"Venus Project" Has anyone ever heard of this?

[Aanker]

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

Paradoxically I think the low voter turnout is the result of too little democracy. These are people who feel - rightly or wrongly - that their vote has no impact on the elections or what follows. From these low-turnout demographics we have no indication of opinion on any proposed candidate or policy, meaning we do not receive crucial feedback on our decisions.

What we should do to fix this is a purely political discussion, but I think the relevant part of it is that power needs legitimacy, which it can only retain if decisions are well received. When legitimacy is seen as low, and power is exercised, you will see protests and riots.

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.

Good points. I should clarify, in my posts I have simplified 'democracy' to mean a system wherein citizens directly or indirectly influence policy, so republics would be included.

As far as direct democracy vs. republics are concerned, the Swiss lead awfully prosperous and delightful lives, but then it could be argued that their 'slow' government has survived mostly thanks to geographical and historical circumstances (being in the centre of Europe, the right side won the right wars for Switzerlad, etc)...

Edited March 5, 2015 by Aanker

[Tommygun]

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

Oddly I think this is a side affect of living in a mostly safe stable society.

They start taking it for granted until after it disappears.

I also think this works against ever achieving an utopian society.

If you ever actually get this perfect world, people will grow apathetic to it and will be to unmotivated to do anything when its starts to decay.

[magnemoe]

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.

We has been surrounded by lots of people for a very long time, and historically cities has always been high crime areas, in the countryside you mostly had roaming bandits.

That is unless they mad an deal with one village often with an combination of loot and threats so they had an safe harbor and then operated in the neighbor valley, the village had an feud with them anyway

And most people today see everyone as humans, this is also new historically. Very often the one outside your tribe, nation or race was not real people.

Naturally family and friends are more important than strangers to you but that is not depending on who the stranger is.

[RainDreamer]

Offtopic- I like the fact that we are talking about politics and government on a game forum without someone calling names and start a flame war yet. KSP community is awesome. I suggest you guys try out a little game called Democracy(any in the series) by Positech Game and try a hand in running a country. A lot of time I find that using cheat mode and run the country in dictatorship rule is so very effective. I can eliminate a country debt, reduce crime by 90%, provide free health care and education, cut down greenhouse emission, all of that in just one single 4 years term.

[magnemoe]

Oddly I think this is a side affect of living in a mostly safe stable society.

They start taking it for granted until after it disappears.

I also think this works against ever achieving an utopian society.

If you ever actually get this perfect world, people will grow apathetic to it and will be to unmotivated to do anything when its starts to decay.

In the US that will be an presidents second term if its no huge problems and the other side has just weak candidates.

This might be more of an issue in Europe because the party alliances tend to fight over the center.

If people think the election is important turnout will be higher.

[vger]

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.

We've seen greed undermine democracy just as easily as everything else. I don't want to delve too deeply into this for risk of the discussion turning to a purely political one, but I think the current system of democracy is outdated. Representatives as we view them, are an unnecessary relic of a lost age. At the time, horses was the fastest means of transportation and communication. If you wanted to know what your constituents wanted, you had to go out and talk to them. It simply made more sense to send one guy to represent the whole town, city, etc instead of shipping the entire populous somewhere to vote on something. In our current communication age, this is no longer the case. EVERY single citizen can conceivably vote not just on politicians, but everything.

If I had the power to do so, I would do away with representatives altogether. This isn't to say that we wouldn't still have an "elite" group of folks in Capitol Hill, but their function would be different. Instead of being decision makers, they would serve as think-tanks. They come up with proposals and present them to the People through the technology that is now in our grasp. And we the People then vote on those proposals electronically, to decide if these plans should be put into action, scrapped, or revised. No tallying votes for a state and then treating the state as a yay or nay. Every single voter remains an individual, not a party member.

Oddly I think this is a side affect of living in a mostly safe stable society.

They start taking it for granted until after it disappears.

I also think this works against ever achieving an utopian society.

If you ever actually get this perfect world, people will grow apathetic to it and will be to unmotivated to do anything when its starts to decay.

