"Venus Project" Has anyone ever heard of this?

[vger]

https://www.thevenusproject.com/

To try and even label exactly what this is seems borderline impossible because it covers so many different topics ranging from political (or perhaps more accurately, anti-political), science & technology, social issues, environment, etc.

Just curious if anyone has given this a deeper look, because so far, I can't even be sure where it is or where it hopes to be going. Are they even serious? Could it just be a hoax? Online "World's Fair?" Crazy idea launched with an overabundance of confidence and naivety? Or is the objective right now to simply create awareness?

Regardless, assuming this isn't just some kind of con-game, I wish them luck. It sounds interesting anyhow.

[AngelLestat]

yeah, is a silly idea.. I know everything about it.

[sumghai]

A cursory glance on Google and Wikipedia reveals that the author, Jacque Fresco, is a self-described futurist. Most of his early career as a former aerospace/industrial engineer consisted of ragequitting various companies/organizations after his overly-radical ideas were rejected for practical reasons. I suspect he started the Venus Project to earn a living from selling books based on his ideas.

Essentially, he talks the talk, but can't walk the walk.

[GoSlash27]

I'm not even sure what "the talk" is in this case. I don't see anything concrete in this proposal.

Best,

-Slashy

[SelectHalfling0]

Initial look at his project makes it look promising: "Hey look! No more suffering! No more mundane jobs! No more material possession! Oh... Wait..."

He forgot about human nature.

[GoSlash27]

Initial look at his project makes it look promising: "Hey look! No more suffering! No more mundane jobs! No more material possession! Oh... Wait..."

He forgot about human nature.

Well...

To be fair, he didn't forget about it. He asserted that it can be changed. He just didn't provide any information regarding how he would do that.

Best,

-Slashy

[AngelLestat]

Jack Fresco denies human nature (he does not believe that genes sculpt our base behavior), he just choice to ignore this factor because if dont, all its theory falls.

Also its idea is not really an idea... An idea is something that explain how to go from point A to point B, he only describes point B. The same that I said: it will be a good idea to reduce poverty.. ok.. but how??

His idea is based that we will need an artificial intelligence computer to analize and predict all the humans needs on food or products, what product should be develope and what amount produced?. He needs that super imaginary computer because is the only way to remove money.

But how much "something" cost, is the best way to know if it worth to develope that and how many you will need to produce; also tells us how efficient a product is.

Those to name a few...

Venus project inspire The Zeitgeist Movement (which is a copy) and both have a religious structure. (Everyone may join to the idea, but nobody can change it or think different)

Edited March 4, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Dkmdlb]

It's complete nonsense. From an economics perspective, it fails to solve the calculation problem.

[vger]

His idea is based that we will need an artificial intelligence computer to analize and predict all the humans needs on food or products, what product should be develop and what amount produced?. He needs that super imaginary computer because is the only way to remove money.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the Master Computer of "Paranoia" is a necessary element to eliminating money, but one could probably make a good argument that technology is swiftly coming to an event that will deal unimaginable chaos to the economy. Specifically I'm referring to automation. As the tech improves and continues to eliminate the need for humans, I really don't know where that will leave us for money. Money can simply be described as a physical representation of the value of a person's labor. We've already seen factory workers go the way of the dodo. And we're on the verge of seeing the same thing happen with food service (there are completely automated fast-food restaurants in Asia already). And after that will come the smart vehicles, eliminating the need for truck drivers. After that, the only industry that will remain for the largest demographic is retail, and that won't be able to sustain itself for long after such a large percentage of the population is put out of work.

Meanwhile, automation will continue to evolve and become more complex, until only the most menial tasks remain for humans to do. We would reach a point where the value of labor (and consequently, money) will become nil. We're already seeing that process take place, in the form of stagnant wages while the price of goods continues to rise. Even slavery would be meaningless in any scenario where machines can do it better and cheaper than humans.

In such a situation, what would humanity's spirit of greed be able to do with itself?

Edited March 5, 2015 by vger

[Greenfire32]

I think it's a great idea!

On paper!

[Tommygun]

With just a superficial look at it, it looks like a modernized/high tech "Socialist Paradise" concept.

Pure socialism doesn't work any better than pure capitalism and I think this would end up with a system of unmotivated and inefficient workers and institutions.

[lajoswinkler]

I remember when it first started being popular online few years ago. That's sort of a communist utopia. Great thing in theory, impossible to create (might only be naturally reached in distant future).

These things happen when people don't educate themselves and try to sound smart. As Santayana said: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Quite frankly, we don't need to repeat artificial creation of communism or socialism. Its practical application had by far the worst death toll we know of.

