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

reply to post by cosmicpixie


I've yet to read a debunk or argument against the Venus Project that makes any sense, it seems every argument confronting it is nothing more than people portraying their own irrational fears and misunderstandings onto what they want to believe the Venus Project is. I suggest people actually do their research before making these claims.

Neither the Venus project or the Zeitgeist movement makes any attack on the belief or the theory of 'God' it only denounces religion. The removal of religion, in no way strips us of our 'Humanity', I for one do not believe in any religion or god, I guess I am not human according to you? What you are suggesting is nothing more than intellectual materialism, should we also revert to believing that the earth is flat while were at it? in reality claims like the ones you are making are only stunting progress. If the world were in the hands of people like you we would still be living in caves.

I've read a few comments claiming that The Venus Project is aiming to lead humanity in the hands of an elite few, again I suggest you do your research before making such ridiculous claims and while your at it I suggest you open your eyes and see that the society we live in today is truly ruled by an elite few, a society so sick and corrupt that none of us are truly free.

The world is going to go in either two directions in the near future, we are either going to see world government or world unification. These are two drastically different futures, which one we will see is entirely up to all of you. It's entirely up to all of you to open your eyes.

What the Venus Project proposes is abundant resources which can be realistically produced and provided for all earths people, freeing mankind from subservient labor, and a society that is based around meeting the needs and well being of everyone, not the needs and well being of a monetary based economy. Decisions are not made they are arrived at.

So denouncing what the Venus Project proposes simply because it is radical is being extremely irrational. We NEED a radical change if we are going to continue to exist on this planet. Thinking that we can continue the way we are going and that you are free, and that you are not already ruled by the elite is being UNREALISTIC. The fact that people are protecting today's society and bashing the Venus Project is proof to how much of a damn good job the powers at be are doing at brainwashing people.
So wake up everyone, research what the Venus Project is about before making these bogus claims, the Venus Project proposes nothing but realistic solutions to the vast majority of the problems we face today. It never claims to be a perfect society, or some 'Utopia' that is impossible, it's just a whole lot better than what we have today.

What i hear here is a lot of scared people........scared of change.First of all I don't think the project is taking away your beliefs or individuality.As far as religion goes where is the proof of any of it ?In all the time religion has existed has there been any proof of anything? No,and I know people say "well that's where faith comes in".Ok well if we had no dinosaur bones in museums and some one said there use to be giant lizards that roamed the earth before we came along that person would be deemed crazy(and I'm sure that probably happened).But why do we believe they existed?Because we have proof.And to answer question two science would govern the resources but even science would have to be monitored.We've all been programmed,and guess what,this programming is not working ! Look at the shape of the world,(in which we humans alone,have created.Why,cause of greed.Everybody is different, no two humans are alike,but there are many ways where we are exactly the same.....we ALL need clean water to drink,we ALL need fresh (unpolluted)air,we ALL need (uncontaminated)earth to grow food and hunt on.......and I know there's a lot of anti-hunting people out there too but before you start bitching about that go visit your local slaughter house.......but that's a whole other subject.Basically I think the point is this.......believe what you want,eat what you want but we need to start deprogramming ourselves from all the centuries of untruth's and selfish way's we've all been taught and take away all the 'label's'(communist,fascist etc etc)call it what it is "A better world where we're smart enough to self govern ourselves". Come on everybody knows the difference between right and wrong and I think science is the proof of that ........

