Yes there are problems, but as Fresco pointed out, it would still be better than what we are heading for.
Problem is,people don't want to leave their comfort zone, they don't want anything to change right now, unless it is forced upon them......
I had similar ideas years ago, but could never quite get it all into words, Jaques Fresco did that for me. I still think an interim coin-based system will be needed until the new one kicks in :)
Read Asimov for robot based ecosystems, & his excellent 'foundation' series if you want to understand humans:) BTW i build this stuff for a living, you design 'em, mate, & i'll build them.
Planned obsolescencs is big business, that's why Commodore had to go, Steve Jobs went over to the 'mad mac's' & the rest is history. PS my 20 year old Amiga can do things modern PC's can't ;) it can also run 4 hard drives & 2 CD burners LOL bootup=58 seconds!
I think that a good way for TVP to start small would be to get a few of those 3D printers for different materials. They are advanced enough now so that you can basically print any material, metals, plastics, wood or cellulose, etc. There are even scientists in Europe experimenting with printing functional organs from various tissues.
2) The thing is people are so visual. We have to see success in some measurable form to accept drastically new ideas. Subsequent to the above example, it becomes obvious why we don't all need work like dogs when we can print/recycle anything we need. So the change flows naturally...
@FractalInfinities Hey Bro. Been busy with the kids.. I'll give you a buzz soon. I SOOOooo want one of those printers. The problem at the moment is resolution with them. Not to mention.. I have no idea what I would use it for.. I just want one. :P
The really good ones with good vertical res are really expensive but they will drop with price. The one that can build a house would be perfect. Resolution is not a problem on a large scale.
@gadzometer Yah, people are saying that you can see the vertical layers, but the horizontal lines seem well hidden. And you're right, they'll just keep getting better. Like they'll soon make ones that can create objects with more than just one material at a time. All I know is they basically represent the beginning of "replicators," and there is just so much potential for both design and the freeing of labour...
Drop us a line whenever mate! But have fun with the kids 1st :)
I agree with the points here: I wanted him to change the name away from Zeitgeist...and was disappointed when he didnt. He did it for the name recognition but thats not necessarily good is it?
Secondly, yeah this is about hardcore engineering and infrastructure it seems, so we need to really temper ourselves and start really showing step-be-step how proposals could work. Damn it, Im not an engineer but its time this mindset took hold. Im glad youre talking like this...Cheers.
Its a great film and extremely clear in many respects. The core issue is this bro:
The calculation problem (look that up if you have some time), and how a non-price system as proposed by the RBE will deal with this.
If you want my (partial) response to this problem, my latest video has some.
Evolution as you say. Thats it. After all, and folks often talking about emergence? Well...thats what emergence is. Unfolding, with some sensible proding in a better direction.
@Neanderthalcouzin "The calculation problem (look that up if you have some time), and how a non-price system as proposed by the RBE will deal with this. If you want my (partial) response to this problem, my latest video has some."
I haven't seen the new movie yet, but I think the Venus Project is doomed to failure because it completely misunderstands the nature of the human condition.
@Neanderthalcouzin In Addendum, the Venus Project posited that man would act selflessly and productively if given the opportunity, in a very different societal structure. But man is part of the animal kingdom and this kingdom operates on a predor/prey basis. Nature operates on the principle that survival is earned through tooth and claw. We rise to the top through being better equipped for survival and willing to fight for it. NEED will always dictate action, not selfless giving. Meritocracy.
@darrylsloan Need will indeed dictate action: scientifically derived understanding of human need, parsimonious pathways towards providing them, and accounting for underlying root causes and issues of the human condition. I think invoking concepts like meritocracy is ultimately inhumane and undignifying, and less effective than scientific rationalism and naturalism geared towards humane ends.
@darrylsloan To not do this is a double travesty because on the one hand it is scientifically invalid, on the other hand it is a straight jacket to human attributes of cooperation, empathy, and so on.
Need, which you mentioned, is a fundamental concept in the ideas were discussing in an RBE. Many of these fundamental human needs are not met today, and I want to be clear here: following up the word need with meritocracy is a non-sequitur.
@darrylsloan Selfish genes can and do in fact code for unselfish behavior. We have the propensity for a whole spectrum of ways of living, behaviors and so on, and not only should any sane and scientific understanding of human behavior take this understanding into account, it should make room for our empathic tendencies.
@darrylsloan Nature does not operate on a principle of fighting and red in tooth and claw: it operates on an unguided, non-preset selective process. Genes and conditions may code for aggression and ruthless cunning, and equally it may code for bonding, nurturing and cooperation.
