http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoNsOnj9KpU
Yeah, like we have time to go down the list and cover all 105 points. But even so, here is the link:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/faq
Figured this was relevant since the other thread popped up today.
I posed my own 'challenge' to them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhjDKkxSAw
I admit I'm not the best speaker in the world, but I think I was clear enough on what I was trying to say....
I'm going to lurk their forum on economic issues for a bit. I'll see if people there have heard of/understand the socialist calculation problem. I don't know it as well as some people, but I get the gist of it.
Good point on number one. Their ideas on scarcity are beyond inane. Even in extremely wealthy situations, there will still be wealth scarcity. If Humans Act, there is some perceived need not being met, as Mises pointed out and I mentioned in another thread. Scarcity will always exist. It's a fundamental aspect of reality, and they don't seem to grasp that.
TVP = communism with a penchant for the durability of goods.
TVP = communism with a penchant for goods durability.
After skimming through some of their economics forum, I came to realize this.
I wonder if anyone asked them... "Is your body your property?" Wouldn't they go on to say that it isn't? In which case, you may do as you please to them?
But why is there rules? If there is superabundance, we can destroy all we wish and never run out.
Ya, this is all nonsense.
Communists are always trying to rebirth under different disguises. Like any con artist that regularly changes his name to avoid being detected.
It seems I'v already attracted Venus people to my vid....
Massive youtube flamewar commeth.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Well at least it will be just like every other vid on youtube.....
How are we going to compete with a pretty girl? People are (mostly) stupid and shallow when it comes to politics.
We need a pretty girl or a well charasmatic dressed man. We need to call up Shelly Roche or Jeffrey Tucker.
I don't think this Venus Project is going to get anywhere. It's like the Secret fad cult. Not a threat to anyone.
She's not that pretty, kind of a big flat face.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
I do not really dig her either, but look through the comments.
There's also videos like this, look how they try to distinguish themselves from statist socialism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdA6EoyWEwI&feature=email
"It isn't.
The Resource-based economy uses technology and the scientific method to provide an abundance of resources for all people.
A working class and poor would not exist.
Communism and Socialism aimed to eliminate class by using money and a democratically-controlled sate owning industry. It is collectivism.
TVP is not collectivist. Anything but. The individual owns itself, there is no "state""
Lol, TVP is not collectivist.
I do not really dig her either, but look through the comments. There's also videos like this, look how they try to distinguish themselves from statist socialism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdA6EoyWEwI&feature=email
I just listen to that video. There's just so much you can argue with those people, they are too ignorant of even elementary economics to grasp what is wrong with what they are saying.
95% of their arguments are just fallacies, or plain wrong facts.
All you can say, is "there, go read Economics in One Lesson", and maybe they would start getting somewhere.
In a way, I feel the Venus Project people are worse than the socialists, since at least socialists studied a bit socialism, and socialist history, and somewhat interested in logical arguments.
The Venus Project crowd, on the other hand, believe the most superficial and childish myths, without realizing it has been tried before, with utter failure, and mass graves.
In a way, the Venus People are like socialist 100 years ago, before the Bolshevik revolution, when they still believe they could abolish money and everything would be great.
I think that's it: socialist at least by calling themselves as such, claim a historical and theoritical heritage. They have to explain why it didn't work before, and what should be changed so it works in the future.
The Venus Project crown, on the other hand, are clueless newborn, that believe no one though of their ideas before, so no criticism apply to it.
Exactly. Their inability to comprehend other ideas and the words coming out of their own mouths to recognize the similarity does not prove that they are not essentially the same.
I noticed yesterday that a girl commented on a Hulsmann video that he is "smoking hot".
We have Amelia!
And look to the new video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGB011DwojY
And again, I say, "Behold! The Venus Project!":
Hello everyone everybody! I am a five-year-old economics major and scientist. I would like to start by saying that there is a basic flaw in reason. All reason.
