Jump to content

Resource Based Economy


0blivious

Recommended Posts

Ok, so @VaKo, I wanna say I don't have much time to read up on what you have added, so my bad if I am repeating anything you said but here is my issue with the video:

The common good - It was taken in the video that if people grow up to be gangsters, thieves, and crooks then they will in fact be as such, but at the same time growing up for the common good to be placed in a society where they can just 'fit in' is an odd statement. I am not being closed minded here, and as such I am giving my unbiased opinion, but here is my issue with it. To make this society work, you would need to remove from everyone within the society these key things: greed, lust, sloth, any relations to a higher power, and profiling natures. The reason why I did not include more things (as part of the 7 sins ya know) is because those others stem from these five fundamental issues..

Greed - yes if you take money out of the equation, and GIVE EVERYTHING to a person that they want, then certainly you can extinguish it... However that is ONLY if you give a person everything they want. This happens as a child. One child sees a toy another child has, wants to play with it, the other one does not want to share, so the child that does not want to share experiences greed, and the child who does not get to play with the toy experiences a sort of profiling nature, in other words, they may see the other childs characteristics such as the clothes they wear or the way they speak as a 'type' of person in which is an enemy to them.

Lust - this is pretty well self explanatory, however I will give an example that could fit and grow in that society. Girl likes guy, guy wants the acceptance and recognition for having a job he is not good at; girl get's guy job over someone who does qualify for said job. This can fumble over and over and over because it's something that IS instinctive to us as humans. As humans we feel the need to be with a person, and that connection or attraction or whatever you want to say will almost always get elevated above other things.

Relations to a 'higher power' than us - This is an extreme flaw as I have noticed in the video because it seems it would be a mandantory belief to not believe in any gods and to only believe in what sustains life, which actually in a way does make sense, however there are many people who without these beliefs in a higher power than us, would feel there is no reason to actually live, and certainly no reason to live by guidelines or laws. This also brings me to the point that each different belief is something that makes us unique, but also gives differing opinions and has in fact spawned wars and things of that nature, but it is also something that is a need. People need to believe in something but why the sun exactly? Sooner or later as generations pass, those people would want to know what is beyond the sun, and beyond what sustains life, which would either ensue one of two things: 1. people would research older beliefs in god (which ever one you would choose) and resurrect that belief (no pun intended) which would then spawn differing beliefs and would end up going to chaos which is where we are now, or 2. people would come up with their own beliefs which would mix things up even more.

Sloth - what to do about these people? There have ALWAYS been lazy people dating back before the bible, the only reason why you did not hear about them is because... lazy people would die basically unless someone was there to cater to their needs.

If you look at the common traits of any human one things always stands. We as humans categorize things. EVERYTHING started from categorization. From separating good plants to eat from the bad, from categorizing a sunny day from a rainy day, and to now from separating good people from bad, and good data from bad, etc etc etc, and those differing ideas conflict which is what makes us human because even though we build and change and reflect and fix things that are broken from different ideas and outlooks, but at the same time that also causes conflict which would be the ultimate flaw in the system, because not everyone has the same idea, and not everyone can or will do it the same.

My final argument on this is that no matter what, you cannot control the outcome of a child/community/society/etc. based on a predetermined environment. If that was the case, we would have no 'black sheep' in families, where even if the environment was a PERFECT one, the child still rebelled, and went out and just did dumb s#it.

Yes science COULD change these things by altering genetics to a point, however at that fundamental point in time, we will no longer and CAN no longer be considered human.

Honestly it's a great video and a killer concept, but the only way to make it feasible is to alter ourselves in an inhuman way.

Edited by h3%5kr3w
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks h3%5kr3w for your reply, you put thought into it and I appreciate that!

Here we go: :)

The common good - It was taken in the video that if people grow up to be gangsters, thieves, and crooks then they will in fact be as such,

...

To start, I have to say that when my brother linked me to that video, I had to watch it multiple times to really take it all in and even today, when I watch it there's almost always something new I get out of.

And I don't want to insult you in any way, but I think it would be good if you watched it again, but then with people that never saw it. This will shine a new light on the subject for yourself, these people will have questions and you will have to push yourself to think differently so you can answer them.

I'm saying this because in the video it is stated that it's the environment that shapes us.

So if we change the environment..

It's not Human Behavior VS Human Nature but Human Behavior via Human Nature.

Here's a good presentation about that specific subject:

To make this society work, you would need to remove from everyone within the society these key things: greed, lust, sloth, any relations to a higher power, and profiling natures. The reason why I did not include more things (as part of the 7 sins ya know) is because those others stem from these five fundamental issues..

These 'key things' are the symptoms.

So you actually need to look a little further and search for what is causing that symptom.

It's the cause that needs to be taken on.

Greed - yes if you take money out of the equation, and GIVE EVERYTHING to a person that they want, then certainly you can extinguish it...

The point of The Venus Project is not to give everything, but to have everything available for everyone. There's a big difference between giving and having available.

However that is ONLY if you give a person everything they want.

How do people want?

You can't possibly compare the 'want' from today with the 'want' in a system like The Venus Project proposes.

Today, our wants are influenced by companies that create commercials for stuff you don't need so they can make a profit.

In The Venus Project, there is no such thing as profit. So what kind of commercials would you see? Maybe none. They wouldn't be commercials but just information. Information for public safety, health, etc. Like "There's a new vaccine available that will protect you against cancer."

This happens as a child. One child sees a toy another child has, wants to play with it, the other one does not want to share, so the child that does not want to share experiences greed, and the child who does not get to play with the toy experiences a sort of profiling nature, in other words, they may see the other childs characteristics such as the clothes they wear or the way they speak as a 'type' of person in which is an enemy to them.

This has nothing to do with greed.

Instead, the child sees the toy not to play with (a child doesn't know what playing is; we "grownups" assigned it's function as being a toy), but to research it and find out what it does and how it does it. And sometimes just stares at it out of pure fascination.. Like we gaze at the stars :)

If that other child doesn't want to let go of the toy, it means that the child wasn't done with it's research or did not learn to share yet.

You can't assume that the behavior of a child is the most pure form of human nature.

Some will instinctively share and others won't. Enter education.

Here's a short video, the relevant stuff about this subject is at the beginning:

(but do watch it fully, all of it is very interesting)

Lust - this is pretty well self explanatory, however I will give an example that could fit and grow in that society. Girl likes guy, guy wants the acceptance and recognition for having a job he is not good at; girl get's guy job over someone who does qualify for said job. This can fumble over and over and over because it's something that IS instinctive to us as humans. As humans we feel the need to be with a person, and that connection or attraction or whatever you want to say will almost always get elevated above other things.