@Neanderthalcouzin I'll never convince you of this with an anecdote, but most people are living with a highly romanticised view of animal nature, that seeks to suppress the adversarial side of life (as evil) while over-emphasising the cooperative. Look at any animal species on any nature documentary, and you will see how both these principles carry evolution forward.
@darrylsloan No Im not living with a highly romanticized view of animal life. In fact if anyone reads my responses below I would hope its actually sober and reasonable, not romantic. I also disagree that most people are doing this in the first place: most people are living with a *red in tooth and claw* caricature, which is true to some degree, but not entirely. Theres also a tendency to block *nature* into this single, homogenous thing.
@darrylsloan Your comment about the predator/prey aspect of life is also very broad: this doesnt mean members of your own species. The character limit is really restricting but there are several important factors missed in a view of *human nature* like yours: empathy, cooperative tendencies, pair bonding, parental nurturing, reciprocal altruism, being hyper-social, being *pro-social*, the fact that we are culturally dependent, influenced by environment, etc.
@darrylsloan We are also more than able to be pretty vicious and violent, however we have a tendency to cynically say this is in our DNA, and that holding a baby and talking in funny exaggerated tones isnt. The idea of a fixed human nature is really smashed, particularly when we think about behavior. The point is that we have the potential for a huge diversity of behaviors, and lifestyles, and that the physical and social environment will alter this.
@darrylsloan There are two slightly uncompromising views of nature: one is the Huxley/Spencer idea of red in tooth and claw, and the Kropotkin argument of innate altruism, etc. The truth is more in the middle, and the fact is that human behavior is hugely an environmental derivative.
I feel for the poor of the world. The folks of Auroville probably feel good about themselves. For those in the developed world who are constantly whinging about how bad things are (for themselves), these New Order lyrics come to mind:
Hi mate, sorry i missed this one, good post.
Yes there are problems, but as Fresco pointed out, it would still be better than what we are heading for.
Problem is,people don't want to leave their comfort zone, they don't want anything to change right now, unless it is forced upon them......
I had similar ideas years ago, but could never quite get it all into words, Jaques Fresco did that for me. I still think an interim coin-based system will be needed until the new one kicks in :)
stawmy 11 months ago
Well, **** me, that wasn't very many characters!
Read Asimov for robot based ecosystems, & his excellent 'foundation' series if you want to understand humans:) BTW i build this stuff for a living, you design 'em, mate, & i'll build them.
Planned obsolescencs is big business, that's why Commodore had to go, Steve Jobs went over to the 'mad mac's' & the rest is history. PS my 20 year old Amiga can do things modern PC's can't ;) it can also run 4 hard drives & 2 CD burners LOL bootup=58 seconds!
stawmy 11 months ago
I think that a good way for TVP to start small would be to get a few of those 3D printers for different materials. They are advanced enough now so that you can basically print any material, metals, plastics, wood or cellulose, etc. There are even scientists in Europe experimenting with printing functional organs from various tissues.
Many videos about 3d printing are to be found...
FractalInfinities 1 year ago
2) The thing is people are so visual. We have to see success in some measurable form to accept drastically new ideas. Subsequent to the above example, it becomes obvious why we don't all need work like dogs when we can print/recycle anything we need. So the change flows naturally...
FractalInfinities 1 year ago
@FractalInfinities Hey Bro. Been busy with the kids.. I'll give you a buzz soon. I SOOOooo want one of those printers. The problem at the moment is resolution with them. Not to mention.. I have no idea what I would use it for.. I just want one. :P
The really good ones with good vertical res are really expensive but they will drop with price. The one that can build a house would be perfect. Resolution is not a problem on a large scale.
gadzometer 1 year ago
@gadzometer Yah, people are saying that you can see the vertical layers, but the horizontal lines seem well hidden. And you're right, they'll just keep getting better. Like they'll soon make ones that can create objects with more than just one material at a time. All I know is they basically represent the beginning of "replicators," and there is just so much potential for both design and the freeing of labour...
Drop us a line whenever mate! But have fun with the kids 1st :)
FractalInfinities 1 year ago
I agree with the points here: I wanted him to change the name away from Zeitgeist...and was disappointed when he didnt. He did it for the name recognition but thats not necessarily good is it?
