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

Merely copying and pasting my side of a discussion here in hopes to continue with the original debater and perhaps others to join in.

I just completed watching the videos and there are clear issues with both ideas, both in the way of a new system of city making and a new monetary system.

I'm going to argue against the first video, on Project Venus. Before I do, I will say the idea seems fine, except my own personal preference is against living in a city (even a garden city) and I very much prefer the old style of housing (wood or stone/brick with a triangular roof; a cottage for example) which I know the video calls living as a dead person.

Ok, Argument 1. Well, the first issue should be apparent. According to the video the project would call for the demolition of the current cities, except for some which would be kept as museum cities. Now, great planning on the using of the materials from the demolition for the construction of the new cities, but what of the people, the millions possibly billions of displaced people? Where would they go as their homes are ruined? And the museum cities. These would remain, but being called "museum cities" I'm assuming there would be no one living in them so these too would be displaced. And the cost of maintaining all the structures! Explain to me the solutions to the displacement of the millions or billions of people (billions if worldwide) and the maintenance costs of the museums. Besides homes also the destruction of businesses. Frankly, the process just sounds like an economical nightmare and they mention engineers and architects and etcetera. Well, basing off of the earlier examples of people they have in mind (engineers and architects) it can be inferred that by etcetera they mean other such professionals and not economical professionals. Then there are the social/cultural issues which I won't get into.

Now for video 2, Argument 2. I think I recall, at the beginning of the video, or perhaps it was a thought in my mind merely, of a moneyless society. Now the idea is great. But the wealthy will not relinquish their money, nor allow for money to relinquish its power, because that would mean they lose power. Also the transition from one system to another is not simple. You can argue, "Oh yeah but the Euro..." but that was more of a new currency rather than a whole new system.

Great response. That Star Trek bit is actually fascinating. When he (Picard?) says that the acquisition of wealth is not= longer the driving force of our lives. Well, need I say more? Just imagine a society where bettering ourselves and obtaining knowledge were the driving force of our lives. And he mentions bettering humanity. But I believe that bettering ourselves will benefit humanity. Clearly.

Ok, I like what you've written. But I think it assumes quite a bit about human nature (something I did in a thread of mine as well) and human nature must be addressed. No more greed, but then is it not the way of man to be greedy and wish for more? Our discussion here is truly great and opens a myriad of other discussions, which I would gladly have with you as I'm sure others would too. But then that is the issue. So many things to consider. Human nature may be the most important of those things, and in itself, human nature contains many smaller issues, more specific.



Oh and to add to Argument 1, garden cities effectively, based on the presentation in the video, mean the end of fossil fuels. And that video does not go on to how it is that people are no longer homeless. And garden cities don't seem to take into account density as they seem far less dense. So this means a larger area of land per city. The prices of homes. Will there be population control? Slum cities, perhaps the museum cities with the inhabitants as part of the exhibit? Or is it all just a nice thought, a utopia which can not exist.

I hope to hear your responses, and remember I'm merely debating and not attacking.

a reply to: Tiamat384
For those that did not partake in the discussion. A brief outline of what topics there are:

1.Human nature and its greed, or perhaps we are not greedy as a species?
2.Removal of wealth and power of wealth and the implications (such as whether the wealthy would agree and reasoning)
3.Implications of demolition of cities for creation of new ones.
4.Museum cities and maintenance.
5.Population control, slum cities (perhaps as museums), or delightful, but impossible, utopia? Or something else?
6.Anything you members can think of in relation to the general topic.


One of two videos shared by the other person discussing:


Not sure I will be able to find the other one on a new monetary system they shared.


Not the second video I mentioned, but in thee OP you may see a reference to a Star Trek video, here is that exact 36 second clip.



Here is the second video mentioned on the monetary system. All three videos together are a mere 20 to 23 minutes of watching.

One more video, from the member that had shared the other 3, LittleByLittle.

Here is another video on Venus project where the housing is denser than the first one.



The issue on making the powerful give up their power that is created thru the monetary system is the big issue. But true peace will never be with the power pyramid creating class warfare between the classes.

I do think we need direct democracy to get away from the power pyramid and free exchange of all knowledge. Some people have already started with the internet but some people want to censor and control information flow so that they can control what people can access making sure the old power structures are not dismantled.

A reference to who have created the information and who controls the information should also be available to all people so that people can themselves see information manipulation.

This would counter the media concentration able to manipulate people since people would see that it was the same source/controller.