This only gives credence to the A.I. concept.

You're absolutely right. People who weren't there to fight for their freedom, are less apt to understand the value of it. An advanced A.I. could retain that memory and understand it - it would essentially be immortal, so there is no need to worry about whether or not the next generation of representatives or voters "understands" the gravity of the situation. We can try to teach history to children until we are blue in the face, but that still won't guarantee that they can empathize with the situation. Just as an example: Teaching about war is not going to give them any clue of what it is actually like to be in one, not even with using extremely graphic films as visual aids. The only way that 'might' work, is through some high-tech equivalent of telepathic memory transfer ala "The Giver."

[Sampa]

I don't like this. This is too remniscient to the failed Utopia experiment! It will never work!

[Tommygun]

This only gives credence to the A.I. concept.

What would happen if the AI gives orders, but an unmotivated public only gives a half hearted attempt at fixing the problem, which leads to further problems.

For some the fear of losing their job or being homeless motives them to work harder.

This fear, of coarse, can be abused by employers, but it is probable one the main motivations people have to go to a job they don't like.

If you have guaranteed employment and housing, how does the AI keep people from goofing off all day at work.

[magnemoe]

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.

Has been many beneficial dictators, this is typicaly good kings or someone who did a coup to avoid chaos or overturn an bad leader.

However most of the good kings was long ago, the government was weak and did not have much to do with peoples everyday life. Most of the good coup makers steps down then the situation is calmed down.

Worse about an AI ruler, how will the feedback work, even an dictator who want the best for his people might mess up because of he don't get feedback.

An AI ruler has the same downsides as an good king, in short what is the feedback systems, only it will be worse for an AI as its not human and don't really understand humans.

Having this control every aspect of the economy would not end well.

Food is cheap, why do people eat at expensive restaurants? How can an AI know?

Would the AI allocate resources to an computer game about building and blowing up rockets?

On the other hand it can not simply ask people, if you ask people that car they want most would want an large powerful and awesome looking one so the AI uses lots of resources building expensive cars few would buy themselves if they had to buy it.

Last we have robustness in the system, an AI will try to optimize the production, that is fewer and larger units, say it just have one huge one for making integrated circus and then it burns down it will take an long time to rebuild. One benefit of our economy is that its pretty shock tolerant like any evolved system, its very good at patching problems by itself, yes the process is messy but it works.

[Aanker]

Has been many beneficial dictators, this is typicaly good kings or someone who did a coup to avoid chaos or overturn an bad leader.

However most of the good kings was long ago, the government was weak and did not have much to do with peoples everyday life. Most of the good coup makers steps down then the situation is calmed down.

Actually I cut out a longer argument in my post where I took this into consideration ; but yes, there have been a few historical examples of beneficial monarchs and dictators. However, the concept or idea of beneficial dictatorship is flawed because it is in reality extremely sensitive to the personality of the dictator in question and whether the aims of the ruler can be those of the entire nation. But you are of course right, this was me not wanting to explode the word count too much.

[magnemoe]

We've seen greed undermine democracy just as easily as everything else. I don't want to delve too deeply into this for risk of the discussion turning to a purely political one, but I think the current system of democracy is outdated. Representatives as we view them, are an unnecessary relic of a lost age. At the time, horses was the fastest means of transportation and communication. If you wanted to know what your constituents wanted, you had to go out and talk to them. It simply made more sense to send one guy to represent the whole town, city, etc instead of shipping the entire populous somewhere to vote on something. In our current communication age, this is no longer the case. EVERY single citizen can conceivably vote not just on politicians, but everything.

If I had the power to do so, I would do away with representatives altogether. This isn't to say that we wouldn't still have an "elite" group of folks in Capitol Hill, but their function would be different. Instead of being decision makers, they would serve as think-tanks. They come up with proposals and present them to the People through the technology that is now in our grasp. And we the People then vote on those proposals electronically, to decide if these plans should be put into action, scrapped, or revised. No tallying votes for a state and then treating the state as a yay or nay. Every single voter remains an individual, not a party member.

