The Venus Project - Why I Think It Can Never Work

[OMG]

I think something like the venus project could kind of work, but the society (its views) would still have to be maintained.
You need to know how human minds work before you can figure out how to change society.
In my mind, there is one goal guiding all human behavior. period. I haven't been even close to being convinced that this is otherwise.

Simply -> Humans seek to gain pleasure and seek to avoid pain.

Nature has built in pain sensors and pleasure sensors into our brains. Ie nature made sex pleasurable so we reproduce, also it built in pain sensors so we don't hurt ourselves - which would increase our chance of dying. There are also other pain/pleasure stimuli, ie loud noise=pain,bright light=pain, being warm=pleasure, having an empty stomach=pain, etc etc
Everything else that 'hurts' people or that people 'like' is based off associations to those primitive pain and pleasure sensors. These associations are taught to us as we grow up or just happen in our environment. And many of the things called 'emotions' are just anticipations of pain/pleasure, or memories of pain/pleasure, or being currently experiencing pain/pleasure. Anger is learned. It is learned by people that when they fear something (fear is anticipation of pain), if they be aggressive the chance of being hurt is reduced - so it becomes a 'good' behavior - they succeed in avoiding pain. They may sustain some physical pain, but they have avoided what they think is a greater pain. They can also learn that 'running away' is a better solution for avoiding pain. The idea of fight/flight is just the persons best guess at what would avoid the pain.

But anyway, my point is that people can be taught to behave how ever is wanted, the only thing is, that the inherent pain/pleasure sensors in our bodies will go against any teaching. The teaching would have to be very well ingrained in everyone, and the better it is taught, the less influence that the inherent pain/pleasure sensors will affect society.

So ya, it would work somewhat, depending on how 'strong' the overall societies views and teachings are. The complicating step might be in maintaining the 'strong' teachings.

I invite anyone to challenge my beliefs about how humans 'work'. I'd like to refine it more and be more clear in my own mind.

[Oshi]

I'm just going to toss a few things out here. I've been reading through the posts, and there is one underlying theme through many of them that stands out like a sore thumb.

How exactly will we control the people who do things that we don't like.

Prostitution is not evil.
People that cause harm will ultimately either come to harm, or be managed by the people in a manner that satisfies safety issues and the mental health issues of the perpetrator.
Homosexuality is not evil.
If someone has problems with people smoking pot, that someone had better not smoke tobacco, over consume carb rich foods, drink coffee or energy drinks or have that beer after work if they hope to maintain the "moral high ground" where substance use is concerned.

...enough about that..

The hunger to have, to get, to own and to control is spurred by the flogged notion that the best looking, the best dressed, and the guy with the best car is superior to the guy in the ragged jeans and stained t-shirt who rides a ten-speed from the 80's with a bent wheel. Our value is represented by what we've managed to scrape into our circle of belongings and drape around our stagnating shoulders.
Consider a society in which prestige is calculated by accomplishment, contribution, innovation, knowledge, and wisdom. Where worth is inherent, equality firmly espoused, honour still relevant. The motivation of the people can and will shift to the selfish pursuit of the greater universal good.
Will there still be nutters that hurt people? Yep. And as long as we are unable to preemptively repair the human brain that's simply going to be a fact of life. Just because there is no police force in effect that subjugates all people to the will of the state does not mean that those who cause harm will not be removed from a position of being able to offer threat.
This is not going to be some radical instant change that will leave the masses reeling, this is to be an intelligent evolution. Made with careful consideration and always holding to the idea that good can be made better, and mistakes can be fixed.

Live it, to the best of your ability. Don't become zealots that cram ideas down anyone and everyone's throat. Live it, show it, talk about it rationally.


Imho anyways Btw, good to see a Canadian site, and I'm happy to meet you all. And I'm eager for the first transitional city in Canada... hint, hint. Let's get this party started.

