yeah bla bla bla many words but no concrete examples.. why would a resource-based economy suddenly produce much more food than what is being produced today? What jobs would people have, how do you decide who gets what of the resources? All this is not explained...
In the meantime, how are we supposed to live and survive In a monetary based system? Where do i get funding to do research? How do I support myself and a family? How can I afford to get a proper education? I am forced to get a job and fall into the circle of consumerism living paycheck to paycheck with no time or funds to sponsor the things that really matter to me. I want to do so many things in my life, but just I'm not able to, due to this system that everyone is trapped in.
That's basically what I am saying, since I am only a student and work at a fast food restaurant. I have no idea how I going to pay for college, get a student loan and join the American people in debt, and work my ass off to pay it off? This is why we need to move towards a resource based economy! Everyone wins!
@Megatrousers You clearly don't understand a resource based economy then. It's about creating a society where people are free to choose their life's work, develop hidden potential, and pursue dreams without government intervention or financial constraint. It works on a systems approach, which means problem solving is at its center. It is not hard to redesign a society so people don't have to stress over work and study, as well as having a big student loan debt.
@Megatrousers Capitalism might have got us this far, but it is no longer useful to us. With technology like the internet we can create a truly global society. There's no need for countries to compete with each other for resources anymore. Doing so only causes somebody to lose out. I'd think less about middle-class America and more about starving kids in Africa as well as other very poor societies (so-called 'third world' nations) who can't get a start in this system as they're too far behind.
@postmasterw00t And how do one go about objectively measuring those qualities. What you just stated is an opinion. Enlightenment has lifted mankind out of the tribal phase.
@postmasterw00t You should go join them then and abandon your modern lifestyle. They're so happy because they don't know any better. Their lives revolve around the same daily activities and involve no innovation. If we were put back in that situation, it'd be only a matter of time before people would start making progress.
@MrTreantHugger You come across exteremely arrogant and ignorant, many tribes have purposefully shunned modern society because they see the pitfalls in its current state. Simplicity is not always arduous, many would conceede that the remaining tribes are the last truly free people on the planet.
@postmasterw00t They shun something they know nothing about. They might be free from government, law, and regulations but they're not free of hunger, disease, and they're own habitat. They live a life of ignorance but it keeps them happy because they don't know what life in other parts of the world is.
@MrTreantHugger They dont fucking live in other parts of the world though do they? Thats like saying an Amazonian tribe is suddenly going to get on a plane to england and live in a country cottage with a comfortable middle class lifestyle. I stand by my original statement, im happy for you to have your opinion but you come across very haughty and unobliging.
In one sentence? Communism relies on money and aims to keep human leaders in power; the venus project doesn't need money and aims to give EVERYONE and I mean everyone an actual right to have a say in what goes on.
That's what communism wanted, too. The Soviet Union was intended to be run by councils of the workers (soviets) who decided where to allocate the resources so that nobody would run out of what was needed. They didn't want money, they didn't want leaders, but both of those things turned into necessities when their desired system didn't quite work out. Why would this be different?
@Megatrousers - Rather than having a council of workers, who would arbitrarily make decisions or vote or whatever, an RBE would arrive at solutions by using the scientific method. The Soviets never got rid of rubles, thus they never moved away from the monetary system.
Even if the Soviets attempted to move towards a leaderless & money free system, it wasn't possible because they had to divert resources in order to fight the cold war. The west wanted them to be destroyed.
The workers would "Arbitrarily make decisions". They were supposed to arrive at decisions that both benefited the community and appropriately use the resources they had been given. The metalworkers would decide what to do with the metal, the carpenters would decide what to do with the wood.
The only differences between Communism and the Venus project are so completely and utterly minor - the reason their economy collapsed, the lack of price signals, isn't addressed at all.
@Megatrousers - The metalworkers, carpenters, and so on would make decisions based on their own opinions. In an RBE, a survey would be done and then the scientific method would be applied as to the best way to distribute resources so that everyone has enough.
@Megatrousers - I'd also like to say that one of Communism's concerns is the condition of labor and the working class. An RBE's major concern is producing products with limited labor and eventually eliminating labor and at the same time giving people all the amenities of a prosperous, high energy society.
Because the soviets didn't have the techonology that we do, they still had a modern day governmental structure (based upon opinions etc.) and last but not least of all they didn't have the resources. In order to get those resources they needed money, something they didn't have enough of and in a system with everyone sharing couldn't make enough of; leading to true scarcity within Russia. an RBE is on a global scale, communism confined itself to what it had, which was lots of gas.
The soviets lagged behind the US in terms of technology because they lacked the money to fun scientific progress. They didn't have the money because their economy was planned and highly inefficient. It had a modern governmental structure because their planned structure (Qualified workers allocating resources to where they were needed) didn't work. All of the reasons you've suggested aren't situational; The USSR failed because of the system itself.
Read some economics? Lol seriously? What does them being behind america technologically have to do with the fact they weren't technologically advanced enough to sustain communism? Even if america tried communism back in them days it wouldn't work, even if Russia had 4 times its at the time, communism wouldn't work. You conveniently missed out the point I made that an RBE is on a GLOBAL scale, thus there is no need for money hence no risk of "financial collapse"
Financial collapses can exist without money - money is just an indicator of value which is determined by the buyer and seller. Finance and economies existed long before money, just in a much less efficient way. There is NO reason why there wouldn't be supply shortages in The Venus Project. You can say "Oh, the technology will let us have an abundance" but the fact of the matter is that the technology doesn't yet exist and we are a long way off anything close.
Technology needs creators too, and creators require incentive and motivation. Expecting someone to do something out of the kindness of their heart very rarely works - that's what the soviets tried and they ended up on the bad end of the stick in the cold war. The only ground breaking technology the soviets made was involved in the space race, which didn't improve civilian life at all, further demonstrating the inefficiency of central control.
Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Michio Kaku, Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose, Tim bernes lee, ... I could go on and on so don't give me crap about their only incentive and motivation being money. You don't spend hours in the lab to get paid for overtime you spend it to get results. These people were motivated by their love for what they did and to find answers, the same as a majority of scientists are today. Money is just MADE into a necessity which you need to survive in this
economy. The majority of scientists today invent not for the pay (like as if scientists even get paid a lot for the work they do) but for the achievement, the recognition and the advancement of human kind; its just a sad fact the only way they can do so is under the reign of political and financial influence. Unless you can show me proof that people would not be motivated to work if they had everything they need to survive but no money your statement is baseless.
And in what sense are we now 'technologically advanced enough to achieve communism"? Seriously, give me one good, economic reason that a centrally organized economy would succeed now when it failed then.
Honestly man, don't take offense, but try reading a basic course on economics. The truth fears no inquisition, you'll find it an eye opener.
Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the world's food supply. Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even count many other commonly eaten foods - vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish.
Enough food is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food/person a day worldwide: two and half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs-enough to make most people fat! The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food. Even most "hungry countries" have enough food for all their people right now. Many are net exporters of food and other agricultural products
As for construction, if you're going to tell me we don't have enough materials to make buildings then wow...
I keep repeating again and again and again, please tell me you don't honestly think that all the scientists and inventors around the world would honestly quit their jobs and stop working because they aren't getting paid and are instead being given a home and food and all the basic necessities to live? America just happened to attract the right scientists
But in an RBE it would be ALL the scientists in the world getting together to spread ideas. If you watch ted talks you'll see videos of teenagers who have recently made some amazing discoveries and you mean to tell me theyve done so just so one day they can be filthy rich?? My point exactly, I've read about economics and I KNOW for a fact that it cannot support a globally equal world, nor its exponentially increasing consumption. THIS system doesn't apply to an RBE
Read some economics? Lol seriously? What does them being behind america technologically have to do with the fact they weren't technologically advanced enough to sustain communism? Even if america tried communism back in them days it wouldn't work, even if Russia had 4 times its at the time, communism wouldn't work. You conveniently missed out the point I made that an RBE is on a GLOBAL scale, thus there is no need for money hence no risk of "financial collapse"
You can't compare an RBE in this current economic system its bound to fail because one of the REQUIREMENTS is to be on a global scale and not restricted to one state alone. As for allocation of resources that was still based upon opinion and while that would work for smaller populations, the population at the time wasn't exactly small now was it? They didn't have the food production methods or the construction tech we do today; plus an opinionated government was still in charge...
So maybe you should "read some resource based economics" before you start jumping to conclusions. One thing people always do is just assume that an RBE has to conform to some form of modern economic systems. But it doesn't. And it's never been tried before, so rather than comparing to communism and the like, how about telling us whether or not you think its plausible, why you think that and what suggestions for improving it. Don't just say it won't work give reasons. Cheers (Y)
I've been giving you reasons this whole time. The reason it won't work is that a centrally planned economy is incapable of effectively managing resources compared to price mechanisms, where supply and demand are naturally appropriated according to the resource's availability and usefulness. I've been comparing it to communism because it IS communism, with small and minor changes that wouldn't change the overall result.
And yes, I've read about resource based 'economics'.