Could work, basically you select an budget, that is the most important part to vote for.

The problem is that lots of decisions are far to mundane for people to get interested in, or it might just affect some people who then would be most of the voters. Or it might be very complex like an trade agreement, the problem that complex issues pass without comments are an well known issue in stockholders' meetings and similar settings.

Agree that more direct democracy is an good idea, however it might be better to elect bureaucrats to do the bureaucracy and replace them then we don't think they do that we want them to do.

The US system with no direct president elections is probably the only horse and cart part, things took much longer, the situation might have changed from the president election to he took over office, like the winning candidate might be dead or in jail

[RainDreamer]

What would happen if the AI gives orders, but an unmotivated public only gives a half hearted attempt at fixing the problem, which leads to further problems.

For some the fear of losing their job or being homeless motives them to work harder.

This fear, of coarse, can be abused by employers, but it is probable one the main motivations people have to go to a job they don't like.

If you have guaranteed employment and housing, how does the AI keep people from goofing off all day at work.

I think at one point it would be like a religious trust, because if the AI is sufficiently advanced to predict outcomes of a problem, people will see the consequences when that problem is not addressed as the AI warned. Of course there will be failed predictions, but if the AI makes correct ones most of the time, people will still be motivated to do what it says to ensure their long term interests.

Then one day it goes crazy and we have a whole another problem.

[Nibb31]

If I had the power to do so, I would do away with representatives altogether. This isn't to say that we wouldn't still have an "elite" group of folks in Capitol Hill, but their function would be different. Instead of being decision makers, they would serve as think-tanks. They come up with proposals and present them to the People through the technology that is now in our grasp. And we the People then vote on those proposals electronically, to decide if these plans should be put into action, scrapped, or revised. No tallying votes for a state and then treating the state as a yay or nay. Every single voter remains an individual, not a party member.

That would indeed be pure democracy. I'm not sure it would work well in practice simply because the majority of the people aren't educated about law or politics, and most people aren't qualified to make decisions that concern other people. They can too easily be swayed by media-induced emotion or short-term motivation, and they don't necessarily see the big picture. Politicians have similar flaws, but at least they are dampened by administration, cabinets, and counselors.

In a pure democracy, the first laws that would pass would be to ban taxes and distribute free beer. You would have people voting in Kim Kardashian for president. One week they would vote in the death penalty for speeding after a school bus accident makes the headlines, and the next week they would ban speed cameras. Then you would probably invade any country that is designated by the media as being anti-something-you-like.

Look at how stupid the average person is, then you realize that by definition, half of the population is even stupider. Sorry, but I wouldn't trust the populace with the reigns of government or any decision making process.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Nibb31

[magnemoe]

That would indeed be pure democracy. I'm not sure it would work well in practice simply because the majority of the people aren't educated about law or politics, and most people aren't qualified to make decisions that concern other people. They can too easily be swayed by media-induced emotion or short-term motivation, and they don't necessarily see the big picture. Politicians have similar flaws, but at least they are dampened by administration, cabinets, and counselors.

In a pure democracy, the first laws that would pass would be to ban taxes and distribute free beer. You would have people voting in Kim Kardashian for president and the death penalty for speeding. Then you would probably invade any country that is designated by the media as being anti-something.

Look at how stupid the average person is, then you realize that by definition, half of the population is even stupider. Sorry, but I wouldn't trust the populace with the reigns of government or any decision making process.

Its not as bad as you say, very populist parties have limited number of votes and none promise no taxes and free beer. One danish politician promised more tailwind on bicycle paths but he is an comedian.

You will need an vote on an budget, not each post. Politicians also have to use an budget.

Part of the problem is that lots of the decisioned are pretty dull, its also that many mainly affect a single group like only farmers or only teachers who would then dominate among the voters.

[Stargate525]

That would indeed be pure democracy. I'm not sure it would work well in practice simply because the majority of the people aren't educated about law or politics, and most people aren't qualified to make decisions that concern other people. They can too easily be swayed by media-induced emotion or short-term motivation, and they don't necessarily see the big picture. Politicians have similar flaws, but at least they are dampened by administration, cabinets, and counselors.