---

I have to debate the idea that people are ruled only by instinct. Evidence to the contrary exists every moment someone puts themselves in harm's way for either someone they don't know. Every time someone puts their life on hold to go help some forlorn country with impoverished and suffering people. Everytime those who are NOT rich give to food banks, homeless shelters.
Primitive behaviour is motivated by desperation and the need to compete for survival. The "strong" oppress the "weak" for control of items needful to continued existence and safety.

And the idea is not to bend everyone to the will of a new state; or enslave the world to a single set of social mores shared by a small part of the global populace. It is to grow into a better, richer, more compassionate society that uses technology, sciences for the betterment of all. One which does not impose limited ideas on a large body of people, but invites unlimited ideas from all individuals of the global population.

Cheers

[JohnThursday]

Dear Angie,

Yeah it is tough to see a thing that is radically different. That truly could be considered a human flaw. I strongly urge you to check out Ray Kurzwiel's book "The Singularity is Near." If you aren't a big reader you can check out his lectures with a google video search it is quite enjoyable to watch (at least I thought so). Now, to address the jealousy thing. In the society envisioned here you have to assume that there is something to be jealous of. The houses won't technically belong to anyone because there won't be ownership as we know it today (but you already know that). If you see a place you want to live in for awhile all you'll have to do is wait until it becomes available. Or, you could have a very similar place made for you. Or, you can simulate the experience when virtual reality competes with real reality (whatever that is). Or why not just dial down the part of your mind that is triggering the emotion of jealousy. Also, immortality might be an emerging solution to this jealousy thing. If you live forever, do you worry about not getting to experience beach side living or do you just casually wait a little longer? This is why I re iterate the necessity of researching emergent technologies (exciting stuff). A lot of the problems we think we have will be [/align]annihilated with the tools we'll posses in just a couple of decades.

As for the failure of Communism. I would caution you against that old line of reasoning. I am sure you are not the type of person that gives up the first time she tries something and fails. I bet you can ride a bike. I also bet you fell a few times before you learned. Communism has been less than a brilliant success. It is a new idea compared to Democratic Republics. Democratic Republics had a shaky history in the beginning too. Rome (though I am sure many folk would beg to differ) was initially a Democratic Republic and it failed. Should we have abandoned the dream of the United States citing, "Nah, Republics don't work." I will exclude mention of the fate of the worlds first democracy.

It is highly important to always look for solutions to problems. To state that a thing can not be done and then not try is NFG. You are aware that folk used to say that about just about everything we take for granted now (moon landings; circumnavigating the globe by sea, air, and wheelchair). In fact some jerk at the end of the 19th century stated that, "All that can be discovered by science, has been discovered." Oops, he'll be spinning in his grave for the duration of humanity and perhaps longer. I say, we'll know that a thing can not be done when we try for an eternity and never get there (I also encourage you to -google video- "Dangerous Knowledge" a great documentary about our attempts at the impossible and the benefits of failing at such things).

So, chin up Angie, the future awaits. The only thing you have to ask yourself is which way you want to see it go, and ally yourself with that vision. Do you want something new, or more of the same, or something completely different? It'd be nice if you wanted something akin to the Venus Project but that's just me.

Yours Truly,
Jean Jeudi

[NICKSO]

(12-19-2008 05:05 PM)Angie Wrote:  The biggest challenge The Venus Project would be facing is the fact that humans are fundamentally corrupt. Envy and greed are our own and are embedded so deeply it maybe difficult if not impossible to get rid of it.

Even if people lived in houses like you see in pictures by Jacques Fresco, there would still be differences. One house would be overlooking the sea, while the other one would be in the cold, rigid area. You'd go to visit your neighbor who has a nicer house or a house that's located in a nicer area and what will happen - you will envy him. Even if we get rid of the monetary system so the house doesn't cost you anything, there's still only so much room along the shoreline. What will you do if you covet the shoreside house but there is no room there anymore?

Sadly, we as humans fail. If we didn't communism would work out, but it didn't. Communism was similar in nature - everyone is equal, everyone gets an equal share. But an attempt to offer free milk failed, because people are full of greed and everyone was taking more than they need. People will simply always look to benefit themselves because that feeling that you're better off than your neighbor can not be beat.

