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.

 

Paradise or Oblivion - new documentary by The Venus Project

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 



If something we need is abundant, we just take what we need, because we know it is pointless to accumulate things that are abundant.

Yes, but some things will always be scarce. Please read what I am saying before trying to refute my argument. Let me follow up on that thought in my reply to the next quote.


You have to realise that it is not money you need, but the things that money can offer you.

And money doesn't just offer items which I "need", money offers an important way to exchange those items and let people attain those items according to how much money they can offer. It's an important tool that will always be need so long as some things are scarce and as long as some mundane jobs can't be done by machines. Someone needs to build the machines, someone needs to maintain the machines, someone needs to upgrade the machines. Machines can't to everything for us.

There is no way we will ever have enough of everything that we can just say "take as much as you want when ever you want". I explained all of this in my last post. There will always be limits and quotas, therefore there will always be a need to measure the amount each individual is entitled to. The only truly fair way to accomplish that is through simple "tokens of exchange" (aka money). It's just so short sighted to believe we'll have so much of everything that money will become obsolete. Especially when that abundance is created through the hard work of individuals.

It's a simple fact that people should be entitled to what they earn. Not simply have everything they need at their demand without having to lift a finger. Some people will do more and be entitled to more. Some people will do less and be entitled to less. There's no way around that simple fact of life, things will never ever be so abundant everyone can have what ever they want in any quantity they want. There needs to be a way to keep track of and measure what each individual is entitled to. That is why money is a basic necessary tool of any society, the problem is manipulation of money.

These are the indisputable facts of the situation and you need to understand them.
edit on 31-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
And here's another point you need to consider. What about things which aren't offered at the resource centers? How do I get those things without money? Lets say I want a private jet or I want someone to build me a custom boat. Do you expect things like that to be abundant? How can I acquire those things without money? Should I just nicely for someone to build me a boat? Fat chance of that ever happening. It would only happen if I could offer them something in return. What if someone builds a really cool robot but they don't want to simply give it away unless I can offer them something equally as cool? People aren't going to share everything that have, some things are simply too unique and hard to create en mass.

So no matter how hard you try to avoid the facts of the matter, there will be some things which I can't attain for free. And it's not like I'm going to trade massive items like my hand-built car for some one else's hand-built boat am I? That's why money is for, to represent large denominations of wealth in small light tokens of exchange. This is so fundamental and important to any society, even a society that offers a bunch of stuff for free. Even if we managed to achieve this wonder land of abundance you would undoubtedly find people still using a form of money to trade certain rare items. It's undeniable, and you need to see the true importance and function of money within any society before you start to condemn it.
edit on 31-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I am reading what you type, but you keep repeating the same things without giving any example or defining the terms you use. That is why I would like you to define what is for you the "human nature" because this is clearly the heart of our disagreement.

Also, please give me a concrete example of what you mean by "some things will always be scarce". You have to take into account that 99% of the earth population is struggling everyday just to have their basic needs met, surviving, working in mundane jobs that we could automate, but we don't because we "need jobs", that's truly inefficient.

Please, one or 2 topics at a time.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 



That is why I would like you to define what is for you the "human nature" because this is clearly the heart of our disagreement.

No, the heart of our disagreement is clearly the requirement of money. Human nature is irrelevant to whether we actually require money, that is a technical question that requires solid logic to answer.


Also, please give me a concrete example of what you mean by "some things will always be scarce".

I just provided an example in my last post: hand-constructed items are one example. Unique personalized objects that aren't manufactured en mass. Items which take a long time to construct are another example: a private jet. Limited quantity resources like fossil fuels are another, because they will eventually run out. It's not like these resource centers are going to offer anything you can possibly imagine, you'll be restricted to the things which they manage to produce in abundant quantities. Its a very restrictive system which places limits on what we can and cannot have.
edit on 31-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
How many people in the current system actually possess a private jet? How many people currently wanting a private jet will ever get one in the near future? Do you really think that anyone "working his ass off" will be able to buy a private jet? Also, do you want a private jet for the self-esteem boost, "social status improvement" that you believe it will give you, or do you just want to be able to fly to any place any time? Furthermore, do you really want to support and advocate a system that teaches you to crush others and to walk on their heads just to be able to own a private jet? Do you think the 1% versus 99% is fair and efficient system/way of life/whatever? Do you really buy into the "you can become who you want to be if you work hard enough", don't you see that it is a slogan made by the powerful and rich to control the masses? Where do you think that this wealth comes from if not from the 99%?

