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 ragesRemorseYou don't need money, that's what TVP explains. The monetary system is a joke, is not needed, produces debt and scarcity.
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.
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 xyzShut it, cultist.
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. "
"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 Bardock42If you look earlier in the thread, you'll see I acknowledged it.
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 ragesRemorseI believe it can happen.
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.
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 jaden101I 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.
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 completelythe 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...
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 Bardock42That'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.
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)
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 Bardock42He probably doesn't anyway.
I bet he wouldn't practice 8 hours a day to exhaustion.
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 jaden101Probably because if they said that, they'll be accused of being a puff.
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"
Originally posted by jaden101We 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.
without reward there is no incentive to better yourself to the extent that it would take a huge amount of effort
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 jaden101When a job is unpleasant, what happens?
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?
You should get this right.
A machine does it for us, freeing us from doing it.
See: the industrial revolution.
Originally posted by jaden101The 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.
fact is...you wouldn'tthe 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)....
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 inimalistNothing will be forever scarce, but it'd help if you named something that is scarce.
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.
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 xyzYou 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.
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42Yeah, insulting me like that means dick in a debate.
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.
Maybe you should actually point out these so-called idiotic conclusions.