In a pure democracy, the first laws that would pass would be to ban taxes and distribute free beer. You would have people voting in Kim Kardashian for president and the death penalty for speeding. Then you would probably invade any country that is designated by the media as being anti-something.

Look at how stupid the average person is, then you realize that by definition, half of the population is even stupider. Sorry, but I wouldn't trust the populace with the reigns of government or any decision making process.

There's a reason that it's called the tyranny of the majority. And then you get into the sheer SCALE of the problem; counting and tallying 300 million+ votes, ensuring security of the process, arguments about disenfranchisement for the non-connected...

Not to mention the things that no rational person would put into the hands of a referendum, like complex treaties, war declaration, espionage, tax reform... We have representatives to cut the noise of millions of shouting voices, as you said, but we also had the Senate to help push things through that were painful, but necessary. It helps to have people in the process who aren't beholden to the mob for their position, but are still held accountable. The Senate used to be that until the seventeenth amendment was passed.

I do like one aspect of the ancient Greek method, in that positions of governance were filled by lottery. Ensures you get a random sampling of the population, and prevents career politicians. I'd love to see that attempted at a local level; Mayor, town council, sheriff, etc, are all filled term-by-term by a random lottery, much like jury duty.

[Azimech]

If you want to know more about "human nature" as described by leading experts in the field of epigenetics and behavioral development, watch at least the first segment of the third Zeitgeist documentary. The Zeitgeist Movement is the de facto activist movement of people promoting TVP, worldwide.

http://www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com/

You may order the DVD and pay money, but they rather have you download it, burn on a DVD and show it to others, for free. download link on the site.

IMDB info

[AngelLestat]

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.

So we agree that human nature is not aggressive by nature.

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.

These kinds of ideas are the most dangerous.

You can not make people "better", because first we dont have any idea of what might be better, there is nothing as perfection, just adaptability.

There is not a perfect state, just a diversity of behavior that can or not be prepared to a change of events that we never imagine "EVOLUTION".

If someone tries to impose a change process to make you "better" depending their view, then you start with a war against the people who oppose to this change. Then racism, discrimination and persecution; all arise.

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.

Neither we are, but evolution is a mechanism who spread live over all the world and face and win against the most dramatic changes.

Diversity is the key. Now you want us to trust in "someone" who think that found a perfect way of behavior? With what experience? Evolution has 2000 millons years of experience..

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.

yeah that.

Having this control every aspect of the economy would not end well.

Food is cheap, why do people eat at expensive restaurants? How can an AI know?

Would the AI allocate resources to an computer game about building and blowing up rockets?

On the other hand it can not simply ask people, if you ask people that car they want most would want an large powerful and awesome looking one so the AI uses lots of resources building expensive cars few would buy themselves if they had to buy it.

Last we have robustness in the system, an AI will try to optimize the production, that is fewer and larger units, say it just have one huge one for making integrated circus and then it burns down it will take an long time to rebuild. One benefit of our economy is that its pretty shock tolerant like any evolved system, its very good at patching problems by itself, yes the process is messy but it works.

Yeah, first its base theory is wrong, second is based on a magic IA which is programmed by us (imperfect beings).

We made machines to help us, not to control us.

If you want to know more about "human nature" as described by leading experts in the field of epigenetics and behavioral development, watch at least the first segment of the third Zeitgeist documentary. The Zeitgeist Movement is the de facto activist movement of people promoting TVP, worldwide.

http://www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com/

You may order the DVD and pay money, but they rather have you download it, burn on a DVD and show it to others, for free. download link on the site.

You dint read my first post telling that zeitgeist movement is the same thing than venus project which founder (a 25 years old kid who work as an audio visual artist) copy all venus project ideas and make its own "church".

Those people in the video knows NOTHING about human nature. Ask to real scientist!

There is not scientific method there (even if they said that the movement is base on that), because they ignore and reject all the evidence and reasons which work against the movement.

