. Where there is no military, someone would form a military to enact control. It's human nature to dominate.

    The only way this could work is in a highly controlled population in a remote area or in a colony on another planet. The human factor will always corrupt a "perfect" system through greed or domination.

    While I agree the idea is great on paper and could be in a TV show set in the far distant future where man has evolved beyond our current driving motivations, I think it's completely illogical to suggest that our current population of skin bags could handle something like this. Hell, our nation falls apart at the mere mention of socialized healthcare.

    I agree completely that at the current moment this system wouldn't work. The Venus Project understands that. But I don't think that greed and domination have to be driving factors. I think that Empathy and Cooperation are powerful too. I think the a person's environment is far more influential that "human nature".

    I think there will always be a need for some type of military or police force at least for the long term future. But I think that the Venus Project is our best chance at attempting to get away from this current reality. Even if the plan isn't completely realized I think that the World would still be a greater place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Like many people, I hold out hope that humanity will get its act together sooner rather than later. That having been said, we've seen governments rise and fall, civilizations come and go, and throughout it all human nature has not changed.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    From the vid, there didn't seem to be a way to make decisions.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    From the vid, there didn't seem to be a way to make decisions.
    What do you mean? After the Venus Project is successful?

    Decisions would be arrived at based on scientific principles rather than someone's opinion or self interest.
    It was proposed that a super computer would assist with this. One that has an immense amount of Data about Past and Present situations and weighing someone's idea against all of humanities collective knowledge. I think that this is possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Decisions would be arrived at based on scientific principles rather than someone's opinion or self interest.
    While that sounds nice....who picks the scientific analysis method, decides what study to trust, allocates resources to the project, decides which is the best approach when like every real word problem there are upsides and downsides to everything we do? Where is the moral part of this? The "human" factor.

    Namely how do humans come up with decisions.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Decisions would be arrived at based on scientific principles rather than someone's opinion or self interest.
    While that sounds nice....who picks the scientific analysis method, decides what study to trust, allocates resources to the project, decides which is the best approach when like every real word problem there are upsides and downsides to everything we do? Where is the moral part of this? The "human" factor

    Namely how do humans come up with decisions.
    Through time I think those questions will be easier and easier to answer. The best method needs to constantly be debated and challenged and improved to better reach the best possible scenario. I think social and moral questions can also be answered by science. I don't think anything will ever be perfect, always improving. I think the decisions should always be made to protect the Environment and People, that should be the premise of the new system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by David88 View Post
    Decisions would be arrived at based on scientific principles rather than someone's opinion or self interest.
    Interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by David88 View Post
    It was proposed that a super computer would assist with this.
    Insane.

    Honestly, no matter how hard you try, you cannot eliminate the human part of the equation. It brings to mind the death penalty and the idea of "throwing the switch". We've tried to find ways to remove the human from fault by having the executioner initiate a random process so he isn't technically the one executing someone. It's very convoluted and in the end fails to accomplish anything significant.

    Humans desire order and hierarchy. We're a social species with a structure to our social group. No matter how much you try to repress individuality, a leader will emerge. Someone will come to power. You just cannot fight human nature. I don't see how it is possible.
    John Galt likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,888
    An attack by Venusians would do more to encourage cooperation amongst nations than any economic plan.
    westwind likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by David88 View Post

    Through time I think those questions will be easier and easier to answer. The best method needs to constantly be debated and challenged and improved to better reach the best possible scenario.
    Debated by who? Challenged by who? Is it a free for all were we collect tweet votes?

    You see that's the hard part of putting together societies...figuring out who makes the decisions. Just saying they will be scientifically based simply doesn't cut it. It's like the politcal brochure I got in the male Friday by someone promising that they'll "Attract new business," with few other details: Ow wow, I thought that makes it easy to decide...because you know the other candidates are saying "I want to drive off new business!"

