Paradise or Oblivion - new documentary by The Venus Project

reply to post by Alexei

you seem to base your argument on the basis that with everything being free that people would do nothing more than just eat, have fun, procreate, and never work, learn or aspire for anything else in their entire life that is not true being realistic.

Then it would seem you haven't read and/or understood a single thing I said. That is not my argument at all.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


if your talking about the scarcity of rare or hard to aquire items you really are just chipping away at the whole idea of this post with an icepick, if you want a custom item the tools will be readily available should you want one bad enough you can make it yourself theres an old saying that i will not give you fish but instead teach you how to fish, abundant resources/tools + however much time you need/want = infinite possibilities. now about what you said you want a really cool one of a kind robot and a boat no one wants to give it to you, the knowledge is there should you choose not to be lazy and apply yourself. now would please you give a little more thought to post before you decide to make irrational statements. you did not grasp the complete idea of the video please go back to page one and rewatch.

again deny ignorance

if it is incentive for people to work which you speak of, even with our long lives in this new society we would still die. what a waste of time for a person to never lift a finger their entire life, never do anything, or go anywhere. we would of course still have lazy people but if its something they want that they cannot gain any other way than by work guess what they are going to do. work. do you sit on you couch an tell the refrigerator feed me and food miraculously flies to your mouth, no. you get up and go get your food.

reply to post by Alexei

if your talking about the scarcity of rare or hard to aquire items you really are just chipping away at the whole idea of this post with an icepick, if you want a custom item the tools will be readily available should you want one bad enough you can make it yourself

You have completely missed my point yet again, perhaps you should read through everything I've posted so far before you decide to make irrational statements. My point is that some things can't ever be made abundant. My own copy of a famous painting still doesn't contain the value of the original no matter how close it is to the original. I am simply giving examples of things that can't be artificially replicated into abundance, because my deeper point is that certain things will always have perceived value.

The old vintage clock on my wall is worth a lot to me because I got it from someone close to me, even though many of them probably still exist. I wouldn't trade it unless someone could offer me something which had value to me. No matter how hard you people try to deny the facts, it's clear that some things will always have value. Things like gold and oil are prime examples of resources that wont simply be handed out willy nilly. Those things are too rare and limited to do that.

That is why trade will always happen no matter how hard you try to deny it. Yes, you could have a resource based economy, but that doesn't mean trade of valuable items is going to disappear. Because IT WONT. What I am really saying has nothing to do with whether a resource based economy could actually work. Of course it could. The question is, is it the most viable solution and will it ever be accepted. No, it is not the most viable solution because everything is far too centralized to ever really achieve the highest degree of efficiency and robustness a society can achieve.

And it will not be accepted for an extremely long time, if it ever is. You guys are ridiculously over optimistic, and you will understand what I'm saying in 20 years when we are not a single inch closer to having a resource based economy. I know you will say it's thoughts like that which make it impossible to achieve, but the fact is my thoughts don't matter. What matters is the thoughts of society at large. The only way you could ever begin to make it possible is to convince enough people to try it out on a small scale, like one resource based city, and see how it works.

The problem is that it's like an extreme form of communism. It's radically communal, people aren't open to that sort of thing after seeing the history of communism. They are brainwashed to believe freedom and unabated capitalism go hand in hand, but that's not necessarily true. But it also isn't true that unabated communism and freedom go hand in hand. My main problem with the resource based economy is the amount of centralization, I strongly believe that decentralized systems work far better.

And my main problem with the type of capitalism we have now is the amount of inequality and corruption within the system. That's why my solution is not to simply say "hey screw the system, lets try something radically different". Just look how that worked out for the communists. My solution is to fix the corruption and broken ideologies that the system has now. It's much easier to fix a broken system then to destroy it all in order to build a whole new system from the ground up.

What you don't realize is the a resource based economy is starkly different and so radically contradictory to the currency paradigms of the current system, that the chances of it ever being understood and embraced by the masses is VIRTUALLY NIL. It's nothing but wishful thinking. The number one thing to realize when you're trying to achieve anything is that your goals must be realistic. If you start with impossible goals you'll never see them manifest, you'll be forever chasing something out of your reach.