[AngelLestat]

I wouldn't necessarily say that the Master Computer of "Paranoia" is a necessary element to eliminating money, but one could probably make a good argument that technology is swiftly coming to an event that will deal unimaginable chaos to the economy. Specifically I'm referring to automation. As the tech improves and continues to eliminate the need for humans, I really don't know where that will leave us for money. Money can simply be described as a physical representation of the value of a person's labor. We've already seen factory workers go the way of the dodo. And we're on the verge of seeing the same thing happen with food service (there are completely automated fast-food restaurants in Asia already). And after that will come the smart vehicles, eliminating the need for truck drivers. After that, the only industry that will remain for the largest demographic is retail, and that won't be able to sustain itself for long after such a large percentage of the population is put out of work.

Meanwhile, automation will continue to evolve and become more complex, until only the most menial tasks remain for humans to do. We would reach a point where the value of labor (and consequently, money) will become nil. We're already seeing that process take place, in the form of stagnant wages while the price of goods continues to rise. Even slavery would be meaningless in any scenario where machines can do it better and cheaper than humans.

In such a situation, what would humanity's spirit of greed be able to do with itself?

I think it's a great idea!

On paper!

He is just describing the point B (a possible future), he is not saying how to pass from where we are to that. Also he has many hypothesis wrong.

That is not an idea.. is just an utopia dream as lajoswinkler said.

Machines would not remplace the human labor or asset from one day to the next, maybe they never will.

Today in the world 1 in 4 people, still lives as everybody did 5000 years ago. And still almost everyone do something for living.

If you remplace a human by a machine, and that human does not earn money anymore, then you have 1 less human who can not buy the products that this factory made, so the factory earnings are reduce.. So less money to invest in machines, unless you give that human another labor or asset to get its own money.

Humans always will have an asset, is not possible to think in a future without it. Is like to think: can humans live without an universe?

If that day comes where there is not purpose for a human to exist, then it will be our end as a species.

Also talk about if this idea may or not work in 1000 years or 3000 years into the future is pointless, it does not explain even how to reach that point.

Humans wake up some day and said "lets forget about the money"??

[Kibble]

Human nature can be changed, or controlled by society. Thirty thousand years ago we were violent, selfish, and ignorant. Now with civilization we might be the same, but violence is controlled by laws and ignorance is controlled by education. Greed can and will be controlled too - probably by some form of socialism/communism.

[Pipcard]

I saw this several years ago, I just liked the pretty futuristic city images and didn't care about how the ideology behind it was too idealistic.

[vger]

If you remplace a human by a machine, and that human does not earn money anymore, then you have 1 less human who can not buy the products that this factory made, so the factory earnings are reduce.. So less money to invest in machines, unless you give that human another labor or asset to get its own money.

The question is, do the businesses even care? So far, all we've seen is a, "Not my problem" reaction to this sort of thing. It's a commonly-held belief, and not just among the upper class, that the only thing keeping EVERY SINGLE PERSON from success is laziness. They somehow are able to ignore any link between poverty rates and the elimination of jobs (entire industries in some cases). How long can this envelope continue to be pushed before something breaks? Who knows.

I saw this several years ago, I just liked the pretty futuristic city images and didn't care about how the ideology behind it was too idealistic.

I think it's still an important idea, though I don't think the goal should be to actually be the catalyst for change.

Develop technologies, show it off. Let people see how awesome the future could be if we put our minds to it.

That's something that there has been far too little of recently. Every child should at least be shown a vision or two of a utopia brought about through mutual cooperation, science, and technology. It doesn't matter if that vision arrives. What matters is that everyone gets to see hope for it, if even for a moment. People who have that seed put in them by such ideas, will be far more likely to try and actually change something later on in life. Even if it's just a tiny thing that makes the world better. It's just as important as promoting space travel, in my opinion.

My feelings about this reflect how I feel when watching the Penny4NASA "we stopped dreaming" video.

Edited March 5, 2015 by vger

[Greenfire32]

That is not an idea.. is just an utopia dream

I guess we'll just skip the part where the joke flew over your head...

[AngelLestat]

Human nature can be changed, or controlled by society. Thirty thousand years ago we were violent, selfish, and ignorant. Now with civilization we might be the same, but violence is controlled by laws and ignorance is controlled by education. Greed can and will be controlled too - probably by some form of socialism/communism.

Human nature can be changed? Only if we become a robot and we get rid of our body.

What you know how we were thirty thousand years ago?

