It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Continued Discussion On Project Venus, Money Less Society and Human Nature Within Those Parameters.

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle
Except that empathy, to my understanding is not a specific emotion. It is an emotion that essentially comes out of a form of reason and that reason is the emotion or position of another being.

Well then clearly the solution to an empathetic, but rational, means to support a predatory soul is to provide options. To an extent it is possible the current system does, but they are not so clear and are rarely found enough an award for good treatment. Simply two options. Either what was done by you (not specifically you) will be done to you in the form of jail time, with more systems of betterment within, or you realize your actions and in some way provide evidence. Of course then what evidence could be enough? That must be defined.

As to the displaced people...I can think of no better options than you, but refugee camps, slum cities and population control are certainly very possible. Or if you want to look in a more positive light, perhaps the first new cities are made on land where there used to be nothing and the old cities are scrapped afterwards, the materials used for new new cities and the displaced people sent to the first new cities. Do you actually believe in this future?




posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Tiamat384



Or if you want to look in a more positive light, perhaps the first new cities are made on land where there used to be nothing and the old cities are scrapped afterwards


Yes I agree that these cities/community projects will be built before scrapping the old over long periods of time so that no people more people are displaced than the ones who are for other reasons.

I also think the removing of the old will probably go slow one building at a time and not city wide and recycling what is possible.

It all depends on what kind of energy sources that will arrive. If we get fusion the whole energy problem will probably change drastically.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle
Well other reasons, which I take it you mean poverty and homelessness would not exist according to the videos. Which I wonder how they will make that be true.

The videos mentioned solar energy I believe and geothermal energy. Though fusion would be very promising of course, but I am not sure if there aren't the security and safety issues of fission.

The greatest flaw is the lack of explanation of a transition. I too can say there will be no more poverty, nor homelessness. I too can say we will live in a peaceful world where the people are free to do as they wish and to learn of science and culture. I too can say we will get rid of money and any form of class structure. In fact in a post I did say those things here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But without any plan of transition the argument is moot. Too many assumptions. Discussion will always lead us to the nature of man, and are we not greedy?



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Tiamat384

You can have governmental systems that makes sure every soul who do not want to be homeless can get help to not be homeless and this is already implemented in some countries where almost no native citizens are homeless.

But I do agree that there are many things to work out and because of that you should implement it in stages. ITIL comes to mind and other people can answer how to build up a good test->Production environment (live environment) better than I.

Test/development environment -> UAT (User Acceptance Test) Environment (with continues scheduled Performance Acceptance Test to measure performance) -> Production/Live Environment (with continues scheduled Performance Acceptance Test to measure performance)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle
System will be more and more complex and more difficult to maintain with a higher population count. With the current systems it is impossible, because, and this is certainly true for the States, the laws, and Constitution, are meant to restrict reformation. It is possible to change laws and amend the Constitution, but the way it is structured it is very difficult to bring about reform and impossible to bring about such major reform. Along with partisanship (Democrats versus Republicans) prohibiting such cooperation.

What stages do you begin with? City construction? Overhaul of the global system, economical system or culture? Of course culture would slowly be placed. I suppose there is no way to simply flip from one way of life to another. Perhaps the best way to plan the transition would be to study the Industrial Revolution? After all that led to the urban lifestyle which shows similar transition and around that time monarchies had come to an end. So culture and policies altered greatly.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Sounds like a blueprint for a Global Scientific Dictatorship.

What's the carrying capacity of these cities?

How exactly are people chosen to be residents?

Wouldn't the whole 'targeting' of predatory behaviour be, in itself, predatory?

This sounds like the plot from 'Elysium'.

Let's just face reality, if it comes, it comes naturally; humans are still apart of nature, and nature is chaos.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle

The best option, is to develop the ability to travel to other habitable planets.

If people have the ability to travel to other planets, they have the ability to build high-tech cities after arrival.

That would mean the technology would be possible, and there would be far less outside political influences.

Also, that removes the problem of how to decide whether to just kill off billions, or toss them into a refuse bin with barbwire around it.
edit on 16-2-2016 by GodEmperor because: edit



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor
I agree. It sounds like a utopia, which it makes it a dystopia because of the way it'd be run. There's no specific number, to my knowledge, of carrying capacity, but I'd assume a few hundred thousands to a few million. Though the videos make it seem more like a few tens of thousands.