Can you please tell me why? When todays economic desicions are based on the exact same system you say cannot handle resources? (consumption and sales in combination with ACTUAL scarcity determines prices, which means that we already have a mechanism for accurately determining consumption, retail stores use it to prevent over producing; but theres also manufactured scarcity in many sectors). So if we take money out of the equation we have an adequate RMS. Another fact
Is that the mentality of people would have to change, and this aspect is covered in jacques socioengineering proposals, and is the exact reason why he's waiting until this system begins to collapse before a RBE proposal truly gains momentum. Great change comes about with great suffering.
So tell me with enough resources to manage the current population, the willingness of the majority of people to particapate and a change in money centred attitudes why cant it work?
Listen, man, I appreciate you trying to tell me how we have enough for everyone and stuff like that, but this doesn't change the fact THAT THIS WAS TRIED BEFORE, BY COMMUNISTS. Pretty much every single thing you just describe was outlined by marx back in the 1800s, from what motivates people to changing society to eliminate greed. Seriously, ideologically how is this any different?
Well as I keep trying to stress to you, this is fundamentally different. Firstly its on a global scale, secondly it would not be limited by money, we agree the communists failed and starved because they didn't have enough resources nor did they have the money to buy enough resources sustainably, most of their funds were wasted on building up their military because they were threatened. One of the key issues in communism was the producer-consumer relationship --->
This failed because the producer wasn't making any profit and thus couldn't continue on sustainably making these goods, this is a fundamental difference and issue caused by money! An RBE doesn't require money and thus the issue of needing "profit" is removed, on top of this the aim of an RBE is to automise the producer! I believe thats quite the fundamental difference, hence why I say technology is key, something they didn't have.
On top of this I keep saying that the scientific method approach which will permeate all decisions that influence society is another difference, no political leaders, a system that alleviates and eventually removes the need for it. Besides that theres the socio engineering aspect I keep telling you about, we have to change peoples view points, some people are already geared towards collaboration and its slowly becoming more widely accepted but if you watch jacques
videos you'll see that fundamentally TVP covers all aspects of civilization, while communism focused on merely the distribution of resources and a lack of social class, hoping everyone would just get along lol... well I'm meant to be doing my assignment why im here i honestly do not know... anyway. Watch all the videos on the side and youtube page, and look at the FAQ section on the site. cheers (Y)
However perfect this system seems, it does still pose significant problems. There are many barriers to a unified nation, to achieve a resource based economy we would need a utopian society where differences in politics, nationalism and religious/cultural ignorances and hate are neglible. Because any significant barriers can cause a financial collapse, however the idea of a unified government could be quite intimidating, and some people would be scared of it becoming a totalitarian government.
@TheDeviantation Actually, even a simple spatial reconfiguration of present cities could save huge amounts of resources that could go toward feeding the teeming billions on this planet now.
Couple that energy saving technologies and the coming bleeding edge technologies currently be researched in the universities now could for all intents and purposes eliminate present material scarcity in the coming decades.
This project is realizable NOW. It's not a futuristic pipe dream.
@technatezin I didn't say that it wouldn't be possible in the coming decades but highly unlikely, as governments wouldn't run the risk of restructuring the whole of society unless exceptional circumstances required it so, it's highly possible but it would require public opinion polls etc. but a lot of rich middle class businessmen would be against it.
I agree with what you say, and this is why Jacque said we're most likely going to have to wait for a collapse of the current economic system before real physical work towards an RBE can begin taking place. When people genuinely start looking for alternatives (rich and poor) in mass.
I think the only time we will create a resource based economy is when we enter single or of multiple realities in which we have either entered the space age and encountered other lifeforms to which we need a common means to trade, a post apocalyptic world where resources need to be managed carefully, or a time when advanced robotics complete the menial and laborious of society and we use our time for self-development and research.
Love this guy. I say given the current situation we are in,why not try what he's talking about?(A "Resource based Economy") The monetary system is failing---
I think that the best way to kick-start a small experimental city would be apart from the Global meaning Jacque refers to. About the invasion we'd better build defensive structures. This will sound a bit outlandish, but in late years, Nikola Tesla proposed a powerful war system that could only (at fundamental level) be used defensively (the "Peace Ray" or "teleforce weapon"). Unfortunely we don't know yet how to make it work. Maybe some EMP device could blank radars and disturb avionics.
@XC2U It doesn't illustrate the problems with the resource-based economy, it gives examples of how a resource-based economy would work in our society.
LIKE IF YOU AGREE: Politics have destroyed the meaning of TRUST. Here's Jacque explaining the alternative, letting the EARTH determine what happens, meanwhile ill-informed new comers blurt out their first words: "It's a fraud". THINK OF CRABS IN A BOILING POT OF WATER. What happens?......Thank you!
Will any of us act on the Genius of the 90 some year wise humanitarian who says, "In a truly free nation, no one has to tell you you are free." What do You think of what Jacuqe Fresco has to say?
We should all grow up with the wisdom of an elder like this man, God Bless Jacque Fresco.
Love, Peace and Light facebook(DOT)com/BelovedMiracles Keep Sharing the Miracles!!!
Is there a way for me to contact someone who can answer a few questions I have? I read the FAQ and I understand most of it but there are a few things I want to clarify.
First of all, this sounds really great, BUT there are a few critical 'bugs' within the system:Resource Based Economy will not work when the whole world doesn't utilize it, that's a negative, because the elite in this world now will never, ever give up power to the people.Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolute!And with this RBE, their power would be considerable lower.
@CrazyMoeLester The elite only have power through other people working for them. In fact if their bodyguards all quit at the same time, lots of those people would not see the next day.
Every time someone becomes less dependent of the system the elite lose power. It could be someone making their home electricity efficient, or quit drinking so many sodas and start drinking water.
If people quit the elite's system the have no power at all.
I just luv to smack those debunkers who make videos on how RBE can't work and then pend or won't allow any comments to their videos. There's one who says "what about personal properties ?" well nobody owns anything in this world, property is an illusion even our bodies will be taken from us eventually. Since were transient beings the question he needs to ask is how are we going to make this experience worthwhile, not just to him but also to others around him and the next generation.
You know, years from now people WILL be sitting around and saying "why in the HELL didn't the WORLD put Jacque Fresco's ideas to test and use SOONER" !!
Although I HOPE, PRAY and BELIEVE it will be SOONER rather than LATER! Thank you Mr. Fresco. I would love to visit someday soon and soak in some of your ideas as my mind works incredibly similar to that of yours!! Keep infecting PEOPLE with you brilliant Intuition!!
Your ALL brain washed who likes this idea. Yes the building designs are great and all but the fundamentals is EVIL! Its Basically WORLD COMMUNISM! Every one monitored, controlled and in part of the Network. Its NEW WORLD ORDER Slavery! With the population chipped and monitored, This reminds me, Terminator Movie and 666 In bible. When you are chipped and monitored its much easier for corrupt person to take control of you and eliminate you from the system if you resist. Fuck Venus Project!
So in this economy what is my impetus to work? Force I assume because only suckers would put in any time at the farms when the society is going to lay the food on you regardles.
@Hellfireblogs Look at the background of where Jacque Fresco is speaking. Looks like lots of reliance on manual "forced" labor doesn't it? No, it looks like a reliance on robotics and technology in general.
By the way open air farming is one of the least efficient methods of farming with massive reliance on chemicals to get rid of unwanted insect pests and weeds. Afterwards you'll need lots of water to wash off that poison from the skin of the fruits and vegetables unless you want to eat it.
@technatezin Maintaining the robots and technology are time and work intensive as well. Who would be doing that? Who would be repairing the machinery, inspecting it every so often etc? Who delivers the food? Who picks the tomatoes? Robots with delicate fingers?
Robots and technology cannot do everything people need to function - that's a fantasy. And the science simply doesn't exist for half of what your planning. So again, who does the work?
@Hellfireblogs "And the science simply doesn't exist for half of what your planning."
You'll be surprised. Fully conscious robots that acts like human beings with thoughts and feelings are a long way off. But, for robots that are specially designed and programmed to accomplish certain tasks that does not change significantly and has no surprises, the mathematical theories and engineering technology is already there.
@technatezin Show me the design of a robot that can grow a crop, harvest it, care for it when things go wrong and save the seeds. Have you ever grown anything? Do you understand that it isn't a stable predictable process?
@Hellfireblogs Understand that it's going to be a systems approach to problems. It's not going to be haphazard, chaotic and environmentally destructive like outside farming. Plants will be grown in orderly rows and columns inside a greenhouse that have cameras, sensors and photovoltaics placed everywhere inside the greenhouse making it easy for automation to be accomplished.
@Hellfireblogs "Maintaining the robots and technology are time and work intensive as well. Who would be doing that?"
Sure, but most of the work would be indoors with programmers and engineers improving the software and hardware design of the robots. If you're not familiar with the robotics and computer field, most of the work in improving the machinery revolves around high level design. For the low level routine maintenance other machines can be programmed to automate that type work.