Hi all, I have just begun to find out about the Venus Project via video tape of university speech and debate so don't have the full picture by far (look forward to seeing the movie).
Am I missing something here? My understanding was that as time goes on the human race will need to make decisions on how we live our lives and that those decisions will have to come from a place of truth for the common good of all people as the current scheme of things is not heading for a bright future. I agree with other posts regarding that native peoples/aboriginals lived in a harmonic communist state where everyone worked for the common good of all. This was their truth. Not because it was forced onto the people but because it was accepted and understood that together they could live in balance with themselves and the land.
As the current system is not working (we spend so much on war when we can use the technology to feed clothe research medicine etc) while there are the "haves" and the "have nots", is it unrealistic to look for answers that may just have the world living in harmony again?
About the truth and religion thing. In my opinion, as time goes on religion will cease to exist. Not because it will be forced out of existence by some authority that some people on this forum have suggested, but because people will begin to see that religion in its current form is hindering man as opposed to assisting mans potential. Were so many wars over the centuries not fought over the "my religion is the only true religion". What I am saying is that peoples thoughts about what is beneficial and not beneficial to mankind will evolve to a point of religion not existing in its current form. I don't believe this will happen for some time to come, but believe that it will be part of mans evolution (I therefore cannot quite understand why some people seem concerned about not being able to practice their faith because big brother says it is not allowed). I may be a little biased here as religion has, from my observation, not supported my belief that we all are one and what you do to another you are also doing to yourself.
The fact that something like the venus project is trying to address the current status of the worlds systems which are obviously not working for the benefit of all and is putting up some suggestions for a better future can only be a good thing.

Or is there something that I have totally missed here? Please let me know and I look forward to hearing from you all.

"In the abundance of water the fool is thirsty". Robert Nesta Marley

All those in doubt need only read the FAQ section of the Venus project. There shouldn't be any hesitation really, do you actually enjoy being a slave? Research, understand. There will of course be challenges in such a project but it's not impossible. Man thought we couldn't fly until someone created the plane.

Some also trying to relate the Venus project to lucifer or NWO etc, that's just rubbish. Look at what the venus project is offering and weigh that up. It gives everyone more freedom than this current crap system. Equality is the goal

I'm a little late coming to the movement, but I had watched both of Peter Joseph's movies about when they came out and have followed the movement as they have grown more sophisticated in fleshing out their ideas. The ideas presented in Zeitgeist & Zeitgeist:Addendum and The Venus Project have been percolating in my brain for a couple of years now as I've read and researched for a better way. I have come to the conclusion that their isn't a better idea out there for the long-term survival and propagation of our species. Sounds heavy I know, but this is something I've come to believe.

I'll try to answer your questions on a point by point basis.


I think what this man was talking about is far too advanced for humans today as they are. Not technology wise, but as a mentality. I don’t really think we can..

The toughest thing, I agree, is to break the mindset that we have all been raised with. That scarcity only exists because it is imposed upon us by our monetary system.

And it wouldn’t be right to force us to.

Jacques Fresco has never advocated forcing this way of life on anyone. He is confident that once it is observed that abundance can set us free, why would anyone want to live as they did before. But if they wanted to, then that is their prerogative.

It sounded like they wanted to do away with old values and old beliefs — religious systems, familial values, etc. That’s what they want to do in the New World Order.

Again old values and old faiths are irrelevant in a resource based economy. He is not advocating doing away with them, he just thinks that once we as a species spent more time pursuing a higher purpose, freed from the worry of where our next meal was coming from and free from the chains of debt, we would eventually cast aside these beliefs. But at no point would anyone be forced to. The New World Order objective it to have a one world government that binds us all down under the obligation of debt run by a few rich elite.

So why do away with traditional families? Why even HINT at it?

You have to look at why traditional families matter so much right now. Simplistically speaking, it is a way to get parents to take responsibility for their children rather than foist them onto society to take care off. Hence the marriage contract. In a resource based economy full of abundance this distinction would matter much less, thus traditional families would be more like community families, a la It takes a Village.

The old man said how parents indoctrinate their children towards their belief systems…And he is talking about it as if it’s negative.

It's true, we do indoctrinate our children. He is concerned with indoctrinating our children with foolish ideas like hate, prejudice, etc.

If you agree with this old man, then you ALSO agree with California’s decision to stop homeschooling — when a LOT of homeschooling is done for religious purposes

Education in a resource based economy will be less structured and will centre around a child's interest. So no he does not agree with state sponsored education. There is no place for the state.

you also DISAGREE with Aaron Russo when he speaks negatively about how those at the top of this centuries old pyramid scheme

Jacques certainly doesn't support the rich bankers as he thinks that the monetary system is what is holding us back. So he wouldn't explicitly disagree with Aaron Russo.


