Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Venus Project presents a bold, new direction for humanity that entails nothing less than the total redesign of our culture. There are many people today who are concerned with the serious problems that face our modern society: unemployment, violent crime, replacement of humans by technology, over-population and a decline in the Earth's ecosystems. As you will see, The Venus Project is dedicated to confronting all of these problems by actively engaging in the research, development, and application of workable solutions. Through the use of innovative approaches to social awareness, educational incentives, and the consistent application of the best that science and technology can offer directly to the social system, The Venus Project offers a comprehensive plan for social reclamation in which human beings, technology, and nature will be able to coexist in a long-term, sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium.

The plans for the Venus Project offer society a broader spectrum of choices based on the scientific possibilities inherent in current technology and direct that knowledge toward a new era of peace and sustainability for all cultures. Through the implementation of a resource-based economy, and a multitude of innovative and environmentally friendly technologies directly applied to the social system, The Venus Project proposals will dramatically reduce crime, poverty, hunger, homelessness, and many other pressing problems that are common throughout the world today.

One of the cornerstones of the organization's findings is the fact that many of the dysfunctional behaviors of today's society stem directly from the dehumanizing environment inherent in the existing monetary system. Moreover, the currently utilized random implementation of automation and other technologies have resulted in a fragmented, self-defeating trend occurring throughout the manufacturing and high-tech sectors of today's global economy--namely the technological replacement of human labor by machines. The Venus Project proposes a social system in which automation and technology would be intelligently applied and integrated into an overall social design where the primary function would be to maximize the quality of life rather than profits. This project also introduces a set of workable and acceptable human values that are more appropriate and in balance with our present state of technology.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

Very intriguing and certainly worth a look.




For more information, see "Zeitgeist: Addendum".

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Smells like Scientology.

wut?

It is far from Scientology.

It's a philosophical belief that's trying to redefine our culture, abolish the monetary system, as well as religious and political institutions etc.

It's against Scientology.

Meh, sounds like just another crutch.

BTW, read the intro to Scientology, it's all about redefing and freeing yourself for your betterment. Then you pay.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/
The site: TL;DR

The blurb: Sounds like a cult. The Luddites are at it again.

Originally posted by Robtard
Meh, sounds like just another crutch.

BTW, read the intro to Scientology, it's all about redefing and freeing yourself for your betterment. Then you pay. Yeah, well, The Venus Project abolishes the monetary system. So, no paying.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
The site: TL;DR

The blurb: Sounds like a cult. The Luddites are at it again. Maybe you should read it, then you won't sound like a presumtuous arse head.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, well, The Venus Project abolishes the monetary system. So, no paying.


What does it replace it with? The barter system, or maybe it relies on a Roddenberry-esque view of humanity working for humanity for humanities sake? Excuse me if I'm a cynic.

Originally posted by lord xyz
It is far from Scientology.

It's a philosophical belief that's trying to redefine our culture, abolish the monetary system, as well as religious and political institutions etc.

It's against Scientology.

Still sounds like Scientology or any other modern cult for that matter.

Looking at the site I've got to admit . . . they make good use of buzz words.

Originally posted by Robtard
What does it replace it with? The barter system, or maybe it relies on a Roddenberry-esque view of humanity working for humanity for humanities sake? Excuse me if I'm a cynic. Humanity working for humanity. As, we are all one.

Originally posted by Robtard
What does it replace it with? The barter system, or maybe it relies on a Roddenberry-esque view of humanity working for humanity for humanities sake? Excuse me if I'm a cynic.

Roddenberry's estate could probably sue them if anyone were so inclined.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Humanity working for humanity. As, we are all one.

But only once our Thetans are aligned with the 4th dimensional properties of mono-atomic gold. We know we know.

This will never work. People like money, people like materials. The Venus Project can NEVER be successful. Banks and Governments own us all. If any type of organization were to ever threaten the system it would be cancelled, legally. Those who make the laws can break the laws. There is no reason to hope or work for peaceful change because we don't want change. We wouldn't know what to do with it. Most people know that the system is corrupt and broken. Most people know that we are merely replaceable gears in the machine but thats ok because thats the way it is and since the first civilizations, thats the way it's always been.

People like money? Haha.

What do we hear on the news? Banks failing, prices going up, our money isn't safe. Money isn't liked, because most of us hardly have any.

Legality is abolished in the Venus project, as our problems don't need laws as solutions, they need technology as solutions. We have the technology.

51% of voters are voting for Barack Obama because they do want change.

"The way it is"... I'm sure that's explained on the site, if not in Zeitgeist Addendum. What would the world be like if people thought taking 2 weeks to travel across a country on a horse was "the way it is"? I don't understand what you mean by we are replaceable gears either.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Humanity working for humanity. As, we are all one.

I think Lennon already sang about something like that, seems like more plagiarism. First Gene and now John, is nothing sacred to these people?

Originally posted by lord xyz
The Venus Project presents a bold, new direction for humanity that entails nothing less than the total redesign of our culture.

thats about all I needed to read

Originally posted by inimalist
thats about all I needed to read I think you'd be quite interested in this in.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I think you'd be quite interested in this in.

That line alone is almost the trade-mark of pseudo-science

Why is it called the "Venus" project?

Originally posted by inimalist
That line alone is almost the trade-mark of pseudo-science Is it really?

Originally posted by Devil King
Why is it called the "Venus" project? I do not know.

Originally posted by Devil King
Why is it called the "Venus" project?

Probably because Venus (Aphrodite) has something to do with birth or rebirth, it also just sounds kinda cool and catchy.

lord xyz is perfect cult material. Make sure they keep that ego well fed, xyz.

Originally posted by Devil King
Why is it called the "Venus" project?

Because when you die you go to heaven and meet slightly overweight Greek chicks that are always virgins no matter how many times you bang them.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Is it really?


indeed

look up the water motor, the star child project, illuminati theories, etc.

They all offer revolutionary visions of the future, like communism and religion.

something that promises to be revolutionary, will not be, imho

all the venus Project is trying to suggest is that better technology coupled with a fair society; one which is not run by corrupt banks and governments....would completely change things for us

Originally posted by Deano
all the venus Project is trying to suggest is that better technology coupled with a fair society; one which is not run by corrupt banks and governments....would completely change things for us

Then they ask you for your credit card number and expiration date.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
lord xyz is perfect cult material. Make sure they keep that ego well fed, xyz. IT IS NOT A ****ING CULT.

Cult: followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices

Key word: Religious

Has anyone even looked at the website?

I regret not seeing this earlier: "The Venus Project is a educational think tank operating out of a 25-acre Research Center located in Venus, Florida. "

a new system is needed. the current one does not honour life.

it was created to enslave you see

Originally posted by Deano
a new system is needed. the current one does not honour life.

it was created to enslave you see

So's this new one.

mmmm interesting theory

Originally posted by lord xyz
IT IS NOT A ****ING CULT.

Cult: followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices

Key word: Religious

Has anyone even looked at the website?

I regret not seeing this earlier: "The Venus Project is a educational think tank operating out of a 25-acre Research Center located in Venus, Florida. "

There are groups that have been classified as political cults etc.

"The Venus Project is a educational think tank operating out of a 25-acre Research Center located in Venus, Florida. " - cult.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
There are groups that have been classified as political cults etc.

"The Venus Project is a educational think tank operating out of a 25-acre Research Center located in Venus, Florida. " - cult. Fair enough.

But all that means is that it's a group of people devoted a certain type of beliefs that differs from the mainstream.

Not really a bad thing.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Fair enough.

But all that means is that it's a group of people devoted a certain type of beliefs that differs from the mainstream.

Not really a bad thing.

Just like the Nazis.

nothin like the nazis.

it is actually now time to expand our conciousness. we are being held in a low vibrational state. the world is being controlled by dark forces and its really plain to see. wakey wakey

we need to understand reality, the elite understand the nature of reality we are experiencing and have worked tirelessly to manipulate the structure of society and the information thats allowed to circulate in society to keep the people in total ignorance of the very reality that they are experiencing. and how can we possibly be free in a world where we dont even know what the world is, we dont know who we are, we dont know the nature of reality we are experiencing and if we dont start to get an understanding of that information then we are in trouble.

the world is at breaking point now and they are planning to drag us further down.

Originally posted by Deano
nothin like the nazis.

it is actually now time to expand our conciousness. we are being held in a low vibrational state. the world is being controlled by dark forces and its really plain to see. wakey wakey

we need to understand reality, the elite understand the nature of reality we are experiencing and have worked tirelessly to manipulate the structure of society and the information thats allowed to circulate in society to keep the people in total ignorance of the very reality that they are experiencing. and how can we possibly be free in a world where we dont even know what the world is, we dont know who we are, we dont know the nature of reality we are experiencing and if we dont start to get an understanding of that information then we are in trouble.

the world is at breaking point now and they are planning to drag us further down.

So it's kinda like being a Nazi?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So it's kinda like being a Nazi?

and Scientology rolled into one, with the elites, people being kept down and whatnot.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just like the Nazis. Yes, yes.

All belief systems are the same. I see how it is.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The Venus Project presents a bold, new direction for humanity that entails nothing less than the total redesign of our culture. There are many people today who are concerned with the serious problems that face our modern society: unemployment, violent crime, replacement of humans by technology, over-population and a decline in the Earth's ecosystems. As you will see, The Venus Project is dedicated to confronting all of these problems by actively engaging in the research, development, and application of workable solutions. Through the use of innovative approaches to social awareness, educational incentives, and the consistent application of the best that science and technology can offer directly to the social system, The Venus Project offers a comprehensive plan for social reclamation in which human beings, technology, and nature will be able to coexist in a long-term, sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium.

The plans for the Venus Project offer society a broader spectrum of choices based on the scientific possibilities inherent in current technology and direct that knowledge toward a new era of peace and sustainability for all cultures. Through the implementation of a resource-based economy, and a multitude of innovative and environmentally friendly technologies directly applied to the social system, The Venus Project proposals will dramatically reduce crime, poverty, hunger, homelessness, and many other pressing problems that are common throughout the world today.

One of the cornerstones of the organization's findings is the fact that many of the dysfunctional behaviors of today's society stem directly from the dehumanizing environment inherent in the existing monetary system. Moreover, the currently utilized random implementation of automation and other technologies have resulted in a fragmented, self-defeating trend occurring throughout the manufacturing and high-tech sectors of today's global economy--namely the technological replacement of human labor by machines. The Venus Project proposes a social system in which automation and technology would be intelligently applied and integrated into an overall social design where the primary function would be to maximize the quality of life rather than profits. This project also introduces a set of workable and acceptable human values that are more appropriate and in balance with our present state of technology.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

Very intriguing and certainly worth a look.




For more information, see "Zeitgeist: Addendum".

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

I might watch the movie first and then read more on the project.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I might watch the movie first and then read more on the project. I advise you to do that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably because Venus (Aphrodite) has something to do with birth or rebirth, it also just sounds kinda cool and catchy.

Too bad. I was hoping it had to do with the idea that if women ran the world it would be a better place.

Originally posted by Devil King
Too bad. I was hoping it had to do with the idea that if women ran the world it would be a better place.

It's far more boring, the think-tank is located in Venus Florida, ergo the name.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's far more boring, the think-tank is located in Venus Florida, ergo the name.

Oh, that's too bad.

Originally posted by lord xyz
People like money? Haha.

What do we hear on the news? Banks failing, prices going up, our money isn't safe. Money isn't liked, because most of us hardly have any.

Legality is abolished in the Venus project, as our problems don't need laws as solutions, they need technology as solutions. We have the technology.

51% of voters are voting for Barack Obama because they do want change.

"The way it is"... I'm sure that's explained on the site, if not in Zeitgeist Addendum. What would the world be like if people thought taking 2 weeks to travel across a country on a horse was "the way it is"? I don't understand what you mean by we are replaceable gears either.

People like money because they always want more. Not for necessities but for extravagant luxuries. Is that bad? No, because it is the extravagant luxuries that quell the monotony in our lives. I'm sure most people would prefer the concept of what the Venus Project suggests over our current social structure. This doesn't make it realistic, though. The only way a radical, social re-conditioning could be introduced in the Western culture would be in the aftermath of a world or civil war.