@Hellfireblogs What you don't seem to understand is that if you do away with the concept of ownership you CAN'T have anybody hoard more than their fair share of resources in which they can use at any one time. It's physically impossible for you as a single individual person to occupy two spaces at the same time. For practical purposes the living space allotted to you can be researched to fulfill the needs of your physical survival like shelter, food and comfort, but not for extraneous luxury.
@Hellfireblogs (cont.) If there's no extraneous luxury that would disincentivise hard working people from doing what they do best because they have a fascination and interest in their work what else is there to disincentivise them from their activities? There CAN'T be any extraneous luxury because with ownership gone the mechanism required for hoarding more than you can use is also gone. The resources (products, services and buildings) that you use are only "yours" so long as you are using them.
"Who picks the tomatoes? Robots with delicate fingers?"
Or robots with suction cups and visual sensors. What you're really accomplishing by harvesting fruits and vegetables is performing the repetitive single action of pulling the fruit off the branch.
@technatezin It isn't a repetitive single action. You seem to understand robots, but not how plants work. Grow one and harvest it next season and you'll see what I mean.
The real opposition to a Resource Based Economy is the Elite. The richest 5% are seated at the table in a Monarchy by Committee. The world today, is no different than the world at ANY other time in the past. It features, on the one side; a King, and on the other; the Peasants. Only measurable difference in modern times is instead of a bunch of Kings ruling over a bunch of kingdoms, they cooperate and rule collectively. They will not surrender their kingdom without one hell of a fight.
Resource based economies remove money from the equation and thereby greed as a motivation. This would be a utopian society driven by altruism. The argument is is than the nature of ppl is such that this society could not function. The counter to the aforementioned argument is, the bad behavior we witness in men is not the true nature of man, but rather a reflection of a flawed society. Meaning the world we live in is producing the resultant populace.
RBE seems like a non-idea. Food, resources, energy, and labor are all deemed to be sufficient. Who wouldn't support that? Conflict is deemed to cease to exist, though I don't know why it wouldn't exist. Engineers and scientists often disagree on the best way to do something. Obviously democracy and majority rule are out the window, which leaves us deciding how to decide who gets to make decisions. Even if a person is technically competent and has good intentions, that doesn't make them wise.
@siclos "Engineers and scientists often disagree on the best way to do something."
Which means physical designs must be tested out to determine what is best design for a given situation and scenarios and theories must be put to test to determine correctness. For theories that cannot be practically tested the probability of what will be most likely to occur should be worked out to find the best theory to support in the interim. The thing with the scientific method is that it is self-correcting.
"if we were gods then we wouldn't need to survive on resources."
No, because:
1. There are no gods
2. The immutable physical laws of the universe means that for anything that EXISTS in this universe, it must follow the universe's physical laws and one of those laws is the conservation of energy and matter which means ANYTHING including "God" that exist here must consume resources.
1. atheism is scientifically impossible, sorry(doesn't mean that any religion is right, but there IS and WAS a creator)
2. Our universal laws don't apply to gods, the reason why I say this will only work if we were gods is because humans are FLAWED, we are greedy and selfish by nature(to prevent us from destroying the planet with complete dominance of all other species), the person in charge of this project will be a global dictator.
@ptbwf "the reason why I say this will only work if we were gods is because humans are FLAWED"
Considering that humans EVOLVED from lower intelligence animals like lizards and apes I do not find that surprising, otherwise they would not be flawed. Does that mean we HAVE TO rely on something else other than ourselves to refine and perfect us? No, we have the brains and know-how to do what we can to improve both ourselves and our environment. Doing nothing, but relying on God is surrendering.
but that is all we have to do, that is all we can do.
We need to get rid of 'civilization' and save what is left of our planet's organisms, it is the fairest and the most efficient way to live as a species.
@ptbwf "We need to get rid of 'civilization' and save what is left..."
How many people does civilization with all it's technology currently sustains? 7 billion? Of which how many are intelligent and skilled technicians, engineers and scientists that know what they are doing to keep the machinery that keeps the majority of the people alive going and repairing them when the machines do go down?
How many people will die NOW if we "get rid" of civilization? Are you willing to pull the kill switch?
@ptbwf This is the biggest bullshit I have never seen. ''Humans are greedy and selfish by nature'' Have you done some psychology analysis before saying this or did you just base your statement on our current society? We live in a system (capitalism) which encourages competition and individualism. In which profit is more important that human lives or nature. Of course the system purpose is to make you greedy and selfish, but are Humans like this by NATURE ?
@ptbwf Your so right! Humans have criminal, violent, greedy, selfish... Genes on their DNA (by nature) ''global anarchy is the real RBE'' wow do you know actually what does Anarchy mean ? Its the antonym of Hierarchy, which is exactly what we have now :any system of persons or things ranked one above another (class struggle). What we want is no social class, every living creature being equal to each other which is Anarchy. In this society they make you think that Anarchy is chaos but it is not.
@ptbwf I love the fact that all your comment are made out of assumption and that you don't take in account that there are severals things that influences the behaviors of humans.
If it is of interest to TED, there's only your traveling costs attached. They are even fundraising for some of the projects. So TED is all the other way around.
If your project has a working prototype or positive bench test results, or if it is a truely INNOVATIVE idea or ideology that can't be ACT upon, then they will invite you. If not, ask them why for a sincere answer. There is more brilliant minds with good will there then anywhere else on earth...
@sparis1970 Said differently, TED is THE best testing platform to see if your idea can ever become a movement. If it doesn't fly there, then it should belong in 'la littérature' where maybe futur generations can get inspired and act upon...
Why is your lecture not given on TED? This platform would be the perfect leverage and gather influent scientists and greatest minds on the planet around your vision. It would give it an instant credibility, if they do find it credible...
See you on TED, or good luck trying to reach the mass.
@sparis1970 TED would be ideal. There was an offer for Jacque some time back to participate in their seniors program or something but there were prohibitive costs involved.
@thevenusprojectmedia: i'm sure zeitgeist movement and venus project fans, would gladly fundraise for either jacque, or peter, to be able to speak to the ted community.
i for one would donate generously, and i am a poor college student
@sparis1970 Jacque wanted to go on TED. But it costs allot of money to present your idea and you have to travel to them. Jacque is old and needs to fly and travel first class. Jacque doesn't have this money.
One step at a time. The system can only change from within. Let's look at current economic climate. Failing industries like Banking and Financials must be allowed to fail if they can't support themselves. They should not be bolstered further by gov'ts. Must follow Natural Selection. Current economic policy is rising inflation thus paving for a weaker and even less resource based economy than previously. Money/Resources is getting ever more concentrated to the wealthy few at expense of others.
- Where is the first city and where is the funding coming from?
- Has there been any resistance from media or government agencies?
-What is the status of the first city?
- Any other problems TVP has ran across?
I am willing to work for this cause for free until completion, how can we help? I am also a musician and would be willing to compose any music you would need. We need to show the world this is a logical solution and it works
@WJValente i don't know what you have been able to extract from jacque's talks to be asking this. What do you mean by "live the good life"? Your site says "I am a TRUTH-seeker whom has been shocked to realize that most people are, in fact, NOT Truth-seekers as well, but COMFORT-seekers." Please watch all these videos on this channel; if you don't have a sense of what is his philosophy, or how to treat others, then I'm completely at a loss.
@thevenusprojectmedia Comfort seekers is a good way to describe people. The Truth is about getting out of the comfort zone. Comfort seekers would explain why Americans won't get off their backsides like the Arabs do.
The lack of nature and its resources in the economic equation nowaday may stem from some cultural aspects. In many tribal societies nature is a given, many languages don't even have word for the environment. Since money in its current state doesn't reflect any useful resource for the most part, almost any economist out there seems to think that nature as a resource supplier is merely a vessel to create more money. Kinda mind-blowing how dumb humanity can be.
I understand that we do not place monetary value on our environment (i.e. trees, water, air, arible land, etc.). This is why the current monetary system ruins the environment. Thanks, Jacque, for being a true visonary person. I hope many others "wake up" because of you life-long work.
Youtube ain't going to cut it tbh. Venus Project needs hackers (if you don't understand the meaning, don't reply) and a lot of em. I think TVP could easily dominate every information warfare with their aid. Believe me they are out there and many would support, cos there is something that unites them along with TVP into the same banner. Just need to look at right kind of groups.
What if the evaluation of the island shows overpopulation for the existing resources? in other words, what if with the current world population , we find out that there is not enough resource?
@digitalaffect Good question, what the f*** are YOU waiting for, why aren't you a political activist already? Why haven't you spammed anti-monetary posters all over your city? Why aren't you joining your brothers for protests ALL OVER THE PLANET?
@Beef1188 I dont know if that was meant for me only or if ur accually talking to everyone out there... but if its to me then, how do u know that i am not a political activist? + politics isnt getting us anywhere anyway. supporting and informing on the net is probably the best thing today, until we accually start building the first city wich i think would start changing things.
@digitalaffect No, that's what you are wrong, building the first city is useless if you have gropplers living there! Those 'tards would just charge into the access centers and loot as much as they can carry with flagrant disregard for other people.