That's why after long consideration I've come to the firm conclusion that in order to really fix our problems you need to fix the system, specifically the monetary system. Trade isn't going to go away no matter what system we have, therefore it's more realistic to fix the trade system rather than try to eradicate it. The whole fundamental basis for even wanting a resource based economy is founded on the belief that we have far too much inequality, which is absolutely true.

So therefore the true core goal is to remove that state of inequality. The reflex solution, and most obvious solution is to conclude that we should all just get together and share everything. But that conclusion is ridiculously over optimistic and ridiculously over simplified. The more realistic solution would be to conclude that inequality can't exist if wealth is distributed more fairly. People will be far more willing to accept a system which rewards them fairly based on the work they do rather than a system which rewards everyone regardless of what they do.

That is why it's also a degree fairer than a resource based economy where you'll get everything you want and it doesn't matter what you do. Some people work harder and they legitimately deserve more than people who don't work so hard. It's so much more realistic and viable than simply assuming we can hand out limitless resources to whom ever desires them when ever they desire them. So all I'm saying is that we need to fix the root problem of equality in a more realistic way, which is to distribute wealth more evenly.

And even though what I'm suggesting is so much more realistic and so much easier to make it happen than a resource based economy, it will still be almost impossible to ever actually make it happen. Even though it's obviously fairer and nearly everyone comes out better off, it's still very unlikely to happen. You probably wonder why society isn't already transitioning into a resource based economy, even though it's obviously something that would be better than what we have now. You need to carefully consider why exactly that is.

If you really want to see a fairer system be put in place you really have to be more realistic with the type of system that you want. You have to promote a system which people are more willing to accept, a system that isn't based on a boat load of assumptions and untested waters. A system which makes crystal clear precise logical sense to the masses and a system which doesn't violently attack their current paradigms. The problem needs to be approached with a deeper consideration for the human paradigms which are in place NOW.

Only by approaching the problem in this way will any real progress ever be made. This type of solution requires a deeper understanding to human nature and the way they react to change, not how they react AFTER the change. In order to enact change you need to understand how humans respond to change in the first place. Without taking these things into consideration you will never achieve the change you seek. The Venus Project fails to take this into consideration, they naively think one day people will decide to start the transitional process.

However, the days, months and years tick by and what actually seems to happen is that the current system gets deeper and deeper roots, the corruption gets worse and worse, and they yell louder and louder hoping someone in charge will listen but no one ever does. And it's because the people in charge know that their ideas are too optimistic, too untested, too hard to imagine, too contradictory to the way they view human nature, too far from what we already have - so they are plainly rejected without a second thought.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

We have to chose between evolving or surviving, we can't do both at the same time. If you put people in a system where their first and most important concern is surviving (food, shelter, medical care etc..) you will create a population that cannot evolve, or very slowly through violent behaviors and related behaviors.

Now you are just mumbling nonsense. Do you even know how evolution works, have you ever heard of SURVIVAL of the fittest? Natural selection works better when living conditions are tough. Why to you think people claim modern medicine is affecting the evolution of Humans? Because we let everyone live no matter how deformed and sick they may be, and if their genes are able to spread through our population it makes us weaker. The easier the living conditions the less evolution that happens. Only when conditions are harsh will you see the most innovative survival tactics come into play. Only when conditions are harsh will the weak die off. Only when conditions are harsh will the strongest genes propagate through the species. What you have just said is completely counter the most fundamental rules of evolution.

I am glad you wrote that paragraph because it says everything about the way you see everything else, and it clearly shows that there are more subtle and abstract topics you have dismissed, overlooked or that you have never even heard of.

Do you consider us like simple animals or do you think we have something that other animals don't have, that there are some things we can accomplish other animals cannot? Do you think our species has some unique features or not? If yes, should we stick to animal behavior or should we try to harvest those features to their full potential? And haven't we harvested those features until now, and if not what is civilisation?

Today, "survival of the fittest" is not what makes us evolve, but culture. We have learned to protect ourselves from harsh environments, to the point that we foresee human settlements on planets with lethal atmosphere or with no atmosphere at all. We have no predators or very few (viruses..) and even those will be made harmless in the future. In fact, we have extracted ourselves from the natural jungle for a long time now, thanks to culture, but still you preach that we should "stick to the natural jungle law". What is pushing you to want that if not ideology? Our genes do not define who or what we are, but culture does, life experience.

