Interview About The Venus Project Part 2 of 2

[kareldezoonvanbennie]

its oke ;)

[kareldezoonvanbennie]

if you want change start joining the zeitgeist BOINC project now the sooner the better , the faster we have quantum computers !!

*this message will play itself over and over again in your head until you join*

[fintoification]

@kareldezoonvanbennie im so sorry i actually press thumbs down when i meant to press thumbs up and it ont let me undo it lol. apologies

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad - at the minute UK news=budget cuts to deal with state deficit

As a freemarketeer you'll tell me the state shouldn't be so big - I agree.

but why did people vote for the previous socialist gov in the first place?

-Lacking private sector employment, they needed the state to make them *feel* usefull, and *provide*.

IMO:

Service sector jobs can only make real wealth trickle down from the real producers.

$£ = micromanagement and heirarchy.

in longrun, real resources count

[dewdrop29]

I think this idea is brilliant. It makes way more sense than the system we currently have. It needs to be implemented now or the prophesies of doomsday by religious groups and people who think humans are inherently bad will come true. It's inevitable that doomsday will happen in this current system. We've been close a few times already & scientists predict more future doomsday scenarios. They are our modern-day prophets! It makes me very sad at the lack of foresight some people have.

[Watchdawg]

If you think that the Venus Project is a "dreamworld" then take a good look at our current system, global warming, nature is slowly dying etc... Now which one is a dreamworld?

[walter0bz]

you cant wish scarcity away with some pretty pictures.

[walter0bz]

always the way. populist promise of utopia leads to butchery &new elite.

eg mugabe shares resource of land equally and abolishes money...

cambodia, pol-pot ended of capitalism, return to sustainable agrarian life..

VP no more credible than some priest telling you he has keys to eternal life.

[technatezin]

@walter0bz mugabe wasn't a scientist, and he's overly shrill and emotional. Same with everybody else you've listed.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin - the venus project is nonsense.

people can share their resources if they want to, nothing stopping them

money appeared to arbitrate between people who dont care about eachother

[technatezin]

@walter0bz "people can share their resources if they want to, nothing stopping them

"

How do you do that exactly without logistics and calculations of where these resources go? Politically screaming shrill slogans about sharing doesn't make you a socialist, it makes you a madman.

Money is a mechanism for trade and political control. By definition then you don't need to care for anybody when you are trader or politician because you are dealing with controlling people, commodities and labor.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin - i'm not a socialist.

i'm merely pointing out observations about reality.

humans do not care about eachother equally, .e.g. they are very fussy about which genes to cross with and then prioritize their own kids over everyone else.

This is why we'd never have VP.

>>"How do you do that exactly without logistics and calculations of where these resources go"

we have E-Bay, we could implement something non-profit like that with peer-to-peer voting.. if anyone cared.

[hitssquad]

@technatezin "How do you [share resources] exactly without logistics and calculations of where these resources go?"

In a market-economy, price carries information about relative scarcity/abundance. Resources automatically end up going precisely where they are most useful or needed. See:

ejsd. org/public/journal_article/16

[technatezin]

@hitssquad Not exactly. Markets are ultimately corruptable and monopolistic if it is based on debt tokens acting as a medium of exchange. If you do not understand this then try simulating this scenario with just a few producers and consumers in a "game" with currency. If either the producers or consumers try to gain an advantage over each other or over people in "poor" areas of the planet the inevitable outcome will be oligarchies of wealth or stagnation from consumers refusing to buy (savings).

[walter0bz]

@technatezin - it would work fine if people rigourously only had babies they could afford

what tends to happen is opposite, poor try to outbreed rich .. r vs k selection.. strength in numbers at one extreme and hoarding resources at the other.

if people were required to save a 'deposit' for having kids the next gen would enjoy a more balanced society.. even through that might sound elitist

[technatezin]

@walter0bz Having no guarantee of basic necessities, rules to follow or room and resources to grow means anarchy. In anarchy social security means nothing, but securing enough for oneself through any means possible be it greed, stealth, theft or violence. The only stable society would then to revert back to hunter gatherers and entirely forego technology. Life would be short, battles for resources would be brutal and bloody, but there would be absolute personal freedom.