Fresco himself said he doesn't just care about the cities and the technology. It matters to him more what goes on in people's heads than the technology. So much for you being a political activist...
@Beef1188 I think the important thing is not how we do it. just that we do it. as long as everyone have the same goal. And may i ask, what do you do for spreading the word?
Building, is seeing, and for most people seeing is believing, and thats why i think building the first city is much better then making a movie. But a movie is better then nothing so its all good.
@digitalaffect I have created a 25 page document written in my language called "political activists - who are we?". Its more or less a summary of the zeitgeist movies.
Along with my job I am also a volunteer teacher of computer basics. Some would say its quite sneaky actually: everytime a new group comes to my class I give them a speech on how I do that for free and it would be only decent of them to at least read it. My voice is comming to a hundred people a month. ;)
@digitalaffect Oh im just waiting for the big events. Massive austerity measures have just been accepted last week in my country, not long before it becomes the next greece or london.
There is nothing like having a sign in your hand with human rights quotes inscribed on it and berserking with it in the streets of your capital city along with thousands of others, dispensing rightheous justice to all those cash hogs who deserve it. It allways brings a tear to my eye! :D
@digitalaffect FOR YOU TO GO THE SCHOOL AND HELP THE MOTION TO FALL THROUGH THE OCEAN AND CLEAN IT.
It takes us to get into environmental science to find more of the scientist, engineers to design, and politicians in desires to remove the old and bring in the new, with jacque fresco's ideas taking over and removing politics. It takes revolutionary thinking, and ups and downs, but eventually it will come.
No need to wait for others to do it for you. Be part of it all by taking action.
and what is if we discover that earth can´t take all those people? kill some? restrict birth? Espacially if sience makes the decisions: The decision will be cold and without emotions which makes humans humans!
@Garrettthief I don't understand? since when does the venus project advocates on killing people? I don't believe THIS will happen. I'm sure we can solve almost all problems with technology, unlike today. We behave like cavemen.
@Garrettthief Most parts of planet aren't overpopulated. Some parts are, but that's another problem. For some reason Europe and North America have no significant population growth. Stranege? No. Interesting? Yes, and some research is needed! So there is no need for murders and restriction of birth.
@Garrettthief ..your questions are the typical common questions that someopne has, when he is presented with this idea... and your assumption about "cold science decisions" has no basis.
..for start i recommend, if u can, to watch Hans Rosling video presentation "What stops Population Growth?"... and about the "cold science decisions", its not "science" or scientists" who decide, but "The Scientific Method", and Nature itself, which help us to arrive at decisions...
I am not new to the topic ;) i know it several years now and i think that i encountered the questions I asked here allready in the past....but still i struggle from time to time with the idea of a resource based economy and everything which belongs to this....anyway I also follow TED since it is here on youtube so i allready know the talk of Mr. Rosling :-P Its actually not that I think that overpopulation is a real problem...it was more an example....letters end i make another post
@Garrettthief You should understand that if there's too much people in a certain area ergo overpopulation. By definition it means that such population cannot be fully sustained therefore then people will start to die of hunger, territorial disputes and so on. Scientists aren't going actually kill anyone. Their "job" is to inform the people that if there is too much population growth then there is going to be problems. ---->
@Garrettthief Because of this people have to think for themselves for what's right or wrong in relations to their environment and that to happen they have to be educated.
the problem for me was this time more the cold-thing :-P And if you take nature into account: as I am pretty wel educated i biology --> there are animals who kill other ones of their kind if their are to much ;) Its not "evil" and its "logic" but its...cold. And The scientific method is part of science and the other way around...belongs together and we mean the same
@Garrettthief ...ok.. i see your point.. but whatever side we can look at it... compaired to what we have now... it cannot get any "colder"..the system we currently have is the definition of "cold", and "self-servingness"... where decisions are taken merely on profit, with no regard to either the human nor the environment... (when i said about nature, i wasnt talking about animal behavior... but about informaton that nature provides to us, to show us how far we can go, in what we want to make)
@RSevas thanks for the kindly and constructive help, especially your keen attention to descriptive technical details. I will pass your concerns to the camera person in hopes of correcting
This has been flagged as spam show
yeah bla bla bla many words but no concrete examples.. why would a resource-based economy suddenly produce much more food than what is being produced today? What jobs would people have, how do you decide who gets what of the resources? All this is not explained...
senoner90 2 days ago
In the meantime, how are we supposed to live and survive In a monetary based system? Where do i get funding to do research? How do I support myself and a family? How can I afford to get a proper education? I am forced to get a job and fall into the circle of consumerism living paycheck to paycheck with no time or funds to sponsor the things that really matter to me. I want to do so many things in my life, but just I'm not able to, due to this system that everyone is trapped in.
Vitaliy711 1 month ago
@Vitaliy711
So you'll basically saying "The job that I have now doesn't give me enough money?"
Welcome to reality.
Megatrousers 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
That's basically what I am saying, since I am only a student and work at a fast food restaurant. I have no idea how I going to pay for college, get a student loan and join the American people in debt, and work my ass off to pay it off? This is why we need to move towards a resource based economy! Everyone wins!
Vitaliy711 1 month ago
@Vitaliy711
It won't solve any problems though, it will just make things worse.
Megatrousers 1 month ago
@Megatrousers You clearly don't understand a resource based economy then. It's about creating a society where people are free to choose their life's work, develop hidden potential, and pursue dreams without government intervention or financial constraint. It works on a systems approach, which means problem solving is at its center. It is not hard to redesign a society so people don't have to stress over work and study, as well as having a big student loan debt.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@Megatrousers The only problems a resource based economy has is ignorant people like you. And that's still pretty minor.
IAM18YEARSOLDANDOVER 1 month ago
@Megatrousers Really? WORSE?
ahhhhjjjj 3 weeks ago
@ahhhhjjjj
Yes, worse. Believe it or not, life could be quite a lot worse for your average middle class american.
Megatrousers 3 weeks ago
@Megatrousers Of course it can. All of those threats come from corporatism and other capitalism derivations.
ahhhhjjjj 3 weeks ago
@ahhhhjjjj
You are aware that capitalism is the reason we aren't living in primitive tribes, right?
Megatrousers 3 weeks ago
@Megatrousers lol capitalism is only 250 years old....
Rayder4Life 2 weeks ago
@Rayder4Life
As a labeled ideology yes, but the idea of competing associations working to maximize their own profit has been around since the beginning of trade.
Megatrousers 2 weeks ago
@Megatrousers Capitalism might have got us this far, but it is no longer useful to us. With technology like the internet we can create a truly global society. There's no need for countries to compete with each other for resources anymore. Doing so only causes somebody to lose out. I'd think less about middle-class America and more about starving kids in Africa as well as other very poor societies (so-called 'third world' nations) who can't get a start in this system as they're too far behind.
scipioaemelianus 2 weeks ago
@Megatrousers The few remaining primitive tribes around the world are overall more free, enlightened and fulfilled than us.
postmasterw00t 4 days ago
@postmasterw00t And how do one go about objectively measuring those qualities. What you just stated is an opinion. Enlightenment has lifted mankind out of the tribal phase.
MrTreantHugger 1 day ago
@MrTreantHugger You objectively measure them by going to a tribe and asking them how happy they are.
postmasterw00t 1 day ago
@postmasterw00t You should go join them then and abandon your modern lifestyle. They're so happy because they don't know any better. Their lives revolve around the same daily activities and involve no innovation. If we were put back in that situation, it'd be only a matter of time before people would start making progress.
MrTreantHugger 1 day ago
@MrTreantHugger You come across exteremely arrogant and ignorant, many tribes have purposefully shunned modern society because they see the pitfalls in its current state. Simplicity is not always arduous, many would conceede that the remaining tribes are the last truly free people on the planet.
postmasterw00t 1 day ago
@postmasterw00t They shun something they know nothing about. They might be free from government, law, and regulations but they're not free of hunger, disease, and they're own habitat. They live a life of ignorance but it keeps them happy because they don't know what life in other parts of the world is.
MrTreantHugger 16 hours ago
@MrTreantHugger They dont fucking live in other parts of the world though do they? Thats like saying an Amazonian tribe is suddenly going to get on a plane to england and live in a country cottage with a comfortable middle class lifestyle. I stand by my original statement, im happy for you to have your opinion but you come across very haughty and unobliging.
postmasterw00t 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vitaliy711
It won't solve any problems though, it will just make things worse.
Megatrousers 1 month ago
Can someone please tell me how this is different to communism?
Megatrousers 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
In one sentence? Communism relies on money and aims to keep human leaders in power; the venus project doesn't need money and aims to give EVERYONE and I mean everyone an actual right to have a say in what goes on.
donkisiko 1 month ago
@donkisiko
That's what communism wanted, too. The Soviet Union was intended to be run by councils of the workers (soviets) who decided where to allocate the resources so that nobody would run out of what was needed. They didn't want money, they didn't want leaders, but both of those things turned into necessities when their desired system didn't quite work out. Why would this be different?