Well, that's part of the question. How would they be chosen? Any suggestions? I could imagine by their value, by whoever buys a place in the city, or some sort of screening.

Hmm..well no, because predatory souls seek out for their own good, but targeting predatory souls is much like a shepherd protecting his herd. That isn't predatory, is it?

I agree, that film even entered my mind. Along with Brave New World.

Then if nature is chaos is society unnatural?



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor
That's assuming certain technological advancements and there would certainly be political influences. Think of the British colonies. Great example seeing how you are a Brit, and if not you are an Aussie or Canadian.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Tiamat384

Yeah, this is definitely a project geared towards those of $value.

I am curious about the proposed timetable for transitioning a city of millions into a high-tech hotel town.

My suggestion on who should be chosen? I believe a technocratic machine with the intentions on this type of endeavor already have that covered. My guess would be a handful of globalist elite, and their thousands of specialized servants to run this so called city.

Yes, Brave New World was a look into a possible future.

Everything is derived from nature, everything is a part of nature, the shaping of nature by human hands, never changes the truth that it is still part of nature. Shaping that nature, has consequences, many times unforeseen, but is not something unnatural.

What benefit is it to breed out an evolutionary trait, such as aggression, out of a human population? Is it to ensure a docile population?

The shepherd may keep the wolf at bay, only to feast on the sheep for himself.

USA, BTW.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor
But then if it is geared for a mere few thousand people only one would be necessary really.

Personally I believe, though what you say is very possible and makes a lot of sense, that it will not be just the elites and their techno cronies, but for the average human. Of course the average human would work in transportation and distribution of goods rather than the science of it. Then of course there is the optimistic view of such a world. That is that yes the elites may live here, but optimistically class structure is abolished, and the entirety of humanity is able to be involved in bettering themselves. Clearly only fools could believe in such a thing as the optimistic view point. I believe there may be slum cities for those too poor for the new cities.

I tend to think of our world as heading towards a combination of 1984 and Brave New World.

Well, I'd continue to argue that society is unnatural. What other species has a society based off of culture, knowledge and power? Other aspects of the human behavior are also unnatural, though the desire of those behaviors is not. Such as living as vegetables via machine.

That's a great point and yes. It is to have a docile population, but then a revolutionary is not of a predatory soul if he fights for what is good for all people. So much less docile, but simply not self seeking or aggressive.

Well of course that may be the shepherd's purpose, but that assumes a realistic approach where dystopia follows, rather than foolhardy approach of human kindness which the individual in charge of the project (Venus) seems to take.

American you say, well what American spells "behavior" as "behaviour"! That is in itself unAmerican.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Tiamat384

I guess that depends on who's America.

A system based on infinite growth, on a finite planet, cannot sustain itself. The current system will inevitably collapse, a transitional system is already being implemented, slowly, but most likely within a certain time-frame. The process of collapse is delayed through expansionary warfare over dwindling resources, especially fossil fuels.

The idea of nations, is an outdated method of social control, going the way of religion and democracy. The advent of technology, has made possible for global corporations to gain control and have final say in global affairs. Hopefully, in time, our system will eventually evolve into something geared towards the longevity of humans, rather than the gain of the individual.

The Global Corporate State, will be the decider of who is in or not. Every aspect of human life will be monitored, and controlled. Only entities with virtually limitless resources, and a desire to push forth this Project Venus, would have a chance to pull it off. I believe the residency will have a very short list.

Anyways, in America, the erosion of civil liberties has been a critical step to ensuring the success of this transitional system. The quelling of domestic unrest will fully ready, when the system collapses. Socialism may be the catchphrase for this transitional system, but a transitional system is not the final system. We are moving towards Huxley's Global Scientific Dictatorship, or Corporate Technocracy.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor
Depending on who is America? Could you elaborate?

What transitional system is being implemented? I am unaware of any changes of system. I am, of course, aware of changes within the system, but not of the system which are two very different things. The first dealing with a changing system and the latter dealing with changing systems altogether. Could you clue me in? But yes infinite growth with finite resources will mean a regression to "natural" population levels. I place the word "natural" in quotations because humans have increased the life expectancy of man via unnatural means.