    I think social and moral questions can also be answered by science.
    My view is science informs social and moral questions--seldom decides them; it's particularly helpful when it decisively demonstrates counter intuitive concussions--such as supporting "planed parenthood" is the best way to reduce abortions.


    I think the decisions should always be made to protect the Environment and People, that should be the premise of the new system.
    I do as well...but isn't that a bit too fluffy for you? Take the famous moral dilemma about taking your kid to an emergency room after he's been hit by a car. A doc thinks he's got a 50% chance to survive. Orderlies come get your kid and a somber doctor approaches you. You are told the omnipotent super computer decided to save three other kids needing organ transplants by harvesting them from your kid...you see that's best for society right?

    The Venus project...or at least the first film (I didn't go through all the stuff there)...skips over and seems to hand wave the very things that makes setting up working societies so difficult. Am I wrong?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David88 View Post
    Decisions would be arrived at based on scientific principles rather than someone's opinion or self interest.
    Interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by David88 View Post
    It was proposed that a super computer would assist with this.
    Insane.

    Honestly, no matter how hard you try, you cannot eliminate the human part of the equation. It brings to mind the death penalty and the idea of "throwing the switch". We've tried to find ways to remove the human from fault by having the executioner initiate a random process so he isn't technically the one executing someone. It's very convoluted and in the end fails to accomplish anything significant.

    Humans desire order and hierarchy. We're a social species with a structure to our social group. No matter how much you try to repress individuality, a leader will emerge. Someone will come to power. You just cannot fight human nature. I don't see how it is possible.
    Human Nature is not the driving force behind all of society. If that where so, we would still be living in caves. Our creativeness and our cooperation are just as powerful as our lust for power and selfishness.

    You have to realize that these complaints exist based our current system. It's hard to think outside of what we have been exposed to in life. But I think that it is possible to develop a society that raises people from childhood to have certain values. I think society creates aberrant behavior, human beings can overcome whatever primitive drives we have, or we would still be in caves.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David88 View Post

    Through time I think those questions will be easier and easier to answer. The best method needs to constantly be debated and challenged and improved to better reach the best possible scenario.
    Debated by who? Challenged by who? Is it a free for all were we collect tweet votes?

    You see that's the hard part of putting together societies...figuring out who makes the decisions. Just saying they will be scientifically based simply doesn't cut it. It's like the politcal brochure I got in the male Friday by someone promising that they'll "Attract new business," with few other details: Ow wow, I thought that makes it easy to decide...because you know the other candidates are saying "I want to drive off new business!"

    No one person actually makes a decision, The best decision is arrived by peer review, rigourous testing and with the aid of computers. So it wouldn't really be anyone person calling the shots, just the best arrived at decision.

    I think social and moral questions can also be answered by science.
    My view is science informs social and moral questions--seldom decides them; it's particularly helpful when it decisively demonstrates counter intuitive concussions--such as supporting "planed parenthood" is the best way to reduce abortions.


    I think the decisions should always be made to protect the Environment and People, that should be the premise of the new system.
    I do as well...but isn't that a bit too fluffy for you? Take the famous moral dilemma about taking your kid to an emergency room after he's been hit by a car. A doc thinks he's got a 50% chance to survive. Orderlies come get your kid and a somber doctor approaches you. You are told the omnipotent super computer decided to save three other kids needing organ transplants by harvesting them from your kid...you see that's best for society right?

    The Venus project...or at least the first film (I didn't go through all the stuff there)...skips over and seems to hand wave the very things that makes setting up working societies so difficult. Am I wrong?
    That video doesn't really go in to deep. But listen to some of Jacque Fresco lectures he know's what he is talking about and he addresses those problems. I can explain in way that I understand it. But I'm not as good as he is. Not yet anyway.

    Nothing will ever be perfect, no utopia. But I know that it can be alot better than what it is now. I think the Venus Project is our best bet.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David88 View Post
    Decisions would be arrived at based on scientific principles rather than someone's opinion or self interest.
    Interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by David88 View Post
    It was proposed that a super computer would assist with this.
    Insane.