In fact all specialist in that area agree that we had small and very social communities.

The life was so hard in those moments, and we had so much terrain, that the most important for survive was babies, work together and exchange people between different groups to avoid genetic erosion.

If we become aggresive in some age, it was due the rise of the empires (this start 10000 years ago, not 30000), where too much power rested in one individual and the poppulation increase a lot.

Also a misconception where we look the history, is that we think it was too aggresive or drastic all the time, but that happens because we study those war events were the changes happens. But we dont saw in a movie the current normal live of any average citizen of those times.. Because it will be very boring. There was 300 years of peace after the roman empire fundation.

You see other animals killing between them without reasons? Or just to eat?

The question is, do the businesses even care? So far, all we've seen is a, "Not my problem" reaction to this sort of thing. It's a commonly-held belief, and not just among the upper class, that the only thing keeping EVERY SINGLE PERSON from success is laziness. They somehow are able to ignore any link between poverty rates and the elimination of jobs (entire industries in some cases). How long can this envelope continue to be pushed before something breaks? Who knows.

It does not matter if the businesses care or not, it can not happen because they lose profits. So always the human being will have an asset. In case we dont, there would be no reason to exist, no matter if you use money or not.

I think it's still an important idea, though I don't think the goal should be to actually be the catalyst for change.

Develop technologies, show it off. Let people see how awesome the future could be if we put our minds to it.

My feelings about this reflect how I feel when watching the Penny4NASA "we stopped dreaming" video.

I guess we'll just skip the part where the joke flew over your head...

But they need to show how to reach that, or it lose sense.

Is not the same to the futuristic videos that we saw.. because it was based in the same system.

Here it shows a futuristic video with another system, and it does not mention how to reach that.

Edited March 5, 2015 by AngelLestat

[RainDreamer]

Sounds almost like my highschool idea when I was studying a class in sociology. Back then I thought that the most efficient way to manage a society is to have a benevolent dictator. But the concept of "benevolent dictator" is impossible to apply to human, due to human nature. So a society governed by an advanced AI with a robotic manual work force will allow humanity to live pretty efficiently and equally. Though of course, that was just an idea of a teenager.

In the context of reality, that require all human actually agree to be govern by a machine in the first place. And no matter how perfectly benevolent the AI may be, there will be people who will be against it and will attempt to sabotage it.Thus is human.

And then there is a problem of resources - resources are limited, and cannot support an ever increasing population. Which means more radical ideas like population control. Human may needed to be culled by the AI to ensure that the rest can live comfortably.

There are a few more things I thought about, but I will just leave it here, because the idea is just impractical.

We can't really reach that kind of utopian society until we embrace transhumanism and evolve beyond humanity.

[magnemoe]

Human nature can be changed? Only if we become a robot and we get rid of our body.

What you know how we were thirty thousand years ago?

In fact all specialist in that area agree that we had small and very social communities.

The life was so hard in those moments, and we had so much terrain, that the most important for survive was babies, work together and exchange people between different groups to avoid genetic erosion.

If we become aggresive in some age, it was due the rise of the empires (this start 10000 years ago, not 30000), where too much power rested in one individual and the poppulation increase a lot.

Also a misconception where we look the history, is that we think it was too aggresive or drastic all the time, but that happens because we study those war events were the changes happens. But we dont saw in a movie the current normal live of any average citizen of those times.. Because it will be very boring. There was 300 years of peace after the roman empire fundation.

30.000 years ago it was not many people so it was probably not much violence, trying to be violent inside an group of say 30-50 people will not end well for you, and few reasons to go to war as people was too spread out, it would also be insanely dangerous as if you lost too many people fighting your tribe might go under.

Most fun however is that its probably the setting where Utopian communism works well. You need an thigh knit group of people where everyone knows everyone well.

Social pressure would make it very hard to either slack off to much or hoard stuff, not that it was so many different items to hoard.

In an larger group say 1000 this would be an issue and the problem would increase as you could not manage with an flat structure, you would need leaders. Social pressure would be weaker as you would not care so much about that strangers you don't really know think about you, you status inside an sub group like the leadership group would be far more important.

[vger]

In the context of reality, that require all human actually agree to be govern by a machine in the first place. And no matter how perfectly benevolent the AI may be, there will be people who will be against it and will attempt to sabotage it.Thus is human.