Your lack of imagination and hindsight make you believe that the only solution is to follow nature and to build civilisation around the "survival of the fittest" concept. But you see, I used the word "concept", because in human societies that are made of culture, it becomes just a concept, nothing more, nothing less, just a choice of concepts. Do you understand that ? Culture is potential, and nothing forces you to push into the cultural sphere what you have found in the natural world, if not ignorance or the fear of the endeavour. We have the potential to create new concepts, new possibilities, new ways of living together, we can play with symbols, dismantle them, and rebuild them in another way, don't you see that potential? And if it is the "efficiency" parameter that you find attractive in the jungle law, that's just non-sense, because irrelevant to our civilisation made of culture. It doesn't matter if you can't walk, it doesn't matter if you have a weak heart, it doesn't matter if you need reading glasses. What if Einstein or Stephen Hawking couldn't survive in a jungle and who cares? They are not precious to mankind because of their hunting skills or their ability to build a house, but because of their ability to manipulate abstract symbols and innovate, and more importantly they have trained their brain and they had the opportunity to train it. That's what brains are made for, that's the potential of every brain out there. Would you have wanted them to just stick to survival chores instead? Can't you see the benefits that mankind would gain if every human brain was liberated from the trivial struggle for survival?

Come and tell me again now that the heart of our disagreement is not "human nature". But I am sure you will just rapidly skim through what I just wrote and jump on some words or a sentence and type an answer with just your guts, not taking into account the whole picture and the signification of my arguments.

Also, I would be happy to read those essays you say you have written, I want to see how you have defended what I am defending here.

reply to post by gosseyn

Today, "survival of the fittest" is not what makes us evolve, but culture. We have learned to protect ourselves from harsh environments, to the point that we foresee human settlements on planets with lethal atmosphere or with no atmosphere at all. We have no predators or very few (viruses..) and even those will be made harmless in the future. In fact, we have extracted ourselves from the natural jungle for a long time now, thanks to culture, but still you preach that we should "stick to the natural jungle law". What is pushing you to want that if not ideology? Our genes do not define who or what we are, but culture does, life experience.

I was never claiming we should stick to the "jungle law". I was simply pointing out why you're words about evolution were wrong. All types of evolution work in the same way. The basic laws of natural evolution also extend into the laws of spiritual evolution. The most spiritually aware people on this planet are those who have experienced extreme hardships and sadness. Only by truly knowing such pain can they truly appreciate the full extent of life's pleasures. It is said that one cannot know happiness without knowing sadness. There can be no light without darkness.

This is the same reason why some monks and other types of spiritualists choose to live out in the desert in total isolation for years on end. To a short sighted person their actions seem absurd, there doesn't appear to be any logical reason for why they would choose to do that. In some theories it is said that wiser souls choose to reincarnate themselves into the body of a disabled child or into the body of a child in a 3rd world country so that they can experience life from a different perspective. It is only by experiencing life from those perspectives that they can attain the next level of spiritual understanding.

I am not saying anything other than your concept of evolution is completely false. When we find ourselves in a state of society where we've overcome all challenges and hardships, evolution of our species will slow down in all areas. There wont be any extreme hardships to experience and overcome and learn from. It reminds about the story of the kid in Africa who built windmills to supply electricity to his house and village. The hardships he faced forced him to get up and use his practical knowledge to implement real world solutions. A sheltered 1st world child with no real hardships and exposure to the environment may have more technical knowledge than that boy, but their ability to practically express that knowledge and put it into real world use with make shift tools will be lower.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

I am sorry, but you don't understand.
We are already no longer subject to natural selection. It means that it's culture and the way we use it which decides today of who lives and who dies. The cultural system we create decides who has access to medical care and to proper food, to education and other vital and cultural products. Nature is no longer shaping us, but culture is. And what is culture? : the product of our minds, something that we can transform and improve. It's no longer your genes that decides if you will reproduce or not, but it's your cultural adequacy, it's the way you have adapted yourself to the artificially created cultural system. But what if the current system doesn't give equal chance to everyone, what if the current system could be tremendously improved, what if thousands of child death a day could be avoided, just by a choice, a simple choice of concepts?