Megatrousers 1 month ago
@Megatrousers - Rather than having a council of workers, who would arbitrarily make decisions or vote or whatever, an RBE would arrive at solutions by using the scientific method. The Soviets never got rid of rubles, thus they never moved away from the monetary system.
Even if the Soviets attempted to move towards a leaderless & money free system, it wasn't possible because they had to divert resources in order to fight the cold war. The west wanted them to be destroyed.
Skylinesandsunsets 1 month ago
@Skylinesandsunsets
The workers would "Arbitrarily make decisions". They were supposed to arrive at decisions that both benefited the community and appropriately use the resources they had been given. The metalworkers would decide what to do with the metal, the carpenters would decide what to do with the wood.
The only differences between Communism and the Venus project are so completely and utterly minor - the reason their economy collapsed, the lack of price signals, isn't addressed at all.
Megatrousers 1 month ago
@Megatrousers - The metalworkers, carpenters, and so on would make decisions based on their own opinions. In an RBE, a survey would be done and then the scientific method would be applied as to the best way to distribute resources so that everyone has enough.
Skylinesandsunsets 1 month ago
@Megatrousers - I'd also like to say that one of Communism's concerns is the condition of labor and the working class. An RBE's major concern is producing products with limited labor and eventually eliminating labor and at the same time giving people all the amenities of a prosperous, high energy society.
Skylinesandsunsets 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
Because the soviets didn't have the techonology that we do, they still had a modern day governmental structure (based upon opinions etc.) and last but not least of all they didn't have the resources. In order to get those resources they needed money, something they didn't have enough of and in a system with everyone sharing couldn't make enough of; leading to true scarcity within Russia. an RBE is on a global scale, communism confined itself to what it had, which was lots of gas.
donkisiko 1 month ago
@donkisiko
The soviets lagged behind the US in terms of technology because they lacked the money to fun scientific progress. They didn't have the money because their economy was planned and highly inefficient. It had a modern governmental structure because their planned structure (Qualified workers allocating resources to where they were needed) didn't work. All of the reasons you've suggested aren't situational; The USSR failed because of the system itself.
Seriously, read some economics.
Megatrousers 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
Read some economics? Lol seriously? What does them being behind america technologically have to do with the fact they weren't technologically advanced enough to sustain communism? Even if america tried communism back in them days it wouldn't work, even if Russia had 4 times its at the time, communism wouldn't work. You conveniently missed out the point I made that an RBE is on a GLOBAL scale, thus there is no need for money hence no risk of "financial collapse"
donkisiko 1 month ago
@donkisiko
Financial collapses can exist without money - money is just an indicator of value which is determined by the buyer and seller. Finance and economies existed long before money, just in a much less efficient way. There is NO reason why there wouldn't be supply shortages in The Venus Project. You can say "Oh, the technology will let us have an abundance" but the fact of the matter is that the technology doesn't yet exist and we are a long way off anything close.
Megatrousers 1 month ago
@donkisiko
Technology needs creators too, and creators require incentive and motivation. Expecting someone to do something out of the kindness of their heart very rarely works - that's what the soviets tried and they ended up on the bad end of the stick in the cold war. The only ground breaking technology the soviets made was involved in the space race, which didn't improve civilian life at all, further demonstrating the inefficiency of central control.
Megatrousers 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Michio Kaku, Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose, Tim bernes lee, ... I could go on and on so don't give me crap about their only incentive and motivation being money. You don't spend hours in the lab to get paid for overtime you spend it to get results. These people were motivated by their love for what they did and to find answers, the same as a majority of scientists are today. Money is just MADE into a necessity which you need to survive in this
donkisiko 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
economy. The majority of scientists today invent not for the pay (like as if scientists even get paid a lot for the work they do) but for the achievement, the recognition and the advancement of human kind; its just a sad fact the only way they can do so is under the reign of political and financial influence. Unless you can show me proof that people would not be motivated to work if they had everything they need to survive but no money your statement is baseless.
donkisiko 1 month ago
@donkisiko
And in what sense are we now 'technologically advanced enough to achieve communism"? Seriously, give me one good, economic reason that a centrally organized economy would succeed now when it failed then.
Honestly man, don't take offense, but try reading a basic course on economics. The truth fears no inquisition, you'll find it an eye opener.
Megatrousers 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the world's food supply. Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even count many other commonly eaten foods - vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish.
donkisiko 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
Enough food is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food/person a day worldwide: two and half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs-enough to make most people fat! The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food. Even most "hungry countries" have enough food for all their people right now. Many are net exporters of food and other agricultural products
donkisiko 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
As for construction, if you're going to tell me we don't have enough materials to make buildings then wow...
I keep repeating again and again and again, please tell me you don't honestly think that all the scientists and inventors around the world would honestly quit their jobs and stop working because they aren't getting paid and are instead being given a home and food and all the basic necessities to live? America just happened to attract the right scientists
donkisiko 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
But in an RBE it would be ALL the scientists in the world getting together to spread ideas. If you watch ted talks you'll see videos of teenagers who have recently made some amazing discoveries and you mean to tell me theyve done so just so one day they can be filthy rich?? My point exactly, I've read about economics and I KNOW for a fact that it cannot support a globally equal world, nor its exponentially increasing consumption. THIS system doesn't apply to an RBE
donkisiko 1 month ago
Comment removed
donkisiko 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Megatrousers
Read some economics? Lol seriously? What does them being behind america technologically have to do with the fact they weren't technologically advanced enough to sustain communism? Even if america tried communism back in them days it wouldn't work, even if Russia had 4 times its at the time, communism wouldn't work. You conveniently missed out the point I made that an RBE is on a GLOBAL scale, thus there is no need for money hence no risk of "financial collapse"
donkisiko 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
You can't compare an RBE in this current economic system its bound to fail because one of the REQUIREMENTS is to be on a global scale and not restricted to one state alone. As for allocation of resources that was still based upon opinion and while that would work for smaller populations, the population at the time wasn't exactly small now was it? They didn't have the food production methods or the construction tech we do today; plus an opinionated government was still in charge...
donkisiko 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
So maybe you should "read some resource based economics" before you start jumping to conclusions. One thing people always do is just assume that an RBE has to conform to some form of modern economic systems. But it doesn't. And it's never been tried before, so rather than comparing to communism and the like, how about telling us whether or not you think its plausible, why you think that and what suggestions for improving it. Don't just say it won't work give reasons. Cheers (Y)
donkisiko 1 month ago
@donkisiko
I've been giving you reasons this whole time. The reason it won't work is that a centrally planned economy is incapable of effectively managing resources compared to price mechanisms, where supply and demand are naturally appropriated according to the resource's availability and usefulness. I've been comparing it to communism because it IS communism, with small and minor changes that wouldn't change the overall result.
And yes, I've read about resource based 'economics'.
Megatrousers 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
Can you please tell me why? When todays economic desicions are based on the exact same system you say cannot handle resources? (consumption and sales in combination with ACTUAL scarcity determines prices, which means that we already have a mechanism for accurately determining consumption, retail stores use it to prevent over producing; but theres also manufactured scarcity in many sectors). So if we take money out of the equation we have an adequate RMS. Another fact
donkisiko 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
Is that the mentality of people would have to change, and this aspect is covered in jacques socioengineering proposals, and is the exact reason why he's waiting until this system begins to collapse before a RBE proposal truly gains momentum. Great change comes about with great suffering.
So tell me with enough resources to manage the current population, the willingness of the majority of people to particapate and a change in money centred attitudes why cant it work?
donkisiko 1 month ago
@donkisiko
Listen, man, I appreciate you trying to tell me how we have enough for everyone and stuff like that, but this doesn't change the fact THAT THIS WAS TRIED BEFORE, BY COMMUNISTS. Pretty much every single thing you just describe was outlined by marx back in the 1800s, from what motivates people to changing society to eliminate greed. Seriously, ideologically how is this any different?
Megatrousers 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
Well as I keep trying to stress to you, this is fundamentally different. Firstly its on a global scale, secondly it would not be limited by money, we agree the communists failed and starved because they didn't have enough resources nor did they have the money to buy enough resources sustainably, most of their funds were wasted on building up their military because they were threatened. One of the key issues in communism was the producer-consumer relationship --->
donkisiko 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
This failed because the producer wasn't making any profit and thus couldn't continue on sustainably making these goods, this is a fundamental difference and issue caused by money! An RBE doesn't require money and thus the issue of needing "profit" is removed, on top of this the aim of an RBE is to automise the producer! I believe thats quite the fundamental difference, hence why I say technology is key, something they didn't have.
donkisiko 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
On top of this I keep saying that the scientific method approach which will permeate all decisions that influence society is another difference, no political leaders, a system that alleviates and eventually removes the need for it. Besides that theres the socio engineering aspect I keep telling you about, we have to change peoples view points, some people are already geared towards collaboration and its slowly becoming more widely accepted but if you watch jacques
donkisiko 1 month ago
@Megatrousers
videos you'll see that fundamentally TVP covers all aspects of civilization, while communism focused on merely the distribution of resources and a lack of social class, hoping everyone would just get along lol... well I'm meant to be doing my assignment why im here i honestly do not know... anyway. Watch all the videos on the side and youtube page, and look at the FAQ section on the site. cheers (Y)
donkisiko 1 month ago
@Megatrousers Its not different.
hep48 1 month ago
However perfect this system seems, it does still pose significant problems. There are many barriers to a unified nation, to achieve a resource based economy we would need a utopian society where differences in politics, nationalism and religious/cultural ignorances and hate are neglible. Because any significant barriers can cause a financial collapse, however the idea of a unified government could be quite intimidating, and some people would be scared of it becoming a totalitarian government.