    .
    Really. Doesn't anybody watch Star Trek?
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David88 View Post
    Decisions would be arrived at based on scientific principles rather than someone's opinion or self interest.
    Interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by David88 View Post
    It was proposed that a super computer would assist with this.
    Insane.

    .
    Really. Doesn't anybody watch Star Trek?
    I'm not sure if that is suppose to be sarcastic or not. Funny if it was.

    However I think that this is actually possible. The technology that we have today could make the Venus Project work.

    Also just consider the inspiration Star Trek gave that lead to some inventions we use right now. Never underestimate human potential, I don't think is does us any good. If something isn't possible we will figure that out, not by someone's limited opinion.
    westwind and Deno like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    That video doesn't really go in to deep. But listen to some of Jacque Fresco lectures he know's what he is talking about and he addresses those problems.


    You see to me, that's the starting point, not a detail to be filled in later after a glossy vid showing a bias view of current system, inferences to the noble savage myth, and futuristic city pictures.

    Our current system has lots of lots of problems, but it's also allowed a dramatic REDUCTION in crime, poverty and violence over the past two centuries powered by increasing secular government and a capital based finance system--the vid implying the opposite is simply and utterly wrong. And it's hard to take him seriously about depending on science when his facts about the current system are so wrong.

    The star trek society is boring with a capital "B."
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    The point was that every Star Trek society (or even a star ship) run by a computer needed to be saved or the computer destroyed by Kirk.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    I have been looking for a better system than we have today, and this looks like a good start. Hopefully people will start to realize that we must convert to either this system or a similar system if we don't plan on destroying ourselves. Chances are we are going to end up blowing ourselves up with nukes, if not, at the rate we are killing the planet, we won't have to blow up the planet, the earth is going to be non-liveable at some point. For some people hearing 'at some point' doesn't seem to mean we need to change things, which is absurd. How long do we need to destroy ourselves before we make a change?

    People are limited to their view of the world and how it can be, and this view is created by our experiences, and all of our experiences have taken place in THIS system. So how can anyone rightly say that a system such as this would not work? We don't need to have such a lack of faith in humanity. We are certainly capable of uniting and creating a near-utopia, the ONLY thing that is holding us back is the beliefs of people that keep saying it is not possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    A good test would be to try and actually build such a community somewhere. Don't know where they would get the funding for it though. I am sure a reasonable facsimile of the community could be reproduced in a free (ish) country like the US or Holland.

    This idea was expressed in one of the Zeitgeist movies. I love the ideal and optimism of it. I too feel that we do have the potential for something like that, but regrettably I don't think it is feasible in even the next 100 years. We do have the societal, cultural and instinctive precursors for something like that to build on, like empathy and such, but we are too much riddled with all the other unpleasant parts that are still in use today.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    That video doesn't really go in to deep. But listen to some of Jacque Fresco lectures he know's what he is talking about and he addresses those problems.


    You see to me, that's the starting point, not a detail to be filled in later after a glossy vid showing a bias view of current system, inferences to the noble savage myth, and futuristic city pictures.

    Our current system has lots of lots of problems, but it's also allowed a dramatic REDUCTION in crime, poverty and violence over the past two centuries powered by increasing secular government and a capital based finance system--the vid implying the opposite is simply and utterly wrong. And it's hard to take him seriously about depending on science when his facts about the current system are so wrong.

    The star trek society is boring with a capital "B."
    He admits that our current system is the best that has existed. But he also realizes that something better could exist. There is still alot of war and poverty within the World. There is still alot of bigotry, ignorance and hate. I think our current system isn't the worst but I think it is far from anything that we could have in the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by David88 View Post

    However I think that this is actually possible. The technology that we have today could make the Venus Project work.