[technatezin]

@walter0bz "if people were required to save a 'deposit' for having kids the next gen would enjoy a more balanced society.. even through that might sound elitist"

Then you'll be creating a state enforced policy of family size limitations like China which will create other problems associated with authoritarianism. Carrot approach is better such as bonuses or education for women not to have kids as well as mandatory parenting courses which will have the side benefit of reducing child abuse.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin

population explosion shows that the market system , overall, is very good at catering for human desires.. ultimately the problems stem from ourselves, not the system we use.



[technatezin]

@walter0bz Population explosion is the result of scientific/industrial revolution, not the market system. If anything the market system put the brakes on further progress by limiting what the market would allow to distribute because of the need for profit. Mechanical technologies that allowed for automation have existed in the past, but were misused for warfare and genocide. Electronic technologies a million times faster and more capable makes limiting material abundance inexcusable.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin

"Population explosion is the result of scientific/industrial revolution, not the market system"

Yes correct. I say its *mostly* down to the energy harnessed from fossil fuels (channeled via Science/Tech).

I mention "market system" here, since that is how resources have been globally distributed and it runs counter the the VP claim that resources are *ineficiently* distributed. If that were the case, we wouldn't be multiplying so fast. deaths would exceed births

[walter0bz]

@technatezin

>>"If anything the market system put the brakes on further progress by limiting what the market would allow to distribute because of the need for profit. "

Wrong. The market does cause very rapid evolution. Computers are the key example.

Tech is sometimes retarded by practicalities. Eg CELL processor is vastly superior idea for multiprocessing but software isn't ready - might take a decade+ to develop suitable languages - so its flopped and we're stuck with anachronistic Intel

[technatezin]

@walter0bz If looked at objectively then the market system as existed in the "efficient", but inhumane Roman slave society which had markets for everything including human work animals (slaves) should have produced the industrial/scientific breakthrough that we only now have the privilege to enjoy. Clearly this is false. it took the collapse of empire, dark ages and renaissance to rediscover what Roman engineering/science had the potential to do, but frittered away in an inhumane slave system.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin

>>"makes limiting material abundance inexcusable."

BS, we can always multiply faster than our tech can advance sustain us.

You cannot take latest tech straight out of lab for mass deployment.

I like the software example since its the most extreme case for 'economies of scale' and rapid advancement, and things are even worse for physical infastructure.

VPers seem to miss the whole point that it *takes* time & resources to optimize manufacturing processes.

[technatezin]

@walter0bz "BS, we can always multiply faster than our tech can advance sustain us."

Only because of psychological need for females to procreate faster and with more babies in an environment of scarcity and emotional deprivation. In times of danger females will be more sexually active which makes sense so that she can have offsprings before death.

"You cannot take latest tech straight out.."

Redesign of culture away from competition to cooperation is necessary. That's not impossible.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin

>>"Redesign of culture away from competition to cooperation is necessary. That's not impossible."

IMO -the issue is power - people in positions of advantage will not give it up. And they've evolved over centuries to get good at keeping it.

e.g. do you think Americans will be open to unlimited immigration from the worlds' overcrowded areas ? or that aristocratic families will give up their huge estates? i dont think so. they'll have plans for keeping it.

[technatezin]

@walter0bz "...open to unlimited immigration from the worlds' overcrowded areas?"

unlimited immigration is not necessary nor desirable. A construction, education, scientific, engineering, security "army" using high technology could just as easily bring abundance to the "poor" than having the poor flood "rich" areas.

"or that aristocratic families..."