Your future example is inaccurate.

No one in The Venus Project would do a certain job just to impress a girl.

You're only giving this example because you're using your current frame of reference to create this example.

The way you (might) impress a girl today will definitely not be the same as the way you would impress a girl in The Venus Project. If such a thing would even be necessary, I don' t know :)

My personal opinion about a girl that decides to be with a guy because of the job or title he has, is definitely not worth being with. Tt certainly isn't an intelligent way of making decisions. People entail more than what their job or function is. I wouldn't want a girl that decides this way to raise my kids, you know? It's behavior that attracts me, not someone's title or function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relations to a 'higher power' than us - This is an extreme flaw as I have noticed in the video because it seems it would be a mandantory belief to not believe in any gods and to only believe in what sustains life

I strongly suggest you watch the video again :)

It will never be mandatory to give up your beliefs. The point was that, with education, intangible things like beliefs would just fase out.

Sloth - what to do about these people? There have ALWAYS been lazy people dating back before the bible, the only reason why you did not hear about them is because... lazy people would die basically unless someone was there to cater to their needs.

It's true that this behavior has existed for a long time. But it's not true that it has always been that way.

If you were lazy in prehistoric times, you wouldn't have food or be able to run away from predators and thus die.

Your 'lazy genes' (if there is even such a thing, but I'm indulging you in your argument) wouldn't get passed on.

There really are no sloth people, it's a behavior, shaped by the environment.

Let's be clear on one thing; people want to contribute. It's an instinct that has been overrided because of environmental influences.

Your chance of survival is much higher if you work together with people actively and watch over each other than if you were completely on your own, being lazy.

And even with these arguments, in The Venus Project, 85% of the people wouldn't need to work.

They could just lay around, get tanned, for the rest of their lives.

But let me ask you one question:

Would you want to live a life like that?

If you look at the common traits of any human one things always stands. We as humans categorize things. EVERYTHING started from categorization. From separating good plants to eat from the bad, from categorizing a sunny day from a rainy day, and to now from separating good people from bad, and good data from bad, etc etc etc, and those differing ideas conflict which is what makes us human because even though we build and change and reflect and fix things that are broken from different ideas and outlooks, but at the same time that also causes conflict which would be the ultimate flaw in the system, because not everyone has the same idea, and not everyone can or will do it the same.

I'm not sure what categorization has to do with how different solutions exists for the same problem.

But about your ultimate flaw: even though there might be different solutions for the same problem, there's always 1 solution that's the best and that one will get executed.

It's not based on an opinion but on scientific fact.

You could build a bridge many different ways, you could just build a straight bridge or one that makes a big curve or even one that makes a loop.

You could use wood as a material, spaghetti, gold or steal.

How would you make a choice? You wouldn't say, hey, I like shiny things and want a fun bridge where you do a loop and it's made of gold.

Gold is actually a soft metal and it wouldn't even be able to hold it's structure.

The loop could only work for certain cars.

So you have to take into account many things before making a decision. Not just someone's opinion.

My final argument on this is that no matter what, you cannot control the outcome of a child/community/society/etc. based on a predetermined environment. If that was the case, we would have no 'black sheep' in families, where even if the environment was a PERFECT one, the child still rebelled, and went out and just did dumb s#it.

You're right on one thing: there has never been such a system, so it's impossible to know exactly what the outcome will be. And if you don't try it, you'll never know for sure.

I like this quote from The Matrix:

Trinity: Neo... nobody has ever done this before.

Neo: That's why it's going to work.

But we can make predictions based on what we know today.

People adjust to their environment.

Again, you're example is based on this system. As long as there is money, corruption will exist. Corruption of the mind is part of that. But I would need much more data than just 'perfect environment'.

What is perfect? Perfection does not exist in my mind.

The child might rebel because even though the family he grew up in is always there, they have all the money they need and more, but their father might always be at work to make that amount of money. He might also impose unrealistic expectations on his child that could force him or her to rebel and get recognition about doing dumb s#it.

That's negative acknowledgment because it was impossible for him to get positive acknowledgment, based on those high expectations.

My example is based on existentialism. People need acknowledgment.

Yes science COULD change these things by altering genetics to a point, however at that fundamental point in time, we will no longer and CAN no longer be considered human.

Genes alter everyday.. But we still are humans, aren't we?

When your father got with your mother, their genes got combined, and a new, altered, gene was created.

Do you consider yourself human? :)

Again, it's the environment that influences your behavior. No genes need to be modified to change that.

And again, you're only looking at the symptom. Behavior is a symptom.

Honestly it's a great video and a killer concept, but the only way to make it feasible is to alter ourselves in an inhuman way.

It's almost impossible (unless you already thought this way before) to take in everything proposed by The Venus Project in the Zeitgeist: Addendum movie, and really form an objective opinion about it. There's much more, they just lifted the veil a bit for you to explore :)

Be sure to check out "Future by Design" about Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a reason that people suffer from greed, lust, sloth, etc it is human nature, either through the environment or evolution. Also you could say everything is available to everyone today, for a price and if that price would exist, people's "wants" would be encouraged to a point of everyone trying to get what they want, after all there is no price anymore that counter acts the want. So a price is needed or some type of control, but then if comes down to the question of who, who should get to decide, or what group, or how. The current systems used by countries today are not perfect, no system is perfect when it comes to putting it into practice, the only time a system would work as well as it does in theory is in a Utopian society, but then it would be irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit to you that I have thoroughly enjoyed the idea of this project, and honestly I hope that it does come to realism, but a lot of what I threw at you was for thought and analysis. It was my honest opinion but you want analysis and figured what better analysis than unbiased input?

I understand what you mean about trying to find the root of an issue instead of it's outcome, but another thing you said was you cannot find an outcome based on a child but.. you can. A child is the most fresh and realistic version of an unbiased human. I believe everything that is needed for the fundamentals to make the project work lye within the study of the habits, learning systems, and thought processes of the youngest infants because they simply do not know. This also supports the way you feel about how the project should work because it's all scientific. Finding the patterns, altering those patterns to the proper outcome. You cannot do that with any human over five because regardless of how or what you do to try to change the mind of that human, the outcome will always be biased.