    Also just consider the inspiration Star Trek gave that lead to some inventions we use right now. Never underestimate human potential, I don't think is does us any good. If something isn't possible we will figure that out, not by someone's limited opinion.
    Hi David, I think you are right given enough will, time and effort I don't see why we can't change the world and our way of living for the better. I also think that everything starts with an idea, right now this venus project is an idea, and idea of what could be. If this can go on to inspire changes that lead to a better world, if we can take some of these ideas and turn them into reality then I would think it's been a really wothwhile project.

    Also now I come to think of it we had a nice thread a few months ago discussing a utopian vision for the future you may find interesing to read:

    Would you want to live in a Utopian society?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    Here's the main factors I think are holding the World back

    There are three large problems I think that are residual primitive thinking: Religion, Patriotism/Nationalism and the Monetary System.

    Religion because it impedes all advancements in science, promotes primitive superstitious views towards all aspects of life and has been one of the main causes of wars throughout history.

    Patriotism is a horrible world view to have. All one has to do is look at a picture of the Earth from space to realize how silly and old this concept is. All of the flag waving and defense of man made artificial boundaries is preventing the Earth as a whole from moving forward.

    The Monetary System because technology is outsourcing jobs. Machines could do 90%. Are we as a species going to stop technological improvements so that someone can flip burgers? I'd say that the elephant in the room that noone has noticed is the Monetary System itself. Until we recognize this truth as well as Patriotism and Religion as impeding upon the future sucess of our species, we will never know peace or world prosperity.

    Some other main problems would be the Education system, multiple languages and politics.
    Deno likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    This sounds a lot like Rousseau's Social Contract. With added computers! (*) But I'm not sure how that is an improvement. There is no way such a system can work outside the imagination of idealists.

    It is doomed from the start. It might work with a small club, where everyone has similar ideals and goals. Although, even then, as soon as a difficult decision has to be made you would start to get differences of opinion..

    You are already forcing your own world view upon people. You want to get rid of religion. That's not going to be popular for a start. Patriotism is a great way of motivating people to do great things. Do you think the Olympic Games would have been as good if there was just one team, Team World?

    And it goes downhill from that abysmally low starting point.

    You want to get rid of multiple languages? How do you intend to do that? Even if you could magically make everyone speak English or Mandarin or Esperanto tomorrow, within a generation we would have thousands of dialects. Within two generations, some of these would be mutually unintelligible. Within a few more generations you would have hundreds if not thousands of separate languages.

    Honestly? This is the silliest idea I have heard since I was at university and had to try and make sense of Rousseau.

    (*) No, I haven't watched the video. Why? Because its a video.
    zinjanthropos likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by David88 View Post
    Human Nature is not the driving force behind all of society. If that where so, we would still be living in caves. Our creativeness and our cooperation are just as powerful as our lust for power and selfishness.

    You have to realize that these complaints exist based our current system. It's hard to think outside of what we have been exposed to in life. But I think that it is possible to develop a society that raises people from childhood to have certain values. I think society creates aberrant behavior, human beings can overcome whatever primitive drives we have, or we would still be in caves.
    I don't believe that society is propelled forward by the simple desire to help one another. I completely agree that there are people who dedicate their lives to making society better and ask nothing in return. If you could create a society of just those people, maybe you could get something going. But I don't see it as plausible to kick out someone's teenage son from your society because they are greedy. Even if your supercomputer deemed it be so.

