My take on Zeitgeist: Addendum and The Venus Project. Please read!

reply to post by bkyle


If the day ever comes when the Venus Project becomes a reality hopefully mankind will have achieved the mentality to embrace it.

Why would man need to rape and pillage a society that already provides everything he could possibly need?

Will take me some time to read all of the posts, but I have seen all 3 films and it is what interests me, very bold, that is also where I first heard of the Venus Project. Amazing ideas that even if they are far ahead of us, just the thought of happening one day, it is enough for me to awe. =)

I am familiar with this concept and have talked to lots of people on this matter.

I have noticed that for many people even the idea of it is simply too outside the box. They are not able to even imagine something like that, that is just so surreal for them. Talking about changes in individual value and losing the monetary system is something they can not understand.

That would be the largest obstacle in going over to such a system. The values of many-many people are so strong, that it is nearly impossible to break through them a mindf*ck.

Such a system, a system of abundance needs to shift people´s materialistic beliefs to the other end. If you could get whatever you want, why would you need to stock up on all those things? Even I have the chance of getting it, do I actually need it? Greed and envy can not exist in such a system. Keeping up with the joneses attitude can not exist. Piano might need more resources for making it, although do I need to get a piano, if my neighbour has it and I do not, even though I would never need it? Too many people would simply overconsume. Even the fact that things actually do not have monetary value, as they are just on earth after all. If we wanted we have the metals, automated industries which would create a car or something for every person in the world. The metals are here after all, they already exist...

I doubt jobs would ever be needed in there. As there are no menial jobs. If we think about it, why do people work? Most people work for money. Although would a person not work if they already had all the options that money can give? They would still do something, their hobbies. Looking at different opensource projects in internet, hobby movies, music. Anything is possible. And there exists all kinds of hobbies. I highly doubt there are so many people would like to simply sit through the day without doing nothing. Most would deal with their hobbies and these hobbies would be the jobs.

Another value which must exist is something that is common in many non-profit organisations (without salaries). The more you do, the more respect you earn. Currently the attitude tends to be: the more you get, the more respected you are. It has to be shifted to give. People who are giving back the most to the society, are the most succesful people.

I know my expression skills are not very good. I tried to explain these value, although I am afraid I did not get across to many people with these Although such a shift needs the human values advance a lot, shift away and it is extremely hard if not impossible to achieve currently.

originally posted by: badmedia
Resources = money. Resource based system = money based system. Time is a resource. Thus, why you often hear time = money.

Money is not a resource. Money is a token. A symbol.

Money is not wealth. They conjure up billions of new monies every month. Yet printing money does not increase wealth.

Unfortunately, those who construe money with wealth or resources are beyond reach of the movement.

Money and debt are make believe. Only resources are real.

You only want money because you either want:

1. to spend it on real wealth and resources

2. use it to accrue even more money to eventually spend (delayed spending but that is always the ulterior motive).

Nobody wants money just for the sake of money.

They want money to be able thing that they actually want.

Furthermore, there is no social system that is free of compulsion and coercion.

What, you actually think the poor willingly, voluntarily choose not to take from the rich?

So why is compulsion and coercion legitimate when used to protect and enforce private arbitrary privilege but not good when increasing general utility (increasing the overall welfare of population)?

Why is it only the rich are entitled to welfare at the expense of everyone else?

What is the non-arbitrary justification for private property, right of inheritance and the right to issue the nation's money (currently privatized to the banking system)?

There is no system without some degree of coercion. Especially no capitalist one. Those tend to be the most coercive of all.

They have to be to perpetuate themselves.