Secondly, yeah this is about hardcore engineering and infrastructure it seems, so we need to really temper ourselves and start really showing step-be-step how proposals could work. Damn it, Im not an engineer but its time this mindset took hold. Im glad youre talking like this...Cheers.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
Its a great film and extremely clear in many respects. The core issue is this bro:
The calculation problem (look that up if you have some time), and how a non-price system as proposed by the RBE will deal with this.
If you want my (partial) response to this problem, my latest video has some.
Evolution as you say. Thats it. After all, and folks often talking about emergence? Well...thats what emergence is. Unfolding, with some sensible proding in a better direction.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@Neanderthalcouzin "The calculation problem (look that up if you have some time), and how a non-price system as proposed by the RBE will deal with this. If you want my (partial) response to this problem, my latest video has some."
What's the name of it?
hitssquad 7 months ago
I haven't seen the new movie yet, but I think the Venus Project is doomed to failure because it completely misunderstands the nature of the human condition.
darrylsloan 1 year ago
@darrylsloan Can you give some examples of major misunderstandings of the human condition?
It doesnt talk too much about that really, it more talks about providing for people, etc.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@Neanderthalcouzin In Addendum, the Venus Project posited that man would act selflessly and productively if given the opportunity, in a very different societal structure. But man is part of the animal kingdom and this kingdom operates on a predor/prey basis. Nature operates on the principle that survival is earned through tooth and claw. We rise to the top through being better equipped for survival and willing to fight for it. NEED will always dictate action, not selfless giving. Meritocracy.
darrylsloan 1 year ago
@darrylsloan Need will indeed dictate action: scientifically derived understanding of human need, parsimonious pathways towards providing them, and accounting for underlying root causes and issues of the human condition. I think invoking concepts like meritocracy is ultimately inhumane and undignifying, and less effective than scientific rationalism and naturalism geared towards humane ends.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@darrylsloan To not do this is a double travesty because on the one hand it is scientifically invalid, on the other hand it is a straight jacket to human attributes of cooperation, empathy, and so on.
Need, which you mentioned, is a fundamental concept in the ideas were discussing in an RBE. Many of these fundamental human needs are not met today, and I want to be clear here: following up the word need with meritocracy is a non-sequitur.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@darrylsloan Selfish genes can and do in fact code for unselfish behavior. We have the propensity for a whole spectrum of ways of living, behaviors and so on, and not only should any sane and scientific understanding of human behavior take this understanding into account, it should make room for our empathic tendencies.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@darrylsloan Nature does not operate on a principle of fighting and red in tooth and claw: it operates on an unguided, non-preset selective process. Genes and conditions may code for aggression and ruthless cunning, and equally it may code for bonding, nurturing and cooperation.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@Neanderthalcouzin I'll never convince you of this with an anecdote, but most people are living with a highly romanticised view of animal nature, that seeks to suppress the adversarial side of life (as evil) while over-emphasising the cooperative. Look at any animal species on any nature documentary, and you will see how both these principles carry evolution forward.
darrylsloan 1 year ago
@darrylsloan No Im not living with a highly romanticized view of animal life. In fact if anyone reads my responses below I would hope its actually sober and reasonable, not romantic. I also disagree that most people are doing this in the first place: most people are living with a *red in tooth and claw* caricature, which is true to some degree, but not entirely. Theres also a tendency to block *nature* into this single, homogenous thing.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@darrylsloan Your comment about the predator/prey aspect of life is also very broad: this doesnt mean members of your own species. The character limit is really restricting but there are several important factors missed in a view of *human nature* like yours: empathy, cooperative tendencies, pair bonding, parental nurturing, reciprocal altruism, being hyper-social, being *pro-social*, the fact that we are culturally dependent, influenced by environment, etc.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@darrylsloan We are also more than able to be pretty vicious and violent, however we have a tendency to cynically say this is in our DNA, and that holding a baby and talking in funny exaggerated tones isnt. The idea of a fixed human nature is really smashed, particularly when we think about behavior. The point is that we have the potential for a huge diversity of behaviors, and lifestyles, and that the physical and social environment will alter this.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@darrylsloan There are two slightly uncompromising views of nature: one is the Huxley/Spencer idea of red in tooth and claw, and the Kropotkin argument of innate altruism, etc. The truth is more in the middle, and the fact is that human behavior is hugely an environmental derivative.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
I feel for the poor of the world. The folks of Auroville probably feel good about themselves. For those in the developed world who are constantly whinging about how bad things are (for themselves), these New Order lyrics come to mind:
So what's the use in complaining
When you've got what you don't need
Anyone would think you were hard done to
What do you want me to believe?
alanstarkie2001 1 year ago