I can tell you and explain with full detail and examples how our behavior works, the amount that comes from culture and the part that comes from instincts. But the thing is that our culture is sculpt by our instints.

Edited March 5, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Flixxbeatz]

I thought they were planning to launch a person to venus by *insert year here*. Just finished reading the details.

[Ikaneko]

Is this yet another "oh, Communism is good in principle, but human nature makes it impossible in practice!!" Debates?

*sigh* I hate this demeaning and refusal to meet communists in actual debate.

[RainDreamer]

I thought we are talking about the inevitable coming of our robotic overlords and how we may serve them to the best of our abilities lest we be culled.

[magnemoe]

I thought we are talking about the inevitable coming of our robotic overlords and how we may serve them to the best of our abilities lest we be culled.

Yes, compare with the previous tread about the danger of AI

Having an AI to run the entire economy might have some dangers, probably more dangerous than giving it control of nukes that is only dangerous it it goes rouge.

Messing up the production lines on the other hand is pretty easy.

Wonder if part of the problem for Soviet Union was that both the part count and the production lines for the parts increased a lot from 1950 to 1980.

[rkman]

The idea behind it is ok: there are enough resources on Earth and mankind is innovative enough to provide everyone with a decent standard of living, and it should in principal be possible to make it so.

But i think it is not really a "project", seeing that it does not appear to be keeping track of its progress, instead mainly producing CGI of futuristic looking cities.

You dint read my first post telling that zeitgeist movement is the same thing than venus project which founder (a 25 years old kid who work as an audio visual artist) copy all venus project ideas and make its own "church".

I didn't know about ZG copying TVP ideas, but they are not the same, if only because zeitgeist sided with global warming denial, while TVP figures GW is one of the greatest threats to mankind.

Edited March 5, 2015 by rkman

[magnemoe]

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.

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.

Population control will probably be various programs to increase the number of babies born. The population boom is pretty much canceled.

main reason is that the majority of people live in cities, birth control also help however if you do low tech farming you want lots of kids to help you. If you live in an small apartment in a city you don't want lots of kids.

Altering the biochemistry sounds like an good idea, how to make it so everyone will be my obedient slaves and love me?

Yes it might be some danger of abuse, it might also be adverse effects like 20% chance of going postal.

I recommend starting doing someting harmless instead like making orion pulse rockets.

[Scotius]

Pretty pictures and enticing, round sentences. And in the meantime human society as a whole steadily gets better (at least according to statistics). Crime rates go down, while education is on the up. Less people die from hunger, diseases, wars etc. than a hundred years ago. Sure, it might not be visible everywhere and by everyone - like i said you have to delve into statistics. But it is happening. We will get there eventually - step by step, day by day. And probably our descendants will grouse, whine and argue that their world is not perfect, and they would like to live in a real Utopia Ahhhh, human nature...

[magnemoe]

Pretty pictures and enticing, round sentences. And in the meantime human society as a whole steadily gets better (at least according to statistics). Crime rates go down, while education is on the up. Less people die from hunger, diseases, wars etc. than a hundred years ago. Sure, it might not be visible everywhere and by everyone - like i said you have to delve into statistics. But it is happening. We will get there eventually - step by step, day by day. And probably our descendants will grouse, whine and argue that their world is not perfect, and they would like to live in a real Utopia Ahhhh, human nature...

Yes, like we complains that our i7 cpu is slow, something never change.

Other things also don't change, most Utopian societies tend to forget is status, people want to get their hand on hard to get things because it gives them status.

This is know all the way back to 30.000 years ago, you have jewelery made from clams only living in salt water found very far inland and has been decorated in ways who require lots of work.

In more recent history mobile phones was high status. Lots of the car industry is driven by status.

And no status will not go away even in an utopia with free gods, you will still have the high status neighborhoods, having an house where would be high status as its limited how many can live there, does not matter if you can get the same house somewhere else for free. positions too are status, they can rarely be bought but is something many fight for.

Now this is not an huge problem but it might create serious problems in an naive Utopian setting who don't think about it, people will try to manipulate the system to gain status.