Why envy pretentious inbreds living in old stone castles built centuries ago? I would actually be bored to death living in these museum pieces.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin - sustainable tech needs land to generate energy.

today Oil is power, in the longrun power will return to Land.

The biggest problem with peak oil is that most people will lack the land required for sustainable living.

Hence the increasing pressure we'll see to redistribute/take by force/reduce numbers by genocide

[technatezin]

@walter0bz "today Oil is power, in the longrun power will return to Land."

As VP advocates have stated before in their video presentations, there are more than enough resources to sustain Earth's present population for centuries to come at a comfortable middle class standard of living and even some left over to give a wide margin for urban planning in sustainable and vastly more livable automated cities. The problem isn't resources it is culture, politics and planning.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin -

no there are not. it is precisely because there are not that people in position of advantage try so hard to keep it.

we have an illusion of abundance from fossil fuels.

venus project "projects" the oil age forward in its imagery.

the post-oil age will look nothing like this, it will be a return to the C18th, we'll be lucky if we keep computing tech.

Redestributing earths' resources equally today would give us all the lifestyle of a Chinese Peasant.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin My hypothesis,

if there were adequate resources the economy would keep growing. the economic crisis is precisely because there aren't.

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad

"the economy is growing"

no , its collapsing, there's an illusory ponzi scheme on life support.

do you sell mortgages for a living or something?

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "there's an illusory ponzi scheme on life support."

What makes you think so?

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

peak oil. it makes logical sense.

you throw lots of pages of figures & links up , but I suspect these come from deluded sources.

People trying to sell something, or well meaning people who have already bought in and have no choice but to beleive everything will be ok.

Of course the VP guys are equally deluded, but in the opposite way. What a fun argument.

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "peak oil. it makes logical sense."

So your conclusion isn't based on indicators, but rather is simply assumed to be true? Isn't that begging the question?:

en. wikipedia. org/wiki/ Begging_the_question

"Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. The word beg [...] means to dodge or avoid. Begging the question is related to circular argument"

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "it makes logical sense."

Can counterintuitive theories not be valid?

google. com/search?q=site:juliansimon. com+counterintuitive

"The argument in this chapter is very counterintuitive, as are most of the ideas in this book. Indeed, science is most useful when it is counterintuitive. But when scientific ideas are sufficiently far from "common sense," people will be uncomfortable with science, and

they will prefer other explanations"

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

yes, counter-intuitive theories can be valid, as we know from things like quantum physics. Also, this IS a "counter-intuitive" theory.

Direct physical experience says, "everything is fine". From the perspective of someone born into the industrial cocoon, it is a matter of *abstract reasoning* that the peak oil problem appears. Direct "instinctive experience" does not reveal the problem.

Which might be why so many are in denial.

[hitssquad]

"But because the ideas in this chapter are counterintuitive does not mean that there is not a firm theoretical basis for holding them."

"The historical evidence in chapters 1, 5, 8, 10, and 11 that natural-resource costs have fallen, as measured by all reasonable concepts of cost, sharply contradicts the notion that diminishing returns must raise costs and increase scarcity. This cries out for explanation. The explanation is quite counterintuitive, however. At first it affronts "common sense"."

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

I do understand that "food miles" might be a 'counter-intuitive' efficient deployment of resources i.e. while we have oil, its efficient to have such extreme specialization because shifting things around is so cheap.

...but that just backs up the idea that peak oil will mean a die-off. i.e. Food Miles aren't a *luxury*, they're part of what's increased *carrying-capacity* so much.

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "Food Miles aren't a *luxury*, they're part of what's increased *carrying-capacity* so much"

If "food miles" means "global food trade", yes, it's not a luxury. But the reason is that it improves efficiency: both man-hour efficiency and energy efficiency.

You don't seem to know what it actually costs to ship things, do you? You seem to simply assume it's energy-expensive. Since you're the person here who seems not to know, why don't you tell us what it actually costs to ship things?