TheDeviantation 2 months ago
@TheDeviantation Actually, even a simple spatial reconfiguration of present cities could save huge amounts of resources that could go toward feeding the teeming billions on this planet now.
Couple that energy saving technologies and the coming bleeding edge technologies currently be researched in the universities now could for all intents and purposes eliminate present material scarcity in the coming decades.
This project is realizable NOW. It's not a futuristic pipe dream.
technatezin 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@technatezin I didn't say that it wouldn't be possible in the coming decades but highly unlikely, as governments wouldn't run the risk of restructuring the whole of society unless exceptional circumstances required it so, it's highly possible but it would require public opinion polls etc. but a lot of rich middle class businessmen would be against it.
TheDeviantation 1 month ago
@TheDeviantation
I agree with what you say, and this is why Jacque said we're most likely going to have to wait for a collapse of the current economic system before real physical work towards an RBE can begin taking place. When people genuinely start looking for alternatives (rich and poor) in mass.
donkisiko 1 month ago
I think the only time we will create a resource based economy is when we enter single or of multiple realities in which we have either entered the space age and encountered other lifeforms to which we need a common means to trade, a post apocalyptic world where resources need to be managed carefully, or a time when advanced robotics complete the menial and laborious of society and we use our time for self-development and research.
TheDeviantation 2 months ago
Love this guy. I say given the current situation we are in,why not try what he's talking about?(A "Resource based Economy") The monetary system is failing---
brianbela 2 months ago
@XC2U Funny you say "i recently found a website" when your name is XC2U and the site has XC2U in URL. FAIL.
Xaphirezst 2 months ago
I think that the best way to kick-start a small experimental city would be apart from the Global meaning Jacque refers to. About the invasion we'd better build defensive structures. This will sound a bit outlandish, but in late years, Nikola Tesla proposed a powerful war system that could only (at fundamental level) be used defensively (the "Peace Ray" or "teleforce weapon"). Unfortunely we don't know yet how to make it work. Maybe some EMP device could blank radars and disturb avionics.
DigGil1 2 months ago
@DigGil1 im pretty sure HAARP in Alaska can wipe out anything it wants to
wagz09 2 months ago
@XC2U It doesn't illustrate the problems with the resource-based economy, it gives examples of how a resource-based economy would work in our society.
GomuNingen 2 months ago
@XC2U I'm confused, all I see on that website is The Venus Project. I don't see anything explaining any problems with it.
xhadesprincessx 2 months ago
I am so sick and tired of this system we have. I am ready for anything NEW!
anatureperson 2 months ago 2
@XC2U says "site has not been published" ?
thevenusprojectmedia 2 months ago
@thevenusprojectmedia when you copy the link to your browser there is a space between the u and weebly that needs to be closed (xc2u.weebly.com)
anatureperson 2 months ago
LIKE IF YOU AGREE: Politics have destroyed the meaning of TRUST. Here's Jacque explaining the alternative, letting the EARTH determine what happens, meanwhile ill-informed new comers blurt out their first words: "It's a fraud". THINK OF CRABS IN A BOILING POT OF WATER. What happens?......Thank you!
packleader1215 3 months ago in playlist More videos from thevenusprojectmedia
Will any of us act on the Genius of the 90 some year wise humanitarian who says, "In a truly free nation, no one has to tell you you are free." What do You think of what Jacuqe Fresco has to say?
We should all grow up with the wisdom of an elder like this man, God Bless Jacque Fresco.
Love, Peace and Light facebook(DOT)com/BelovedMiracles Keep Sharing the Miracles!!!
REMICC 3 months ago
great message, awful awful video, Jacque looks like he is concentrating on where to look next. Keep it simple guys
flyattic 3 months ago
Is there a way for me to contact someone who can answer a few questions I have? I read the FAQ and I understand most of it but there are a few things I want to clarify.
CluckRus 3 months ago
First of all, this sounds really great, BUT there are a few critical 'bugs' within the system:Resource Based Economy will not work when the whole world doesn't utilize it, that's a negative, because the elite in this world now will never, ever give up power to the people.Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolute!And with this RBE, their power would be considerable lower.
CrazyMoeLester 3 months ago
@CrazyMoeLester The elite only have power through other people working for them. In fact if their bodyguards all quit at the same time, lots of those people would not see the next day.
Every time someone becomes less dependent of the system the elite lose power. It could be someone making their home electricity efficient, or quit drinking so many sodas and start drinking water.
If people quit the elite's system the have no power at all.
Ramiromasters 3 months ago
GET HIM ON TED!!!
TyneOdu 3 months ago
I just luv to smack those debunkers who make videos on how RBE can't work and then pend or won't allow any comments to their videos. There's one who says "what about personal properties ?" well nobody owns anything in this world, property is an illusion even our bodies will be taken from us eventually. Since were transient beings the question he needs to ask is how are we going to make this experience worthwhile, not just to him but also to others around him and the next generation.
LeMuSunda 3 months ago
You know, years from now people WILL be sitting around and saying "why in the HELL didn't the WORLD put Jacque Fresco's ideas to test and use SOONER" !!
realdon99 4 months ago
Although I HOPE, PRAY and BELIEVE it will be SOONER rather than LATER! Thank you Mr. Fresco. I would love to visit someday soon and soak in some of your ideas as my mind works incredibly similar to that of yours!! Keep infecting PEOPLE with you brilliant Intuition!!
realdon99 4 months ago
@realdon99 I dunno, according to Roddenberry, it took a whole 3rd world war to cause governments to merely collapse in on themselves.
Vicious713 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your ALL brain washed who likes this idea. Yes the building designs are great and all but the fundamentals is EVIL! Its Basically WORLD COMMUNISM! Every one monitored, controlled and in part of the Network. Its NEW WORLD ORDER Slavery! With the population chipped and monitored, This reminds me, Terminator Movie and 666 In bible. When you are chipped and monitored its much easier for corrupt person to take control of you and eliminate you from the system if you resist. Fuck Venus Project!
YouTheory 4 months ago
This seems to be a lot like a more advanced version of Socialism -- which I love.
But, does this system have a job that is forced upon you? How can other people's job spread? Like jobs from entertainment to military.
Can someone more basically explain this to me. The guy in this video is slightly incoherent to me.
Nemesis0300 4 months ago
So in this economy what is my impetus to work? Force I assume because only suckers would put in any time at the farms when the society is going to lay the food on you regardles.
Hellfireblogs 4 months ago
@Hellfireblogs Look at the background of where Jacque Fresco is speaking. Looks like lots of reliance on manual "forced" labor doesn't it? No, it looks like a reliance on robotics and technology in general.
By the way open air farming is one of the least efficient methods of farming with massive reliance on chemicals to get rid of unwanted insect pests and weeds. Afterwards you'll need lots of water to wash off that poison from the skin of the fruits and vegetables unless you want to eat it.
technatezin 4 months ago
@technatezin Maintaining the robots and technology are time and work intensive as well. Who would be doing that? Who would be repairing the machinery, inspecting it every so often etc? Who delivers the food? Who picks the tomatoes? Robots with delicate fingers?
Robots and technology cannot do everything people need to function - that's a fantasy. And the science simply doesn't exist for half of what your planning. So again, who does the work?
Hellfireblogs 4 months ago
@Hellfireblogs "And the science simply doesn't exist for half of what your planning."
You'll be surprised. Fully conscious robots that acts like human beings with thoughts and feelings are a long way off. But, for robots that are specially designed and programmed to accomplish certain tasks that does not change significantly and has no surprises, the mathematical theories and engineering technology is already there.
technatezin 4 months ago
@technatezin Show me the design of a robot that can grow a crop, harvest it, care for it when things go wrong and save the seeds. Have you ever grown anything? Do you understand that it isn't a stable predictable process?
Hellfireblogs 4 months ago
@Hellfireblogs Understand that it's going to be a systems approach to problems. It's not going to be haphazard, chaotic and environmentally destructive like outside farming. Plants will be grown in orderly rows and columns inside a greenhouse that have cameras, sensors and photovoltaics placed everywhere inside the greenhouse making it easy for automation to be accomplished.
technatezin 4 months ago
@Hellfireblogs "Maintaining the robots and technology are time and work intensive as well. Who would be doing that?"