Of course people want change. Has there ever been an era where people did not yearn for change? Unfortunately, we always look to politicians for this change. All politicians want to do is uphold a system that compromises change. When i say that we are all replaceable gears, i mean just that, there is always someone else. Our Government looks at us (the public) the same way that corporations look at employee's...,disposable, replaceable and irrelevant.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
People like money because they always want more. Not for necessities but for extravagant luxuries. Is that bad? No, because it is the extravagant luxuries that quell the monotony in our lives. I'm sure most people would prefer the concept of what the Venus Project suggests over our current social structure. This doesn't make it realistic, though. The only way a radical, social re-conditioning could be introduced in the Western culture would be in the aftermath of a world or civil war.

Of course people want change. Has there ever been an era where people did not yearn for change? Unfortunately, we always look to politicians for this change. All politicians want to do is uphold a system that compromises change. When i say that we are all replaceable gears, i mean just that, there is always someone else. Our Government looks at us (the public) the same way that corporations look at employee's...,disposable, replaceable and irrelevant. You don't need money, that's what TVP explains. The monetary system is a joke, is not needed, produces debt and scarcity.

I'm sure they thought black rights was unrealistic in 1955.

People don't look for politicians. The majority doesn't have faith in politicians and doesn't vote.

Which is why government and corporations will be abolished.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You don't need money, that's what TVP explains. The monetary system is a joke, is not needed, produces debt and scarcity.

I'm sure they thought black rights was unrealistic in 1955.

People don't look for politicians. The majority doesn't have faith in politicians and doesn't vote.

Which is why government and corporations will be abolished.


You have to look at this as a realist. This cannot happen without bloodshed or war.

Of course people look towards politicians for answers and leadership. Why else has this system been around for centuries? You are inflecting to much intelligence and ambition on people. It doesn't matter how many people want change because their voice NOR their stupid vote matters.

We're not talking about changing a small society, we are talking about changing the entire world. We are not just talking about abolishing corporations but rather, everything everyone believes to be true. As practical and prosperous as the Venus Project sounds. It is completely unrealistic and will only ever exist in science fiction.

Originally posted by lord xyz
IT IS NOT A ****ING CULT.

Cult: followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices

Key word: Religious

Has anyone even looked at the website?

I regret not seeing this earlier: "The Venus Project is a educational think tank operating out of a 25-acre Research Center located in Venus, Florida. " Shut it, cultist.

"4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cult

Nothing religious, mate. You really need to get a better grasp of language and stuff.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Shut it, cultist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Shut it, cultist.

"4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cult

Nothing religious, mate. You really need to get a better grasp of language and stuff. If you look earlier in the thread, you'll see I acknowledged it.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
You have to look at this as a realist. This cannot happen without bloodshed or war.

Of course people look towards politicians for answers and leadership. Why else has this system been around for centuries? You are inflecting to much intelligence and ambition on people. It doesn't matter how many people want change because their voice NOR their stupid vote matters.

We're not talking about changing a small society, we are talking about changing the entire world. We are not just talking about abolishing corporations but rather, everything everyone believes to be true. As practical and prosperous as the Venus Project sounds. It is completely unrealistic and will only ever exist in science fiction. I believe it can happen.

from reading the opening thread i can only surmise that one of the goals is to eventually, star trek style, abolish the need for a monetary system completely

the problem with this is that i think it will have the opposite effect that it is hoped it would achieve

without some kind of reward there is no incentive for someone to apply themselves to achieve more difficult aspirations in terms of vocation...in it's simplest for...why would someone want to train for 7 years to become a doctor if they weren't going to end up with anything more than a street sweeper would get?

it's no more a valid idea than pure communism which is great in theory but not in practice...

Originally posted by jaden101
from reading the opening thread i can only surmise that one of the goals is to eventually, star trek style, abolish the need for a monetary system completely

the problem with this is that i think it will have the opposite effect that it is hoped it would achieve

without some kind of reward there is no incentive for someone to apply themselves to achieve more difficult aspirations in terms of vocation...in it's simplest for...why would someone want to train for 7 years to become a doctor if they weren't going to end up with anything more than a street sweeper would get?

it's no more a valid idea than pure communism which is great in theory but not in practice... I don't know about you, but I don't see people becoming doctors for the money. Or rather, anyone who only goes for a doctorate for the money most likely doesn't.

The reason people become doctors, scientists, technicians etc. is because they want to. Money is just an afterthought to keep you motivated.

Did David Beckham become a footballer because he wanted millions of pounds for playing football? No, he wanted to be a footballer because he liked to play football, plus the money from being good.

I bet he'd still play football even if he wasn't getting payed.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't know about you, but I don't see people becoming doctors for the money. Or rather, anyone who only goes for a doctorate for the money most likely doesn't.

The reason people become doctors, scientists, technicians etc. is because they want to. Money is just an afterthought to keep you motivated.


That's your take on it. If you are correct then your Venus Cult might work...if you are correct though, even Communism might work. But there are certainly people that do something just for money. They do exists, what about them? (imo actually close to a majority)


Originally posted by lord xyz
Did David Beckham become a footballer because he wanted millions of pounds for playing football? No, he wanted to be a footballer because he liked to play football, plus the money from being good.

I bet he'd still play football even if he wasn't getting payed.

I bet he wouldn't practice 8 hours a day to exhaustion.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't know about you, but I don't see people becoming doctors for the money. Or rather, anyone who only goes for a doctorate for the money most likely doesn't.

The reason people become doctors, scientists, technicians etc. is because they want to. Money is just an afterthought to keep you motivated.

Did David Beckham become a footballer because he wanted millions of pounds for playing football? No, he wanted to be a footballer because he liked to play football, plus the money from being good.

I bet he'd still play football even if he wasn't getting payed.

People always do it for the money...at least that's my experience...i know several medical students in 4th year of their training and all of them without exception said "can't wait to be earning good money"...can't say i've ever heard any of them say "i'm doing it to help people"

without reward there is no incentive to better yourself to the extent that it would take a huge amount of effort

there's also no incentive to do difficult jobs such as fishermen, rig workers...etc...they are relatively well paid compared with menial jobs such as cleaners etc....but why would you put yourself in danger or do a physically difficult job if you're going to get nothing more than someone doing jack shit for a living?

fact is...you wouldn't

the ideal situation is that everyone is doing a job they love doing...but the fact is how many people can truly say that about themselves?...the vast majority of people have shit jobs...even the higher paid ones (not the company directors etc but skilled or semi skilled work)....

loss of a monetary system also puts items that are necessarily scarce in a strange position.

Like, its all good to have an abundance of food or whatever, but there will only ever be one Mona Lisa. There is only so much land.

Also, short of star trek style replicators, money offers individuals the most possible freedom in determining their compensation for labor.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's your take on it. If you are correct then your Venus Cult might work...if you are correct though, even Communism might work. But there are certainly people that do something just for money. They do exists, what about them? (imo actually close to a majority) That's true, but a lot of jobs people only do for money, are shitty jobs that machines can do. Then there are jobs like stock brokers and accountancy, that wouldn't exist, as there is no money. Then there are just jobs that the person didn't want to do anyway, and look at the paycheck as the bright side.

If we take those out, as they would no longer exist, the number is a lot smaller.

And for those who would only do things for money, of course they wouldn't exist anyway, as it's a redesign of our culture. How to convince them? View the site.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm -- why we don't need a monetary system

Originally posted by Bardock42
I bet he wouldn't practice 8 hours a day to exhaustion. He probably doesn't anyway.

However, he practised to curl a ball from halfway to the top corner of a net. Did he do that for money, or because he thought it would be cool?

Originally posted by jaden101
People always do it for the money...at least that's my experience...i know several medical students in 4th year of their training and all of them without exception said "can't wait to be earning good money"...can't say i've ever heard any of them say "i'm doing it to help people" Probably because if they said that, they'll be accused of being a puff.

Originally posted by jaden101
without reward there is no incentive to better yourself to the extent that it would take a huge amount of effort We will be bettering ourselves. We were all created out of the big bang; from the same substance. We're all made of atoms, which are all made of the same things. In nature, there is no such thing as independence, as we are all dependent on eachother. Why? Because we are eachother. It is all one. Where would we be without the plants, the sun, or even scarrabs? By helping eachother, we are helping ourselves.

Motivation is a virtue. Humans are egotistical. When a painter makes a painting he really likes, he'll show his painting to everyone. He'd only want something in return (money) in a monetary system, as the conception is, the more money you have, the better you are.

Originally posted by jaden101
there's also no incentive to do difficult jobs such as fishermen, rig workers...etc...they are relatively well paid compared with menial jobs such as cleaners etc....but why would you put yourself in danger or do a physically difficult job if you're going to get nothing more than someone doing jack shit for a living? When a job is unpleasant, what happens?

You should get this right.



A machine does it for us, freeing us from doing it.

See: the industrial revolution.

Originally posted by jaden101
fact is...you wouldn't

the ideal situation is that everyone is doing a job they love doing...but the fact is how many people can truly say that about themselves?...the vast majority of people have shit jobs...even the higher paid ones (not the company directors etc but skilled or semi skilled work).... The problems from that is our shit education systems, the monetary system (you need money for college etc), human behaviour (competition, deceit) but more importantly, the lack of technology to do those jobs.

What's really important is that we spend trillions of dollars on police, prison, millitary, nuclear weapons, stock market etc. as well as wasting scientists and technicians time on exploring these fields, rather than working to make our lives easier.

Imagine if all the ancients did was fight between small and tall people, and exchange rocks for jobs which were being a table, piggy backing people down the roads, cleaning streets etc. and then yell at machines that replaced there jobs because now they don't have enough rocks to get food and water, and will now die.

Would've hindered our society greatly.

Originally posted by lord xyz
That's true, but a lot of jobs people only do for money, are shitty jobs that machines can do. Then there are jobs like stock brokers and accountancy, that wouldn't exist, as there is no money.

Fair enough on those, though I think you overestimate the ability of machines being able to do that many jobs as of yet.


Originally posted by lord xyz
Then there are just jobs that the person didn't want to do anyway, and look at the paycheck as the bright side.

What will happen with those? The need for those jobs will still be there? Who does them? Why?

Originally posted by lord xyz
If we take those out, as they would no longer exist, the number is a lot smaller.

A bit smaller, yes, I guess.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And for those who would only do things for money, of course they wouldn't exist anyway, as it's a redesign of our culture. How to convince them? View the site.

Err what? You lost me there logically, why would they not exist? That seems to be a very fundamental need for this society to work.

Originally posted by lord xyz
He probably doesn't anyway.

Hmm, I think most professional athletes do practice quite a lot.

Originally posted by lord xyz
However, he practised to curl a ball from halfway to the top corner of a net. Did he do that for money, or because he thought it would be cool?

I assume he did it initially because he thought it was cool. Whether he ever had gone to such length as he did without the incentive of money, I doubt. Then again, footballer is also not the most standard or generic of jobs.

Originally posted by inimalist
loss of a monetary system also puts items that are necessarily scarce in a strange position.

Like, its all good to have an abundance of food or whatever, but there will only ever be one Mona Lisa. There is only so much land.

Also, short of star trek style replicators, money offers individuals the most possible freedom in determining their compensation for labor. Nothing will be forever scarce, but it'd help if you named something that is scarce.

If the land fills up, we'll build space stations.

We can determine that without money. The thing is, would we want to? We don't have the freedom to be in a dictatorship. Is that a problem?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Probably because if they said that, they'll be accused of being a puff.

We will be bettering ourselves. We were all created out of the big bang; from the same substance. We're all made of atoms, which are all made of the same things. In nature, there is no such thing as independence, as we are all dependent on eachother. Why? Because we are eachother. It is all one. Where would we be without the plants, the sun, or even scarrabs? By helping eachother, we are helping ourselves.

Motivation is a virtue. Humans are egotistical. When a painter makes a painting he really likes, he'll show his painting to everyone. He'd only want something in return (money) in a monetary system, as the conception is, the more money you have, the better you are.

When a job is unpleasant, what happens?

You should get this right.



A machine does it for us, freeing us from doing it.

See: the industrial revolution.

The problems from that is our shit education systems, the monetary system (you need money for college etc), human behaviour (competition, deceit) but more importantly, the lack of technology to do those jobs.