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz

This might help you find the answer:

google. com/search?q=site:peakoildebun­ked. blogspot. com+shipping+costs

"MYTH: The rise in fuel prices occasioned by peak oil will make it too costly to transport food over long distances. Food production will have to be relocalized. As the peak oilers say: "The 3000-mile salad will be a thing of the past".

REALITY: A kilogram of rice (in Japan, where I live) costs about $3.64. The fuel cost of transporting this rice by container ship, at

[hitssquad]

"current fuel costs, over a distance of one-half the circumference of the earth, is about $0.015 (one and a half cents). Ship fuel accounts for 0.4% of the cost of the retail product.

So let's look at how fuel costs for long-distance shipping will affect the price of this bag of rice as oil prices skyrocket:

If crude=$65/barrel, rice=$3.64/kg

If crude=$130/barrel, rice=$3.655/kg

If crude=$260/barrel, rice=$3.685/kg

If crude=$2600/barrel, rice=$3.775/kg"

.

You're right. It's not a luxury.

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

nice table of numbers,

but maybe this is like throwing a cubic approximation through an graph with a singularity.

If your food depends on digging up something finite, and population is rising, thats a problem. End Of. if the numbers tell you otherwise, you or your sources are missing something.

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

any ideas for me on western deficits.

Some tell me it state pensions

i tend to think automation can supply our needs so we shouldn't need "more taxpayers!" buying into the Ponzi. . so long as there are saved resources to drive the machines.

To make more food you need bigger field/tractor(and oil).. not more farmers.

if money works right, pension = saved resources = defered consumption.

Some opposite views to mine (1-child-policy) call for opposite - "Logans Run!"

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

feedback: the labour to make the rice is also itself fueled by the rice.

and, at some point people will object to being cheap labour.

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "the labour to make the rice is also itself fueled by the rice."

What labor?

trekearth. com/gallery/ North_America/United_States/ph­oto466019. htm

"Methods and machines for harvesting rice went through several transformations with the ultimate goal of reducing labor costs"

"Farm labor shortages and growing demand for rice in the 1940s led to the increased use of self-propelled combines"

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad - well shipping is used to make things in countries where living conditions & prospectst are significantly lower, reducing labour costs..

maybe they're making this up, but I dont see people flocking to move to the 3rd world - rather the reverse.

other than that, yes thanks for confirming that most food is produced by oil-powered machines, so when the oil price goes up 10X that doesn't rise the price 1% like that link claims, but rather 10X

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "most food is produced by oil-powered machines"

Do oil-powered machines tend to be more, or less, energy-efficient than manual laborers?

How do the oil-energy inputs compare to the other energy inputs?

Some help with your homework assignment:

google. com/search?q=energy+inputs+ric­e+pimentel

If you were a farmer with round fields, do you think you probably could figure out a way to power your combines with electricity? Hint:

google. com/images?q=circular+pivot+fa­rm

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

[1] Yes I understand that powered machines are more efficient than humans at specific tasks - "Never send a human to do a machines' job".

That multiplies the impact their loss will have on society

[2] yes I understand anything based on internal-combustion-engines can be done with electric-motors, the batteries might be a bit heavier.

But the Electricity still needs to be generated somewhere.

If one had unlimited energy, one could grow ones food indoors for greater security

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "the batteries might be a bit heavier."

What batteries? Why would an electric combine need batteries?

"But the Electricity still needs to be generated somewhere."

What if the price rose?

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

it will need batteries or long cables or tesla style inductance, all have their pros and cons.

"what if the price rose" - er, the electricity would still need to be generated somewhere?

the energy needs to be dug up (which is finite) or harnessed from the sun (which is limited by land area. and yes i know theres' however many joules coming in per square meter but harnessing it still takes energy to build infrastructure which is why people aren't all flocking to wastelands )

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz ""what if the price rose" - er, the electricity would still need to be generated somewhere?"