The idea has been put forth by a number of different sci-fi stories. THX-1138, Logan's Run, numerous episodes of Star Trek, The Day the Earth Stood Still. I can't say whether or not such a civilization is a good idea or a bad idea. But as far as resistance to change is concerned, major changes have ALWAYS started with just one person's idea, and then it spreads. The idea of using a computer to control us though is almost metaphorical. Everything seems to boil down to the fact that we are driven by instincts that are no longer beneficial to the race as a whole. When we were hunting mammoths, only 1 out of 5 kids survived, everything was trying to eat us, etc. All the fighting, mating, hoarding; it all made sense. It doesn't make sense now, but it still wants to control everything. Barring a really brilliant way of altering our biochemistry/hormones (and that's really no less violating of freedoms than a mechanized dictator), an external equivalent of a Fruedian super-ego, doesn't really seem so ridiculous an idea. The only other alternative is to hope we survive a few million years as we are; long enough that our more primal urges get weeded out of the gene pool on their own.

And then there is a problem of resources - resources are limited, and cannot support an ever increasing population. Which means more radical ideas like population control. Human may needed to be culled by the AI to ensure that the rest can live comfortably.

That is going to happen no matter what. Regardless of what kind of government/society we have, population control is going to become an issue. And really when you think about it, reproduction comes from the same mindless instincts that produce greed. Our evolutionary behavioral programming, sadly, has absolutely no idea of how to adapt to the environment that we currently live in.

Edited March 5, 2015 by vger

[RainDreamer]

Most fun however is that its probably the setting where Utopian communism works well. You need an thigh knit group of people where everyone knows everyone well.

I think it goes back to the idea of the Monkeysphere (or more academically, Dunbar's number). It is easier to steal and hoard and commit acts of a sociopath when the people around you are just random blots of identity and numbers in your mind. It is just easier to justify in your mind when you are not considering people as people.

It is harder, however, to steal from that friend Jeff who grew up with you and has been hanging with you forever, sharing both good and bad times, and it is harder to not help him if he is in need, when you know he will also do the same to you if you are in need.

When we are still in small tribal community, close knitted group need each others, and because everyone know everyone else, sociopath will be left behind for the lions. However in the current society where you are surrounded with so many people they stop looking like people, being a sociopath is much easier, and much more profitable. Being nice now is actually hard, and less rewarding toward your own survival.

Our empathy have not evolved enough to encompass the whole humanity.

Edited March 5, 2015 by RainDreamer

[Aanker]

The question is if a benevolent AI ruler, if possible, is even desirable from moral and social viewpoints. If you take away the ability of the little guy to influence his life and choices, then he will grow weary. If you remove the large-scale societal feedback provided by polls and elections, you will grow detached from who you are ruling, and your decisions (although well-intended, see AI) will not please the populace. If you do both, you have a revolution on your hands. If you do either but not both, you lack the needed complete control. If you do none, you might as well ask yourself why you didn't stick with the old system.

Furthermore the scenario begs the question, what is the goal of all this? Happiness? Wealth? Saving the Earth? With all the associated problems of what the purpose of our existance is... and who gave you the right to formulate this goal to the AI that will rule us.

And would the goal be worth the cost of subjugating/eliminating those against?

In the end the concept of a beneficial dictator is unproven, perhaps because dictatorships are inherently damaging or limiting in their nature. And ultimately, in an age where no land is an island, given the free choice I'm willing to bet many of us would rather live in a democracy.

[RainDreamer]

given the free choice I'm willing to bet many of us would rather live in a democracy.

Given the low voter turn out in the U.S, sometimes I doubt that. I still have hope for democracy though.

[Newt]

In the end the concept of a beneficial dictator is unproven, perhaps because dictatorships are inherently damaging or limiting in their nature. And ultimately, in an age where no land is an island, given the free choice I'm willing to bet many of us would rather live in a democracy.

According to Cicero, at least, a dictatorship can be the most efficient and effective government possible, iff the dictator is benevolent and intelligent. If not, it can be the worst. And their successor is. And their successor is. And their successor is, ad infinitum. Republics such as are popular today seek to balance the ideas of vesting power in a few individuals as the 'dictators', and the wider population, as well as the elite, through democratic election of representative bodies and high officials. This ideally balances to make a government that is perhaps slower than an ideal dictatorship, but quicker than an anarchic pure democracy (in which all choices are made by all people. In the best of circumstances this is very slow), and balances the possibility of poorly selected officials with the needs to get past the representatives.

As for the website:

It calls for a straightforward redesign of our culture

This line jumped out at me, as well, since when has redesigning culture been straightforward? Generally such developments take ages to develop, and attempts to hasten change are generally termed genocide from what I can see. There are some aspects of the ideas here which are, from what I can tell viable, but in general, it seems like a fun exercise of 'what if?'.