What's really important is that we spend trillions of dollars on police, prison, millitary, nuclear weapons, stock market etc. as well as wasting scientists and technicians time on exploring these fields, rather than working to make our lives easier.

Imagine if all the ancients did was fight between small and tall people, and exchange rocks for jobs which were being a table, piggy backing people down the roads, cleaning streets etc. and then yell at machines that replaced there jobs because now they don't have enough rocks to get food and water, and will now die.

Would've hindered our society greatly. You mix a lot of interesting thought with a lot of illogical deductions. It's really quite interesting to read, you start out with a good point and then finish with a mind boggling idiotic or incorrect conclusion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You mix a lot of interesting thought with a lot of illogical deductions. It's really quite interesting to read, you start out with a good point and then finish with a mind boggling idiotic or incorrect conclusion. Yeah, insulting me like that means dick in a debate.

Maybe you should actually point out these so-called idiotic conclusions.

you put far too much faith in people...the fact is...if you're going to get the same things for doing nothing...as you would if you worked a neccessary but horrible job for a living..you would choose doing nothing

why would somebody do a sewer maintainence job when someone doing nothing would get the same?

why would someone put themselves through extremely mentally challenging or emotionally difficult jobs (paramedics at crash scenes etc) knowing that other people doing easier or no work at all will get the same?

why would someone work in a job where they could be subject to verbal or physical assault when they're aren't getting anything more than the people doing the assaulting?

they wouldn't

i understand the concept of a moneyless society from the resources POV...if the oil industry worked and extracted the oil for nothing then the processers could process it for nothing and give it to the companies who mine for minerals to make other things or to the companies to ship food etc etc...and eventually everything could be free

but how would you justify that someone still gets to live in a huge mansion and others live in tiny apartments when you're effectively saying that all jobs are worth the same

and if you're not saying that and merely giving out the resources on the basis of the contribution your job makes to society then how do you put a value on that?

science researchers should, in all fairness, be getting more than footballers...but they don't...and even in a cashless society it's doubtful that they would

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, insulting me like that means dick in a debate.

Maybe you should actually point out these so-called idiotic conclusions. k


Originally posted by lord xyz


In nature, there is no such thing as independence, as we are all dependent on eachother.

Incorrect. we are not all dependent on each other, we are dependent on a few things, many of the others might as well be totally different

Originally posted by lord xyz

Where would we be without the plants, the sun, or even scarrabs?

It would be a different universe. But since your point is we are all one, it wouldn't matter, cause it would still all be the same thing. You are not even thinking in your own belief.

Originally posted by lord xyz

By helping eachother, we are helping ourselves.

If you accept that there is a difference beteen us (i.e. us having different consciousness) then you must accept that one part of our "oneness" taking advantage or even destroying another part can have advantages to what we more commonly refer to as "self".


Originally posted by lord xyz

When a painter makes a painting he really likes, he'll show his painting to everyone.

That's your belief. There are cases where people made something and wanted it all to themselves. You just go by one sort of person, which might or might not even exist.



Originally posted by lord xyz

Imagine if all the ancients did was fight between small and tall people, and exchange rocks for jobs which were being a table, piggy backing people down the roads, cleaning streets etc. and then yell at machines that replaced there jobs because now they don't have enough rocks to get food and water, and will now die.

Would've hindered our society greatly.

Err, that's likely what they did. That's at least what Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Franconians, Europe of the 17th and 18th Century and the US of the 19th Century did...and they are responsible for most of the advancement in our society as well as some of the fastest. Your logic is broke there.


On the whole, as a sort of Utopia (a la Asimov's The Robots of Dawn) I like the idea. If we don't have to work anymore and can have all sorts of luxury it's a reasonable system (we'd need to be a lot less people really and it would be far, far in the future), but there's no reason to work on it now, a monetary system is, as of yet, the best way to advance society in the way you seem to want.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough on those, though I think you overestimate the ability of machines being able to do that many jobs as of yet. It would take time to develop, however, with so many people working for creation rather than destruction, it would improve development.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What will happen with those? The need for those jobs will still be there? Who does them? Why? There are people prepared to do shit jobs for love or whatever, but more importantly, machines can do those jobs for us.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Err what? You lost me there logically, why would they not exist? That seems to be a very fundamental need for this society to work. There is no money, so there will be no people just doing something for money.

Doing something for something in return, won't be evident. The argument is abundance, yet there are things that are not abundant.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I think most professional athletes do practice quite a lot. Yeah, but not to the point of exaustion because he wants money.


Originally posted by Bardock42
I assume he did it initially because he thought it was cool. Whether he ever had gone to such length as he did without the incentive of money, I doubt. Then again, footballer is also not the most standard or generic of jobs. Okay, did Darwin think up evolution because he wanted money? Did Attlee become Prime Minster because he wanted money? Did Bill Gates create Windows because he wanted money? (Well, maybe).

Originally posted by Bardock42
k


Incorrect. we are not all dependent on each other, we are dependent on a few things, many of the others might as well be totally different Not a few. Although, cigarettes and Dodos are pretty redundant. Still, this wasn't a stupid conclusion, just a generalisation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It would be a different universe. But since your point is we are all one, it wouldn't matter, cause it would still all be the same thing. You are not even thinking in your own belief. The point was, we'd be dead as we need them, as they are us.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you accept that there is a difference beteen us (i.e. us having different consciousness) then you must accept that one part of our "oneness" taking advantage or even destroying another part can have advantages to what we more commonly refer to as "self". That is true, however, we can destroy the bad, or we can change it into good.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's your belief. There are cases where people made something and wanted it all to themselves. You just go by one sort of person, which might or might not even exist. That greed comes out of the monetary system. (Opinion)

(Incase you get mad and yell at me for being stupid)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Err, that's likely what they did. That's at least what Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Franconians, Europe of the 17th and 18th Century and the US of the 19th Century did...and they are responsible for most of the advancement in our society as well as some of the fastest. Your logic is broke there. How can you not see the flaw in that system? That their lives were dependent on rocks, and because of it, hated technology which would've freed them from the labour?

Originally posted by Bardock42
On the whole, as a sort of Utopia (a la Asimov's The Robots of Dawn) I like the idea. If we don't have to work anymore and can have all sorts of luxury it's a reasonable system (we'd need to be a lot less people really and it would be far, far in the future), but there's no reason to work on it now, a monetary system is, as of yet, the best way to advance society in the way you seem to want. See Zeitgeist Addendum for the flaws in the monetary system.

Originally posted by jaden101
you put far too much faith in people...the fact is...if you're going to get the same things for doing nothing...as you would if you worked a neccessary but horrible job for a living..you would choose doing nothing And look like a leecher? Accept things the way they are rather than make them better? I wouldn't, neither would the culture in this system.

Originally posted by jaden101
why would somebody do a sewer maintainence job when someone doing nothing would get the same? They wouldn't. They'd build a machine to do the job. Infact, we could build the machines now, if we weren't in this monetary system where things are only made for profit.

Originally posted by jaden101
why would someone put themselves through extremely mentally challenging or emotionally difficult jobs (paramedics at crash scenes etc) knowing that other people doing easier or no work at all will get the same? THey're passionate about that sort of stuff?

Originally posted by jaden101
why would someone work in a job where they could be subject to verbal or physical assault when they're aren't getting anything more than the people doing the assaulting? Same reasons as before.

Originally posted by jaden101
they wouldn't

i understand the concept of a moneyless society from the resources POV...if the oil industry worked and extracted the oil for nothing then the processers could process it for nothing and give it to the companies who mine for minerals to make other things or to the companies to ship food etc etc...and eventually everything could be free Oh yeah, the venus project is against coal, oil and gas.

Originally posted by jaden101
but how would you justify that someone still gets to live in a huge mansion and others live in tiny apartments when you're effectively saying that all jobs are worth the same http://www.thevenusproject.com/intelli_house.htm

Originally posted by jaden101
and if you're not saying that and merely giving out the resources on the basis of the contribution your job makes to society then how do you put a value on that? Don't need value. It's only me I'm working for.

Originally posted by jaden101
science researchers should, in all fairness, be getting more than footballers...but they don't...and even in a cashless society it's doubtful that they would Wait, did you just say footballers would be payed more than scientists even if there was no money?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Nothing will be forever scarce, but it'd help if you named something that is scarce.

I did. The best example are things like the mona lisa, antiques, and other things that are "one offs".

The Mona Lisa cannot be distributed among all the people who might want it, so some form of price is needed. Using money to set that price allows all people more access to it.

Scarcity can also be caused by general choke points in production of raw materials or the product itself. Like, regardless of demand, oil can only be pumped out of the Earth so fast. Scarcity then can also refer to labor and skilled service. Something can be scarce if there are not enough people who know how to make it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
If the land fills up, we'll build space stations.

I see a few major problems with this.

the first, lets assume that in a system with no money, an individual who wants land brings people together voluntarily to make a space station. This does not change the scarcity of land, because even though there is more available, it is privately owned and distributed at the owner's whim. The only way it would eliviate the scarcity would be if the owner gave away pieces of the land.

If you propose a government will create these stations, you are essentially proposing slave labor (gvt rounds people up to make a space station and they don't get any money for their work. Then, the government gets to distribute this land as they see fit.

neither of those situations are desireable, imho. They certainly do not find a solution to limited amounts of land for people to live on.

I also kindof want to point out that "We'll make space stations" is, well, a little like appealing to God or Magic. A space station that can support long term habitation, not just for research or exploration, but for day to day living, is so far in the future its like saying "oh, we will teleport and have replicators". Its like saying we will train the world's greatest wizards.

Not to get onto a soap box, but I'd say you should check out Technocracy, especially technocracy.org. Like, I think people who like technology always focus on the wrong parts. You are thinking about how sci-fi tech could change the world, why not promote the efficent use of technology we already have? I could list off lots of things, but the idea that farming is not entirely mechanized or that schools are still these brick and mortar institutions that only teach those physically located in its geographic area. Technology that already exists could solve many problems. Getting rid of money and dreaming about living in the stars is a little fantastic, and not really rooted in any pragmatic reality. At the very least, it offers no policy options to get there other than "make space stations".

Originally posted by lord xyz
We can determine that without money.

I disagree. By paying someone in an abstract but universally accepted currency gives a person the ability to trade their labour for whatever they choose, as opposed to a barter system where you need to provide something that I need before I can work for you.

I'm open to other suggestions though

Originally posted by lord xyz
The thing is, would we want to?

I don't think so, money has worked very well for hundreds of years. I think policies aimed at eliviating the negative effects of poverty would be better than policies aimed at eliminating money.

Originally posted by lord xyz
We don't have the freedom to be in a dictatorship. Is that a problem?

the government tells you that you don't have the freedom to live in a dictatorship.

that seems rather... ironic?

Originally posted by inimalist
I did. The best example are things like the mona lisa, antiques, and other things that are "one offs".

The Mona Lisa cannot be distributed among all the people who might want it, so some form of price is needed. Using money to set that price allows all people more access to it. Or it could be shared among people. Though, I'll have to admit, you caught me off-guard.

Originally posted by inimalist
Scarcity can also be caused by general choke points in production of raw materials or the product itself. Like, regardless of demand, oil can only be pumped out of the Earth so fast. Scarcity then can also refer to labor and skilled service. Something can be scarce if there are not enough people who know how to make it. Which is why oil isn't used. We don't need it.

Originally posted by inimalist
I see a few major problems with this.

the first, lets assume that in a system with no money, an individual who wants land brings people together voluntarily to make a space station. This does not change the scarcity of land, because even though there is more available, it is privately owned and distributed at the owner's whim. The only way it would eliviate the scarcity would be if the owner gave away pieces of the land. I'm not following.

Space stations are an abundance. We have the technology to create it.

Originally posted by inimalist
If you propose a government will create these stations, you are essentially proposing slave labor (gvt rounds people up to make a space station and they don't get any money for their work. Then, the government gets to distribute this land as they see fit. Technicians create space stations, allowing us to live in space. No government involved.

Originally posted by inimalist
neither of those situations are desireable, imho. They certainly do not find a solution to limited amounts of land for people to live on. Yeah.

Originally posted by inimalist
I also kindof want to point out that "We'll make space stations" is, well, a little like appealing to God or Magic. A space station that can support long term habitation, not just for research or exploration, but for day to day living, is so far in the future its like saying "oh, we will teleport and have replicators". Its like saying we will train the world's greatest wizards. I think we already can. It's just a big shuttle, but it's a station.