Wrong answer. A rise in a resource's price always:

1. creates more of that resource and its substitutes.

2. destroys demand for that resource while causing higher efficiency of use.

What you need to do is cite an instance (besides North Korea, or similar illiberal situations) where that hasn't been true. Here's some help:

juliansimon. com/writings/Ultimate_Resource

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz

People create more of whatever is expensive. That's just what they do.

If electricity were needed more, the price would rise. If the price of electricity rose, people would create more of it.

Therefore, it is not true that "electricity would still need to be generated somewhere", because people would already be solving the problem.

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad - I understand how the market 'computer' (hivemind) uses price signals.

this doesn't change the fact electricity would need to be generated. The upper limit of what's possible depends on resources.

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "The upper limit of what's possible depends on resources"

How many tonnes of uranium resources are there at over-unity eroei?

nuclearinfo. net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistr­ibution

How does that compare to current worldwide consumption?:

world-nuclear. org/info/reactors. html

Each tonne can release 22.6 trillion watt-hours of heat. How does that compare to world-society's current thermal-power-consumption of 16 terawatts?

en. wikipedia. org/wiki/ World_energy_resources_and_con­sumption

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

your figures are at odds with "tunnelportterrors"

who to beleive.. which scenario correlates best with the issues I see in the world around me today...

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

hypothesis - your estimates must miss some key limiting facts. there may well be that many uranium atoms.

anyone selling something tends to over-estimate its capabilities.

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz

A trillion watt-hours is also a terawatt-hour.

Therefore, we can simply divide 22.6 by 16 and see that 1 tonne of uranium can power society for 1.4125 hours.

Therefore, we can see that society's 40-trillion-tonne over-unity-eroei uranium-resource could power society for 1.4125 hours/tonne * 40 trillion tonnes = 5.65 trillion hours.

Dividing that by 8760 hours per year, we get 6.45 billion years of uranium fuel.

.

Right?

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad

tunnelporterterrors story about impracticalities (eg long time for powerstation to break even, inconvinience of dealing with waste) rings more true.

If energy & resources are so abundant, why do people go to such great lengths to control them..

I am "pro nuclear" though, IMO its imperative that we ramp up.

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "inconvinience of dealing with waste"

A concrete patio is inconvenient?

google. com/images?q=onsite+nuclear+st­orage

What does that cost per kWh?

"If energy & resources are so abundant, why do people go to such great lengths to control them."

They don't.

google. com/search?q=steven+pinker+his­tory+violence

"conquest as the mission statement of government, genocide as a means of acquiring real estate [...] were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history.

[hitssquad]

"But, today, they are rare to nonexistent in the West, far less common elsewhere than they used to be, concealed when they do occur, and widely condemned when they are brought to light."

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "its imperative that we ramp up [nuclear]."

You're dead wrong about that, and your own math proves it.

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad - my math? I dont have pages of numbers to back this up - I trust the logical explanation and ballparks.

I dont trust that oil can continue our civ. I think that nuclear is the only viable way to keep going. fusion is the only way we can 'grow', unless we retreat more into "virtual reality" for perceived 'progress'. Fusion research appears to be a big gamble, i.e. huge material resources with no garantee of pay-off.

[more]

[Juefawn]

@hitssquad Do we have that kind of uranium?

[hitssquad]

@Juefawn "Do we have that kind of uranium?"

You mean "amount"? Did you read this?:

nuclearinfo. net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistr­ibution

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

regarding cars vs trains with electrified rails, I suspect people went with cars to save energy compared to manufacturing more metal infrastructure.

interestingly these VP people think fancy vacuum tube trains can do the job of planes, but my initial guess is that the energy to build the tubes / magnets etc is prohibitive .. which is why we went through all the trouble & added danger of flying. sorry I can't quote 10 pages of stats on that, its just a guess.