So nations are obsolete. Are you suggesting corporations replace nations? If not what do you suggest as a possible new system? In fact, I'd like to present an argument. Man first began as a creature living in anarchy under the law of the jungle, but as man progressed from violent anarchy to autocracies to the current semi-democratic systems (if that truly) then could the next step be true democracies with open knowledge such as Project Venus would suggest? And assuming that is the next step, could it be assumed that man after that period of true democracy, peace and upbringing in culture and knowledge could live in the greatest freedom of peaceful anarchy? To me that is a logical progression, though man is clearly an irrational being. And that irrationality is presented by greed and corporation's power.

I think your term "very short" is relative. A couple ten thousands is very short when compared to the populations of millions that cities carry. And I think if the inhabitants are chosen, as you suggest, by corporate giants then that is the amount that would be supported by city. From a few thousand to a couple tens of thousands.

Ah, ok now I see the answer to my first question of what the transitional system is(was answering each point as I read). I disagree, I think any form of government today may as well be the transitional government. Take the American democracy (though it is in no way a true democracy) it could be considered in transitional mode.

So, would you agree that we are headed for, and to an extent live in, a Huxley-Orwellian society? With the Corporate Technocracy derived from Huxley and attacks on a nations own civilians, perpetual war over resources and the sake of war, possibility to destroy the other powers (in this case nuclear powers) but such destruction of the foe would lead to one's own destruction (M.A.D.) and the manipulation of the media, histories and masses with lottery also from Orwell's 1984?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Tiamat384

Whose America, there is no rule in English to be grammatically correct.


There are aspects of Orwell and Huxley's vision of a future, but the conclusion may still be up in the air.

I'm not suggesting what system would be better, it's an assessment from the current geopolitical landscape. Some corporations are more powerful than some nations, so it's not a stretch that eventually the older form of social control will be less dominant.

There is no changing nature, man is still a part of nature. Technology has only minimized the immediate effects of the environmental consequences human actions have caused. A vast number of people have become dependent on this technologically advanced system, a worldwide EMP could send the unprepared masses back to the stone-age.

The select few would essentially be viewed as the Pharaohs of old. What better way to shepherd the masses?

The number of residents is important to know, and the number of cities, what is the agreed upon carrying capacity for Earth?

American 'democracy' is in no way in any transitional phase, it's been a corporate puppet show for decades.


Due to the advent of technology, there is only one path, and that is a system of total control. The question is whether the system will be controlled by people, or AI. The answer would be the difference between fairness and self-serving.

The ideas from Huxley and Orwell predate the author, my beliefs have nothing to do with speculating on the human evolution of social control.

'MAD' is not so assured, nothing can be absolutely certain in nature, it always has surprises.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor
Ah well you see that small difference causes all the difference in your question and yes I'm pretty sure there is a general rule to be grammatically correct


I suppose the conclusion is uncertain, but I think there is one thing that can be practically guaranteed and that is that it will not be good for the majority of us.

I'm not necessarily asking which system is better as I am asking what system(s) you see a viable replacements of the nation based system. The time that the old system of nations be less dominant than the new system of corporations may already be here. Look at the power of influence had by the corporations on domestic and foreign policies.

No changing nature? Well even a part of nature surely man is the most unnatural thing. Or the most unnatural that was birthed by or as nature.

An EMP may send us all into the Stone Age, but the Stone Age would kill off billions.

We'll never knowing the agreed upon carrying capacity unless we are a part of it.

Well, I mean the American democracy as the transitional system for whatever system the corporations have in mind and of course, "In God We Trust" and what is the American currency based off of? Not gold, but trust.

The question of who controls could be expanded. The people, AI or authoritative figures? But I think there is an alternative to total control, though highly unlikely, and that is a free society.

How is MAD not so assured? All parties of the nuclear conflict would be warned and all parties would retaliate. The winner is the loser who lost the least I suppose.

I'm going to bring back a point ignored I made:
In fact, I'd like to present an argument. Man first began as a creature living in anarchy under the law of the jungle, but as man progressed from violent anarchy to autocracies to the current semi-democratic systems (if that truly) then could the next step be true democracies with open knowledge such as Project Venus would suggest? And assuming that is the next step, could it be assumed that man after that period of true democracy, peace and upbringing in culture and knowledge could live in the greatest freedom of peaceful anarchy? To me that is a logical progression, though man is clearly an irrational being. And that irrationality is presented by greed and corporation's power.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join