    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    The point was that every Star Trek society (or even a star ship) run by a computer needed to be saved or the computer destroyed by Kirk.
    Nerd alert, but the first season of the original series had an episode where two societies let a computer run their war for them. I don't remember the name of the episode, but it is very relevant to this discussion.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    A good test would be to try and actually build such a community somewhere. Don't know where they would get the funding for it though. I am sure a reasonable facsimile of the community could be reproduced in a free (ish) country like the US or Holland.
    I think this actually makes alot of sense, I don't believe any of us really thinks the world is going to change all at once, things take time to happen and people need time to get used to new ideas and new ways of doing things. If there was a way set up a community somewhere and let it grow organically it would give people chance to see these ideas in practise and prove as a testbed for a new way of living. I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers from all over the world willing to go and live there. Getting funding for any major new social projects might be an issue in the current financial climate though.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    I'm all for peaceful volunteer social experimentation. If nothing else, it would make a great reality show for TLC.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It is doomed from the start. It might work with a small club, where everyone has similar ideals and goals. Although, even then, as soon as a difficult decision has to be made you would start to get differences of opinion..
    That's your opinion mate, and we are not limited by the opinion of one. Everyone needs to shift their focus to the environment and the development of our race, not focus on the size of our wallets, what good does that wallet do you in the end? creates a vicious cycle of want and greed. In such a society the decisions wouldn't be hard to make in my opinion. With the focus being the environment and development of mankind, the science community would help make the decisions instead of religious and/or greedy individuals. Say for instance using fossil fuel...
    1) we WILL run out at some point, so this is not a reliable source of energy for future generations, and
    2) the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels in the environment.
    So we will run out, and it is harming the environment, obvious decision there, no using fossil fuels!

    The society needs to be science based, we need to be able to think of the question/problem and come up with solutions and not worry about how much it cost because money is a man made idea, and it plays an overall negative role in the health and development of our planet and people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You want to get rid of multiple languages? How do you intend to do that? Even if you could magically make everyone speak English or Mandarin or Esperanto tomorrow, within a generation we would have thousands of dialects. Within two generations, some of these would be mutually unintelligible. Within a few more generations you would have hundreds if not thousands of separate languages.

    Honestly? This is the silliest idea I have heard since I was at university and had to try and make sense of Rousseau.

    (*) No, I haven't watched the video. Why? Because its a video.
    It is not silly to assume the one language idea would not work. That is not to say it could not work, that's implying you don't think we are capable of much. If every person on the planet was taught the same language then it could work, each generation taught the same language, and if changes were made they would be made globally, not in specific areas on the globe. That's not to say individuals could not keep their original language, but we would chose one universal language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You are already forcing your own world view upon people. You want to get rid of religion. That's not going to be popular for a start. Patriotism is a great way of motivating people to do great things. Do you think the Olympic Games would have been as good if there was just one team, Team World?

    And it goes downhill from that abysmally low starting point.
    According to religion there is going to be an apocalypse, am I wrong? How far do you think humans are going to make it on the evolutionary bar without bringing about their own destruction due to this belief? Decisions in this society need to be made based on science, not on religion. Religion is the present day 'magic' or 'superstition', no religion can actually prove it is correct, and so no religion, or religious individuals, must be depended on to make decisions to further our race. In my opinion science is fact based and religion is "oh I saw a vision!"... Well technically speaking that so called vision means you are psychotic. So really if you look at it, many religions were created based on the delusions of a psychotic individual.

    While I am sure there is SOME truth behind SOME religions, we do not know the whole picture of what we call God. I think society has been driven along the path of 'a god' too long, and that people need to start looking at themselves as divine beings. My belief is that we are all divine beings here on earth for the sole purpose of experience and spiritual growth. We should stop assuming we know what 'god' is just because some person hundreds or even thousands of years ago wrote it in a book, or told everyone what they saw, or thought was the truth. I think of the term god as being the collective consciousness of all spirits, including the ones here on earth trapped in physical bodies.

    The point I am trying to get to is, we have an amazing ability to underestimate ourselves. Throughout the history of our kind there have always been sceptics on the things that have come to be. Before planes were invented , I bet the majority would have thought the idea was insane. Just because an individual or groups opinion is that it will not work, does not definitely mean it will not. There is uncertainty to almost everything. I have faith in humans to reach this next level. I just hope we begin to transition in my lifetime.
    Ascended and David88 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    I have faith in humans to reach this next level. I just hope we begin to transition in my lifetime.
    I really like this optimism.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    That's your opinion mate, and we are not limited by the opinion of one.
    Not to be ironic, but that's just your opinion.