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad - the fact that machines are more efficient at performing tasks is a big part of why I relate oil/FF to the Population Boom - not just multiplying amount of food, but reducing the food we actually need to do things, & reducing how fast we 'wear out'.

for example, sanitation machines reduce transport costs by allowing us to live at higher density with less disease risk.

if you have to go back to cleaning everything by hand, fetching water from the well etc , carrying capacity drops

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "so when the oil price goes up 10X"

Now you are admitting that prices can rise? You seem to be implying, then, that people would somehow be prevented from responding to those price changes? What preventive-mechanism might that be?

"oil price goes up 10X [would] rise the [rice] price [...] 10x"

Check Pimentel's Table 12.6. Out of 49,720 Mj per Hectare of U.S. rice, diesel and gasoline accounted for 10,807 + 2,344 = 13,151 Mj. What mechanism would prevent that number from dropping?

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

Yes i've seen pictures of automated circular pivot farms in books I read about the future when I was a kid, almost 30 yrs ago.

got any ideas for me that I can't already figure out for myself?

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "got any ideas for me that I can't already figure out for myself?"

If you can figure out pivot-frame electrical extension cords for yourself, why did you claim that oil would continue to contribute the exact same proportion of energy to food production, despite a 10x price rise?

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad

* again i'd guess "combines with batteries" for the same reason we use cars instead of rails or Dalek style electrified floors in all our cities.

but yes, circular pivot farms are within my imagination.

>>"why did you claim that oil would continue to contribute the exact same proportion of energy to food production, "

-because this is a really basic micromanagement issue.

I've thought of looking into robot based food production myself as a future hobby.

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad

Like i say i already saw these in "usborne book of the future" i think it was called.

In wanting to grow my own food but not being arsed with manual labour (spoilt by industrial cocoon), I did think "i wonder if some mechanical framework placed over the garden could do the hard work".

Reason that we *dont* already grow food that may must be down to materials costs,maintainance costs.. must compete with simple devices like "pitchforks" that already multiply efficiency of human limbs.

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad

426:LOCAL FOOD GUZZLES MORE FUEL THAN LONG-DISTANCE FOOD

confirms that using SUVs will be a thing of the past.

yes, I understand big-scale industrial food would be more efficient than local farms USING SUV's AND TRACTORS

this doesnt' change the fact that end of oil means less food.

peeps will have to live & work on farms, or grow in backyard, or ride to the market by bicycle. or starve.

or better still,not be born in the first place.

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

SUMMARY - thanks for posting the link but it did nothing to advance my understanding of the issue, i.e. whist we have oil, economies of scale can multiply carrying capacity.

Again I'm genuinely curious to know what your VI is.

Why would you *want* to beleive and quote a page of such half-truths dressed up in a few numbers.

[djkhaless]

@hitssquad "oil will never run out"

are you brain damaged or something?

Who in there right mind would ever make that claim?

Just stop already dude, everyone knows you're completely full of it, with your lame ass links which have no credibility and no basis in reality.

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad

- i actually bothered to click and read your link. What a suprise, its bullshit.

All it does is says ships are cheap.

comments summed it up

"hmm, what about the fuel used to farm the rice, transport it to the mill, from the mill to factory, from the factory to the ship, from the ship to the warehouse, from the warehouse to the store, from the store to the home? How does that effect the cost of your kg of rice?"

[more]

[walter0bz]

@walter0bz

"by only focusing on one single aspect of fuel cost increase, you make the picture look rosy when in reality the shipping is (as you correctly point out) only a tiny fraction of the cost of the finished product. There are many other more significant uses of fuel in the production of a kilogram of rice and ALL OF THEM will be multipled by the same factor as your shipping costs. redo the math for those using your 2600$/bbl figure and you will see the truth."

[walter0bz]

@walter0bz [sorry, all it does is says SHIP FUEL is cheap, not ships.]