But maybe you are against any progress? I mean seeing the way you speak of sadness and suffering maybe we should unleash some killer virus, or we should forget about medical science and return to a pre-historic way of life? Do you think it's bad for mankind to have extracted itself from the natural selection for thousands of years now? Do you regret the millions of lives saved? And nowhere it is said that every problem on earth would be solved overnight if the proposed system was to be accepted, there will always be something to improve, a problem to solve. It's not like we can forget about death just yet, and illnesses that leads to it.

Again, what you don't understand is that the current system is the result of an intrusion of concepts found in the natural world into the cultural sphere. Instead of creating the best cultural system we could, some people just said "let's just copy nature and make competition the base of our society". It's called capitalism by the way. And why did they do that you may ask? Because they were wrong on the definition of "human nature", they had the wrong answer to the question : what is a human being? Is it an animal, is it something else? Is it greedy by nature? They didn't recognise the fact that the humans they were observing were the products of their environment at that time. Mankind has always been under the pressure of scarcity, but guess what, we can today envisage a post-scarcity civilisation, and it questions even the very concept of "property".

And about that child in Africa you speak of, you just prove that you still believe that humans wouldn't move a finger or a neuron if physical needs were met. If this is the case, you can read again what I said on that in my earlier posts.

A brilliant idea. Let's hope more people pay attention to these concepts before it's too late! What choice do we really have in the end? We're killing ourselves and doing nothing about it. Solutions are everywhere but no body cares. What's wrong with the planet? Are we really so far gone that we can't appreciate good ideas anymore?

I think this needs to be brought forth in every community, since most have never thought of this. Or have, but didn't know how to describe it.

However, its only the organization, the equality and freedom and abundance that really interests me. The clean energy and free education and constant retraining. That it is not a system of bartering, which would still be the same scarsity system an the same inequality as now. It is not a system of forcing people but encouraging all to use their talents and most would, at least for certain stretches of their lives, though many would take time out to be with their young children for a number of years.

The changes I would make are this: I don't like the archeticture. No way. Yes we need to get to recycling buildings, recylcing everything, recycling and purifying water even. BUT, Cob Homes, and Earth ship homes are far more beautiful and natural. I would never live on a second story apartment, and don't ever want to see skyscrapers in any way shape or form. No one should be living in unsafe conditions. Young children die falling off balconies every single year. There are earthquakes and fires. Its' not natural to live in little boxes stacked up high. Only Big Business Slavers think like that.

What we want is homesteads, farm, land for every single person, and since we all fit shoulder in LA, its more than possible, spread out like we are, to have eco farms with PRIVATE land around each home. Yet shared farming. And individual land.

In cities. I have always seen apartment buildings as horrible. For the elderly and those who prefer smaller living, there should be large two story houses, and no higher, with huge suites in them, and greenhouses, gardens and land, and they should all be about twice as big at least as the average ones, possibly 3 times bigger. And all have ample room and guest space. And really really good services, social workers and those who do cleaning. Though we're very close to the point where everyone could have their own R2D2, to do all the housework and cleaning, even tend to the greenhouses and garden. But we still need real humans to interact, visit, and spend time with shut ins, and take them out, and meet them up with others, activities, or if they really can't stand outings, check on them frequently.

I see town houses with lots of land around them, and Large Spacious Greenhouses joining them up, for ample growing spaces, again Twice As Big as they are now.

And most people would prefer living in their own homes or on their own acreages.

I don't like his Sci Fi looks, and would never live in that kind of architecture.

Its the idea I agree with, on the economy and living, not his archeticture.

This is how I was raised and would always choose to live:

images1.estatesincanada.com...





If anything happens, like the SHTF, we need to ensure that they don't have plans for quickly erecting boxes for people, and thinking they can steal all the land and resources of this planet.

I'll never join them and would join a community of homesteaders instead.

And in fact there shouldn't be one way, one look, this needs to accord all people with land and resources so they can choose and move around as they wish.

It is not paradise to live in a world with cameras always watching.