    What you're suggesting requires not only an ideological shift, but a complete transcendence of societal norms.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    I have faith in humans to reach this next level. I just hope we begin to transition in my lifetime.
    I really like this optimism.
    Thanks, I see it as realistic instead of optimistic though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    That's your opinion mate, and we are not limited by the opinion of one.
    Not to be ironic, but that's just your opinion.

    What you're suggesting requires not only an ideological shift, but a complete transcendence of societal norms.
    Thanks for that (No sarcasm intended), it is just my opinion, and the opinion of one does not limit us
    Yes, it is a big change and just because the change will potentially be rough and hard to accept at first does not mean it will not lead to the betterment of mankind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that this idea is ignorant or not worth pursuing. What I'm suggesting is considering the dramatic change that would have to take place in order for it to work. I'd love to see a social experiment based around the idea, but I still think that human nature would spoil it in the long run.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Deno View Post
    That's your opinion mate, and we are not limited by the opinion of one.

    And that rather proves my point. Everyone has different opinions and different values. But you expect them all concede to been ruled (by a computer?) according to rules that you think are appropriate.

    Everyone needs to shift their focus to the environment and the development of our race, not focus on the size of our wallets
    And that is your opinion. What about people with other opinions? Put them in jail? Expel them from socitey? "Reprogram" them?

    It is not silly to assume the one language idea would not work.
    It is not an assumption. It is an a certain fact based on my study of linguistics. Languages evolve and change naturally. You cannot impose a standard language on people. It has been tried. And it doesn't work.

    According to religion there is going to be an apocalypse, am I wrong?
    According to some versions of some religions, maybe. It's not universal. But so what? You can't dictate people's beliefs or stop them believing things you disapprove of. (It has been tried. And it doesn't work.)

    While I am sure there is SOME truth behind SOME religions
    Even if there were no truth in any religion, people would still be religious. It's human nature.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Average Human guymillion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And that rather proves my point. Everyone has different opinions and different values. But you expect them all concede to been ruled (by a computer?) according to rules that you think are appropriate.
    I don't like the "computer" concept, but a society ruled by logic and people actually thinking instead of making decisions based on sentiment doesn't sound all bad. (Not that this is the case now, but it does factor into the equation.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And that is your opinion. What about people with other opinions? Put them in jail? Expel them from socitey? "Reprogram" them?
    I don't think this is what he's going for. I don't know what is, but this isn't it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It is not an assumption. It is an a certain fact based on my study of linguistics. Languages evolve and change naturally. You cannot impose a standard language on people. It has been tried. And it doesn't work.
    I agree. Although, it would be a lot simpler (and possibly more boring) if this wasn't the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    59
    The computer isn't "ruling" anyone. Computers have much better computation capability than human beings can. A global computer system could keep track of everything thing that is happening on Earth. From available resources, to natural disasters, to everyone's demands in the new economy. Computers just assist and help us to arrive at the best answer.

    In order for this new system to work we have to embrace technology not fear it. We will eventually if note in our lifetimes see AI that is far more capable of performing functions that human beings can.

    You can impose a language on everyone if everyone's lives are exposed on a global scale via computers.