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad

>>"But the reason is that it improves efficiency: both man-hour efficiency and energy efficiency."

yes. I do understand economies of scale. each country can specialize in whatever it grows best. each processing plant can be maxed out before you have to build another one. whatever.

Quoting pages of numbers doesn't change my understanding - this is all made possible by abundant oil energy, when it runs out - game over.

Just what is your VI, hitssquad ?

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad -

of course population control is a counter-intuitive solution.

People say "If we stop breeding we might go extinct!".

its also hard for people who grow up learning darwin to accept.

"sucess = number of kids!!"

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad - no. the indicator was the property bubble (i.e. "stop investing in real industry, because resources are running out, just hoard bricks instead!") and the iraq war

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad - also, you keep refering to market indicators.

Sure, these can micro-manage available resources for optimum efficiency.

but they dont change the laws of nature.

& market forces sometimes demand death as the solution, e.g. bankers used to (& probably still do) finance wars, unemployed people are 'supposed' to starve, etc.

Biofuels became economically viable - because some people with money have cars, despite the fact that some people without purchasing power are starving ..

[more]

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad

[indicators]

clearly, if people with Christian upbringing are prepared to create market demand for biofuel ( which diverts land from food production) thats a pretty big indicator that oil is running low.

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz

And e25 years is 10 septillion years = 10 trillion trillion years.

.

That's the consumption-rate-time limit of Terran society's domestic fuel-resources, according to the laws of nature. You are saying you conclude, based on that, that 6.8+ billion-strong society couldn't make it another 100 years, without breaking the laws of nature?

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad - lets wait till fusion **works** before planning how many babies to allow.

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad

hehe. I had wondered if this might be possible.

the wiki page is quite illuminating.

"high environmental costs" - no shit !!

>>"great development costs that would likely never be recovered by generating energy."

there was project orion too.

"political costs"..

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad - yes e=mc^2, but lets wait till we find all that naturally occuring antimatter before counting on that for our energy needs.

[hitssquad]

@walter0bz "do you sell mortgages for a living or something?"

You're saying someone, who points-out that in liberal-economies land-prices drop over the long term, must naturally be in the mortgage business? How does that work?

Please explain your logic. Why would a salesman want his potential-customers to think they would be paying too much?

[walter0bz]

@hitssquad - forgive me for not speculating more accurately. you want to beleive oil accounts for only 0.1% food price because of a page of calcs starting with shipping fuel assumption (ignoring everything else) .. a little bit of basic psychology reveals you're trying very hard to believe (or have VI to convince others) that the end of oil *doesn't* mean the end of civilization.

To anyone else, who's read about this for decades, its clear that peak Oil could be the root cause economic crisis.

[technatezin]

@walter0bz Yes, people will never learn until confronted with biosocial pressures like running out of non-renewable resources. I'm quite sure there will be resource wars coming quite soon to "sort things out" until people listen to scientists and engineers instead of the slick salesmen and lawyers we call politicians.

As far as computers are concerned, they can be preserved in vaults until the long emergency passes over.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin

"Why envy pretentious inbreds living in old stone castles built centuries ago?"

if you believe the worst MMGW/peak-oil predictions, a century from now a stone castle will indeed be the best place to live

[walter0bz]

@technatezin

>>"Only because of psychological need for females to procreate faster and with more babies in an environment of scarcity "

- We will always have to deal with scarcity. both "r" and "K" strategies are effective so you'll always get someone trying to hoard resources/power, and someone trying to get "strength in numbers". The average person is buffeted between the behaviour of these extremes.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin -

we need property rights, without that we'll be over-whelmed by those who are trying to breed too much.

If resources are distributed equally "per capita" then the incentive is to try and out-breed other families to get more wealth for your gene-pool.

with ownership, you must regulate numbers according to what *you* can support, with an incentive to concentrate in fewer offspring.