Originally posted by inimalist
Not to get onto a soap box, but I'd say you should check out Technocracy, especially technocracy.org. Like, I think people who like technology always focus on the wrong parts. You are thinking about how sci-fi tech could change the world, why not promote the efficent use of technology we already have? I could list off lots of things, but the idea that farming is not entirely mechanized or that schools are still these brick and mortar institutions that only teach those physically located in its geographic area. Technology that already exists could solve many problems. Getting rid of money and dreaming about living in the stars is a little fantastic, and not really rooted in any pragmatic reality. At the very least, it offers no policy options to get there other than "make space stations". The Venus Project does use technology that already exists, and by abolishing the monetary system as well as religious and political institutions, technology can evolve unimaginably.

Originally posted by inimalist
I disagree. By paying someone in an abstract but universally accepted currency gives a person the ability to trade their labour for whatever they choose, as opposed to a barter system where you need to provide something that I need before I can work for you.

I'm open to other suggestions though Maybe.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think so, money has worked very well for hundreds of years. I think policies aimed at eliviating the negative effects of poverty would be better than policies aimed at eliminating money. Money hasn't worked. The top 10% own 80% of the world's wealth whereas billions die due to poverty. That, is just not right. We can save these people, but the first question asked is "How much will it cost?"

Originally posted by inimalist
the government tells you that you don't have the freedom to live in a dictatorship.

that seems rather... ironic? It's an example of one of the freedoms we don't need.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Or it could be shared among people. Though, I'll have to admit, you caught me off-guard.

That sounds dangerously close to the loss of private ownership... Would I not be allowed to own something that there were only one of if someone else wanted it? Their desire to use what I have supercedes my right to that which I own?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Which is why oil isn't used. We don't need it.

actually, as far as the world works today, we do need it.

It was also only an example. Pretend you have a star trek style replicator. The speed at which it is able to replicate things would be the limiting factor in how well it is able to provide for people. If the demand for things is more than the fastest rate of production of those things, a scarcity is created.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm not following.

Space stations are an abundance. We have the technology to create it.

abundance, in the way I am using it, means that there is more supply than demand. Switching from a scarcity based system to an abundance based one is one of the prime goals of technocracy.

Currently, there is more demand for space stations than there are space stations. They would only be in abundance if there were more available on the market than people who wanted to use them.

also, the scarcity wasn't space stations. Those were your solutions to the scarcity of land. Making space stations does not mean that land will ever become abundant, because the person who made the space station will still own it. That land is not necessarily available for the market, only if the owner plans to distribute it. With no money, you are depending on charity of those capable of organizing a post-21st century space program to just hand out what they have invested, at the very least, years of their time and huge resourses on. In fact, with no reward for making such a station, it is highly unlikely that anyone who could do that, would.

To explain that last part, investment into the infrastructure of a society is done because there is profit to be made from it. Build a road and you can ship materials better. Now, someone who is designing a space station would have to have a large staff of people who they are supporting. They would have to invest huge resource wealth into the project, which would likely cost them status in society, or at the very least, decreases their individual ability to enact change in the world.
But, given there is no payoff, they never gain any of that back. The people who you are expecting to build the future would be on the losing side of any investment equation.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Technicians create space stations, allowing us to live in space. No government involved.

I think you underestimate the scale of the project you are describing.

There are no technicians on the planet who would dedicate themselves, especially en mass as a space program requires, to building endless amounts of space stations for no personal gain, especially given it would be at a personal loss.

The only way a technician might be rewarded from the construction of a space station is through them being given ownership of some of it. Then you have really only proposed a tehno-barter type system, which does not address the scarcity of land (still privately owned). It also would seem to promote technicians only building one station, then retiring.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I think we already can. It's just a big shuttle, but it's a station.

I think you are underestimating the necessary breakthroughs at almost all levels of science that would be required to build something that you describe.

A "big shuttle" for instance, would have no gravity.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The Venus Project does use technology that already exists, and by abolishing the monetary system as well as religious and political institutions, technology can evolve unimaginably.

this is sort of what I mean. You are concerned with money as a concept, and religion and the abolition of politics in order to help humanity by releasing technology from the clutches of those things.

I'll even accept the premise (I think you would be hard pressed to show money, religion (in general), or political institutions prevent the evolution of technology, and you would be a fool to argue that technology should be allowed to progress with no moral grounding), none of these things are mutually exclusive with technological advancement. You are missing the trees for the forest.

Politics, greed, religion, they are such scapegoats in the way you are using them. If you focused your attention on, say, technological integration of people at all class levels, and the opening up of education through the internet to make available the best teaching in the world to all people, you would have so much more of an effect on the world than through telling people God doesn't exist, or through trying to make people equal by taking away their freedoms.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Maybe.

well, its pretty simple. Do I have more personal freedom if I can choose the payment for my labor, or if someone else chooses it for me?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Money hasn't worked. The top 10% own 80% of the world's wealth whereas billions die due to poverty. That, is just not right. We can save these people, but the first question asked is "How much will it cost?"

you really believe that without money all humans would be equal?

Originally posted by lord xyz
It's an example of one of the freedoms we don't need.

you can presume to tell me which freedoms I need?

Originally posted by inimalist
That sounds dangerously close to the loss of private ownership... Would I not be allowed to own something that there were only one of if someone else wanted it? Their desire to use what I have supercedes my right to that which I own? No. I think there should be self ownership.

TVP probably thinks that as well, I don't know, but I see your point.

As for getting something in return for that, moneyless trade isn't exactly a bad thing. Not as bad as the monetary system.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, as far as the world works today, we do need it. It's only needed in economics. Something that will be abolished.

Originally posted by inimalist
It was also only an example. Pretend you have a star trek style replicator. The speed at which it is able to replicate things would be the limiting factor in how well it is able to provide for people. If the demand for things is more than the fastest rate of production of those things, a scarcity is created. True. But in the monetary system, scarcity is favoured.

Originally posted by inimalist
abundance, in the way I am using it, means that there is more supply than demand. Switching from a scarcity based system to an abundance based one is one of the prime goals of technocracy. As well as the venus project. This project gets rid of the monetary system, as it favours scarcity.

Originally posted by inimalist
Currently, there is more demand for space stations than there are space stations. They would only be in abundance if there were more available on the market than people who wanted to use them. Markets wouldn't exist.

We can make space stations, pretty easily I think.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, the scarcity wasn't space stations. Those were your solutions to the scarcity of land. Making space stations does not mean that land will ever become abundant, because the person who made the space station will still own it. That land is not necessarily available for the market, only if the owner plans to distribute it. With no money, you are depending on charity of those capable of organizing a post-21st century space program to just hand out what they have invested, at the very least, years of their time and huge resourses on. In fact, with no reward for making such a station, it is highly unlikely that anyone who could do that, would. So, you're saying no one's ethical?

Originally posted by inimalist
To explain that last part, investment into the infrastructure of a society is done because there is profit to be made from it. Build a road and you can ship materials better. Now, someone who is designing a space station would have to have a large staff of people who they are supporting. They would have to invest huge resource wealth into the project, which would likely cost them status in society, or at the very least, decreases their individual ability to enact change in the world.
But, given there is no payoff, they never gain any of that back. The people who you are expecting to build the future would be on the losing side of any investment equation. I would.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you underestimate the scale of the project you are describing.

There are no technicians on the planet who would dedicate themselves, especially en mass as a space program requires, to building endless amounts of space stations for no personal gain, especially given it would be at a personal loss. That's not a very nice thing. That's quite depressing really.

Originally posted by inimalist
The only way a technician might be rewarded from the construction of a space station is through them being given ownership of some of it. Then you have really only proposed a tehno-barter type system, which does not address the scarcity of land (still privately owned). It also would seem to promote technicians only building one station, then retiring.Of course, since they built it, they'd most likely be in charge.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you are underestimating the necessary breakthroughs at almost all levels of science that would be required to build something that you describe.

A "big shuttle" for instance, would have no gravity. Of course, it'd have gravity. THere are loads of scientists working on trying to kill people. TVP would change that, make them work on ways to help people.

Originally posted by inimalist
this is sort of what I mean. You are concerned with money as a concept, and religion and the abolition of politics in order to help humanity by releasing technology from the clutches of those things.

I'll even accept the premise (I think you would be hard pressed to show money, religion (in general), or political institutions prevent the evolution of technology, and you would be a fool to argue that technology should be allowed to progress with no moral grounding), none of these things are mutually exclusive with technological advancement. You are missing the trees for the forest.

Politics, greed, religion, they are such scapegoats in the way you are using them. If you focused your attention on, say, technological integration of people at all class levels, and the opening up of education through the internet to make available the best teaching in the world to all people, you would have so much more of an effect on the world than through telling people God doesn't exist, or through trying to make people equal by taking away their freedoms. TVP does that.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, its pretty simple. Do I have more personal freedom if I can choose the payment for my labor, or if someone else chooses it for me? Yeah you could choose the payment, but what the venus project says is that we don't need it. It's no longer relevant.

Originally posted by inimalist
you really believe that without money all humans would be equal? I'm saying without the monetary system, most of the worlds problems wouldn't be there. In fact, maybe a different monetary system. If you are so sure that we need money.

The hell are you talking about? Oil is only needed in "economics"?

Also, you are gone insane mate. You your "TVP would make it" is no better than "A wizard done it" or "God did it"...why would TVP magically solve problems? What the **** do you base that on?

He knows what he's talking about. He mastered the piano in a few weeks, for Christ's sake.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The hell are you talking about? Oil is only needed in "economics"? The only purpose for oil is money. There are pleanty of other better energy sources.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, you are gone insane mate. You your "TVP would make it" is no better than "A wizard done it" or "God did it"...why would TVP magically solve problems? What the **** do you base that on? Maybe you should actually look into TVP. We have the technology for lots of things, had we not be hindered by money, our lives would be so much better.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
He knows what he's talking about. He mastered the piano in a few weeks, for Christ's sake. Ermm, okay.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The only purpose for oil is money. There are pleanty of other better energy sources.

Just that that's all hypothetical. We don't have sufficient working alternative energy. We are still dependent on

Originally posted by lord xyz
Maybe you should actually look into TVP. We have the technology for lots of things, had we not be hindered by money, our lives would be so much better.

Sounds like a illogical assumption to me. Totally taking human nature out of the equation. As far as I see, hardly anything would be done in your society, and someone would probably create money immediately upon realizing that he could live much better if he got stuff according to his ability and not according to...well...nothing.

Sorry, but "Wizard done it" will not convince me. I might as well go believe in Christianity then.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just that that's all hypothetical. We don't have sufficient working alternative energy. We are still dependent on Yeah we do.

http://www.oilgae.com/energy/sou/ae/re/geo/geo.html

Way to prove your ignorance.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sounds like a illogical assumption to me. Totally taking human nature out of the equation. There's no such thing as human nature. There's human behaviour, and that's always been changed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As far as I see, hardly anything would be done in your society, and someone would probably create money immediately upon realizing that he could live much better if he got stuff according to his ability and not according to...well...nothing. Aha. I expected that retort.

"We need money...I want my money"

People work for their own self interest, and then by choice introduce it to other people. No one works for anyone either, they work for themselves.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sorry, but "Wizard done it" will not convince me. I might as well go believe in Christianity then. Once again. Actually look at the site.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah we do.

http://www.oilgae.com/energy/sou/ae/re/geo/geo.html

Way to prove your ignorance.

Way to prove....nothing. What's up with all those horribly designed sites you visit?

Originally posted by lord xyz
There's no such thing as human nature. There's human behaviour, and that's always been changed.

Hahahaha. You fool.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Aha. I expected that retort.

"We need money...I want my money"

People work for their own self interest, and then by choice introduce it to other people. No one works for anyone either, they work for themselves.

Again. It's stupid. There won't be any cars (at least not nearly enough to supply the demand) made. The whole production line of a car is so huge and includes such shitty jobs that you won't get enough people to VOLUNTARILY do it. It's idiocy, but you are the guy to fall for some stupid scheme every other day, so I guess it makes sense.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Once again. Actually look at the site.