All ownership of all corporations must be opened and transparent for all people. Once you reveal the Ponzi schemes the people will abandon what gives the Ponzi schemers power.

a reply to: LittleByLittle
You will probably receive a much better reply from me in 20 minutes. Im eating now. Where I will comment on the new video which I may have embedded as well. Actually...yes 20 minutes and I will begin the new reply. Thoroughly enjoying the discussion!

a reply to: LittleByLittle
As I watch I will make comment on the video and from the very beginning the first thing that came to mind with the narrator saying this is how the world could look like and the image of a watercraft which I can only describe as look as a party submarine is that this reminds me of how we used to think of the future decades past such as around the era of World War 2 and the aftermath. With wonder as to what humanity would achieve. Flying cars and household robots. Now, 2016 and none of that is real. This video, is much like that was, just an amazing thought.

Another comment on what the narrator is saying. One section of the city needs to be planned and the rest can be duplicates of that section. Now, I can't be the only one who sees such uniformity in the way of homes and the outdoors as a clear sign of a dystopia, not to mention that such uniformities could easily lead to uniformity in clothing, and behavior. Admittedly there was mention of many sorts of apartment buildings and homes, but I'm wondering how much choice the masses would actually have.

Every piece of the city would be uniformed, all the pieces standardized. There is only one way I see this happening. Corporations compete for the best models, prices, and durability. Now within this competition there could be corruption. However, with or without corruption within the competition and the judgement the end result is one corporation essentially producing all the cities. That is a second point that only leads to a dystopia.

The video makes explanation of energy sources, but again how will the world, or the country to the least, be convinced to get off of fossil fuels in particular oil? The business is just too good.

Overall, basing on the video it is too much like a dystopian future for me along with the lack of communicating just how we transition to those cities and form of energy, and most importantly, method of thought. You see, these cities (Venus/garden cities) are centered on knowledge and culture, two things that have publicly (by the masses) been abandoned. We live in a war oriented world and as such I am uncertain whether these are actual possibilities. And the displacement is still an issue. All I see is a plan for a city, not how to transition into that world and mode of mind.

Now to comment to what you've personally brought up. Those with power will NEVER relinquish there power. That is frankly not even an option. Not willingly anyways. A revolution of sorts however could change things. Sometimes, for peace, blood must be spilled.

There are two pyramids of power that need to be dismantled for any further human progression. The one on the individual nation level, so the class system needs to be abolished. And the international level. The most probable for the latter is a world under one government. If humanity does not unite, we will not go further.

You say direct democracy, but with so many people, how do you propose to do so? Do share an idea, doesn't matter the level of absurdity so long it is serious. What of true Communism? Power to the people. Which revolution could bring. COULD not WOULD. Making that clear.

I feel that you with your final ideas of transparency of the system is based on a very flawed assumption. That assumption being that mankind is inherently good. Because all the suggestions made by you are the relinquishment of power or honesty within a system. And human nature is not good. Perhaps not evil, but in no way is it good.

a reply to: Tiamat384

The transparency will sooner or later happen and it is true part of humanity will be very angry when it happens since they like the manipulation game.

Switzerland have a direct democracy rule where if people go together on an issue there will be a popular vote.

direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch...

Popular Initiative: 100,000 citizens (roughly 2.5% of the electorate) may demand for a change of the constitution by signing a form. The federal parliament is obliged to discuss the initiative, it may decide to recommend or to reject the initiative or it may propose an alternative. Whatever they choose to do, all citizens will finally decide in a referendum whether to accept the initiative, the alternate proposal or stay without change.

a reply to: Tiamat384

The idea is a model. There can be many different version of style that you can choose if you prefer a specific style. Cultural differences will of course also happen.

a reply to: Tiamat384

Haven't watched the videos yet, will respond later.

Why are you so sure the plan calls for having those billions of people anywhere?

Only dead bones in museums.

a reply to: LittleByLittle
Switzerland seems like a grand country. A far superior democracy than the States, going off of that little bit that I now know. The USA should certainly have such a thing. Though it would take more than 100 thousand seeing how that is roughly .325% of the American population (hope my math is right). I should bring this up in either my American Government and Politics course or USA 1865 to Present course.

We have opposite views in a sense on the topic of the nature of men. You say transparency will come, but I say it will not and we will simply be deceived further and further and the greatest deceit is that we are free, and the greatest deceit yet to come is of a utopia. It is then that it should be known we live in a dystopia.