Most of our behaviors are determined by our childhood experiences. For example, how many times have you came across that guy or that girl with a strange phobia? Most of the time it stemmed from childhood. It may not have even been a negative experience that had caused that phobia (clown phobia anyone?!) but ended up upsetting the child and having a lasting effect throughout adult-hood.

If you were lazy in prehistoric times, you wouldn't have food or be able to run away from predators and thus die.

Your 'lazy genes' (if there is even such a thing, but I'm indulging you in your argument) wouldn't get passed on.

I never said it was a gene. It's a random side effect of our environment. Maybe not even from a negative event. Example: There is a party, person stays up all night, next day feels like crap because levels of seratonin are off balance, sleep schedule has been altered, etc. Yes this can be altered back to it's proper balance, but sometimes over prolonged periods of partying, a person can become completely lazy and they don't want to do anything else.

Actually this is a better (and much more realistic) example: A person is really close to a loved one, that loved one dies, and that person is left feeling that they are alone in the world. Even in a large family this can take place. It's just a side effect of our attachment to other humans.

There stands one final issue to this subject that is not addressed however, and that is how to convey a positive reaction from a positive event and a negative reaction from a negative event. What are the consequences of an unruly child or adult? Children are more overly easy to give a positive and negative reaction to an event, but what about adults?

Maybe it's just that I feel that I need to feel acknowledgement from my actions, but if this project is as you say then the only acknowledgement is social, and in the end all we really need to do is eat and reproduce.

Would there be control of reproduction? Regardless of the environment, and regardless of positive and negative events or consequences, people are going to have sex. And from what I have seen throughout history, even when contraceptives are available, people become stupid and have unprotected sex. This brings unwanted children which you CAN SAY has a lot to do with money but time is the deciding factor on most people feeling they are having an unwanted child. What is your input on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great stuff guys :)

There is a reason that people suffer from greed, lust, sloth, etc it is human nature, either through the environment or evolution.

I'm not sure what you mean because I don't understand it.

You can consider human nature more like propensities that may or may not have an outcome depending on the environment. So ultimately it's the environment that shapes the behavior of a person.

Now evolution is another thing, evolution of human nature is the evolution of those propensities.

So again a positive environment will reduce the chances of 'negative' behavior through those existing propensities that might have been passed on by genes and it's evolution.

Also you could say everything is available to everyone today, for a price and if that price would exist, people's "wants" would be encouraged to a point of everyone trying to get what they want, after all there is no price anymore that counter acts the want.

So you're saying, if you ate tomatoes everyday and bought 3 daily for that 'want', suddenly when they become free you would take home 300 tomatoes daily because there is no limit anymore on your 'want'?

I don't agree with that.

If I go to a cheap restaurant all you can eat buffet (=~free), I would only eat what I need, nothing more, nothing less.

Of course there are people that would do the opposite and eat more and more. But this is because of the profit motive. Because, the more you eat, the more value (=profit) you have for what you payed for.

So what if suddenly it was completely free, you could go anytime you want, eat all that you want, would you or anyone else stuff their face every time they went? No they wouldn't.

So a price is needed or some type of control, but then if comes down to the question of who, who should get to decide, or what group, or how. The current systems used by countries today are not perfect, no system is perfect when it comes to putting it into practice, the only time a system would work as well as it does in theory is in a Utopian society, but then it would be irrelevant.

It's not about control, it's about the profit motive.

Like bargains for example. When something expensive becomes cheap, people rush to get it because of the profit they make. They have more value (it wouldve cost more than it is now) and would thus make profit by buying it.

Now, if those things were free to begin with, where's the profit? Would people still stuff their house full of stuff they don't need?

Would you?

I have to admit to you that I have thoroughly enjoyed the idea of this project, and honestly I hope that it does come to realism, but a lot of what I threw at you was for thought and analysis. It was my honest opinion but you want analysis and figured what better analysis than unbiased input?

That's great man, thumbs up!

I understand the need to be skeptic, people have been duped before by all kinds of schemes, it's difficult to take anything serious these days.

The more you learn about the movement and the project, the more your mind will be at ease :)

There is no money involved, only the effort of thinking about stuff and being open to new ideas and looking at things differently. There is nothing expected from "members" (there is actually no such thing as a member, yes you can subscribe on the main zeitgeist movement website, but this is for newsletters and stuff), but we do encourage that you talk about these ideas with people and help spread the word. There are of course possibilities to help with translations, setting up events, passing out flyers, trying to get mass media attention, and so on.. But it would be your choice. And it's not as if you have to sign a contract lol. If you have time to spare, you can help. There are still many things to do ;)

I understand what you mean about trying to find the root of an issue instead of it's outcome, but another thing you said was you cannot find an outcome based on a child but.. you can. A child is the most fresh and realistic version of an unbiased human.

What I meant by that is that not all children are the same.

So you can't point your finger and say, ha! you see? this is human nature! :)

I believe everything that is needed for the fundamentals to make the project work lye within the study of the habits, learning systems, and thought processes of the youngest infants because they simply do not know.

Don't forget that young infants at a certain time need to be educated, so if they show negative behavior (like destroying things like a crazy person), the child can be taught to show positive behavior. Like people already do today. And have done for centuries.

Generally, people care about their kids and put effort in creating an environment that is positive. But sadly enough, most of this is undone by the outside environment they live in on a daily basis.

This also supports the way you feel about how the project should work because it's all scientific. Finding the patterns, altering those patterns to the proper outcome. You cannot do that with any human over five because regardless of how or what you do to try to change the mind of that human, the outcome will always be biased.

That's true.

But don't forget, we are humans. We have the power to change ourselves. For some it would be more difficult than others, some don't even notice the change.

And again, it's not the human that needs to change, people adapt to their environment, it's the environment, system, that needs to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of our behaviors are determined by our childhood experiences. For example, how many times have you came across that guy or that girl with a strange phobia? Most of the time it stemmed from childhood. It may not have even been a negative experience that had caused that phobia (clown phobia anyone?!) but ended up upsetting the child and having a lasting effect throughout adult-hood.

You do know that people can get over their phobias if they want to, right?

"I'm sick of being afraid of spiders."

Most fear are irrational, and it's just a question of education.

I never said it was a gene. It's a random side effect of our environment. Maybe not even from a negative event.

Well you did say sloth people, so I assumed you meant it was already in them. :)

Example: There is a party, person stays up all night, next day feels like crap because levels of seratonin are off balance, sleep schedule has been altered, etc. Yes this can be altered back to it's proper balance, but sometimes over prolonged periods of partying, a person can become completely lazy and they don't want to do anything else.