You can tell me anything you want, but don't tell me that the current system is fair and efficient, because it is a lame system that we have inherited from the past centuries and millennia. And no, the heart of our disagreement is not money itself, but human nature, because you think a monetary system is the only way to accommodate "human nature", something you have yet to define.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 



How many people in the current system actually possess a private jet? How many people currently wanting a private jet will ever get one in the near future? Do you really think that anyone "working his ass off" will be able to buy a private jet? Also, do you want a private jet for the self-esteem boost, "social status improvement" that you believe it will give you, or do you just want to be able to fly to any place any time?

I was using the jet as an example, I don't necessarily want one. If you want a more practical example then consider the swiss movement used in wrist watches such as those made by Rolex. Some of those can take over a year to manufacturer because of the precision required. Some things are simply hard to create. But all this is beyond the real point, the point is that I should be able to acquire these items if I really want to. At least it is possible to acquire them. In a system where money is phased out and everything is produced by one central authority I wont have choice between brands, I wont be able to get certain unique items I might desire, I will be restricted in the choice I have much more so than the choices I have now.

More to the point, it's crazy to think one single entity could manage the manufacturing of every single conceivable item for entire cities. That's the reason we have hundreds of thousands of entities which all compete to produce the vast amount of products available to us. A decentralized network of manufacturing entities are much more robust than one single one which has a single point of failure. If one manufacturing entity goes bust nothing much happens to the rest because the network is decentralized. If one product has flaws or design features that I don't like I can simply look for alternatives. There are no alternatives with the system you advocate, it's all produced by one central authority who have the last word about the design of any given product.


Furthermore, do you really want to support and advocate a system that teaches you to crush others and to walk on their heads just to be able to own a private jet? Do you think the 1% versus 99% is fair and efficient system/way of life/whatever? Do you really buy into the "you can become who you want to be if you work hard enough", don't you see that it is a slogan made by the powerful and rich to control the masses? Where do you think that this wealth comes from if not from the 99%?

Have you even read anything I said on the previous page?

We will never reach a state where they will just say "take as much as you want of what ever you want"... it's absurd and unrealistic! The only way it can possibly work is if people are entitled to an amount which is relative to their contributions to that society. It's the only logical and truly FAIR way of operating any society. Therefore money will always be needed. If you want to make sure that people can always buy what they need when they need it, then you need to make sure they get payed fairly. Instead of having CEO's and shareholders payed ridiculous sums of money, instead of letting bankers screw us all over and rob us blind with inflation, instead of having the average Joe work his skin to the bone for his whole life while never really earning anything significant, you need to ensure that the system is fair and that equality is considered an important aspect of that society.
If the system was fairer in this way then it would certainly be possible for many more people to work enough to acquire the wealth required to purchase a private jet without having to resort to devious tactics. Again, you are blaming the tool instead of the people who have rigged that tool to only work in their favor. Therefore you ignorantly see the tool as "evil" and want to destroy it rather than seeing the necessity of it, and how it should be fixed to work properly for all of us.


And no, the heart of our disagreement is not money itself, but human nature, because you think a monetary system is the only way to accommodate "human nature", something you have yet to define.

Actually I am saying a monetary system is the only way to accommodate certain types of trade which are bound to happen in any type of society whether resource based or not. This is what you fail to understand. I could try to explain in another way but it'll continue to slip right over your head as if I'm speaking to a brick wall. You naively think all necessity for personal trades and small scale bartering will be removed if most things come free.

And human nature can be "defined" as the nature of human behavior. What you really want me to do is explain my theory on human behavior, which is absurd, because all humans are different. The only thing you can do it generalize the overall behavior of the masses in any given society. Obviously the general behavior and beliefs of any population is relative to the state of their society.
edit on 31-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 


I for one find this absolutely amazing! What a great idea and concept. For everyone that says it will never happen....I dont believe it.

It is that type of attitude that keeps us trapped in the current mode of greedy thinking... It just wont happen... WHY NOT???

This way works as there is no need for selfishness.. Everyone would have everything they want.

I like it!



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
It is not only wonderful, but its the sanest and most feasible benevolent system there is.

And its doable, no one has to wait. We could, especially in countries where the economics is collapsing, start to organize people, and with land donations, or even gypsy caravans, homes on wheels, and yurts, start out by creating (in areas where people wake others up and form a council of citizens) kind of informal eco farms that partner up neighborhoods, even if some opt out, it would still parnter up many individuals and families and create mentorship, ie help from other small family businesses to start businesses that are ethical, replace the monoploy ones, and pair up people, they work reduced hours and share work, they can keep modeling change and educating others and speaking up to the leaders and media, holding meetings with their local representative and writing it up.

Putting out a free newspaper that goes door to door, delievery paid for by advertising. And write it up, all the meetings and hold local interviews on the radio.

There are ways to get people so awake and flexing their local management muscles enough, that this system would lose power and that would be the only logical way to go.

In fact, amongst the elite I believe, that this OR collapsing everything, is the constant tug of war amongst their own kind, dark hats and white hats.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

(I know the private jet was just an example)

About the choices and the watch you talk about,
I don't know if you are aware of the current state of technology, but really big progress has been made in 3D printing with astonishing precision, and the watch you talk about could well be just printed in the near future, that's just a matter of a few years. Then there is the added artificial value you give to that watch, the "social status" value, and it is something that is relevant only to the current system. You want that watch to represent your monetary success, to improve you social standing, and frankly it is some kind of social disease. People are drowning in advertising telling them that they need all kind of stuff to feel better about themselves, stuff that they don't really need. In order to keep cyclical consumption alive, and thus the system alive, they have to convince you that you really need that stuff, otherwise you wouldn't consume. They want you to feel like sh#t until your next purchase. Let's call it a "value system disorder" in more medical terms. Also, as a side note, you have the choice between 37 different smartphones (all designed to fail at some point), but when it comes to important choices (politics, economics etc.), do you really have the choice?

About centralisation,
If you have looked closely, like you said you did, on all stuff related to the venus project, you would know that one of the goal is decentralisation. The cities would be built to be self-sufficient, meaning that they would be designed with interchangeable fully automated factories built-in that could serve many different purposes and would require little maintenance. Really, the technical aspect of the project is not the problem here.

More general points,
So, you assume there will always be jobs? But what about automation? Or do we have to create useless jobs just to give the impression that the system works and print some more paper? What you see today is only the beginning, more automation will come and more jobs will go, that's just the way it is, since profit is the only thing that gives incentive in this system. In China they are now replacing whole millions of slave-workers by machines. What do you think will happen in 10, 20 or 50 years from now? What will happen when 99% of the things you or I buy will be manufactured by machines, how will we buy those things with no purchasing power, no money because no jobs?

Basically, it's like you are saying ; "yeah well we can create abundance, but it's better we don't, let's just continue to use money"

About human nature,
So, you acknowledge the fact that human behavior depends on the environment, yet you assume that if we change the environment human behavior will stay the same? I don't understand, or maybe you assume that there are some things in human nature that never change? If this is the case, I would like to know those things that don't change.

Money corrupts, it's simple, because it is a means to accumulate power. As long as you will use a tool that enables people to accumulate wealth at the expense of others, it will be harmful to society and its members.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 



About the choices and the watch you talk about,
I don't know if you are aware of the current state of technology, but really big progress has been made in 3D printing with astonishing precision, and the watch you talk about could well be just printed in the near future, that's just a matter of a few years. Then there is the added artificial value you give to that watch, the "social status" value, and it is something that is relevant only to the current system. You want that watch to represent your monetary success, to improve you social standing, and frankly it is some kind of social disease.

Again you have completely missed my point. It has nothing to do with the social status the watch may impart onto the owner. I was saying that such watches are extremely complex and take a lot of time to put together properly, the can't simply be printed, it required extreme precision machining. That's why products of that nature are so expensive. There are many things which take a lot of time to create, and they couldn't simply be handed out willy nilly, that is my point. It's absolutely absurd to believe we'll reach a point where you can just take any quantity of what ever you want, can't you realize that? There needs to be some sort of damn limit.


Also, as a side note, you have the choice between 37 different smartphones (all designed to fail at some point), but when it comes to important choices (politics, economics etc.), do you really have the choice?

And if another business were to start offering a more durable and long-lasting smart phone people would have the choice to buy that. There's nothing stopping anyone from designing a better smart phone. At least I have a choice between so many different phones. The system you talk about wouldn't offer that choice, they would simply have one "perfectly designed" product. Prefect according to someone elses opinion. They would have no competition and no one pushing them to create something better. That's why competition is desirable, it pushes down prices and forces business to one up their competition. If people were smart enough they would boycott businesses which offer low-quality products designed to fail, but they are stupid and continue to purchase what ever is "trendy".


About centralisation,
If you have looked closely, like you said you did, on all stuff related to the venus project, you would know that one of the goal is decentralisation. The cities would be built to be self-sufficient, meaning that they would be designed with interchangeable fully automated factories built-in that could serve many different purposes and would require little maintenance. Really, the technical aspect of the project is not the problem here.

How does any of what you just said have to do with decentralization? Do you even know what that word means? It means things aren't controlled by one central authority, but rather control is spread out into a network of individual entities. The Venus Project is like the ultimate type of centralization. All world resources are measured and controlled by one central authority, and all the possible items you can attain are built and manufactured by one central authority who essentially face no competition and have a monopoly to decide what products are made available and how those products are designed. That one single entity would be tasked with the absurd goal of manufacturing every possible item that everyone will need.
edit on 31-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

More general points,
So, you assume there will always be jobs? But what about automation? Or do we have to create useless jobs just to give the impression that the system works and print some more paper? What you see today is only the beginning, more automation will come and more jobs will go, that's just the way it is, since profit is the only thing that gives incentive in this system. In China they are now replacing whole millions of slave-workers by machines. What do you think will happen in 10, 20 or 50 years from now? What will happen when 99% of the things you or I buy will be manufactured by machines, how will we buy those things with no purchasing power, no money because no jobs?

What about automation? That can only solve so many problems. Even if we created robots to do everything they can possibly do, like carry out all our mail deliveries, clean all our public toilets, wash all our roofs, clean all our windows, the robots still need to be constantly checked for safety and that they are operating as they should be. They need to maintained and upgraded. What happens when we no longer do anything ourselves, and then something like a solar flare destroys our system of automation? We wouldn't even know how to handle that, we would be thinking "but the machines are supposed to do those dirty jobs, Humans shouldn't have to do that nasty mundane stuff". It would be an absolutely pathetic state of affairs when we become so dependent on machines.


Basically, it's like you are saying ; "yeah well we can create abundance, but it's better we don't, let's just continue to use money"

Clearly you haven't even tried to understand what I'm saying. I am saying that abundance doesn't necessarily mean we have to first get rid of money. I'm saying that abundance shouldn't be organized and made available by one single authority. Sure we could intelligently manage our raw resources so that they are cheap and abundant, but those raw resources shouldn't be under the control of one authority. If we can make our raw resources exceptionally abundant then they will be exceptionally cheap. That means products will much easier for manufacturers to purchase, and their products will be cheaper as a result. There's no need to say "hey, lets just give all our raw resources to this one entity so they can manufacture all our products for us" because that has so many potential problems.


About human nature,
So, you acknowledge the fact that human behavior depends on the environment, yet you assume that if we change the environment human behavior will stay the same? I don't understand, or maybe you assume that there are some things in human nature that never change? If this is the case, I would like to know those things that don't change.

No, I assume some things are simply necessary for any society to operate properly. The fact that tokens of exchange will always be needed is something that will never change, because there are items which people aren't willing to simply give away. I've offered so many reasons thus far, so many explanations, so much logic for why money is a necessary tool despite what type of society you live in. Perhaps one of the only types of societies which don't require some type of money are very primitive bush tribes. But even lots of those tribes use some form of money to exchange items they value and don't want to share with others. Hand crafted items are a perfect example, they are things that can't be found in nature or manufactured by machines.


Money corrupts, it's simple, because it is a means to accumulate power. As long as you will use a tool that enables people to accumulate wealth at the expense of others, it will be harmful to society and its members.

There is more than one way to accumulate wealth. Gold is something which can't simply be pulled from thin air. Golden jewelry will always be scarce, and therefore gold will always have some sort of intrinsic value. People will always want it. Anything like gold or oil could be accumulated to amass ones wealth. Anything that's difficult to create or has some perceived value for one reason or another, will be stored by some people. What if everyone had a fair and equal chance to accumulate wealth hmmm? What is so wrong with that concept? Simply fix the monetary system and fix our employment system to give them more equality so everyone gets payed more fairly, and you've achieved something almost exactly the same as what the Venus Projects aims to achieve, but you've eliminated so much of the potential problems and you've achieved it in a much more realistic workable fashion.
edit on 31-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


If I can initially opt out and live off the land wherever I want providing for only myself and my family without exploiting others...."participating in the system' is moot...I won't need to accept or deny it...as it won't matter.

IF however, I can't simply give my middle finger to you all and take care of myself and my family...I will fight it tooth and nail as at that point...its no longer voluntary.

I still don't buy into it...it reminds me of a really bad sales pitch that says 99% OFF EVERYTHING!!! with brightly lit colors meanwhile the flocking fools are unaware it was marked up 99% before hand...yet there they are...thinking what they are getting is "awesome"!!!



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Sly1one
 


Not living this is such a massive crime and anyone participating willingly in this system is responsible for nearly all the deaths on earth. I've always seen this. I've always known this is only right way to live and that failure to understand this is why people are suffering so much. Didn't have a name for it of course, just knew anything else was unfair, unequal, and slavery. Nor can you force anyone, it has to be through education, health, how free you are, ie not encumbered with young children and what your talents and interests are. But we all co-own the world and resources and its massive theft and murder to prevent someone from putting up their home, landscaping planting their garden, in fact this is like a hellzone.


edit on 31-3-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

I think you are not really aware of the state of technology today. 3D printing technology can print stuff with precision at the nanoscale. We can print complex parts in metal, with holes in them and with complicated and intricate mechanical parts. I thought you would look up for the info, but here some examples after a quick search :

simple cover of a cellphone


a good TED presentation on 3D printing


Here is an article about nano-scale 3D printing

"world smallest 3d printer"


here is another technique for high resolution


here is another great talk on the subject


these 2 videos just for the fun
flying robots in formation and building a tower




Just imagine now the progress that will be made in the coming years.
Also, the future will not be about "take whatever quantity of whatever you want", but more about "take whatever quantity about whatever you need". Again, you are transposing the values that the current system has created into the proposed system. As I said, a different environment will create different behaviors, a world of scarcity produces different values than a world of abundance where things that you need are available to everyone. Frankly, I am beginning to think that you lack the imagination to mentally conceive what is proposed. Just imagine a population of children born, raised and accustomed to that new system, they have never seen money, they have never heard of it, they just know that the stuff they need is there, they have been taught how it works, they have been taught about all stuff related to science and technology, it would feel as normal as the air they breathe, just like for you money is part of the air you breathe. The proposed system is not an utopia, because it is not a perfect, final system, but generation after generation people will improve it under the best possible conditions. Do you really think people will sit on their butt just because they have every physical need met? Because that's not how the brain works. Look at today's open source movement, look at all those volunteers around the world doing stuff for free. That's what people want, that's where civilisation should be headed, and money and the artificially maintained struggle for survival just get in the way. If today people want a free ride it's because they know that they have to do stupid brainless work just to be able to survive, and if they have not yet been replaced by machines, it's because human slavery still costs less than a machine. With the disappearance of money, it's a whole bunch of jobs that becomes instantly obsolete ; advertising, financial, sales and much more, and I can assure you that if the proposed system was to be accepted by a majority of the world's population, you would see a tremendous number of people rising to accomplish the tasks. It would be like a war effort but towards the well being of the species. We don't have the choice anyway, the future will be about destruction and suffering or a planetary civilisation that has learned to move forward past the archaic struggle for survival.

Today, in the current system, a company couldn't sell the "perfect smartphone", with state of the art technology, design and materials, because it is not cost effective, and in this system profit is all that matter. A company like this would soon drown and disappear. It is the same for practically everything that is made today, it is designed to fail, because what keeps the system alive is cyclical consumption. Look it up.

About decentralization;
what I am talking about is that there is no "world center of production" in the proposed system, but rather modular and multi-purpose factories that are planted where needed and when needed. Compare this to the current system and tell me that the current system is more effective. So you actually believe that a today company that does what it does only for profit is much more effective? That's wishful thinking. That reminds me of the "invisible hand" concept which says that some kind of magical harmony would emerge if everyone was selfish. In the current system, if there is no profit to make, nothing is done, that's that simple. And so, you truly believe that a system that promotes random selfish action is much better than a carefully planned, scientifically studied plan? Today, we even create problems and then we provide the solution, just to make a profit. That's your efficiency.

edit on 1-4-2012 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


What about automation?
Well, what about the jobs? Do you think we will be able to invent new jobs just like that, out of thin air? Or do we have to invent useless jobs that serve no purpose just to keep the current system going? Unemployment will not stop at the current level, it is just a matter of time before it grows out of hand. As I said earlier, more automation will come, and more jobs will go.
And then you assume that in the proposed system, we would become like in "wall-e", fat useless dumb people. Tell me how many people do you think today know how their cellphone works, or television, or computer, or car, or an air plane? Very few, yet you assume the current system is somewhat perfect. Tell me how many useless stuff is taught in school? Advertising, sales, marketing, finances ...? How many years do we have to learn useless things in school, 12, 18, 20 years? Now remove money from the equation, and imagine a future where science and technology is taught in school, always keeping the curiosity of children alive, do you think they will sit on their butt or do you think they would strive to understand and to improve?

about "the only one authority"
I believe you have a hard time imagining anything else than the current system. Nowhere it is said that there will be a central authority that decides. It would rather be about rotating inter-disciplinary teams composed of several scientific branches dependant on the problem to solve. That's really simple when you think of it. The needs of people in a particular area would be surveyed and the work begins on a voluntary basis. If i was to live in a world like this, you can believe me when I say that i would volunteer for any work that suits my skills and my interest, because I know that the reward is far more greater than mere money just to survive, I would know that my value as a human being is far more greater than any sum of artificial currency, even if it was to maintain the sewer system one day a week, and then there are others that would replace me. I would know that my survival is taken care of, and i would do my best to improve the well being of the community. Those values are absent in the current system, because people learn from the system, from the environment. 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.

For the rest,
You assume a lot of things but you view the proposed system with the values that the current system has created. What is really the value of gold, why do people want to keep gold and store it? What do they want to have in exchange of it? What is the real purpose behind that behavior? You can't eat gold, you can't drink it, it serves no purpose other than a technological one in certain specific applications, and even that gold could be replaced by an even more efficient and more abundant material. Really, do you think that there is a genetic engraved interest in gold (like in some ancient aliens theories) ? Personally I don't care about gold, and I don't care about jewellery, some people do care about jewellery but they don't want it specifically made in gold, but they want the social status improvement they think they will get from it if it is made of gold. In an abundant system, what's the purpose of gold? It would be pointless to exchange it for food, or a means of transport, because all those things are freely available. Furthermore, the proposed system will induce a shift in values, but I think I did say that already.
And about hand crafted items, if you have watched the videos about 3D printing, you now know that we can achieve with that technology a level of complexity never attained before. We can print items impossible to manually craft. Or maybe the fact that it has been hand crafted means to you that you stand in higher social grounds because you have been able to buy countless hours of man work? If this is the case, then you again transpose the values of the current system into the proposed one.

Here is the FAQ from the venus project site, it contains many questions you have asked and many more.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
awesome video. thanks for sharing this.

absolutely love Jacque Fesco



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 



You assume a lot of things but you view the proposed system with the values that the current system has created. What is really the value of gold, why do people want to keep gold and store it? What do they want to have in exchange of it? What is the real purpose behind that behavior? You can't eat gold, you can't drink it, it serves no purpose other than a technological one in certain specific applications, and even that gold could be replaced by an even more efficient and more abundant material.

I've moved this quote to the top instead of the bottom because it's clearly the most important. Gold has value because it is RARE or SCARCE, and in a system of abundance people will exchange gold for other rare things. Now you clearly don't see the value of hand-crafted items, so I assume you've never heard of the phrase "it's the thought that count". You see everything as if it must be valuable because it must impart some sort of social status on the owner, but you ignore the SENTIMENTAL VALUE such hand-crafted items may have. Even if you could print out a precious art-work with one of your 3D printers, do you really think that artificial clone will ever have as much value as the real thing? Of course it wont, just like a copy of a famous painting will never be worth as much as the real thing no matter how close it is.