You seem to agree with those who see man in a more pleasant light. In this topic anyways.

a reply to: GodEmperor
Well, I did suggest population control if you've noticed. So of course there might be bones as you say. I hope you stay a while for discussion. I find this very interesting and there are many components to be thought out and discussed in a civil manner.
So, have some coffee. Or tea. Or other beverage. Please, make yourself at home. The fridge is there. Anything to eat and drink is yours to have. And seats for all who wish to discuss. So, let us get on with it.

a reply to: LittleByLittle
Yes it's a model, but there will be limitations as there will be a standardization. Clearly only one corporation will have a part in the development. But then of course it looks like those old clips of the people way back when thought the future, for us the now, would be like.

a reply to: Tiamat384

I am not sure I have a better opinion than you on the majority of humanity. It is just that the around 10% who are against the deceit will sooner or later end it. It is only a matter of time. Some souls you cannot deceit for long. They have a tendency to see thru things in the end whatever the majority tell them.

a reply to: LittleByLittle
That is true, there is a limit to which one can be deceived. At the same time the lies they say are enormous and told often. That is the recipe which Hitler provides as a believable lie. And then, the 10%, what does it matter should they be against the deceit. It does not matter. They are a minority and I'm not even so certain there are so many. Alas I feel we are beginning to stray from the original topic. How do you propose to change the world that is focused on war and profit into one that is focused on knowledge, culture and betterment?

a reply to: Tiamat384

How do you propose to change the world that is focused on war and profit into one that is focused on knowledge, culture and betterment?

I purpose to not answer that question so you find a more efficient way of doing that than I do.

a reply to: LittleByLittle
Friend, if I may call you as such, why would I be able to find an answer better than you? Answer me that. And you also say better, so you must have an answer, what could it be? Certainly better than no answer at all. And then which question shall we discuss? Perhaps the situation of the displaced people? These three questions I would like an answer on from you.

a reply to: Tiamat384

Friend, if I may call you as such, why would I be able to find an answer better than you?

Just a hunch/feeling.

Answer me that. And you also say better, so you must have an answer, what could it be?

Increase awareness with a tool/tools that you are comfortable with.

Perhaps the situation of the displaced people?

Hard question. My thoughts on it:
First you have the society where you put the displaced people and how it handles law and order.

What are the ratio between souls with predatory behavior and other souls?
Does the law and order empathize more with the predator than the victim? (Is the rights of the predator to be free higher than the rights of those living in the society?)
What is the ratio success in making the soul lose predatory behavioral traits.

What are the ratio between souls with predatory behavior and other souls of the displaced people?
Will the displaced people be added directly to the population or will you screen out the souls with predatory behavior and how efficient is the screening? Screening will be negative on the non predatory displaced people in the beginning since it delays their potential but at the same time increases law and order in the society they will be added to.

Will the cultural differences increase or decrease the future ratio between souls with predatory behavior and other souls in the society the displaced people are added to?

I am the kind of person who thinks there is no excuse for predatory behavior so I should not be helping souls with predatory behavior to fix themselves and what they have broken. I do not think I can be fully objective and not let my emotion cloud my thinking when it comes to this issue.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Hunches are fine and all, but I wouldn't follow your hunch on this one. I'm 95% certain you are more experienced or knowledegable than I am.

Hmm, I'm a bit confused. What do you mean by "increased awareness of tools"?

Ok, I understand, hopefully, what you are saying, but we are missing the key part of the transition though hopefully slowly with time and discussion we will fill in that gap. Though in a way we are where we want to be. The part of the progress of man we are now discussing is literally the transition. Because we are discussing the society, in particular law and order, of the transitional society. When I say displaced, I don't mean displaced from the old cities and putting them into the new ones. I mean the time between the demolition of the old and the construction of the new. A time where there will literally be no place for them, except whatever we discuss as possible solutions.

Just imagine the displaced without a home except for on paper, which isn't quite real clearly. There may be resentment and if such condition of life lasts there will be violence and so it is possible that heavy law enforcement will be needed. Unless of course those in control make it clear that there will be a rapid move for construction. By rapid I mean a city within six months which with standardization of parts and design and efficient design shouldn't be impossible.

Now if you're looking at the law enforcement and ratio of predatory souls and other souls in the new city or civilization then we need to discuss human nature on other issues not concerning greed. And not only human nature, but the change in society from ours, warlike and mean, to knowledgeable and of culture.