Sure, but most of the work would be indoors with programmers and engineers improving the software and hardware design of the robots. If you're not familiar with the robotics and computer field, most of the work in improving the machinery revolves around high level design. For the low level routine maintenance other machines can be programmed to automate that type work.
technatezin 4 months ago
@technatezin Since those programmers and engineers get the same amount of resources that people who don't work get why would they become engineers?
Hellfireblogs 4 months ago
@Hellfireblogs What you don't seem to understand is that if you do away with the concept of ownership you CAN'T have anybody hoard more than their fair share of resources in which they can use at any one time. It's physically impossible for you as a single individual person to occupy two spaces at the same time. For practical purposes the living space allotted to you can be researched to fulfill the needs of your physical survival like shelter, food and comfort, but not for extraneous luxury.
technatezin 4 months ago
@Hellfireblogs (cont.) If there's no extraneous luxury that would disincentivise hard working people from doing what they do best because they have a fascination and interest in their work what else is there to disincentivise them from their activities? There CAN'T be any extraneous luxury because with ownership gone the mechanism required for hoarding more than you can use is also gone. The resources (products, services and buildings) that you use are only "yours" so long as you are using them.
technatezin 4 months ago
@Hellfireblogs "Who delivers the food?
Autonomous wheeled driverless robots.
"Who picks the tomatoes? Robots with delicate fingers?"
Or robots with suction cups and visual sensors. What you're really accomplishing by harvesting fruits and vegetables is performing the repetitive single action of pulling the fruit off the branch.
technatezin 4 months ago
@technatezin It isn't a repetitive single action. You seem to understand robots, but not how plants work. Grow one and harvest it next season and you'll see what I mean.
Hellfireblogs 4 months ago
The real opposition to a Resource Based Economy is the Elite. The richest 5% are seated at the table in a Monarchy by Committee. The world today, is no different than the world at ANY other time in the past. It features, on the one side; a King, and on the other; the Peasants. Only measurable difference in modern times is instead of a bunch of Kings ruling over a bunch of kingdoms, they cooperate and rule collectively. They will not surrender their kingdom without one hell of a fight.
bastardoftheparty1 5 months ago
@bastardoftheparty1 oddly about 5% of the population is also psychopathic to a categorizable degree, maybe we should call them the "illite".
Jammieg001 5 months ago
@Jammieg001 That still only amounts to 10%
bastardoftheparty1 5 months ago
Resource based economies remove money from the equation and thereby greed as a motivation. This would be a utopian society driven by altruism. The argument is is than the nature of ppl is such that this society could not function. The counter to the aforementioned argument is, the bad behavior we witness in men is not the true nature of man, but rather a reflection of a flawed society. Meaning the world we live in is producing the resultant populace.
bastardoftheparty1 5 months ago
RBE seems like a non-idea. Food, resources, energy, and labor are all deemed to be sufficient. Who wouldn't support that? Conflict is deemed to cease to exist, though I don't know why it wouldn't exist. Engineers and scientists often disagree on the best way to do something. Obviously democracy and majority rule are out the window, which leaves us deciding how to decide who gets to make decisions. Even if a person is technically competent and has good intentions, that doesn't make them wise.
siclos 5 months ago
@siclos "Engineers and scientists often disagree on the best way to do something."
Which means physical designs must be tested out to determine what is best design for a given situation and scenarios and theories must be put to test to determine correctness. For theories that cannot be practically tested the probability of what will be most likely to occur should be worked out to find the best theory to support in the interim. The thing with the scientific method is that it is self-correcting.
technatezin 5 months ago
@technatezin True that, my man.
bastardoftheparty1 5 months ago
@siclos
This is global communism(New World Order), pure and simple, it doesn't matter how anyone dresses this up.
This would only work if we were gods, and if we were gods then we wouldn't need to survive on resources. Global anarchy is the real RBE.
ptbwf 4 months ago
@ptbwf "This would only work if we were gods"
And the reason why you state this to be true is?
"if we were gods then we wouldn't need to survive on resources."
No, because:
1. There are no gods
2. The immutable physical laws of the universe means that for anything that EXISTS in this universe, it must follow the universe's physical laws and one of those laws is the conservation of energy and matter which means ANYTHING including "God" that exist here must consume resources.
technatezin 4 months ago
@technatezin
1. atheism is scientifically impossible, sorry(doesn't mean that any religion is right, but there IS and WAS a creator)
2. Our universal laws don't apply to gods, the reason why I say this will only work if we were gods is because humans are FLAWED, we are greedy and selfish by nature(to prevent us from destroying the planet with complete dominance of all other species), the person in charge of this project will be a global dictator.
ptbwf 4 months ago
@ptbwf "the reason why I say this will only work if we were gods is because humans are FLAWED"
Considering that humans EVOLVED from lower intelligence animals like lizards and apes I do not find that surprising, otherwise they would not be flawed. Does that mean we HAVE TO rely on something else other than ourselves to refine and perfect us? No, we have the brains and know-how to do what we can to improve both ourselves and our environment. Doing nothing, but relying on God is surrendering.
technatezin 4 months ago
@technatezin
but that is all we have to do, that is all we can do.
We need to get rid of 'civilization' and save what is left of our planet's organisms, it is the fairest and the most efficient way to live as a species.
ptbwf 4 months ago
@ptbwf "We need to get rid of 'civilization' and save what is left..."
How many people does civilization with all it's technology currently sustains? 7 billion? Of which how many are intelligent and skilled technicians, engineers and scientists that know what they are doing to keep the machinery that keeps the majority of the people alive going and repairing them when the machines do go down?
How many people will die NOW if we "get rid" of civilization? Are you willing to pull the kill switch?
technatezin 4 months ago
@ptbwf This is the biggest bullshit I have never seen. ''Humans are greedy and selfish by nature'' Have you done some psychology analysis before saying this or did you just base your statement on our current society? We live in a system (capitalism) which encourages competition and individualism. In which profit is more important that human lives or nature. Of course the system purpose is to make you greedy and selfish, but are Humans like this by NATURE ?
draksenzakura 4 months ago
@ptbwf Your so right! Humans have criminal, violent, greedy, selfish... Genes on their DNA (by nature) ''global anarchy is the real RBE'' wow do you know actually what does Anarchy mean ? Its the antonym of Hierarchy, which is exactly what we have now :any system of persons or things ranked one above another (class struggle). What we want is no social class, every living creature being equal to each other which is Anarchy. In this society they make you think that Anarchy is chaos but it is not.
draksenzakura 4 months ago
@ptbwf I love the fact that all your comment are made out of assumption and that you don't take in account that there are severals things that influences the behaviors of humans.
draksenzakura 4 months ago
@ptbwf Atheism is scientifically impossible??!?!
You're an idiot; Atheism cannot be impossible because it doesn't assert anything, it only rejects things.
Millions of years of Evolution has 'proven' to be the reason for our existence.
As for the universe, the big bang has a lot of evidence behind it.
As for what made it all?
Stop being so close minded, it didn't have to be made, it probably came from somewhere else.
Where?
We don't know yet, but why is that a good idea to jump to theism?
Nemesis0300 4 months ago 2
If it is of interest to TED, there's only your traveling costs attached. They are even fundraising for some of the projects. So TED is all the other way around.
If your project has a working prototype or positive bench test results, or if it is a truely INNOVATIVE idea or ideology that can't be ACT upon, then they will invite you. If not, ask them why for a sincere answer. There is more brilliant minds with good will there then anywhere else on earth...
sparis1970 5 months ago
@sparis1970 Said differently, TED is THE best testing platform to see if your idea can ever become a movement. If it doesn't fly there, then it should belong in 'la littérature' where maybe futur generations can get inspired and act upon...
sparis1970 5 months ago
Why is your lecture not given on TED? This platform would be the perfect leverage and gather influent scientists and greatest minds on the planet around your vision. It would give it an instant credibility, if they do find it credible...
See you on TED, or good luck trying to reach the mass.
sparis1970 5 months ago 32
@sparis1970 TED would be ideal. There was an offer for Jacque some time back to participate in their seniors program or something but there were prohibitive costs involved.
thevenusprojectmedia 5 months ago 15
@thevenusprojectmedia: i'm sure zeitgeist movement and venus project fans, would gladly fundraise for either jacque, or peter, to be able to speak to the ted community.
i for one would donate generously, and i am a poor college student
WR3K 2 months ago
@sparis1970 : Yeah! What you said, i agree!
4polelowpass 5 months ago
@sparis1970 Jacque wanted to go on TED. But it costs allot of money to present your idea and you have to travel to them. Jacque is old and needs to fly and travel first class. Jacque doesn't have this money.
Keessince1988 3 months ago
One step at a time. The system can only change from within. Let's look at current economic climate. Failing industries like Banking and Financials must be allowed to fail if they can't support themselves. They should not be bolstered further by gov'ts. Must follow Natural Selection. Current economic policy is rising inflation thus paving for a weaker and even less resource based economy than previously. Money/Resources is getting ever more concentrated to the wealthy few at expense of others.
skylark8008 5 months ago
"Imagine all the people... sharing all the world - aha-oooh-uh-hooo...