I did. But I refer to things you said. The site is hardly surfable. There are illogical walls of text, pictures made to look futuristic by putting on the maximum amount of black windows, and advertisements for their plans and programs and cds, and shit. If you want to argue it, produce the texts that support it, not say "look at the site, look at the site" ... that's very Deano of you. Then again, you are one of those conspiracy nuts, aren't you? (rhetorical)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Way to prove....nothing. What's up with all those horribly designed sites you visit? geothermal is way more resourcefull, efficient and renewable than oil. Wind, wave etc are also good.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahahaha. You fool. K.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Again. It's stupid. There won't be any cars (at least not nearly enough to supply the demand) made. The whole production line of a car is so huge and includes such shitty jobs that you won't get enough people to VOLUNTARILY do it. It's idiocy, but you are the guy to fall for some stupid scheme every other day, so I guess it makes sense. This whole argument that people won't do it is tiresome.

First of all, I would, and I'm sure others would.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/multimedia/welcome.htm

This vid might give you more insight.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did. But I refer to things you said. The site is hardly surfable. There are illogical walls of text, pictures made to look futuristic by putting on the maximum amount of black windows, and advertisements for their plans and programs and cds, and shit. If you want to argue it, produce the texts that support it, not say "look at the site, look at the site" ... that's very Deano of you. Then again, you are one of those conspiracy nuts, aren't you? (rhetorical) K.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah we do.

http://www.oilgae.com/energy/sou/ae/re/geo/geo.html

Way to prove your ignorance.

there are no alternative fuels that will be able to replace oil in our infrastructure for at least a decade, and that is provided we invested spcifically into eliminating it from the equation.

Geothermal, solar, wind, nuclear, none have the requisite industry built around them to meet the demands of the energy market, at this point. Most are still in such initial stages of the technology that they still don't come close to oil as far as wattage per dollar is concerned.

These are things even environmentalists on the far left agree with. They propose a slow process toward sustainable, renewable resources. None think we are not dependant on oil.

This also ignores the plethora of other petro-chemical products which probably compose 80% of the things you are sitting close to now.

Long story short, if we ran out of oil tomorrow and there were no financial or labor constraints, the basic infrastructure surrounding any alternative fuel does not exist to meet our needs. It will take years of specifically targeted industrial growth to get any of the ones you might mention to the point of being able to replace oil in our society.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Of course, it'd have gravity. THere are loads of scientists working on trying to kill people. TVP would change that, make them work on ways to help people.

That has to rank among the most illogical and poorly informed things ever said.

Originally posted by inimalist
there are no alternative fuels that will be able to replace oil in our infrastructure for at least a decade, and that is provided we invested spcifically into eliminating it from the equation.

Geothermal, solar, wind, nuclear, none have the requisite industry built around them to meet the demands of the energy market, at this point. Most are still in such initial stages of the technology that they still don't come close to oil as far as wattage per dollar is concerned.

These are things even environmentalists on the far left agree with. They propose a slow process toward sustainable, renewable resources. None think we are not dependant on oil.

This also ignores the plethora of other petro-chemical products which probably compose 80% of the things you are sitting close to now.

Long story short, if we ran out of oil tomorrow and there were no financial or labor constraints, the basic infrastructure surrounding any alternative fuel does not exist to meet our needs. It will take years of specifically targeted industrial growth to get any of the ones you might mention to the point of being able to replace oil in our society. Yes there is.

There are pleanty of other ways to generate electricity, and every car can be electric, easily, and we don't need aeroplanes either.

This is explained in Zeitgeist Addendum.

Dollars are no longer relevant, but those energy resources are efficient. If just 3 US states were of wind farms, that power would be enough to power the whole country.

In the link I provided for Marius, it's stated that we can have 200ZJ, 2,000 with the Venus project.

The entire world uses 0.5ZJ of power per year.

If we got geothermal plants, solar plants etc with enough fuel to sustain the world (which they would) then oil can be thrown away.

The only thing holding us back is money, and the society based around money.

so you believe if oil ran out tomorrow we would have no energy problems?

Originally posted by inimalist
so you believe if oil ran out tomorrow we would have no energy problems? No.

Originally posted by lord xyz
If we got geothermal plants, solar plants etc with enough fuel to sustain the world (which they would) then oil can be thrown away.

Originally posted by lord xyz

This whole argument that people won't do it is tiresome.

First of all, I would, and I'm sure others would.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/multimedia/welcome.htm

This vid might give you more insight.



You would do what? What would your job be in that new world? What would you do?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You would do what? What would your job be in that new world? What would you do? Not decided yet.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not decided yet.

You got a general field? Would you become a garbage man? Or would you work in a mine? Be honest? Do you think you should do one of the shit jobs that are necessary to sustain society, or would you be one of the people having a cool job. Maybe you could be a rock star or something....and if it doesn't work out the others will pick up the bill?

Originally posted by lord xyz
If we got geothermal plants, solar plants etc with enough fuel to sustain the world (which they would) then oil can be thrown away.

you don't see that as a fairly large "if"?

to me at least, and this is largely my concern with futurism in general, planning for a post-oil world, simply based on the fact that it is theoretically possible to eliminate oil, is of almost no practical use to anyone.

I did look at the site, and it offers no explanation of how we could switch our economy and infrastructure to one that was powered from something renewable. They offered pretty renderings of space port looking buildings, and great theoretical ideas about potential future energy sources, but thats where it ended.

lol, let me give you a more concrete example. One of the first things technocrats accomplished was the redesigning of buses to allow more people per ride, thus more income to the transport industry, etc. They did this using technology available at the time, and not in order to bring about any universal social change, but to directly enact change in society and make what infrastructure already existed more useful.

I hear what you are saying, and I don't think anyone is arguing against a technological utopia, but I feel it is too muddled with pie in the sky idealism. We don't need redesigned airports or urban sprawls designed from the top down for ecological purposes. Those are great ideas, and we should implement them into real policy design, just as concepts in themselves, they actually offer no real options for change or reform.

Also, just to remind you, oil is used for many things that are not energy related. There are certain options (bacteria can be enginered to produce plastic) but this is nowhere near ready for large scale industrial implementation.

Also, the fact that those alternative power sources are not available today for use means that our dependance on oil is not simply due to the fact we use money (which is a ridiculous claim anyways)

Originally posted by Bardock42
You got a general field? Would you become a garbage man? Or would you work in a mine? Be honest? Do you think you should do one of the shit jobs that are necessary to sustain society, or would you be one of the people having a cool job. Maybe you could be a rock star or something....and if it doesn't work out the others will pick up the bill?

how the **** are there going to be rock stars, or any artists for that matter, in a society where they cannot sell their products?

Originally posted by inimalist
how the **** are there going to be rock stars, or any artists for that matter, in a society where they cannot sell their products? Shh, he's going to be a rock star!!!


Then again, they probably won't have TVs, Radios, Mp3 Players, Computers, etc. so..maybe not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Shh, he's going to be a rock star!!!


Then again, they probably won't have TVs, Radios, Mp3 Players, Computers, etc. so..maybe not.

lol, I'm sure the non-governmental organizing body which, in communist-esque style, commisions and distributes space stations could come up with a way to make those. EDIT: I suppose it could also make rockstars.

lol, build a computer from raw materials, you can keep it! Anyone else helps you, you must share it!

Originally posted by Bardock42
You got a general field? Would you become a garbage man? Or would you work in a mine? Be honest? Do you think you should do one of the shit jobs that are necessary to sustain society, or would you be one of the people having a cool job. Maybe you could be a rock star or something....and if it doesn't work out the others will pick up the bill? Work as a garbage man? Wouldn't it be better to build machines to do that job?

Guess what, we can build those machines now.

Who'll be the garbage men in the meantime? The current garbage men. Then, they'll no longer be garbage men, as they don't have to be.

Originally posted by inimalist
how the **** are there going to be rock stars, or any artists for that matter, in a society where they cannot sell their products? Amazingly, we can play music without the need of money.

Do we charge our family members when we're playing a piece to them?

Originally posted by inimalist
you don't see that as a fairly large "if"? No. As we have the resources.

Originally posted by inimalist
to me at least, and this is largely my concern with futurism in general, planning for a post-oil world, simply based on the fact that it is theoretically possible to eliminate oil, is of almost no practical use to anyone. It is possible to eliminate oil.

Originally posted by inimalist
I did look at the site, and it offers no explanation of how we could switch our economy and infrastructure to one that was powered from something renewable. They offered pretty renderings of space port looking buildings, and great theoretical ideas about potential future energy sources, but thats where it ended.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/vp_jac/interview.htm Try here.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, let me give you a more concrete example. One of the first things technocrats accomplished was the redesigning of buses to allow more people per ride, thus more income to the transport industry, etc. They did this using technology available at the time, and not in order to bring about any universal social change, but to directly enact change in society and make what infrastructure already existed more useful. That would be what happens in the venus project.

Originally posted by inimalist
I hear what you are saying, and I don't think anyone is arguing against a technological utopia, but I feel it is too muddled with pie in the sky idealism. We don't need redesigned airports or urban sprawls designed from the top down for ecological purposes. Those are great ideas, and we should implement them into real policy design, just as concepts in themselves, they actually offer no real options for change or reform. Our culture needs redesigning.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, just to remind you, oil is used for many things that are not energy related. There are certain options (bacteria can be enginered to produce plastic) but this is nowhere near ready for large scale industrial implementation. Well, if it's clean, efficient and abundant, I see no problem with it.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, the fact that those alternative power sources are not available today for use means that our dependance on oil is not simply due to the fact we use money (which is a ridiculous claim anyways) Yeah it is.

Oil is a big industry, people don't see an alternative (due to the monetary system), and none of the alternaitves are looked at thoroughly as everyone uses oil, and it's everywhere, cheaply. People only go for the cheap stuff, as that means more shit for them.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Work as a garbage man? Wouldn't it be better to build machines to do that job?

Guess what, we can build those machines now.

Who'll be the garbage men in the meantime? The current garbage men. Then, they'll no longer be garbage men, as they don't have to be.


Will you force the garbage men to continue working as that? What if it takes 20 years to create machines able to do it? What if it takes 100? When the people that are garbage men now die, and we don't have an alternative, who will be garbage men then?

Hey Bardock, you wanna see my Venus Project?

Originally posted by BackFire
Hey Bardock, you wanna see my Venus Project? Oh God, I hope you mean your vagina.

I do(n't)

XYZ: can you give me an example of something in the real world that has the requisite technology necessary to provide the role of trash collection?

Like, we do not have the robotics technology to create an autonomous vehicle that could navigate public roads full of pedestrians and traffic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Will you force the garbage men to continue working as that? What if it takes 20 years to create machines able to do it? What if it takes 100? When the people that are garbage men now die, and we don't have an alternative, who will be garbage men then? I guess it's more productive to keep the monetary system until TVP can work.

Originally posted by inimalist
XYZ: can you give me an example of something in the real world that has the requisite technology necessary to provide the role of trash collection?

Like, we do not have the robotics technology to create an autonomous vehicle that could navigate public roads full of pedestrians and traffic. I can not.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I guess it's more productive to keep the monetary system until TVP can work.


That does seem sensible.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That does seem sensible. Well, I never really said we should just change straight away when the venus project is so unproduced.

That was just assumed.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, I never really said we should just change straight away when the venus project is so unproduced.

That was just assumed. I guess. You argued we could though.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Amazingly, we can play music without the need of money.

Do we charge our family members when we're playing a piece to them?

so in your world art is limited to what people produce for their families?

Originally posted by lord xyz
No. As we have the resources.

It is possible to eliminate oil.

how many constructed wind turbines do you think there are? How many geo thermal plants?

astoundingly, we will need to invest huge amounts of oil into the design and manufacturing of these devices.

your future depends on the proper use of the oil we have now in order to create new energy technologies.

Originally posted by lord xyz
http://www.thevenusproject.com/vp_jac/interview.htm Try here.

I'm actually passingly familiar with Fresco's work and ideas, and he used to be a technocrat.

not to sound extreme, but the man is essentially proposing the most intensive nanny state I could imagine. People are looked after by technology? pffft. Technology is a tool of man, not the other way around.

I'm also not really a fan of the whole "we are one with nature" stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of problems with the party line of technocrats too, so this isn't like an ego thing. I just tend to think the Venus Project represents nothing more than techno-communism.