I mean, I really wouldn’t doubt if this comes back later in time that The Venus Project was some CIA funded group or experiment — after all, they say Jonestown may have been a CIA experiment.

Jacques Fresco is in his 90's he has been advocating for this way of life for 70 years, I think the CIA could come up with something more effective.

This is where critical thinking MUST come into play.

This is all he encourages.

Originally posted by cetta
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

 

But it does seem communistic to me -- and not that communism is bad. When it's natural and not forced onto anyone, like.. wouldn't we say the tribes in Africa that have little contact with the outside world (or didn't for a long time) have a communistic feel to them?

What Jacques is proposing is not communism. There is no labour, there is no money, there is no state.


But for him to equate or put into the same bubble peoples "religious systems" with the same things that are broken in this world -- That's a very scary thing.

Not to go in depth in a historical accounting of what people have done and justified in the name of religion, which I am sure you would agree would amount to much more than the 4000 characters I am allowed. Jacques angle is that people are a product of their environment, all behaviour is learned. An example he uses is if you raised a Jewish baby boy with Nazi parents then that boy would grow up to be a good Nazi. We have religion because we have learned it from our parents. We needed religion because we needed answers. This type of behaviour will become vestigial over time in a resource based economy because there is no basis for it, no reason to perpetuate it.

Originally posted by cetta
reply to post by mystiq

 

That's all well and good and I do not disagree with any of that. Sign me up with all of that. That sounds absolutely wonderful to me. But can't we have that and still have our religions in tact?

Cetta, you can have your religion and practice your religion as you see fit in a resource based economy as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else. But know your traditions probably won't survive your grandchildren as it would be seen as increasingly archaic. Jacques Fresco doesn't propose banning religion, he believes it will be weeded out over time. And if it doesn't get weeded out the most violent aspects of it will be neutered as there will be no reason to wage war or justify war.

reply to post by cetta


Jacques Fresco doesn't like the word intolerance or tolerance. He prefers understanding. He doesn't oppose religious people he has been famously quoted "I think Christianity is great! When will they put it into practice?"

reply to post by badmedia


1.Ultimately there is no who. Using technology to create an abundance, the only person who makes the decision about your needs is you.

2.Managing resources would be left up to computers with human input. It is allocated based on need, first come first served.

3.You don’t do anything with the people who don’t go along with it. There is no need to. This idea in practice will win out over the long-term peacefully. No force or subjugation necessary.

Money is a method to control resources that are scarce. If resources are abundant (and they are, properly managed) then there is no reason for money. Our society is incredibly constrained and wasteful solely due to money.

If all people had access to the necessary components of life, food, clean water, shelter why would they required access to unlimited resources? What exactly do you need to satisfy that would require unlimited resources? Providing for the necessities does not require infinite resources, the number is quite finite.

reply to post by badmedia


There is no state in Jacques Fresco’s view of future society. No one person is going to have control over another. No one person is going to prevent another person from having access to the resources that they require to live. The world’s resources belong to everyone. Jacques Fresco defines this as common heritage.

The resources that have been wasted fighting terrorism are resources managed in a society that promotes scarcity through a fiat monetary system which restricts advances in technology and engineering. Profit through inefficiency.

Jacques does not advocate the abolishment of religion, he merely thinks that religion will wither away eventually on its own. And if it doesn’t that is fine as well because the most vicious aspects of religion will be neutered as the impetus to wage war and subjugate others will have been removed. The impetus I speak of is scarcity and inequality.

I think you need to listen more to what Jacques has to say. Peter Joseph has a blog talk radio show that Jacques is on every month. www.blogtalkradio.com...

reply to post by badmedia


Why wouldn’t your free will and individuality be respected? At no point does Jacques Fresco say that we have to give up our free will and individuality to take part of the system.