You may say that I'm a dreamer... But I'm not the only one..."
berg89dk 5 months ago 3
Amen!
andresgotti 5 months ago
- Where is the first city and where is the funding coming from?
- Has there been any resistance from media or government agencies?
-What is the status of the first city?
- Any other problems TVP has ran across?
I am willing to work for this cause for free until completion, how can we help? I am also a musician and would be willing to compose any music you would need. We need to show the world this is a logical solution and it works
email: thephilosopherking (at) gmail
sirplusgf 6 months ago 2
Comment removed
WJValente 6 months ago
@WJValente i don't know what you have been able to extract from jacque's talks to be asking this. What do you mean by "live the good life"? Your site says "I am a TRUTH-seeker whom has been shocked to realize that most people are, in fact, NOT Truth-seekers as well, but COMFORT-seekers." Please watch all these videos on this channel; if you don't have a sense of what is his philosophy, or how to treat others, then I'm completely at a loss.
thevenusprojectmedia 6 months ago
@thevenusprojectmedia Comfort seekers is a good way to describe people. The Truth is about getting out of the comfort zone. Comfort seekers would explain why Americans won't get off their backsides like the Arabs do.
BannedUfos 6 months ago
Comment removed
WJValente 6 months ago
We need technocracy. Now.
mayorcete 6 months ago
the bulidings of the future , are they solar power?
the structures on the water , how does the water and sewer system work?
watercopper 6 months ago
The lack of nature and its resources in the economic equation nowaday may stem from some cultural aspects. In many tribal societies nature is a given, many languages don't even have word for the environment. Since money in its current state doesn't reflect any useful resource for the most part, almost any economist out there seems to think that nature as a resource supplier is merely a vessel to create more money. Kinda mind-blowing how dumb humanity can be.
mhe0815 6 months ago
I understand that we do not place monetary value on our environment (i.e. trees, water, air, arible land, etc.). This is why the current monetary system ruins the environment. Thanks, Jacque, for being a true visonary person. I hope many others "wake up" because of you life-long work.
repeat108 6 months ago
Jacque is correct. I know a lot of sincere people who are sincerely wrong.
RewardHonesty 6 months ago
@sheenabratt:
Talk is cheap. Action is what matters....
palpatine17 6 months ago
sounds like a new world order for the good :)
Tvmonster666 6 months ago
Youtube ain't going to cut it tbh. Venus Project needs hackers (if you don't understand the meaning, don't reply) and a lot of em. I think TVP could easily dominate every information warfare with their aid. Believe me they are out there and many would support, cos there is something that unites them along with TVP into the same banner. Just need to look at right kind of groups.
CapMurd 6 months ago
What if the evaluation of the island shows overpopulation for the existing resources? in other words, what if with the current world population , we find out that there is not enough resource?
masihmoeini 6 months ago
@masihmoeini Make substitution. Come on.
Xaphirezst 6 months ago
What are we waiting for?????
digitalaffect 6 months ago 5
@digitalaffect Good question, what the f*** are YOU waiting for, why aren't you a political activist already? Why haven't you spammed anti-monetary posters all over your city? Why aren't you joining your brothers for protests ALL OVER THE PLANET?
Beef1188 6 months ago
@Beef1188 I dont know if that was meant for me only or if ur accually talking to everyone out there... but if its to me then, how do u know that i am not a political activist? + politics isnt getting us anywhere anyway. supporting and informing on the net is probably the best thing today, until we accually start building the first city wich i think would start changing things.
digitalaffect 6 months ago
@digitalaffect No, that's what you are wrong, building the first city is useless if you have gropplers living there! Those 'tards would just charge into the access centers and loot as much as they can carry with flagrant disregard for other people.
Fresco himself said he doesn't just care about the cities and the technology. It matters to him more what goes on in people's heads than the technology. So much for you being a political activist...
Beef1188 6 months ago
@Beef1188 I think the important thing is not how we do it. just that we do it. as long as everyone have the same goal. And may i ask, what do you do for spreading the word?
Building, is seeing, and for most people seeing is believing, and thats why i think building the first city is much better then making a movie. But a movie is better then nothing so its all good.
digitalaffect 6 months ago
@digitalaffect I have created a 25 page document written in my language called "political activists - who are we?". Its more or less a summary of the zeitgeist movies.
Along with my job I am also a volunteer teacher of computer basics. Some would say its quite sneaky actually: everytime a new group comes to my class I give them a speech on how I do that for free and it would be only decent of them to at least read it. My voice is comming to a hundred people a month. ;)
Beef1188 6 months ago
@Beef1188 Very good keep it up.. but u have ur way while others have theirs.. i try to spread jacques own words on the net:)
digitalaffect 6 months ago
@digitalaffect Oh im just waiting for the big events. Massive austerity measures have just been accepted last week in my country, not long before it becomes the next greece or london.
There is nothing like having a sign in your hand with human rights quotes inscribed on it and berserking with it in the streets of your capital city along with thousands of others, dispensing rightheous justice to all those cash hogs who deserve it. It allways brings a tear to my eye! :D
Beef1188 6 months ago
@digitalaffect WE??????
thevenusprojectmedia 6 months ago 17
@thevenusprojectmedia hahahahahaha xD "we" ? hahahaha
tironi333 6 months ago
@digitalaffect FOR YOU TO GO THE SCHOOL AND HELP THE MOTION TO FALL THROUGH THE OCEAN AND CLEAN IT.
It takes us to get into environmental science to find more of the scientist, engineers to design, and politicians in desires to remove the old and bring in the new, with jacque fresco's ideas taking over and removing politics. It takes revolutionary thinking, and ups and downs, but eventually it will come.
No need to wait for others to do it for you. Be part of it all by taking action.
enlighteneveryone 6 months ago
Very true.
Yamakoto120 6 months ago
and what is if we discover that earth can´t take all those people? kill some? restrict birth? Espacially if sience makes the decisions: The decision will be cold and without emotions which makes humans humans!
Garrettthief 6 months ago
@Garrettthief It's certainly ALOT better than what we have now, sorry
shahafsagi 6 months ago
@shahafsagi
you like if somebody around you dies just because he is "to much" ?? can´t believe it....
Garrettthief 6 months ago
@Garrettthief I don't understand? since when does the venus project advocates on killing people? I don't believe THIS will happen. I'm sure we can solve almost all problems with technology, unlike today. We behave like cavemen.
shahafsagi 6 months ago
@Garrettthief Most parts of planet aren't overpopulated. Some parts are, but that's another problem. For some reason Europe and North America have no significant population growth. Stranege? No. Interesting? Yes, and some research is needed! So there is no need for murders and restriction of birth.
th3dig1tal0n3 6 months ago 3
@Garrettthief ..your questions are the typical common questions that someopne has, when he is presented with this idea... and your assumption about "cold science decisions" has no basis.
..for start i recommend, if u can, to watch Hans Rosling video presentation "What stops Population Growth?"... and about the "cold science decisions", its not "science" or scientists" who decide, but "The Scientific Method", and Nature itself, which help us to arrive at decisions...
bagiee1 6 months ago
@bagiee1
I am not new to the topic ;) i know it several years now and i think that i encountered the questions I asked here allready in the past....but still i struggle from time to time with the idea of a resource based economy and everything which belongs to this....anyway I also follow TED since it is here on youtube so i allready know the talk of Mr. Rosling :-P Its actually not that I think that overpopulation is a real problem...it was more an example....letters end i make another post
Garrettthief 6 months ago
@Garrettthief You should understand that if there's too much people in a certain area ergo overpopulation. By definition it means that such population cannot be fully sustained therefore then people will start to die of hunger, territorial disputes and so on. Scientists aren't going actually kill anyone. Their "job" is to inform the people that if there is too much population growth then there is going to be problems. ---->
rektator 4 months ago
@Garrettthief Because of this people have to think for themselves for what's right or wrong in relations to their environment and that to happen they have to be educated.
rektator 4 months ago
@bagiee1
the problem for me was this time more the cold-thing :-P And if you take nature into account: as I am pretty wel educated i biology --> there are animals who kill other ones of their kind if their are to much ;) Its not "evil" and its "logic" but its...cold. And The scientific method is part of science and the other way around...belongs together and we mean the same
Garrettthief 6 months ago
@Garrettthief ...ok.. i see your point.. but whatever side we can look at it... compaired to what we have now... it cannot get any "colder"..the system we currently have is the definition of "cold", and "self-servingness"... where decisions are taken merely on profit, with no regard to either the human nor the environment... (when i said about nature, i wasnt talking about animal behavior... but about informaton that nature provides to us, to show us how far we can go, in what we want to make)
bagiee1 6 months ago
This must be happening all over the world (at least the western countries), because 2 different societies cant live in one world
Optimistas777 6 months ago
The camera man did an absolute HORRIBLE job filming. Simple basic filming, Check Your White BALANCE!!!!!!
RSevas 6 months ago
@RSevas thanks for the kindly and constructive help, especially your keen attention to descriptive technical details. I will pass your concerns to the camera person in hopes of correcting
thevenusprojectmedia 6 months ago 15