Originally posted by lord xyz
That would be what happens in the venus project.

I find it quite obnoxious that any example of positive technological change I give that doesn't fit your model is dismissed as if you had already thought of it first.

The interview says nothing of practical technological efficiency, you have not mentioned it in any realistic sense (other than to propose that the manufacture of space stations and autonomous vehicles is easy). Fresco proposes revolutionary change, he is not proposing rational technological integration. ****, one of his "phases" is to try and construct a top down city, as if it is even remotely relevant. What, we are going to just relocate every person on the planet into new cities?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Our culture needs redesigning.

revolutions are nearly uniformly bad

EDIT: I'm going to back off that a little bit: Revolutions which seek to fundamentally change a society normally have more negative outcomes than positive.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, if it's clean, efficient and abundant, I see no problem with it.

indeed, I think finding a way to get plastic resins manufacturers to incorporate this technology would be amazing. Both the positive and negative is that the plastic is biodegradable. So, given how disposable plastic stuff is, it will mean less overall garbage, though it also means shorter shelf life for stuff that is more permanent.

also, on the subject of biodegradable. Don't you think that the promotion of home composting would do more to remove the trash burden for far less resources than any attempt to design a self automated trash collection system?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah it is.

Oil is a big industry, people don't see an alternative (due to the monetary system), and none of the alternaitves are looked at thoroughly as everyone uses oil, and it's everywhere, cheaply. People only go for the cheap stuff, as that means more shit for them.

I think you miss my point

we need oil because that is what our cars run on. In 20 years, if all our cars run on something else, we will need it and that will become big business.

It has nothing to do with money, it has to do with infrastructure. You might be correct in assuming that oil is prevalent because it was cheap, but can you point to another fuel that was available at the time oil was integrated into our infrastructure which only greed prevented from becoming prevalent?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess. You argued we could though. Hmm, I believe I said we have the resources to make it happen (or most anyway), but not an instant change.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Hmm, I believe I said we have the resources to make it happen (or most anyway), but not an instant change.

interesting

The Venus Project does present itself as a revolutionary movement however

Originally posted by lord xyz
I guess it's more productive to keep the monetary system until TVP can work.


Which won't be until the mid 22nd century according to Lord Roddenberry.

Originally posted by inimalist
so in your world art is limited to what people produce for their families? No, the point is we don't need money. The motive is not to get money, the motive is to show off how good you are.

Originally posted by inimalist
how many constructed wind turbines do you think there are? How many geo thermal plants? Currently, not many. But it's not about how many there are, it's how good the power is, and do we have the resources to get it.

Originally posted by inimalist
astoundingly, we will need to invest huge amounts of oil into the design and manufacturing of these devices.

your future depends on the proper use of the oil we have now in order to create new energy technologies. Yeah, but the oil will eventually be redundant.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm actually passingly familiar with Fresco's work and ideas, and he used to be a technocrat.

not to sound extreme, but the man is essentially proposing the most intensive nanny state I could imagine. People are looked after by technology? pffft. Technology is a tool of man, not the other way around.

I'm also not really a fan of the whole "we are one with nature" stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of problems with the party line of technocrats too, so this isn't like an ego thing. I just tend to think the Venus Project represents nothing more than techno-communism. It seems pretty communist to me as well, at first. But then I saw it as a peaceful society where everyone's goal is to make life better.

I believe this people looked after technology isn't like a nanny state, more, we have personal slaves.

Originally posted by inimalist
I find it quite obnoxious that any example of positive technological change I give that doesn't fit your model is dismissed as if you had already thought of it first.If your technology isn't as good, it won't be accepted socially, and thus, you'd have to think up a better one.

It's better than you getting money off of your insufficient product and keeping things scarce to maximise profits, and using advertising to sell it to people who don't need it, harming the environment, etc.

Originally posted by inimalist
The interview says nothing of practical technological efficiency, you have not mentioned it in any realistic sense (other than to propose that the manufacture of space stations and autonomous vehicles is easy). Fresco proposes revolutionary change, he is not proposing rational technological integration. ****, one of his "phases" is to try and construct a top down city, as if it is even remotely relevant. What, we are going to just relocate every person on the planet into new cities? I do not know.

Originally posted by inimalist
revolutions are nearly uniformly bad French, American?

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, I think finding a way to get plastic resins manufacturers to incorporate this technology would be amazing. Both the positive and negative is that the plastic is biodegradable. So, given how disposable plastic stuff is, it will mean less overall garbage, though it also means shorter shelf life for stuff that is more permanent.

also, on the subject of biodegradable. Don't you think that the promotion of home composting would do more to remove the trash burden for far less resources than any attempt to design a self automated trash collection system? Whatever works.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you miss my point

we need oil because that is what our cars run on. In 20 years, if all our cars run on something else, we will need it and that will become big business. Our cars don't need to run on petrol.

Did you say if everyone used electric, oil will become big business.

Originally posted by inimalist
It has nothing to do with money, it has to do with infrastructure. You might be correct in assuming that oil is prevalent because it was cheap, but can you point to another fuel that was available at the time oil was integrated into our infrastructure which only greed prevented from becoming prevalent? No.

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting

The Venus Project does present itself as a revolutionary movement however When the project is finished.

Hopefully we'll draw some aliens to run for political office. I say YES!!

Originally posted by lord xyz
It seems pretty communist to me as well, at first. But then I saw it as a peaceful society where everyone's goal is to make life better.

Which would make it almost exactly like communism and still would never work.

Originally posted by Bardock42



I did. But I refer to things you said. The site is hardly surfable. There are illogical walls of text, pictures made to look futuristic by putting on the maximum amount of black windows, and advertisements for their plans and programs and cds, and shit. If you want to argue it, produce the texts that support it, not say "look at the site, look at the site" ... that's very Deano of you. Then again, you are one of those conspiracy nuts, aren't you? (rhetorical)

chill the **** out MAN. or i'll come over to germany and take your soul

Originally posted by Deano
chill the **** out MAN. or i'll come over to germany and take your soul I'm in England, mate.

so i bought these plane tickets for nothing then did i ? thanks a bunch

Originally posted by Deano
so i bought these plane tickets for nothing then did i ? thanks a bunch Well, you could still go to Germany and beat up Jews Gays Black people Gingers Asians Slavs

Business people.

XYZ:

How familiar are you with Anarcho-syndicalist philosophy?

I think it might be right up your ally Stuff like wage slavery sounds a lot like what TVP bases its ideas on.

Not a clue.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
You have to look at this as a realist. This cannot happen without bloodshed or war.

Of course people look towards politicians for answers and leadership. Why else has this system been around for centuries?

Actually its been around for about 2 centuries, really not very long at all, and saying people look to politicians for answers is a big generalization.

As for capitalism, that has been around for 2 centuries as well... kind of a strange coincidence...

Regarding the Venus project, the reason economics/capitalism isn't incorporated into it is because there will a different kind of economy, that has nothing to do with money as the lubricant between buyers and sellers.

The trade will be through resource and information. If necessities are distributed by a cybernetic core to each individual via automation, that will cut out a lot of the cost right there, and to maintain fairness there would need to be a pseudo-bartering system required.

So you provide your thoughts and opinions on how to improve things and you obtain food, water, energy and materials to bring your ideas to fruition. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone, and enough raw materials and labor to make this possible a thousand times over. The simple fact is, money is obsolete and the economy is evolving, already information is becoming a main currency, the question is, will it be used to promote joy or fear?

Windswept gets it.

Originally posted by inimalist
so in your world art is limited to what people produce for their families?



how many constructed wind turbines do you think there are? How many geo thermal plants?

astoundingly, we will need to invest huge amounts of oil into the design and manufacturing of these devices.

your future depends on the proper use of the oil we have now in order to create new energy technologies.


Ok, well to your first question, the idea was more that if you can get humans to treat each other like a loving family (and yes it happens) then you have freedom.

As for your statement about renewable energy, try looking up nanograss, solar panels and a new kind of wind power at this site -> www dot magenn dot com (sorry i'm new, and not a spammer)

Oil is irrelevant we're just made to believe its essential (lol essential oils)

Everything is made of energy, therefore if you know how to make something from pure energy, you can make anything.

Sounds crazy and impossible, but so was flying.

Originally posted by Windswept7
Ok, well to your first question, the idea was more that if you can get humans to treat each other like a loving family (and yes it happens) then you have freedom.

non-sequitur

why don't you elaborate on that

Originally posted by Windswept7
As for your statement about renewable energy, try looking up nanograss, solar panels and a new kind of wind power at this site -> www dot magenn dot com (sorry i'm new, and not a spammer)

None of which currently exist to meet our energy needs.

Originally posted by Windswept7
Oil is irrelevant we're just made to believe its essential (lol essential oils)

Tomorrow morning when I get up, what other fuel is there going to be to put into my car and make the power in my home work?

Your issue, much like XYZs, is that your eyes are bigger than your stomach.

Everyone can imagine utopian sci-fi worlds. If that was all that was necessary to create human peace and prosperity, we would be there by now.

Unfortunately, these ideas propose little, if any, policy options for hear and now, and just rely on other people (re: scientists) to answer the problems in your system.

Originally posted by Windswept7
Everything is made of energy, therefore if you know how to make something from pure energy, you can make anything.

pure energy is a meaningless scientific term

Proposing matter-to-energy conversion as a potential way to replace oil is the exact same as saying "We will have wizards do it"

lol, and what do you mean "Construct something from energy"?

Originally posted by Windswept7
Sounds crazy and impossible, but so was flying.

great, keep supporting a bunch of fairy tales so removed from reality that they promote absolutely no potential action for policy change that would affect the lives of people.

Originally posted by inimalist

Your issue, much like XYZs, is that your eyes are bigger than your stomach.

Everyone can imagine utopian sci-fi worlds. If that was all that was necessary to create human peace and prosperity, we would be there by now.

Unfortunately, these ideas propose little, if any, policy options for hear and now, and just rely on other people (re: scientists) to answer the problems in your system. The idea is, if we have a change in conscienceness, we can get that utopia much much faster than our current system which instists on using out-dated ideologies.

The most important point is the monetary system produces scarcity, the venus project produces abundance.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The idea is, if we have a change in conscienceness, we can get that utopia much much faster than our current system which instists on using out-dated ideologies.

oh, a change in consciousness, now I get it, thanks for putting it into such unambiguous terms

Originally posted by lord xyz
The most important point is the monetary system produces scarcity, the venus project produces abundance.

how does the monetary system create scarcity in, say, the Mona Lisa?

How does the monetary system create scarcity in, say, everything else?

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, a change in consciousness, now I get it, thanks for putting it into such unambiguous terms



how does the monetary system create scarcity in, say, the Mona Lisa?

How does the monetary system create scarcity in, say, everything else? You're welcome.

The monetary system produces scarcity in diamonds for example.

If a diamond mine finds 10 times the normal supply, they'd lose their money, as the value drops. Therefore the incentive is to burn diamonds in order to put the value up.

We have enough food to feed everyone, but because it requires money to feed everyone, we can't, making food scarce.

Scarcity is already present in the mona lisa, and that is a problem in the venus project, I must admit.

bad example

the price of diamonds on market is not related to the supply, as diamonds are not a normally priced item.

High class items actually have the problem where, if their price drops, demand drops. Finding more diamonds would be a bumper crop, because there is a lower limit to how much you can sell them for, because there is a point where they become unattractive just because a low cost makes people think they are cheep.

The problem with food is distribution. And like I said, I don't support communism, or any system where a central authority is given the power to distribute food to people. A system powerful enough to give you what you want is also powerful enough to take it away.

Originally posted by inimalist
non-sequitur

why don't you elaborate on that



None of which currently exist to meet our energy needs.



Tomorrow morning when I get up, what other fuel is there going to be to put into my car and make the power in my home work?

Your issue, much like XYZs, is that your eyes are bigger than your stomach.

Everyone can imagine utopian sci-fi worlds. If that was all that was necessary to create human peace and prosperity, we would be there by now.

Unfortunately, these ideas propose little, if any, policy options for hear and now, and just rely on other people (re: scientists) to answer the problems in your system.



pure energy is a meaningless scientific term

Proposing matter-to-energy conversion as a potential way to replace oil is the exact same as saying "We will have wizards do it"

lol, and what do you mean "Construct something from energy"?



great, keep supporting a bunch of fairy tales so removed from reality that they promote absolutely no potential action for policy change that would affect the lives of people.