I don't agree, but that's why you came up with the next example I guess :)

But my response would be: Partying= consumes energy. So you may seem lazy the day after. If you consume too much energy by partying all the time you might get chronic exhaustion (not sure if this is correct, it's a literal translation how we say it in Belgium). If you have this, you won't be able to party anymore and will need medical assistance.

Oh btw, people do get tired of partying..

People want to contribute. You might not see this on a daily basis in this system (the profit motive makes it hard to think that way), but when you look at world disasters, people are eager to help and contribute however they can. This is human nature. Helping=greater change of survival.

Actually this is a better (and much more realistic) example: A person is really close to a loved one, that loved one dies, and that person is left feeling that they are alone in the world. Even in a large family this can take place. It's just a side effect of our attachment to other humans.

I understand your example, but again you are basing this on how it works in this current system.

You are giving an example of a person that doesn't cope well with loss. Some people do it better. So I might say that this person did not receive the needed education or experience as a child to cope with loss.

Even if it were to happen, it would be easier to process this, as setting up groups (like AA meetings) wouldn't cost a dime (there's no money in The Venus Project) and will be able to talk about it. Even professional help, if you wanted to, would be free as well.

There stands one final issue to this subject that is not addressed however, and that is how to convey a positive reaction from a positive event and a negative reaction from a negative event. What are the consequences of an unruly child or adult? Children are more overly easy to give a positive and negative reaction to an event, but what about adults?

I'm not sure what you mean. This has been addressed.

Because: you will never hear anyone say that The Venus Project is a perfect system, no you will only hear that it's just a far better system than what we currently live in.

So, yes there will be problems, but solving those problems would be much much easier.

Maybe it's just that I feel that I need to feel acknowledgement from my actions, but if this project is as you say then the only acknowledgement is social, and in the end all we really need to do is eat and reproduce.

Oh, that's a negative thought..

I think that people are special animals. We can do so much more than just eat and reproduce.

Would there be control of reproduction? Regardless of the environment, and regardless of positive and negative events or consequences, people are going to have sex. And from what I have seen throughout history, even when contraceptives are available, people become stupid and have unprotected sex. This brings unwanted children which you CAN SAY has a lot to do with money but time is the deciding factor on most people feeling they are having an unwanted child. What is your input on this?

I think you've said it all with "people become stupid and have unprotected sex".

When you look at which (type of) families have the most children, you'll notice that it is those that didn't have much education or don't have a lot of money. There are of course rich families with a lot of children, but the motive there is not much different. It's about gaining something. Ego is thing you can gain as well. Look at how well I'm doing..

So again, it's profit and education.

In Belgium for example the government pays you a certain amount of money for child support. The more kids, the more money. Clearly the wrong motivation to have kids. It wouldn't be 'having kids' anymore but 'shitting kids' lol

In The Venus Project, people would have much more choice.

You could have your own kids (if you want to see it as your kids, ultimately we are everyones children, yours are mine and mine are yours) and raise them, help raise other children, and so on..

Children are our future, so all children are equally important and need our utmost attention and care.

Today we don't have time for our kids (having to work) and we drop them of at nurseries just so they are fed and kept clean until they go to school at a later age.

Those kids aren't nurtured mentally, and you even said it, this moment is very important in the later state of that person.

In The Venus Project, you would have time for your kids, time for your family and friends (in the end we are all 1 big family).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge problem with your arguments. Firstly, your coming from a position where you base your entire premise on scientific Facts, when in actuality the jury is still out on most if not all of the behavioural and neuro-psychological premiss your basing your ideas on. Your making the same mistakes that have been made before, that you know how people should think and behave, and if only everyone did what they were supposed to do and acted in the right way, only then would things work. And your making the mistakes in thinking that if you control people, and make them think in the correct way then Great Things will be achieved. I've seen this shit before, friends have lived through it, relatives died because of it. It always ends in the same way, when people don't think correctly, and cause problems, it ends in blood. It ends with troops opening fire on civilians while the scared leaders of the movement cower inside some bunker.

You talk about not wasting effort on irrelevant inventions, irrelevant ideas, irrelevant processes, but who decides what is irrelevant? The laser was invented, and no one had any idea what you were supposed to do with it. Linux started as a derided school project, mocked by Proper UNIX. Computers and eventually the Internet were called pointless toys. How many ideas, inventions, pieces of art, music, plays, bits of research are you willing to sacrifice because you didn't have the foresight to see the value in something? Again, your so sure of yourself, that your ideas are the right ones, you can't see that you will be wrong about important things.

You talk about this ideal society, but you have no idea how we are supposed to get there, or how its supposed to be run. How do you deal with power struggles, the inevitable politics of any society, people who disagree, people who want to fight you? People who want to take what you have and use it for themselves? And how do you take what we have today, and build your utopia? You will have answers for all these questions, and they will inevitable lead back to the same talking points, that once you can control how people think you can stop these negative behaviours, reinforce the desired behaviours and use them to build a world you want. Its all destination, no journey.

This is nothing more than a safe fantasy ideology, a mish-mash of communist and socialist ideas, with the idea that technology and controlling how people think will make for a better world, all wrapped up in the same values as a cult. And the only way you would every create and maintain such a system is through force and controlling people. You may think your doing what is best for the human race, that if only you had your chance then everything would be better. But the price you want is far to high.

As for what I suggest? That we continue to thrive in chaos, like we have done for the last 10000 years. Things might not be perfect, and they never will be, but as I've said before, we are living in the best time to be alive. We have a quality of life no one before us could have imagined, technology that would have been a dream a mere generation ago (and the rantings of a mad-man a generation before that), life expectancy is the highest its ever been. Chaos makes us focus on the next little step, in a perpetual effort to do a little better than last time, and the cumulative effect of this is far beyond anything the rantings of a cult with a very fixed idea of the ideal could ever possibly achieve. Humans are at our best when we use our hate and discontent to good effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge problem with your arguments. Firstly, your coming from a position where you base your entire premise on scientific Facts, when in actuality the jury is still out on most if not all of the behavioural and neuro-psychological premiss your basing your ideas on.

Well, "I'm" basing my facts on what we know today. Tomorrow might be a different story. If that's what you are saying, then I fully agree.

And again, this is what we are about. Change. If tomorrow we discover new information, it will not be tossed aside, it will be considered, tested,.. you know.. the scientific method, which is the whole premise of The Venus Project.

Your making the same mistakes that have been made before, that you know how people should think and behave, and if only everyone did what they were supposed to do and acted in the right way, only then would things work. And your making the mistakes in thinking that if you control people, and make them think in the correct way then Great Things will be achieved. I've seen this shit before, friends have lived through it, relatives died because of it. It always ends in the same way, when people don't think correctly, and cause problems, it ends in blood. It ends with troops opening fire on civilians while the scared leaders of the movement cower inside some bunker.

LOL

Did you just compare The Venus Project to Nazi's? Or because Zeitgeist is a German word?

Not to defend the Nazi case, but Hitler youth were geniuses :) (and shows that we have the potential)

But again, it's not about controlling people, people do what they want. We just assume (assumptions based on scientific facts known to this day) that the behavior of people reflects the environment they live in.

So again, it's not about making people think a certain way, we're only talking about changing the system, not the people.

I'm not sure how I can make myself clear, I've repeated this a few times now..

You talk about not wasting effort on irrelevant inventions, irrelevant ideas, irrelevant processes, but who decides what is irrelevant? The laser was invented, and no one had any idea what you were supposed to do with it. Linux started as a derided school project, mocked by Proper UNIX. Computers and eventually the Internet were called pointless toys. How many ideas, inventions, pieces of art, music, plays, bits of research are you willing to sacrifice because you didn't have the foresight to see the value in something? Again, your so sure of yourself, that your ideas are the right ones, you can't see that you will be wrong about important things.

Again, you misunderstood things.

There is no one that will decide what is irrelevant or not.

Irrelevant stuff will phase out on it's own and people will have the time to explore their own passions and ideas.

You make me seem like an arrogant prick, please don't bash me just because you don't agree. I like to discuss this and want to hear your opinions/ideas/concerns.

I'm not all-knowing and will never be that, on the contrary, I will never consider myself an intelligent person. Never.

The point I can make here is this:

Lasers, Linux, other cool inventions and art have mostly been created in recreational states. Side projects that didn't get any funding and thus started as self-funded hobbies are part of what makes this society so successful.

Now, imagine a world where only such projects existed. (not because someone said so or made you to, but because the profit motive doesn't exist anymore)

These are for me the perfect examples that promotes a system like The Venus Project proposes, people would still create things, they wouldn't get lazy, no, they would finally have the time and possibility to make those discoveries.

All people are scientists.

You talk about this ideal society, but you have no idea how we are supposed to get there, or how its supposed to be run.

Yes, there are many transition plans, but none definitive, of course, as we are a movement of change and the ideas of tomorrow might not be the same as those of today. We are a movement of education, in this phase, and want to make people aware that 'something else' is possible. It doesn't necessarily has to be The Venus Project, just something better than what we have. Unless you think this system doesn't need any improvements or can't be replaced with something better, then our discussion can end now.

How do you deal with power struggles, the inevitable politics of any society, people who disagree, people who want to fight you?

How can one rule a system like the one proposed by The Venus Project?

It's impossible to rule and there is nothing to gain by ruling it.

People who want to take what you have and use it for themselves?

If they use it for themselves, why not? If someone starts a system like this on their own, they will have much difficulty. As the world is "crumbling down", people will see this system and will want to live there. But it will not be able to sustain the worlds population.

What we propose is a world wide system change, so either we benefit everyone or it doesn't happen. That's the only way it could work. (with what we know today...)

And how do you take what we have today, and build your utopia?

It's no utopia, I know it seems that way because it's so much better.

Rest assure, it will have problems, just far less.

But that's why I started this topic, to discuss with you all this new system, how it can be improved, and to spread the word it is possible to live in a world that is better than this one.

The current "plan" is to spread awareness and create critical mass.

About actually building; it's shown in the movie. There's no point on trying to patch up the flawed system. It would be far more efficient (and resource friendly) to start from scratch.

You will have answers for all these questions, and they will inevitable lead back to the same talking points, that once you can control how people think you can stop these negative behaviours, reinforce the desired behaviours and use them to build a world you want. Its all destination, no journey.

Then why ask questions if you can already predict what my answer will be? Or maybe it's just a subjective opinion you have about the ideas presented that I regurgitate.

But again, no it's not about changing people, it's about changing the environment and how that will be reflected in peoples behavior.

Yes there is a destination and to get there will be a very big big big journey. No destination without a journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nothing more than a safe fantasy ideology, a mish-mash of communist and socialist ideas, with the idea that technology and controlling how people think will make for a better world, all wrapped up in the same values as a cult.

You couldn't be more negative about this positive idea that could solve world hunger, sickness, criminality, and so on..

If it were a safe fantasy, then why are you attacking it? Doesn't seem safe to me. I think otherwise. I put my neck out to have presented this here.

But again, no, it's not about controlling people, it's about changing the environment.

I find it funny that you used the word 'cult'.

Let's see if that is correct:

Definition of 'cult':

cult   [kuhlt] Show IPA

–noun

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

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

5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

7. the members of such a religion or sect.

8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

The counter:

1. We don't have rites or ceremonies, and we have no religious belief.

2. There is no ideal or person we revere. Yes we look up to Jacque Fresco for all the research he has done and the ideas he introduced, but we don't regard him or his ideas as the final frontier, they will improve over time.

3. It's no object of devotion. People are volunteering and 'devoting' some time to help this ever changing cause.

4. See no. 2.

5. Again, no sacred ideology, as there is no final idea or final concept. It will keep changing the more information is available.

6. Again, not a religion, we have no beliefs, we aren't extremists, we discuss ideas of a possibly better system, and our "members", which "we" don't have, don't live outside of conventional society, and we have no leader. We reject the idea of a leader. It's the idea and way of thinking that brings and drives people, not someone that leads the pack. It would never be possible to.

7. Again, no "members".

8. We have no sole insight on how to change a person (negative behavior could be considered the sickness here), the information "we" have is readily available, as "we" didn't create this information, it's based on scientific studies done over the last centuries.

So we can agree that the word 'cult' you used to describe this movement is clearly inaccurate.

And the only way you would every create and maintain such a system is through force and controlling people. You may think your doing what is best for the human race, that if only you had your chance then everything would be better. But the price you want is far to high.

I will never agree that using force is the way you can change people.

And for the rest of what you are saying, yes, you are stating the obvious. Of course "we" think it would be better than what "we" have, yes, "we" hope to get the chance to do this.

But no, the price won't be to high. Unless you talk about money, yes, there is not enough money in existence even to pull this one of. Unless you meant something different with "the price you want". What price do I want?

As for what I suggest? That we continue to thrive in chaos, like we have done for the last 10000 years.

You can't call paying your taxes and having medical care or central services, "thriving in chaos".

Things might not be perfect, and they never will be, but as I've said before, we are living in the best time to be alive.

Unless you live in Africa and are dying because of starvation or decease.

We have a quality of life no one before us could have imagined, technology that would have been a dream a mere generation ago (and the rantings of a mad-man a generation before that), life expectancy is the highest its ever been.

It might be a reality for you and me, but for many it is still a dream.

You can't just live your life blissfully and ignore the poverty that makes your wonderful life possible. Well, maybe you can, but I can't.

You can't have it both ways in this system. No rich without the poor.

Chaos makes us focus on the next little step, in a perpetual effort to do a little better than last time, and the cumulative effect of this is far beyond anything the rantings of a cult with a very fixed idea of the ideal could ever possibly achieve.

It's not chaos, but incentive by motivation and passion that makes us want to do better.

And again, our idea is not fixed. We are about change.

Change is the only constant.

Humans are at our best when we use our hate and discontent to good effect.

Do you really believe this?

I'm not sure "the greats of our time" Pasteur, Curie, Einstein, Newton, Tesla would agree with that statement.

Clearly not a fact, just someones opinion. But you are free to say whatever you want, even if it is utter nonsense! YAY :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you just compare The Venus Project to Nazi's? Or because Zeitgeist is a German word?

Not to defend the Nazi case, but Hitler youth were geniuses smile.gif (and shows that we have the potential)

But again, it's not about controlling people, people do what they want. We just assume (assumptions based on scientific facts known to this day) that the behavior of people reflects the environment they live in.

So again, it's not about making people think a certain way, we're only talking about changing the system, not the people.

I'm not sure how I can make myself clear, I've repeated this a few times now..

No, I'm comparing it to the Soviet system. Which tried to do exactly what you wanting to do, which is educate people to think in the correct way, a better way. Your basing far to much on assumptions, and things you suspect to be true. And its is way more likely that you will be wrong than that you are correct. How much damage do you want to cause by replacing everything with yet another tightly controlled thought experiment based on very shaky ground?

Again, you misunderstood things.

There is no one that will decide what is irrelevant or not.

Irrelevant stuff will phase out on it's own and people will have the time to explore their own passions and ideas.

You make me seem like an arrogant prick, please don't bash me just because you don't agree. I like to discuss this and want to hear your opinions/ideas/concerns.

I'm not all-knowing and will never be that, on the contrary, I will never consider myself an intelligent person. Never.

The point I can make here is this:

Lasers, Linux, other cool inventions and art have mostly been created in recreational states. Side projects that didn't get any funding and thus started as self-funded hobbies are part of what makes this society so successful.

Now, imagine a world where only such projects existed. (not because someone said so or made you to, but because the profit motive doesn't exist anymore)

These are for me the perfect examples that promotes a system like The Venus Project proposes, people would still create things, they wouldn't get lazy, no, they would finally have the time and possibility to make those discoveries.

All people are scientists.

No, all people are not scientists. People are artists, engineers, traders, buisnessmen, farmers, teachers etc. All people are not the equal, the have different talents, abilities, inteligence levels, aptitudes and view points. You cannot design a system to work for all people.

As for the inventions that came from recreational ideas, they all got developed by commerical interests. Linux is mostly written by employees of big tech firms these days, not bedroom coders. If you take away the efforts of big firms, Linux would be in a very poor state today.

As for bashing you, you should realize that I am not attacking you personally, just your argument.

Yes, there are many transition plans, but none definitive, of course, as we are a movement of change and the ideas of tomorrow might not be the same as those of today. We are a movement of education, in this phase, and want to make people aware that 'something else' is possible. It doesn't necessarily has to be The Venus Project, just something better than what we have. Unless you think this system doesn't need any improvements or can't be replaced with something better, then our discussion can end now.

The system we have now is flawed, but then it has produced the most prosporus, advanced society in history, and in a very short period of time. The resources we have aquired, rightly or wrongly, have enabled us to sustain a very rapid period of growth. In my understanding, we need to return to capitalism, not a state sponsered banking system.

How can one rule a system like the one proposed by The Venus Project?

It's impossible to rule and there is nothing to gain by ruling it.

If they use it for themselves, why not? If someone starts a system like this on their own, they will have much difficulty. As the world is "crumbling down", people will see this system and will want to live there. But it will not be able to sustain the worlds population.

What we propose is a world wide system change, so either we benefit everyone or it doesn't happen. That's the only way it could work. (with what we know today...)

It's no utopia, I know it seems that way because it's so much better.

Rest assure, it will have problems, just far less.

The world is not crumbling down, the current problems we have are yet another minor blip, like the Great Depression of the 30's. Less than 30 years later we went to the moon. Globally life expectancy is up, infant mortality is down, people have more food, your less likely to die violently, you have access to far more information, your far more mobile, you have more oppuruity and happiness is up.

As for ruling the movement, leaders will arise in any system, because some people have a talent for it and selforganization is an instinctive behaviour of humans, irrespective of culture. I've seen it often before, people always become leaders and the leaders eventually start to see themselves as different to the people they lead, and eventually start to treat themselves differently. It happens everywhere from tribal viliages to internet communities.

But that's why I started this topic, to discuss with you all this new system, how it can be improved, and to spread the word it is possible to live in a world that is better than this one.

The current "plan" is to spread awareness and create critical mass.

About actually building; it's shown in the movie. There's no point on trying to patch up the flawed system. It would be far more efficient (and resource friendly) to start from scratch.

No it wouldn't be, we already have thousands of years of infrastructure, culture and ideologies that all have significant momentum, it would be a waste of resources to start again, and far more efficient to alter the trajectory of what we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You couldn't be more negative about this positive idea that could solve world hunger, sickness, criminality, and so on..

If it were a safe fantasy, then why are you attacking it? Doesn't seem safe to me. I think otherwise. I put my neck out to have presented this here.

But again, no, it's not about controlling people, it's about changing the environment.

I find it funny that you used the word 'cult'.

Let's see if that is correct:

Definition of 'cult':

The counter:

1. We don't have rites or ceremonies, and we have no religious belief.

2. There is no ideal or person we revere. Yes we look up to Jacque Fresco for all the research he has done and the ideas he introduced, but we don't regard him or his ideas as the final frontier, they will improve over time.

3. It's no object of devotion. People are volunteering and 'devoting' some time to help this ever changing cause.

4. See no. 2.

5. Again, no sacred ideology, as there is no final idea or final concept. It will keep changing the more information is available.

6. Again, not a religion, we have no beliefs, we aren't extremists, we discuss ideas of a possibly better system, and our "members", which "we" don't have, don't live outside of conventional society, and we have no leader. We reject the idea of a leader. It's the idea and way of thinking that brings and drives people, not someone that leads the pack. It would never be possible to.

7. Again, no "members".

8. We have no sole insight on how to change a person (negative behavior could be considered the sickness here), the information "we" have is readily available, as "we" didn't create this information, it's based on scientific studies done over the last centuries.

So we can agree that the word 'cult' you used to describe this movement is clearly inaccurate.

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

This pretty much defines what you are as an organization. You have a set of ideas, and you believe that if they are implemented, things will be so much better. From your own arguments posted here, you extend this to educating children to think in line with your ideals, and even into things like how families are run. This is way more than simply changing the way a society is run, and way into the territory of mass social engineering with a very clear goal.

Also, I'm not sure how the movements goals work with the idea of the Venus Project Inc./Global Cybervisions Inc being a privately owned company funded by donated labour and money. Annual turnaround is about $120K.

Worth reading: http://anticultist.wordpress.com/

I will never agree that using force is the way you can change people.

And for the rest of what you are saying, yes, you are stating the obvious. Of course "we" think it would be better than what "we" have, yes, "we" hope to get the chance to do this.

But no, the price won't be to high. Unless you talk about money, yes, there is not enough money in existence even to pull this one of. Unless you meant something different with "the price you want". What price do I want?

You can't call paying your taxes and having medical care or central services, "thriving in chaos".

It's not chaos, but incentive by motivation and passion that makes us want to do better.

And again, our idea is not fixed. We are about change.

Change is the only constant.

What I mean by chaos is the complete opposite of your planned world. We might pay taxes and have hospitals, but no one really knows what the goal is. They are just a convinenent way of pooling our resources. By chaos I mean that we thrive in trying loads of new things, often with wildly different aims and seeing what survives. There is no end point to aim for, we don't have a destination, we just try out lots of random little ideas, and that adds to the sum of society. Its social evolution.

Unless you live in Africa and are dying because of starvation or decease.

Africa is a huge place, parts of it are doing poorly, but more and more of it is starting to do far better. This is just a result of the rapid collapse of the colonial administrations after the end of the European Civil War, it just took a bit of time to get things rolling again. Give it a hundred years, and there will be far less poverty.

It might be a reality for you and me, but for many it is still a dream.

You can't just live your life blissfully and ignore the poverty that makes your wonderful life possible. Well, maybe you can, but I can't.

You can't have it both ways in this system. No rich without the poor.

You've still not donated your non-essential items to charity I see. Yes, there is a divide between the rich and poor, but if you look at the history of humanity this has been decreasing ever since the Romans were in power. And all of the advances the world uses today came from the rich nations, not the poor nations.

Do you really believe this?

I'm not sure "the greats of our time" Pasteur, Curie, Einstein, Newton, Tesla would agree with that statement.

Clearly not a fact, just someones opinion. But you are free to say whatever you want, even if it is utter nonsense! YAY smile.gif

Hate and discontent, because I hate living in a cave, and I'm discontented with having to spend all day chasing down my diner. So I use that hate and discontent to build a wall in front of my cave to keep the wind out, and start keeping the animals with me so I can kill one when its needed. I'm filled with hate and discontent that people are dieing due to lack of food, so I work on creating a genetically modified version of corn that requires far less water and nutrients to grow. This is what I mean by hate and discontent, the desire to do amazing things backed up by utter contempt for the way things are being done. Like yourself, and the Venus Project, which is filled with hate and discontent for the world as you see it today. If there wasn't that fire burning in your mind every time you read about a banker selling an orphanage or getting a bonus bigger than the yearly earnings of everyone on your road, you wouldn't be here arguing with me. Hate and discontent drive us to do things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm comparing it to the Soviet system. Which tried to do exactly what you wanting to do, which is educate people to think in the correct way, a better way. Your basing far to much on assumptions, and things you suspect to be true. And its is way more likely that you will be wrong than that you are correct. How much damage do you want to cause by replacing everything with yet another tightly controlled thought experiment based on very shaky ground?

Again, people will not be forced to think differently.

And yes, there is no sure way to know it will work (i guess all discoveries almost never have the expected outcome), the only proof would be by practice and it's no reason not to really consider or even try it.

No one ever did pretend otherwise. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

And also, no, it's not a tightly controlled thought experiment. Quite the contrary, it's open to anyone.

Our goals are based on having the best given with what we know up until that moment.

Please try to step out of your mindset and try to look at it with a fresh mind.

Then ask yourself: how could I make it better?

No, all people are not scientists. People are artists, engineers, traders, buisnessmen, farmers, teachers etc. All people are not the equal, the have different talents, abilities, inteligence levels, aptitudes and view points. You cannot design a system to work for all people.

A scientist is a person (or just a being or thing) that asks questions.

Didn't you see the videos I linked previously? Not that this proves anything, but keep an open mind and really take it into consideration.

As for the inventions that came from recreational ideas, they all got developed by commerical interests. Linux is mostly written by employees of big tech firms these days, not bedroom coders. If you take away the efforts of big firms, Linux would be in a very poor state today.

That's just a statement based on assumptions as well :)

But consider this: We are in The Venus Project. Linux just started it's first development. How could it look 10 years later when you know that people have the time and are not tied down to jobs they hate.

As for bashing you, you should realize that I am not attacking you personally, just your argument.

It's wasn't my argument you "attacked":

Again, your so sure of yourself, that your ideas are the right ones, you can't see that you will be wrong about important things.

Essentially you say that my arrogance blinds me, but said in kind words lol

But no offense, you don't have to agree with me on anything, I just ask you take it into objective consideration, if possible.

The system we have now is flawed, but then it has produced the most prosporus, advanced society in history, and in a very short period of time. The resources we have aquired, rightly or wrongly, have enabled us to sustain a very rapid period of growth. In my understanding, we need to return to capitalism, not a state sponsered banking system.

Means to an end = psychopathic

Anyway, I'm not denying this, never did, never will, so why bring it up?

Return to capitalism? This is capitalism, and these are the results.

The point is that even though we did get this far because of it, does not mean we shouldn't change it.

The world is not crumbling down, the current problems we have are yet another minor blip, like the Great Depression of the 30's. Less than 30 years later we went to the moon. Globally life expectancy is up, infant mortality is down, people have more food, your less likely to die violently, you have access to far more information, your far more mobile, you have more oppuruity and happiness is up.

You're taking it out of context. It was a hypothetical situation.

But you seem to like this system very much. It might just be too progressive an idea for you. Which is actually strange because I didn't expect people on this board (well, you don't represent everyone here so, you might just be an anomaly) to have problems with future ideas that are very different.

As for ruling the movement, leaders will arise in any system, because some people have a talent for it and selforganization is an instinctive behaviour of humans, irrespective of culture. I've seen it often before, people always become leaders and the leaders eventually start to see themselves as different to the people they lead, and eventually start to treat themselves differently. It happens everywhere from tribal viliages to internet communities.

It's funny you say you've seen it before as if it happened in a culture-free environment (which doesn't exist on this planet) and that person had no influence whatsoever that might have caused this response.

But if you mean leader as a person that has the ability to manage and manage well, that's a different thing.

Then yes, there will be leaders in The Venus Project, but they would have no power. And don't understand me wrong (because you might and might want to), we're talking about project leaders here. These are temporary roles that exist for a certain goal. For example building a world wide transit system, which might require multiple project leads.

No it wouldn't be, we already have thousands of years of infrastructure, culture and ideologies that all have significant momentum, it would be a waste of resources to start again, and far more efficient to alter the trajectory of what we have.

Not if you take into account that the current infrastructure is not optimized and it would be a waste of resources to keep patching this current system instead of building a new one that is built with efficiency in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This pretty much defines what you are as an organization. You have a set of ideas, and you believe that if they are implemented, things will be so much better. From your own arguments posted here, you extend this to educating children to think in line with your ideals, and even into things like how families are run. This is way more than simply changing the way a society is run, and way into the territory of mass social engineering with a very clear goal.

Also, I'm not sure how the movements goals work with the idea of the Venus Project Inc./Global Cybervisions Inc being a privately owned company funded by donated labour and money. Annual turnaround is about $120K.

Worth reading: http://anticultist.wordpress.com/

Again, we have no set of ideas nor ideas set. It is ever changing. Right now the best solution available (show me others) is The Venus Project. Tomorrow might be different.

Yes, children will get an education. And yes, it will be very unlike the education they get today (if they even get one). They will have teachers that are passionate and love to help children. They will get many more opportunities and will be educated on as much as possible, so they can make real choices (they don't HAVE to) on what they want to do with their lives.

So it's not about indoctrinating and forcing ideas upon them like it is today, it's about showing and presenting as much as possible.

Would you do it any differently?

And yes, The Venus Project is a non-profit organisation. Does it matter that it's privately owned?

The Zeitgeist Movement isn't. We just support the ideas presented. You're just stating things to make it look obscure (like your 'cult' word choice) because you don't agree. But that's OK, nobody's telling you what to do.

What I mean by chaos is the complete opposite of your planned world. We might pay taxes and have hospitals, but no one really knows what the goal is. They are just a convinenent way of pooling our resources. By chaos I mean that we thrive in trying loads of new things, often with wildly different aims and seeing what survives. There is no end point to aim for, we don't have a destination, we just try out lots of random little ideas, and that adds to the sum of society. Its social evolution.

You contradict yourself, maybe you didn't understand the meaning of chaos (or maybe I didn't, Chaos=no structure; so no way of working together; collaboration is the opposite). But it's ok, I understand what you're trying to convey, but don't agree.

Also a contradiction when you say we thrive in trying loads of new things, except this one particular thing. Cute.

Of course there is a point and destination, saying there isn't would mean you'd have to ignore what life is about.

Life is about happiness. People will do everything to be happy. Even when some are happy through misery; but that's a result of cultural biases.

We are alike in that you want social evolution as well..

Funny.. I just noticed that I'm searching for the similarities while you are searching for the differences :)

Africa is a huge place, parts of it are doing poorly, but more and more of it is starting to do far better. This is just a result of the rapid collapse of the colonial administrations after the end of the European Civil War, it just took a bit of time to get things rolling again. Give it a hundred years, and there will be far less poverty.

Yes, they are doing better:

http://www.africanculturalcenter.org/5_2_1health.html

But is that good enough for you?

You've still not donated your non-essential items to charity I see. Yes, there is a divide between the rich and poor, but if you look at the history of humanity this has been decreasing ever since the Romans were in power. And all of the advances the world uses today came from the rich nations, not the poor nations.

Well it would be hypocritical to expect it from someone else when clearly you didn't as well. And I did say that I would do it if it guaranteed me certain things. And you didn't answer my question. Or many of the others. And yes most are rhetorical, but not everyone will understand that, so you can safely answer anyway.

What's the point of saying that most of the advances came from rich nations?

All I'm hearing is another point that supports our "claim".

If only the poor nations had the chance (and don't pretend they do), our advances would accelerate tremendously.

Hate and discontent, because I hate living in a cave, and I'm discontented with having to spend all day chasing down my diner. So I use that hate and discontent to build a wall in front of my cave to keep the wind out, and start keeping the animals with me so I can kill one when its needed. I'm filled with hate and discontent that people are dieing due to lack of food, so I work on creating a genetically modified version of corn that requires far less water and nutrients to grow. This is what I mean by hate and discontent, the desire to do amazing things backed up by utter contempt for the way things are being done. Like yourself, and the Venus Project, which is filled with hate and discontent for the world as you see it today. If there wasn't that fire burning in your mind every time you read about a banker selling an orphanage or getting a bonus bigger than the yearly earnings of everyone on your road, you wouldn't be here arguing with me. Hate and discontent drive us to do things.

Well, again, you're ignoring a few things.

You would indeed hate to live in a cave, but that's only because you have the knowledge of living in a comfortable home.

Cavemen don't have that knowledge. They have a certain situation (are happy to even have that!; if you were naked out in the open and would have it very cold and then someone comes along and presents you a cave (or you found it yourself); you would be happy!), adapt to it, and might improve some things to make it better.

To them it's not about hating the situation and thus driving them to find or create a better situation.

It's possible to be happy with something and be even more happy with something else. That new happy becomes the regular happy state.

In the end, actually, it's a strange way of thinking.

Hate drives you to be happy.

It's like war driving you to be peaceful.

Personally, war drives me to KILL :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...