    This entire system would require new values, and a new way of looking at the Human race and the world. Unfortunately some people might now be able to understand or accept it, mainly because they are so deeply imbedded in this system that they simply can't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman Deno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    32
    Quick note, I am glad you are disputing this idea, the more criticism it undergoes the more we can do to change the system for the better. So as I may seem offensive sometimes, it is not my intent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And that rather proves my point. Everyone has different opinions and different values. But you expect them all concede to been ruled (by a computer?) according to rules that you think are appropriate.
    I never said anything about a computer ruling anyone. At the moment we are being rules by a huge minority of the population and they have most of the wealth and power, that sounds like an excellent system doesn't it?... They would not be rules I think are apropriate, they would be rules science deems appropriate to sustain the planet and our race.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And that is your opinion. What about people with other opinions? Put them in jail? Expel them from socitey? "Reprogram" them?
    People today are programmed to respect authority, memorize and repeat the current system, which is a system of money. Everyone wants money to buy things and be better than other people, competition. This is why there is an elite class, and middle class, and the individuals in poverty including the starving people. We would instead teach about longevity of the earth instead of destroying it to get money. Money is essentially just an idea that does nothing for us except to give us other things, and keeps certain individuals in power when others are powerless. The educational system would be changed, and there would be more environmental awareness this way. This is what could help transition us in to a new system.

    Just a side note here, think about people that don't agree with the monetary system today so much so that they refuse to use money. Are they not cast out of society? many of these people, which are highly intelligent, are simply looked at as bums. Such as [Link]

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange
    It is not an assumption. It is an a certain fact based on my study of linguistics. Languages evolve and change naturally. You cannot impose a standard language on people. It has been tried. And it doesn't work.
    Im sorry, but it is an assumption. Until the theory is put to the test it can not be proven nor disproven. Sure you have studied linguistics and they may have tried to do something similar, but that was in this system. Things change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange
    According to some versions of some religions, maybe. It's not universal. But so what? You can't dictate people's beliefs or stop them believing things you disapprove of. (It has been tried. And it doesn't work.)
    No, you can't dictate people's beliefs, but In my opinion beliefs are how they are today in part because of our flawed system. With an educational system teaching about the earth as our home and provider, everyone would be more open to helping protect and not pollute the earth. The fact that someone believes in a god or not is irrelevant. The only problem with believing in such, is due to apocalyptic ideas and thoughts, it most definitely makes some think "We're all going to die anyway.. Why take care of the planet?" when really, religion should work in unison with the planets well-being.

    I personally have no ideas beyond changing the educational system to help this issue however.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange
    Even if there were no truth in any religion, people would still be religious. It's human nature.
    I don't believe in human nature personally. I believe our nature depends on how we are raised. The ideals we grow up believing in. Why has there always been war? for land and materials, or for religious disputes. If land and materials was the birth right of every person on the planet, that would eliminate one cause of war. Certainly there will still be some that try to take control, and they will be cast out (killed) such as Hitler. Someone that threatens the well being of the society with a means of controlling it can't be left to do their thing. There will always be battles, but they would be a helluva lot easier to win if nearly the entire world was united against the enemy. Anyways, kinda got off quote topic, what my point was is that human nature (in my opinion) is simply a result of the ideals of our parents which they pass down. We start paying more attention to the earth and the needs of people and not money, future generations will catch on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1
    Hi,


    I'm very interested in the Venus Project and how it works.
    But I still have some unanswered questions:


    What will people do? Not everyone can work if the machines do everything?
    There will always be greedy people who want 2 cars in staid of 1?
    And many more problems are left unsolved.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1
    Hi to all!! I have just found this forum.

    I have also my doubts about all this. However I thought all the philosophy behinf was quite interesting, I may see also a business on the shade of all that. I really do not know how to explain that a visit to the Venus Project center is worth 200 $. However they say you receive 4 DVD and a book which worth 100 $.

    In a monetary free society?

    Really I do not know where this stands.

    Thank you for your clarification
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Phase of Venus
    By ricci70 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 16th, 2009, 10:51 AM
  2. Venus
    By George Moll in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: September 15th, 2008, 11:03 PM
  3. How does Venus appear during its transit?
    By Attiyah Zahdeh in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 27th, 2008, 01:02 PM
  4. Terraforming Venus
    By KALSTER in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: January 25th, 2008, 02:05 AM
  5. Landing On Venus
    By Quantime in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 1st, 2007, 06:13 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •