The Venus Project

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.