Have you ever seen a child who lost their favourite toy? Even though a million of those toys exist, they may not simply want a new one. The original one had a more meaningful value to them despite the fact their toy is abundant. There are some things which transcend the ability to become abundant, these things will always be valued for different reasons, whether it's because they are simply rare or because they have a deeper human value. You believe that if you can make enough of everything you can drain the inherent value from them, but you are sadly mistaken. Even in a society of vast abundance some things will never become abundant. These things will always have value because it's HUMAN NATURE to want things which aren't easy to get. Isn't that why you want to make everything easy to get, to make that part of human nature no longer relevant?


Just imagine now the progress that will be made in the coming years.

And all of that progress will be done in the system you are condemning. All of those different 3D printing techniques will be developed separately and allow us to choose between a large range of options.


Also, the future will not be about "take whatever quantity of whatever you want", but more about "take whatever quantity about whatever you need".

And some people are going to feel that they "need" a large quantity of some resources to do certain things they might want to do. No resource will ever be infinitely available, you need to COME TO TERMS WITH THAT. Certain resources will always get low at certain times depending on who uses what. There is no way in the world to avoid that reality.


Again, you are transposing the values that the current system has created into the proposed system. As I said, a different environment will create different behaviors, a world of scarcity produces different values than a world of abundance where things that you need are available to everyone. Frankly, I am beginning to think that you lack the imagination to mentally conceive what is proposed. Just imagine a population of children born, raised and accustomed to that new system, they have never seen money, they have never heard of it, they just know that the stuff they need is there, they have been taught how it works, they have been taught about all stuff related to science and technology, it would feel as normal as the air they breathe, just like for you money is part of the air you breathe.

I lack the imagination you think? I have written damn essays on this stuff buddy, promoting the idea of a world without money. The difference between you and me is that I've had longer to think about the reality of the situation and work out that things are no where near as simple as the Venus Project makes them out to be. How do you account for limited resources such as gold or unique hand-crafted items, you can't hand those out forever can you? Even in a resource based economy things like that WILL be traded among people whether you want them to or not. To make that type of trade easier they will probably use a type of currency. Are you going to punish them for doing that? Will it be against the law for people to value certain rare items hmm?
edit on 2-4-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Do you really think people will sit on their butt just because they have every physical need met? Because that's not how the brain works. Look at today's open source movement, look at all those volunteers around the world doing stuff for free. That's what people want, that's where civilisation should be headed, and money and the artificially maintained struggle for survival just get in the way.

Again, I understand these concepts perfectly and I've written about them in depth, including the open source paradigm. Of course people would still work in a system like this, I never claimed they wouldn't. In fact I am an open source programmer so I understand the concept quite well thank you. Stop believing you have the ability to talk down to me with your "vast understanding" of human nature, it's getting on my nerves. Even though most people will work, some people will play games their whole lives and expect everyone elses work to support them. It is simply not fair for some people to do nothing but get everything they want. It defeats the purpose of life. All life forms on Earth need to work for what they get.


Today, in the current system, a company couldn't sell the "perfect smartphone", with state of the art technology, design and materials, because it is not cost effective, and in this system profit is all that matter. A company like this would soon drown and disappear. It is the same for practically everything that is made today, it is designed to fail, because what keeps the system alive is cyclical consumption. Look it up.

Actually, a company could use state of the art technology, design and materials, but those items would end up being completely unaffordable to the majority of people. Only rich people would buy them, and the business would probably go bankrupt. But if wealth was distributed in a more equal way and "everyone was rich", there would really be no problem. People would buy the highest quality items because they are best. People intentionally buy the cheapest "home brand" items because everything else is outside of their budget. If the level of income equality was much higher and they had more money to spare businesses offering high quality products could prosper.


what I am talking about is that there is no "world center of production" in the proposed system, but rather modular and multi-purpose factories that are planted where needed and when needed. Compare this to the current system and tell me that the current system is more effective. So you actually believe that a today company that does what it does only for profit is much more effective? That's wishful thinking. That reminds me of the "invisible hand" concept which says that some kind of magical harmony would emerge if everyone was selfish. In the current system, if there is no profit to make, nothing is done, that's that simple.