Unfortunately well meaning socialists interfered, we have breeding-incentive for the poorest

[walter0bz]

@technatezin

>>" but were misused for warfare and genocide. "

major bugbear of mine that VP claims Money causes war.

wrong. war is darwinian. The 'currency' is number of copies of similar vs different DNA. many creatures function like this. (e.g. big-cat infanticide of defeated males' offspring after fighting for female)

without money there would still be war for land and resources.

Population control is the only way to stop war, but even then people might go to war for the right to breed..

[technatezin]

@walter0bz Only because they were neurally conditioned in an environment of scarcity where males are expendable in combat with other males be it after other prey or to decide pecking order in getting the spoils of the kill. Further, EVERYTHING is expendable in an environment of scarcity male bears often eat females when they have nothing else to eat. Further, war itself is a cooperative enterprise of the nation state. You make it seem as if we haven't progressed at all since swinging from trees.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin

>>"war itself is a cooperative enterprise of the nation state"

the nation state is a big tribe. yes, groups of monkeys fight other groups of monkeys. "Price's Equation"

>>"in an environment of scarcity "

- only population control i.e. Rationing of numbers can avoid Scarcity.

- perfect information is impossible, so we either Under-Estimate carrying capacity (then people complain about "artificial scarcity") or over-estimate (and use war to cull excess)

[technatezin]

@walter0bz "the nation state is a big tribe. yes, groups of monkeys fight..."

Only after they run out of resources to sustain an unsustainable social/economic system. Yes, malthusian pressures does play a role, but what to do? More of the same old junk?

"- only population control i.e. Rationing of numbers can avoid Scarcity."

See my earlier comments on providing education, bonuses and requiring parenting courses for potential parents to either inventivise or disincentivise having children.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin

>>"Only after they run out of resources to sustain an unsustainable social/economic system. "

its the humans that are unsustainable , the 'systems' are trying to play catchup.

if we could all co-operate and regulate numbers, there would BE no nation-states, no money, no ownership.

I dont buy the VP argument that overconsumption is an artefact of monetary system - being money-minded actually *reduces* your consumption.

IMO, "exponential debt" system evolved to match our appetites

[walter0bz]

@technatezin

>>"and requiring parenting courses for potential parents "

earn a "childbearing - licence" - I like this idea :)

[technatezin]

@walter0bz "earn a "childbearing - licence" - I like this idea :) "

You like, but this will only happen in a scientific social system where women have the time away from menial and housekeeping duties to have both the energy and emotional state of mind to attend parenting classes and hence earn their parenting licenses. As of right now with the money for labor system or "mon-et-ar-ism" which the VP deservedly have contempt for as nothing more than a paid slavery system this will never happen.

[walter0bz]

@technatezin - parenting classes/licence for both males & females

[excaliburgc]

If you start this project count me in.I believe!!

[00bhv]

I can't wait for it to start! If the whole world could be clean, free and full of love. Not like today... look at how the people live in Hollywood and then think of the people in Zimbabwe. We have a lot of good work to do. There is still hope. When this happens, I would like to live more than once. Can you just imagine not needing a passport to enter a country... I'd like to think of myself as a citizen of the world or even better, the universe.

[freddiedread]

disgusting 'dreamworld' propaganda

i'm sure they won't mention that everyone will be microchipped and at the whim of the corporation that is global government

[Jjjjjjcool]

Actually you should see in advance: How will you look uppon the society if you're born in it? You have to see it in practice before you can take conclusions. That goes for pretty much everything.

[yianki1020]

You are confusing this new social direction with the new world order.. Based on what you stated, we can clearly tell you dont know much about The Venus Project at all. If you DO want to know you should check out their site, do some research on this idea, submit questions to thezeitgeistmovementdotcom and wait for answers on blogtalkradiodotcom every other wednesday. Its good you are skeptical, you should always ask questions.

[yianki1020]

But this isnt 'dreamworld' propaganda... Dont smear this idea just because you have not come to understand it yet..be safe.