I'm sorry I showed any idealism at all, I didn't realize it was such a weakness to find a positive goal for humanity.

A loving family.. hmm that seems like a society that would love unconditionally, and HOW do we do that you ask?

Start smiling =)

Some people may seem like grumpy pricks but challenge yourself, make them smile, make their day, it's really fun, you should try it. As soon as you accomplish your goal you know you've started something good, that will ripple out they will then be in a good mood and they will make other people smile and so on.

Now smiling is a long way from unconditional love, but it's something you can do right now and it DOES work, when people start being happy they will spread that joy to other people and its INFECTIOUS!

Also if you disagree with them, agree to disagree! If you have different opinions to someone, that's GREAT! Why?
Because it makes life interesting and fun, why do you use these forums? Because you love debating, giving your opinions and ideas. If you didn't criticise me, then how would I learn? We should celebrate being different because that's what makes humans awesome.

As for your second point, awesome, your car runs on petrol, did you know that you can get it converted to gas? Did you know that you can get a solar panel put on your roof, and any energy you don't use, say while your at work, gets put back into the power grid, and you get money for it! Electric cars are quickly becoming available, and even though it is a lightweight prototype,
au dot youtube dot com/watch?v=1NCOPLEJOl0 (sorry, new not a spam-er)
The Helios solar powered aircraft opens amazing possibilities.

Do your research, find out what humans are REALLY capable of, if you hold on so tight to your critical views, you may miss something beautiful.

This is not some far off sci-fi dream, this is actual technology we have RIGHT NOW, feasible affordable, and self replenishing, the reason we aren't there right now is because people don't believe the technology exists or as you said inamalist,

"If that was all that was necessary to create human peace and prosperity, we would be there by now."

But this is untrue because in Australia there are communities that are self sustained and fully supportive to each other using the technology and information that we have available today.

As for the creating matter from energy, yes that's quite a way off, but it is theoretically possible, and it is something we will eventually be able to do when we understand physics better, perhaps when we unify the laws we will have some breakthroughs.

Anything is possible, because anything is possible.

Never underestimate anything, negative or positive.

Hav fun =)

Originally posted by inimalist
bad example

the price of diamonds on market is not related to the supply, as diamonds are not a normally priced item.

High class items actually have the problem where, if their price drops, demand drops. Finding more diamonds would be a bumper crop, because there is a lower limit to how much you can sell them for, because there is a point where they become unattractive just because a low cost makes people think they are cheep.

The problem with food is distribution. And like I said, I don't support communism, or any system where a central authority is given the power to distribute food to people. A system powerful enough to give you what you want is also powerful enough to take it away. The system tries to make us self sustaining, no super power giving us everything.

It's not Communist China.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The system tries to make us self sustaining, no super power giving us everything.

It's not Communist China. How would it work though?


How would we get people to sort through our garbage? Who would work in coal mines. On oil rafters. Who'd work in a factory 8 hours a day? Who'd clean the shit of our elders?


If your answer is robots, then cute, but then it is not possible yet, is it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would it work though?


How would we get people to sort through our garbage? Who would work in coal mines. On oil rafters. Who'd work in a factory 8 hours a day? Who'd clean the shit of our elders?

Donations.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would it work though?


How would we get people to sort through our garbage? Who would work in coal mines. On oil rafters. Who'd work in a factory 8 hours a day? Who'd clean the shit of our elders?


If your answer is robots, then cute, but then it is not possible yet, is it? No, we would have to build robots before this society is taken, however, this society would make sure the robots are built.

So, it's a bit of a grey area.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Donations.

I doubt donations would cov....oh, I get it, haha.


Totally different thing, of course, still funny.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, we would have to build robots before this society is taken, however, this society would make sure the robots are built.

So, it's a bit of a grey area. That sounds a bit of idiocy, not grey area.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That sounds a bit of idiocy, not grey area. Nah.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The system tries to make us self sustaining, no super power giving us everything.


-enough food is produced on the planet currently to feed everyone

-the reason people are not being fed is because the food is privately owned and is then sent to restaurant chains, grocery stores, etc. In third world nations, it is largely because the food is being shipped to the West.

-In some degree of agreement with what you said, food is scarce because it is privately owned (the reason this isn't total agreement is because you said money causes scarcity, not that private ownership causes scarcity). Because of private ownership of the crops by the farmer or by the corporation who pays their bills, food goes where the owner wants it to go and is not necessarily distributed to those who need it.

-Because the scarcity is caused by private distribution of food (as there is already enough, it is not physically scarce) eliminating this scarcity would involve removing the private ownership of food OR the spontaneous decision of the people who own the food to give it out based on individual need rather than for profit motivated reasons.

-The last option is, I'm sure we can agree, silly. Farmers and corporations are not going to toil and invest huge resource wealth into growing food which they do not profit from. It is a lose-lose situation for a farmer. They lose time and resources, then they lose the product of their labour.

-Thus, the only way to ensure proper distribution of food to everyone is to create a mechanism by which the production and distribution of food are controlled. The food has to be collected by someone, the decision of who gets what has to be made by someone, and the distribution has to be made by someone. Call it "the system" or "dear leader", that is too much power being concentrated in whatever executive body there would be. In many ways it is "techno-feudalism".

Originally posted by lord xyz
It's not Communist China.

careful...

Originally posted by Windswept7
I'm sorry I showed any idealism at all, I didn't realize it was such a weakness to find a positive goal for humanity.

I didn't realize that posting your opinion on an internet discussion forum meant that you didn't want people to comment on your thoughts

Originally posted by Windswept7
A loving family.. hmm that seems like a society that would love unconditionally, and HOW do we do that you ask?

Start smiling =)

Some people may seem like grumpy pricks but challenge yourself, make them smile, make their day, it's really fun, you should try it. As soon as you accomplish your goal you know you've started something good, that will ripple out they will then be in a good mood and they will make other people smile and so on.

Now smiling is a long way from unconditional love, but it's something you can do right now and it DOES work, when people start being happy they will spread that joy to other people and its INFECTIOUS!

Also if you disagree with them, agree to disagree! If you have different opinions to someone, that's GREAT! Why?
Because it makes life interesting and fun, why do you use these forums? Because you love debating, giving your opinions and ideas. If you didn't criticise me, then how would I learn? We should celebrate being different because that's what makes humans awesome.

gibberish

also, doesn't address how family=freedom.

Originally posted by Windswept7
As for your second point, awesome, your car runs on petrol, did you know that you can get it converted to gas? Did you know that you can get a solar panel put on your roof, and any energy you don't use, say while your at work, gets put back into the power grid, and you get money for it! Electric cars are quickly becoming available, and even though it is a lightweight prototype,
au dot youtube dot com/watch?v=1NCOPLEJOl0 (sorry, new not a spam-er)
The Helios solar powered aircraft opens amazing possibilities.

my point: Oil is essential because it is what our infrastructure and technology run on

your point: oil isn't essential because there are other options possible in the future

my point: the future isn't now. Right now oil is necessary.

your point: look at this stuff that isn't ready right now.

do you see where you are missing what I'm saying? I've never said anything against alternative fuels. Oil is necessary because the alternatives do not exist today to replace it. They might some day, and then oil wouldn't be necessary, but now it is. Its really easy.

Originally posted by Windswept7
Do your research, find out what humans are REALLY capable of,

ironic in the extreme. Har Har!

Originally posted by Windswept7
if you hold on so tight to your critical views, you may miss something beautiful.

oh right, so I should open my mind to the point where my brains fall out

Originally posted by Windswept7
This is not some far off sci-fi dream, this is actual technology we have RIGHT NOW, feasible affordable, and self replenishing, the reason we aren't there right now is because people don't believe the technology exists or as you said inamalist,

I'm sorry sir, but if you think there is an affordable and mature fuel source that could, if the political will existed, be immediately adopted to completely eliminate our dependence on oil, you have drank some terrible kool-aide.

The technological advances that could put solar there are likely to happen in 5-10 years. That doesn't even begin to deal with the logistics of changing the entire infrastructure of the developed world.

Originally posted by Windswept7
"If that was all that was necessary to create human peace and prosperity, we would be there by now."

But this is untrue because in Australia there are communities that are self sustained and fully supportive to each other using the technology and information that we have available today.

I am aware of such groups, and they offer a glimpse of what might be possible for humanity.

Unfortunately, they don't have to worry about cities full of millions of people who don't necessarily share their world view.

100 like minded communists, anarchists, fascists, or whatever will be able to make any community work. At large numbers it becomes difficult. It is also a little glib to call them independent communities, or to use them as an example of non-monetary economies, as they live and exist within the normal economy.

Originally posted by Windswept7
As for the creating matter from energy, yes that's quite a way off, but it is theoretically possible, and it is something we will eventually be able to do when we understand physics better, perhaps when we unify the laws we will have some breakthroughs.

our money would be better spent looking into Lalzenthorpes 6th book of arcane majiks, as there are conjurations which propose the divination from one substance into pure majikal substance

or alchemy, where we may discover how to turn any substance into another through laws of mystic force

It is so cynical of you to say "oh well, I don't have to make an argument, science will do it for me". Obnoxious even

Originally posted by Windswept7
Anything is possible, because anything is possible.

Never underestimate anything, negative or positive.

Hav fun =)

jibber jabber

Originally posted by inimalist
-enough food is produced on the planet currently to feed everyone

-the reason people are not being fed is because the food is privately owned and is then sent to restaurant chains, grocery stores, etc. In third world nations, it is largely because the food is being shipped to the West.

-In some degree of agreement with what you said, food is scarce because it is privately owned (the reason this isn't total agreement is because you said money causes scarcity, not that private ownership causes scarcity). Because of private ownership of the crops by the farmer or by the corporation who pays their bills, food goes where the owner wants it to go and is not necessarily distributed to those who need it.

-Because the scarcity is caused by private distribution of food (as there is already enough, it is not physically scarce) eliminating this scarcity would involve removing the private ownership of food OR the spontaneous decision of the people who own the food to give it out based on individual need rather than for profit motivated reasons. Private ownership is a symptom of the monetary system. Money is the reason we're selfish, because we're brought up to believe we need money to be better.

Originally posted by inimalist
-The last option is, I'm sure we can agree, silly. Farmers and corporations are not going to toil and invest huge resource wealth into growing food which they do not profit from. It is a lose-lose situation for a farmer. They lose time and resources, then they lose the product of their labour. From thezeitgeistmovement.com



Originally posted by inimalist
-Thus, the only way to ensure proper distribution of food to everyone is to create a mechanism by which the production and distribution of food are controlled. The food has to be collected by someone, the decision of who gets what has to be made by someone, and the distribution has to be made by someone. Call it "the system" or "dear leader", that is too much power being concentrated in whatever executive body there would be. In many ways it is "techno-feudalism". The project works to make things abundant. Everyone would have ampel food etc.


Originally posted by inimalist
careful... lol

Originally posted by inimalist
our money would be better spent looking into Lalzenthorpes 6th book of arcane majiks, as there are conjurations which propose the divination from one substance into pure majikal substance

Die! Die! Die! The word is magic. redhulk

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Die! Die! Die! The word is magic. redhulk

lol, I thought it made the sarcasm more poignant

Originally posted by lord xyz
Private ownership is a symptom of the monetary system.

I thought you supported private property?

Even if there were negative aspects of private ownership, it still is far more preferable to a system where things are communally owned.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Money is the reason we're selfish, because we're brought up to believe we need money to be better.

do you believe in evolution?

Originally posted by lord xyz
From thezeitgeistmovement.com

lol, you want me to argue with a movie?... /sigh. I'll try to come up with something. The fact that the passage you posted has 0 references (aside from mention of a book written by the person who started the Venus project), to me at least, is a little tell tale of the quality.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The project works to make things abundant. Everyone would have ampel food etc.

the purpose of that post was not to say food wouldn't be abundant, it was to show that there had to be a group of people controlling the distribution.

That group has immense powers, akin to what communists propose with regard to government involvement in industry.

Originally posted by lord xyz
lol

I only skimmed through the passage. You are right, it doesn't represent communist China, it represents Feudal Europe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would it work though?