Now that I have made my case, let's take a look at things that have happened, ever. There is an economy and large corporations. Now we have people without jobs. This has to change. The economy and large corporations are to blame, because the jobs are gone.
WAHT R WE 2 DOOO?
Using science and economics majorology, me and some of my friends in college, plus a known university professor with two degrees and an award of unknown origin have a plan that has some things that need to be worked out but is otherwise perfect. We are going to make economy.
One time a guy wanted bread, and he had to buy it with money. This new plan, which will be fully explained, forever, is going to make his bread. He will then keep his money, all the time, and be rich.
First we will turn on the robot that makes bread. NO! It doesn't put the bread in your mouth LOL! But it makes the bread, or two breads, and then you have bread. If you want, you can also make bread, but now it's for fun. Your money is spent on other things, like stuff you need or want. Also, a robot gives you money.
The economy is fine because there is lots of money, and you can have it when you need it. You never need it to spend on things you need.
When you want things, you shouldn't have to spend money on them, so it will have the things you want. You know? "It"? It has them. Always. And you can give it money for fun! This is perfect.
Now I will explain the plan:
You will have lots of money and things you need will be given to you. If you want things, they will be easy to get.
We will know what you want.
Now I will explain how it works:
You will get what you want because everyone will do things that they want, and everyone will want enough to get you what you need.
Now I'll explain how that works.
You will have the things you need, and we will know what you want.
You will be like a god able to call down thunder, except thunder is money, and you will have it and use it for whatever you need, and it will always be there, but you won't have to spend it unless you want to.
School will be free for everyone.
School can teach us things like what we want and need, but only if we want to know what we want. School will also have a robot that will make bread and give it to us.
School will be free, and it will be paid for by taxes.
TAXES YOU CREATE!
There will be no more stealing, because everyone will have whatever they want or need. YOU WILL HAVE THE POWER TO TAX!
Reason failed, and to prove it, just look!
Why do we keep doing things like working when things exist that work already? It is tragic for a man to work when he could be eating grapes! Now is the time for change. We need a society that will respect our freedoms to choose.
We can have it if you vote. Your vote plus other votes means everyone agrees and we are free. And with this plan, science will prove that it can work.
WE WILL USE SCIENCE TO FORM THE ECONOMY.
Scientists are working right now to find new ways for economy to happen. Soon it will happen automatically while we watch it on TV. Everyone will have TV. The poor working man with no TV will be a thing of the past.
We hope you will join us in taking over and making this real, so that everyone is free from all those ignorant ideas about needing people with lots of money.
WITH YOUR DONATION AND VOTE, IT CAN HAPPEN!
I will now explain the plan:
SCIENCE!
Everything will work because scientists are finding new ways to make things work. In the future, things will work more, and then we will have our economy.
This is how it works:
You will be a king. You will be rich. You will have the power to tax. You will have robots made of solid gold that can build the power of love. Everyone will be happy and there will be peace, because we have everything we want and need.
In order for this to happen, our most important resource (YOU) will be given all the money in the universe. You will have the power of a monarchy, but be an individual. YOU CAN TAX! There will be something to tax.
How the tax structure works:
Scientists are building new things to tax every day.
We hope you are ready to learn more about this unique and logical approach to the future of freedom of mankind's struggle for love amidst the tyranny and oppression of the bygone days of selfishness, in which you can find that you can have everything by logic and science, because anything you can and do want will be part of the human existence of the love of mankind sharing all experience in its individuality and freedom of expression of thoughts of love.
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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTpp6t0fTJ4
That was funny, amazing. I wonder what valject thinks of this lol.
Drew: lol Valject. What is wrong with you don't you want to be free?
AxlSnaks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTpp6t0fTJ4
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]
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
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.
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. 1. 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. 2. 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"
3. 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... 4. 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. 5. 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? 6. 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? 7. 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.
1) 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.
2) 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.
Jack Roberts: 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.
Jack Roberts: 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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjwBZjADiM
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.
Valject: We are going to make economy.
We are going to make economy.
ROFL :D
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
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.