The world is not completely controlled by technology now and look how much cameras and control there is, imagine if it were COMPLETELY controlled by technology. Do you know think that "they" will use this to their advantage to control?

reply to post by arpgme


But I think this idea would really take away many of the tools "they" use to gain power over others. The main things that give "them" power are monetary systems and the legislative/court systems that "they" use to control and manage the population. Also military might. With the proposed system the former would be completely wiped out, and the latter would also take a severe blow as well. A military is very hard to structure and make work without some form of incentive. If it is not monetary, it would have to be something like nationalism or religion... or maybe resource allocation. However, say if a group were to break off from the "pack" and attempt to hoard resources from the others through military might, well, I wonder how that would be addressed? Any VP supporters have an answer to that?

reply to post by openlocks


Exactly, and it's ran by technology a group can hack it and make it turn destructive - like in those robot apocalypse movies.

If the proposed system was to be implemented someday, it would have been implemented after many steps, and not after just one giant step, because that is not realistic. And it is important to understand that there is no "end" to that process, there is no perfection, there is no utopia, rather every generation would improve the work of its predecessors. The idea is a resource based economy (RBE), and the venus project is but one proposition, one model, and its architectural characteristics are bound to change. And as for the question of the potential conflicts in the early stages : this is why the new system should be planetary, we can't let down any group or region of the globe. The first step towards a RBE could be to make electricity, water, food or others commodities dirt cheap, almost free. Today, many things are not done because there is no profit to be made, and this is an ideological dead-end.

You have to imagine children born and raised in such a system. They don't use money, many have never even heard of it. Their education is not directed towards filling a spot in a productivist and capitalistic system like the one in which we live today, but their education is directed towards an understanding of the natural world in which they live in, of its natural laws. They are given the larger spectrum of understanding possible, in all branches of science. In a world like this, quantum physics would feel natural to 10yo children. In a world like this, there is no money to be made, no profit. You have nothing to sell and nothing to buy, there is no advertisement industry and no marketing, no cashiers, no bankers, no lawyers, no insurance industry either. You contribute to the well being of the species in the way you want. Everyone is a scientist, because it's the basics. You didn't spend 12 or more years in school to learn how to produce useless stuff or to serve as a slave worker for a rich man or company, but you have learned how to unlock your potential, how to use your brain. A cashier's brain is wasted brain.

As for the "evil machine" syndrome, are you scared by your laptop ? Are you afraid that your car tomorrow might get a life and a consciousness of its own and decide to drive you into a wall at full speed? Movies are just movies.

Originally posted by arpgme
It is not paradise to live in a world with cameras always watching.

The world is not completely controlled by technology now and look how much cameras and control there is, imagine if it were COMPLETELY controlled by technology. Do you know think that "they" will use this to their advantage to control?

No doubt. It needs to be infinite sovereignity and equality. But what is he is describing in principal is the only thing that could ever be said as not slavery. Money is slavery. Bartering is the same thing as money minus the actual money. Nor forcing or controlling others is important.

The problem is, people are not on the same page, the same frequency, etc. Some of this is programming, from cradle to grave, but some could be here to learn and overcome the inequality as well.

So, you'd have to have equal regions doing different things and have people choosing their realms so to speak with lots of movement space, to escape to a better one once you cry, uncle, uncle inequality hurts like hell!

reply to post by gosseyn


I don't know how fast or slow something like this would take. I see it this way. Opting out, like I wish to do. Starting a business, more than one actually, that involve skill development in woodworking, electronics, mechanics, and being able to replace rent or payments of 1400 and higher, with land to lease and then own, and homes on wheels and yurts and workshops/greenhouses, and get as many people over time as you can focusing on working part time for survival, having abundance for projects, and exporting food, and business ideas, startup, free media to the community around you growing awareness, demonstrating with pure joy and fun, what its like, having more and more hook into alternative energy, heritage seeds, and busineses with shared work, not working for them, and exporting it to third world by setting eco farms their and half way houses for street children, eco farms for street children and their providers/caretakers. Having real solutions and putting it into practice, not quitting the world, but reducing it, by gaining self sufficiency and lots of integrity. Don't increase profits, use a sliding scale and lay away plans to ensure even the poor can buy them, and give aways, draws, workshops.

In time, community, via councils and problem solving would realize they don't need the current systems or Big Brother as they're more mature than anyone running for office and will be making changes.