Nothing will happen to you if you do not “go along”. Jacques vision does not include prisons or gas chambers. You can live outside of the system if you would like. But are you living outside of our present system? I think you’ll find that the current system is much more insidious when it comes to forcing your acquiescence.

There is no such thing as free markets today. Government/Corporate intervention is rife as is favourtism. The ultimate end to any capitalistic free market is monopoly or cartel which by definition squashes any notion of a free market.

There is no government to force on people. Truly in Jacques society it contains freer market and freer “democracy” than is currently experienced. The market would consist of ideas, with better more efficient ideas propagating and weeding out less efficient ideas. And at no point would any of these ideas infringe upon the dignity and liberty of any human being.

Why make anything illegal? Using laws to curtail undesirable behaviour is inefficient at best. You design the system to make the behaviour irrelevant. Someone who likes to litter, you create robots to clean up (like an advanced Roomba). Someone who likes to drink and drive, you design a car that drives itself. There is a technological or engineering fix for almost everything.

As for equal opportunity, it is only as equal as you have privilege, either by who you know or how much money you have.

Resources do not equal money. Money is a tool to restrict access to resources and restrict efficiency in technology.

But here is a question for you. How free are you now? How much of an individual are you really? Jacques Fresco says that we have never really know democracy and we are the sum of what we have read and who we have interacted with. How many of your opinions are truly your own? Something to think about.

reply to post by lifeform


You need to break yourself away from the idea that we would only perform labour for money and that money is the only incentive to do anything. It is true that today we do our jobs, which we most likely hate, solely for the money because we have monetary obligations to society i.e. mortgages, car payments, bills etc. But what of our hobbies or volunteering? These are examples of labour for the sake of enriching ourselves and society without monetary gain. Jacques vision is an extension of that; we would do what we love to do for the benefit of society. Initially there would be some labour and this would be spread out so no one would be unduly inconvenienced, but the idea is that as technology improves there would be no jobs that couldn’t be done by a machine, leaving us to contribute through science, art, philosophy, entertainment.

We are already on our way to mass technological unemployment as machines advance to a point where, from a companies perspective, it would be more cost effective to replace human labour with machine labour (i.e. automotive plants). This trend will continue until the no jobs are left, but long before we reach that point you will have no economy left as your customers have no jobs in which to earn money to purchase your products or services.

Your assertion that we went from primitive settlements where no one was homeless or hungry to cultures that we have today where we have homelessness and hunger is not because we have people that don’t what to give away their labour for free, but because we have forced people to sell that labour in order to eat, clothe and shelter themselves. Money creates the sense of scarcity. You are confusing cause and effect. We have little choice but to behave like this because our environment leaves us little choice. Take care of people’s basic needs, and do not force them to sell their labour and they will happily labour for society.

reply to post by badmedia


If you have abundance, what intrinsic value does it have? For example, air is very important to us, we would die without it, but it is so abundant how could we ever charge for it? I think you would agree that living in a finite system, air is finite, yet it has no value. Food, water and shelter can also be like this.

It is interesting that you mention that the day we can conjure up matter with our minds the new can have a moneyless society. Advances in nanotechnology make it conceivable that we can convert raw matter into anything we like. It seems like magic to us today, but in the future it will be commonplace. What prevents us from reaching these heights is money itself. If we have a catastrophic problem are we just going to wait around until someone throws enough money at the problem or are we all going to pitch in and solve it with no monetary gain? So ask yourself, why does it have to be a catastrophic problem? Can’t we just pitch in and solve problems without getting paid to do so?

reply to post by THELONIO


Unfortunately Jacques lives in the same monetary system that you and I do. If he is going to get anything off the ground it has to be launched from the within the rules of present society.

reply to post by cetta


Just to be clear if this vision that Jacques Fresco has ever become global it would be because people wanted it to be that way, not because it would be forced upon them. It would be a competition of ideas between the current system (corruption of a fiat monetary system) and his system (common heritage claim on the world's resources, equality for all, freedom to pursue ones own intersts for the benefit of all).