I didn't say "world center of production", but the system proposed by the Venus Project talks about a production center for each city. ONE SINGLE production center is supposed to design and manufacture EVERYTHING for ENTIRE CITIES. It's just way too centralized to work properly like that. "multi-purpose factories" are NEVER better than factories which are dedicated to certain tasks. When it comes to profit based companies, if they want to make a profit and compete in the market they need to offer a product which can out perform their competitors. If a business tries to excessively cut costs it will result in a lower quality product which can't compete in the market. Once again, if wealth was more fairly distributed people wouldn't have to settle for lower quality products and businesses obsessed with cutting costs wouldn't be able to prosper because people would demand high quality goods and services.


As I said earlier, more automation will come, and more jobs will go. And then you assume that in the proposed system, we would become like in "wall-e", fat useless dumb people. Tell me how many people do you think today know how their cellphone works, or television, or computer, or car, or an air plane? Very few, yet you assume the current system is somewhat perfect.

Are you even reading the words I am writing? I have never once claimed the "current system is perfect", it is so far broken I fear it can never be properly repaired. I am simply offering a more reasonable alternative to fix it. And I never said people will become fat and useless if machines to all our mundane jobs, I am saying we will no longer have a healthy respect for doing the most fundamental jobs which are important in every day life, and if we were to loose our machines we would be left like floundering fish out of water, with no idea how to handle the situation. We are already reaching a point where if our electrical grids were to be taken out the world would go into an epic panic and the only people to remain calm would be the poorest nations on Earth.
edit on 2-4-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Nowhere it is said that there will be a central authority that decides. It would rather be about rotating inter-disciplinary teams composed of several scientific branches dependant on the problem to solve. That's really simple when you think of it. The needs of people in a particular area would be surveyed and the work begins on a voluntary basis.

It doesn't make a difference if there are "teams" that decide, the fact of the matter is the entire WORLDS resources will be organized by one single body made up of "scientific branches". Do you not see how this is exactly like a One World Government which organizes and monitors activity on a global scale? Why can't you just have scientific bodies which keep track of any given nations resources and let the rest of the worlds nations organize their resources in the way they want, so that it's done in a more DECENTRALIZED way instead of always trying to do everything through one all reaching multi-purpose scope? Do you really think everyone will simply go along with this plan? OF COURSE NOT, and it's utterly wishful thinking if you believe it will happen like that.


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.
edit on 2-4-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


umm i usually do not post on ATS unless there is a very interesting topic and i believe this is one of them. both you and gosseyn have left out a very important thought in your arguments and it is that the beliefs of humans around the world today will be relevant in the future. our current and if i may say dying belief stucture is attempting to keep the masses ignorant to our own capabilities by use of fear and censorship. censorship by use of media outlets, restrictions placed on the internet by the governments of the world. fear be it by wars, religion, and ridicule from society. 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. would you go out and start having kids just because its fun with a man or woman to do so? to be honest there would be a sharp increase of population at the onset of a new abundant resource based society followed by a steadily slow decline. i'd expect much more planned parenthood with people living longer, greater access to knowledge, less stress, and being able to enjoy life much more than we do today. there would be no illnesses because there would be no profit we have the capability of genetic engineering to give people gene therapy to cure genetic defects as well as ensure no more genetic defects in our offspring they currently do this with plants to make them grow faster and resist diseases. also we can create rare elements such as gold and platinum by use of currently existing technology they do not do this now because it would devalue these naturally scarce elements. this resource based economy there would be no religion, no racism, no wars, no famine, no greed, no reason for any of these things because everyone would have the knowledge and technology. basically what im saying is our beliefs are not definite, it can change overnight. perhaps you would laugh if i were to tell you that at one point humans believed the earth was the center of existance, until a man by the the name of Galileo Galilei told us otherwise. even though his ideas met resistance by the christian church at first i bet if you ask any christian today if they believe the earth is center of the universe they will probably laugh at you. i think that you failed to grasp the idea of the video, it is not a matter of time it is a matter of decision and paradigm shift.

"we have within our ability to create for ourselves a palace or a prison." - John Lubbock

if we can but first Deny Ignorance.
edit on 2-4-2012 by Alexei because: your benefit

edit on 3-4-2012 by Alexei because: again your benefit



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join