Adding the population? I'd think the displaced people are literally the whole of the cities population unless they decide to move else where. As for screening I'd suggest looking at criminal records. You could also say mental health screening, but that is a tad too much for my liking. What would you suggest?

Cultural differences leading to more predatory or not? Well, without turning this from an essentially philosophical discussion to a political skull bashing, look at Europe and the migrants. Those cultures are clashing and creating more predatory souls, though it is the migrants (or perhaps the media) breeding these.

Just as a last comment on your own final words of reply, I'd argue that not helping people just keeps them at a predatory level of soul. Take the American justice system for example. The purpose is to punish, but not help and that breeds criminals or to the very least maintains them.

a reply to: Tiamat384

What do you mean by "increased awareness of tools"?

You are by discussing things with others increasing collective awareness one soul at a time when you find a common ground to exchange information. This is one tool.

There will probably come a time when people use change management tools to social development to really keep track of what is going on and verify that things are stable instead of winging it like many are doing. en.wikipedia.org...

Change Management (CM) refers to any approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations using methods intended to re-direct the use of resources, business process, budget allocations, or other modes of operation that significantly reshape a company or organization. Organizational Change Management (OCM) considers the full organization and what needs to change.[1] Organizational Change Management principles and practices include CM as a tool for change focused solely on the individual.

CM focuses on how people and teams are affected by an organizational transition. It deals with many different disciplines, from behavioral and social sciences to information technology and business solutions. In a project management context, change management may refer to the change control process wherein changes to the scope of a project are formally introduced and approved.[2][3]

And changes will normally not be emergency changes on social level so that you can slowly implement a new society one task at a time verifying stability after each task/change. Making sure you measure that the people effected by the change are pleased with the outcome. If the change did not give the intended outcome revert back to previous state as much as possible and do an new PDCA (plan–do–check–act or plan–do–check–adjust) cycle where the people effected by the change have a say in the change.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Chinese do clearly have an over production right now since they can build cities that are not used in Africa.
www.wnd.com...

Just as a last comment on your own final words of reply, I'd argue that not helping people just keeps them at a predatory level of soul. Take the American justice system for example. The purpose is to punish, but not help and that breeds criminals or to the very least maintains them.

The balance between 2 extremes. To empathetic towards the person causing the soul not to become aware and enabling the predatory behavior to continue vs being to little empathetic causing disconnect in the person from all society. Finding the exact right point between the two extremes that will push the individual towards change and self awareness.

What about giving every person with the problems some tools that can make the soul self aware like meditation, psychology, Non duality/duality reasoning? And then measure who get self control and who do not?

a reply to: LittleByLittle
Ok so mental tools more or less. Or perhaps a more apt description or phrase for them, "Tools for Change". I see a campaign slogan already.

In order to measure the people's reaction to such dramatic change, as Project Venus would create, I could imagine that prior to any demolition or construction a virtual city tour could be made. Much like the videos you had shared, but more from the perspective of a person. So from the god view of the city we have already seen, to something akin to the video games of today. With first person views, ability to roam and interaction with various systems such as the transportation system. Such a tutorial could allow people see what the future would be like, beginning from an apartment or home, and setting foot out beyond.

Chinese "ghost" cities seem very interesting and would be amazing to explore. And I could think of at least a couple of conspiracies with them in mind. Not to detract from the discussion of course.

Well, then where is that point in which a person begins to better themselves and have a decent soul? Is there really such a thing as too much empathy? Of course there are souls, predatory, that will manipulate. But I am not certain all souls, that are predatory, are manipulative. So then you could say there are two ways of defining a soul and under each way there are two separate sorts of souls. The first way to define a soul is as predatory or non-predatory. The second way as with shame and without and it is the latter that will manipulate because a predatory soul with shame will seek to better themselves even with full empathy.

a reply to: Tiamat384

Is there really such a thing as too much empathy?

If not tempered and controlled by reason the yes to much empathy/altruism can be harmful to both the self and others.

Empathy is emotion. Emotion without reason to temper the flames can cause a disaster since emotion build up a need to act regardless if the action is wise when looking at all parts.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions comes to mind, where reason is not allowed to have time to verify the current state and think about the next more preferable state and plan how to get from one state to the next.

You might love lions but you should be careful around them so that you do not get hurt. And some humans are insanely more dangerous than lions. Sometimes the best shield against predatory behavior is to make it clear that eye for an eye will be dealt out so that aggression against other become a self destructive behavior.

Souls who are under direct karma retribution have a tendency to quickly evolve self control as a survival trait.