reply to post by badmedia


To further your example. You have 100$ in the economy. You possess 10$. In Jacques Fresco vision of the future you have the potential to grow 1,000,000 apples. What is the value of that apple? A thousandth of a cent? Now you don’t need to grow a million apples in this resource based economy, you just need to grow enough to make sure everyone can be fed. Abundance through the use of hydroponics makes the apples value in monetary terms negligible, but we require food to live so it makes it priceless. Who are we to say that someone cannot eat because they do not possess the 5$ required in your example? But yet this is what we do when we let people starve. We have the capacity and technology today to make sure everyone is fed and that no one would go hungry ever again, but we don’t because of the money question.

I understand your point about the central banks and know how they steal from us through inflation. But without the instrument of fiat money, the central banks would have no power, and would in fact be irrelevant. To legislate central banks out of existence and establish sovereign asset-backed money would be a temporary fix as the Money Trust has always found a way to come back, usually through the backdoor. Look to American history when the first central banks of America were defeated (one by Andrew Jackson), but yet they returned in a new incarnation (the 12 banks of the Federal Reserve). You cannot legislate them away, as long as there is some sort of monetary system they will come back.

Debt is slavery, debt is propagated by debt based money.

reply to post by badmedia


Supply and demand is a notion foisted upon us by an economics based on a fiat monetary system that encourages scarcity and inequality. Limited material resources compared to what, based on what? If you are saying we live in a finite system, then yes we have limited material resources in that respect, if you are saying we cannot provide a reasonable living for every man woman and child on this earth based on resources available then that is incorrect. Much of what could be developed both materially and technologically isn’t solely because there is no profit in doing so.

reply to post by badmedia


You want freedoms?
Freedom from work, freedom from debt, freedom from unnecessary regulations and laws, freedom from government, freedom from taxes, freedom to pursue that which enriches yourself and society spiritually and intellectually. Seems pretty straight forward.

What make theft of labour a crime to you is the fact that we have to sell it to survive. It becomes a commodity that we can buy, sell, or steal. If we no longer needed to work to survive, then why would we sell our labour? Better yet who would steal it. Labour becomes voluntary, freely offered.

Why do people do bad things? What is the root cause of that? If you look hard it is because of inequality and greed. If everyone has their basic needs cared for and are free to pursue their own interests, what would we need to steal? If all property is common (meaning belonging to everyone, not the individual, not the state) what is there to steal? You make use of the common property for as long as you like then return it or give it away as you see fit.

I like Jacques Fresco and Peter Joseph’s ideas, but as either one of them will tell you, they are not in charge, nor do they want to be. A resource based economy is not about governments, or leaders, it is about community and responsibility to and for each other.

It won’t be force, I think that is something you don’t understand. An analogy would be like thinking that some famous movie star was in a particular movie, but upon watching that movie you realize you were thinking about the wrong actor. What do you do? Do you continue to tell people that the other actor starred in that movie when it was clearly another? Or do you accept the new information and adjust your thinking accordingly?

No one is going to tell you what to do. You can live how you want to live because indeed you are probably not equipped to handle living in a resource based economy. But your children might be able to, and certainly their grandchildren would want to.

Sorry if this link was already posted but here is the most in depth interview with Jacque Fresco ive seen on the net.

its a twelve parter. This is part one:

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 8-7-2010 by thunderbird1]

Originally posted by badmedia
There is a system that respect that, and then their is the global community project, which doesn't. It puts the communities above the individuals, and it will fall because the base of that community is the individuals themselves. Create a society that respects the individuals, and you have a solid community.

No, I respectfully must disagree. The most important thing in any society is the resources. If there is no air, food, water, and other necessary resources, then the society dies. Individuals can only want what is reasonably available without jeopardizing the availability of resources in the future.

Putting individual wants above the protection of the resources of the planet is not only selfish, but threatens the future of humanity.