How would we get people to sort through our garbage? Who would work in coal mines. On oil rafters. Who'd work in a factory 8 hours a day? Who'd clean the shit of our elders?


If your answer is robots, then cute, but then it is not possible yet, is it?

Yes eventually robots will take those mundane jobs, but like you said that is impractical at the moment, the Venus project should be treated as exactly that - a project, rather than a life raft. It is a vision for the future, and is becoming more possible every day, through the transitional period we will still need shit cleaners etc. but they will be phased out when we have the ability to.

One example is retail assistants (i.e. check-out chicks/guys) now you can self serve. All with the aid of a machine and there is no reason to have that monotonus job anymore. Its been happening all throughout the last century so why is it so hard to believe?

Originally posted by inimalist
I thought you supported private property?

Even if there were negative aspects of private ownership, it still is far more preferable to a system where things are communally owned.



do you believe in evolution?



lol, you want me to argue with a movie?... /sigh. I'll try to come up with something. The fact that the passage you posted has 0 references (aside from mention of a book written by the person who started the Venus project), to me at least, is a little tell tale of the quality.



the purpose of that post was not to say food wouldn't be abundant, it was to show that there had to be a group of people controlling the distribution.

That group has immense powers, akin to what communists propose with regard to government involvement in industry.



I only skimmed through the passage. You are right, it doesn't represent communist China, it represents Feudal Europe. I'll just say you're right, you probably are.

Originally posted by Windswept7
Yes eventually robots will take those mundane jobs, but like you said that is impractical at the moment, the Venus project should be treated as exactly that - a project, rather than a life raft. It is a vision for the future, and is becoming more possible every day, through the transitional period we will still need shit cleaners etc. but they will be phased out when we have the ability to.

One example is retail assistants (i.e. check-out chicks/guys) now you can self serve. All with the aid of a machine and there is no reason to have that monotonus job anymore. Its been happening all throughout the last century so why is it so hard to believe? Because it took all through the last century to get us so far. As I said before, I can see such a pseudo communist society sustained by technology in the (far) future. But, lets be honest, the monetary system and capitalism is what fuelled this direction so far. To claim it to be the devil and the root of all evil is a bit on the ridiculous and stupid side.

Originally posted by Windswept7
One example is retail assistants (i.e. check-out chicks/guys) now you can self serve. All with the aid of a machine and there is no reason to have that monotonus job anymore. Its been happening all throughout the last century so why is it so hard to believe?

another bad example (I guess it was XYZ who used diamonds)

many of these "self checkouts" are being removed from stores in my town for several reasons. They are temperamental, are VERY easy to steal from, and often take far longer than a trained individual to ring through. (not to mention that these checkouts require a cashier to watch them, and potentially several to deal with individual problems).

Also, there are MANY people who feed their kids from the pay they get ringing in a till. In a world before the elimination of capital, are we to suppose the working class will have no way to earn money as robots are implemented?

I agree that technology will replace certain jobs and provide services, I think you just pointed to one that isn't working well. Its like electronic voting. Tech is cool and all, there are just some things that appear to work best with human interaction.

(Actually, to extend the metaphore, electronic tills support, at least in this view, technocracy. Implementing technology OR policy changes to make things work properly. Rather than depending on technology to solve problems, working on making things more efficent can be better than technological solutions. lol, or maybe I'm just trying to usurp pragmatism).

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'll just say you're right, you probably are.

blah, don't give up so easy

Originally posted by inimalist
I didn't realize that posting your opinion on an internet discussion forum meant that you didn't want people to comment on your thoughts



gibberish

also, doesn't address how family=freedom.



my point: Oil is essential because it is what our infrastructure and technology run on

your point: oil isn't essential because there are other options possible in the future

my point: the future isn't now. Right now oil is necessary.

your point: look at this stuff that isn't ready right now.

do you see where you are missing what I'm saying? I've never said anything against alternative fuels. Oil is necessary because the alternatives do not exist today to replace it. They might some day, and then oil wouldn't be necessary, but now it is. Its really easy.



ironic in the extreme. Har Har!



oh right, so I should open my mind to the point where my brains fall out



I'm sorry sir, but if you think there is an affordable and mature fuel source that could, if the political will existed, be immediately adopted to completely eliminate our dependence on oil, you have drank some terrible kool-aide.

The technological advances that could put solar there are likely to happen in 5-10 years. That doesn't even begin to deal with the logistics of changing the entire infrastructure of the developed world.



I am aware of such groups, and they offer a glimpse of what might be possible for humanity.

Unfortunately, they don't have to worry about cities full of millions of people who don't necessarily share their world view.

100 like minded communists, anarchists, fascists, or whatever will be able to make any community work. At large numbers it becomes difficult. It is also a little glib to call them independent communities, or to use them as an example of non-monetary economies, as they live and exist within the normal economy.



our money would be better spent looking into Lalzenthorpes 6th book of arcane majiks, as there are conjurations which propose the divination from one substance into pure majikal substance

or alchemy, where we may discover how to turn any substance into another through laws of mystic force

It is so cynical of you to say "oh well, I don't have to make an argument, science will do it for me". Obnoxious even



jibber jabber

One word to disprove everything you just said. Denmark.
100% energy independent and almost 100% oil independent, i guess they still need some to use for the doors..
AND they have more than 100 people.

Unconditional love in family=freedom
friendliness becomes unconditional love
by promoting friendliness i.e. smiling
you are promoting joy. family. freedom.

Yes the options are now, the exist right now, refer to Denmark (the greatest nation in the world) oil isn't essential did you not read my point on getting a GAS conversion?

You obviously haven't done your research, as solar is now 40% efficient which is more than enough for today's power needs, and even though solargrass is only 1% efficient and still being developed, but say if you covered.. say a building in it (and yes it is see though) then you could dramatically cut it's power costs by its sheer quantity.

And for your information, there are more than 100 people in Australia, and we're one of the less racist, sexist, and all the other ists out there. Hurray for multiculturalism!! AND 99% of Aussies don't have guns, because we can reason with our minds instead of fear.

Criticise me =)
and then hav fun =D

Originally posted by inimalist
blah, don't give up so easy How do you think they recruited/brainwashed him in the first place?


I'm jesting of course. But robots are ****ing cool.

Originally posted by inimalist
another bad example (I guess it was XYZ who used diamonds)

many of these "self checkouts" are being removed from stores in my town for several reasons. They are temperamental, are VERY easy to steal from, and often take far longer than a trained individual to ring through. (not to mention that these checkouts require a cashier to watch them, and potentially several to deal with individual problems).

Also, there are MANY people who feed their kids from the pay they get ringing in a till. In a world before the elimination of capital, are we to suppose the working class will have no way to earn money as robots are implemented?

I agree that technology will replace certain jobs and provide services, I think you just pointed to one that isn't working well. Its like electronic voting. Tech is cool and all, there are just some things that appear to work best with human interaction.

(Actually, to extend the metaphore, electronic tills support, at least in this view, technocracy. Implementing technology OR policy changes to make things work properly. Rather than depending on technology to solve problems, working on making things more efficent can be better than technological solutions. lol, or maybe I'm just trying to usurp pragmatism).

Its not really a bad example, because you pointed out the flaw in your own argument, money. Why do people steal? Cuz they're greedy, why are they greedy, because the don't have what they need and we live in a society fueled by consumerism, eating 3 'big macs' is DISGUSTING and people need to learn self control, instead of saying something is impossible or wrong, tell me, what is your most positive goal for humanity?

Originally posted by Windswept7
One word to disprove everything you just said. Denmark.
100% energy independent and almost 100% oil independent, i guess they still need some to use for the doors..
AND they have more than 100 people.

oil independence does not mean that oil isn't needed.

Denmark still drills lots of oil

hit me with some real stats about the % of alternative energy that Denmark uses for its power supply.

Originally posted by Windswept7
Unconditional love in family=freedom
friendliness becomes unconditional love
by promoting friendliness i.e. smiling
you are promoting joy. family. freedom.

that is ridiculous. Freedom has nothing to do with happiness. Nor the family.

Originally posted by Windswept7
Yes the options are now, the exist right now, refer to Denmark (the greatest nation in the world) oil isn't essential did you not read my point on getting a GAS conversion?

lol.

Originally posted by Windswept7
You obviously haven't done your research, as solar is now 40% efficient which is more than enough for today's power needs, and even though solargrass is only 1% efficient and still being developed, but say if you covered.. say a building in it (and yes it is see though) then you could dramatically cut it's power costs by its sheer quantity.

if solar is at 40% (why not cite something?) it is in labs only. Last I heard was mid 20s. However, like many other technologies, it is not the fact that we can or can't do things, but in actually doing it.

I asked earlier if XYZ thought that, if oil were completely unavailable tomorrow, the world would be able to exist as it does today.

Well, windswept7, if all of the oil on the planet were gone tomorrow, what do you think would happen to Denmark? Do you think it would go on being strong, or do you think the civilization would collapse much like every other western nation?

Please don't forget, I'm not saying oil is good.

Originally posted by Windswept7
And for your information, there are more than 100 people in Australia, and we're one of the less racist, sexist, and all the other ists out there. Hurray for multiculturalism!! AND 99% of Aussies don't have guns, because we can reason with our minds instead of fear.

schizophasia

totally unrelated to anything we are discussing, and to be frank, Australia has nothing on Canada.

Originally posted by Windswept7
Criticise me =)
and then hav fun =D

I'm actually not criticizing you, I'm criticizing what you believe

Originally posted by Windswept7
Its not really a bad example, because you pointed out the flaw in your own argument,

you asked me what my argument was below, yet claim my example goes against it?

that doesn't make sense

the example works because it shows that the answers to the problems we face today are not necessarily best answered by techno-fetishism.

Originally posted by Windswept7
money. Why do people steal? Cuz they're greedy, why are they greedy, because the don't have what they need and we live in a society fueled by consumerism, eating 3 'big macs' is DISGUSTING and people need to learn self control, instead of saying something is impossible or wrong,

do you believe in evolution?

Originally posted by Windswept7
tell me, what is your most positive goal for humanity?

individual freedom

Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you think they recruited/brainwashed him in the first place?


I'm jesting of course. But robots are ****ing cool.

until they take over and put us all in the matrix!

Originally posted by inimalist
until they take over and put us all in the matrix! Three laws, *****. Three ****ing laws.

Given this thread seems doomed for obscurity at some point, there is an addendum I'd like to make.

It appears 40% efficiency in solar collectors is possible. In fact, given some recent breakthroughs in the ability to focus light onto photon receptors, the shape of the receptors, and the wavelengths they are able to capture, solar power is quickly becoming a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels. Potentially all of these breakthroughs could have an additive effect on solar technology, making it exponentially more efficient.

This isn't a conceit of any point, as there still exists no distributer of these uber-panels, oil is still cheaper, and there is no solar infrastructure (though the environmental impact of large scale solar power-plants are being investigated). Also, these breakthroughs are lab only, and there is no definitive reason to think they aren't mutually exclusive to one another.

Amazing news, however, I think if it is looked at with some degree of skepticism, my estimate of 5-10 years before solar power becomes viable seems to be supported, rather than the idea that we could immediately switch to full solar power.

If we harnessed the power from the sun at noon exactly, we'd have enough to power the world.

But it doesn't matter, geothermal is way better and is easily used. We can use 200ZJ right now, that's enough to power the world for 400 years.

But because we live in a monetary system and this abundance doesn't produce profit, no one does it. we don't do it because we're told we need money to live, which is a lie.

Originally posted by lord xyz
If we harnessed the power from the sun at noon exactly, we'd have enough to power the world.

"harnessed the power of the sun" - what?

Originally posted by lord xyz
But it doesn't matter, geothermal is way better and is easily used. We can use 200ZJ right now, that's enough to power the world for 400 years.

where can we use 200ZJ of geothermal power?

see any point I have made about infrastructure. in a system with infinite power, lack of infrastructure makes it scarce.

Originally posted by lord xyz
But because we live in a monetary system and this abundance doesn't produce profit, no one does it. we don't do it because we're told we need money to live, which is a lie.

indeed, forced labour, directed by some top-down mechanism, would be more able to do things, which the "all-knowing and all-wise" leaders determine they need to do (for the good of man kind of course) than free people. Unfortunate, that