Sad, but true

Hi Angie,

First of all, the main structural change that communism wanted was the abolition of the private property (In yuxtaposition of the public property) as this is the enemy of the needs of the people, but also in communism you need to move certain quantity of money, regardless how much the gov is involved in it.

Second, the greed and envy as I undertstand is this:

Envy:
1. a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc.
2. an object of envious feeling: Her intelligence made her the envy of her classmates.

So, the material part (as the house in a shore) is not the only example we can check here, there will be other things as "he is a technician, and im in the lab as a rat lab"

The thing of envy is, in part, part of the human being but this kind of world of "give to receive" is generating that kind of thinking, as we dont know how it will work the thing is to solve problems using technology and a great human breakthrough in human thinking.

Best Regards!

[Jako]

Hi guys,

It's my first post, and maybe I have to read more about VP but I have some doubts:

the scariest thing for me is cybernetics.

Quoting from http://www.thevenusproject.com/technology/city-systems :

Quote:The Venus Project calls for a cybernated society in which computers could replace the outmoded system of electing politicians that in most cases represent the entrenched vested interests. This new technology will not dictate or monitor individual's lives, as in The Venus Project this would be consider socially offensive and counterproductive. Books such as 1984 and Brave New World, and motion pictures such as Blade-Runner and Terminator 2 have spawned fear in some people regarding the takeover of technology in our society. The Venus Project's only purpose is to elevate the spiritual and intellectual potential of all people, while at the same time providing the goods and services that will meet their individual and material needs.

Cybernation is the linking of computers with automated systems. Eventually the central cybernated systems will coordinate all of the machinery and equipment that serve the entire city, the nation and ultimately the world. One can think of this as an electronic autonomic nervous system extending into all areas of the social complex.

For example, in the agricultural belt the computers could automatically monitor and maintain the water table, soil chemistry, and coordinate the planting and harvesting of crops. In the residential sector, the system could maintain environmental cleanliness and the recycling of waste materials.

In addition, to ensure the efficient operation of the city's various functions, all of the processes and services could be equipped with electronic environmental feedback sensors. These sensors could be coordinated with redundant, back-up systems that could operate in the event of failure or breakdown of the city's primary systems.

Eventually, only when cybernation is integrated into all aspects of this new and dynamic culture can computers appropriately serve the needs of all people. No technological civilization can ever operate efficiently and effectively without the integration of cybernetics as an integral part of this new world civilization.

These proposals, from an engineering standpoint, seem fantastic and unfeasible within the present monetary system; and they are. The sums involved in ventures of this magnitude would be too huge and inconceivable. No government today can possible afford this prodigious undertaking. All of this could only be accomplished in a resource-based world economy where all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of the earth's peoples.

It seems like building a Matrix (like in the movie) to me. If machines that can actually "think" it means that they can evolve. It's a similar thing even with nanotechnology and nanorobots. The book "Prey" by Michael Crichton seems not to far from reality at this point.
Are we really sure we WANT this? It could be very dangerous.

Another thing I am concerned about is technology. I love technology, but I also like nature. I may not want to live in a hi-tech house in the city but in a simple wooden house in the nature, will I be able to do that?

Cheers,

Jac

[duram]

yes but the philosophy will be for you to take your own responsbility for it, but there just won't be any money serving laws to stand in your way

[CHIP]

I agree with the OP, it's a nice concept but I just don't think it's realistically achievable. First of all, the idea that we could completely eradicate work and have machines do laborious chores for us is a nice thought, but again, realistically, it's a long way off. If such a thing was possible, money-conscious corporations would have already cashed in on such an opportunity and most people would be without jobs. And even if machines could carry out chores for us autonomously, people would obviously still have to watch over the machines to ensure they're functioning efficiently.

Second, I do disagree with Peter's notion that behavioural traits like competitiveness and selfishness are mostly born from conditioning. It's true that the environment shapes our behaviour dramatically, but can you really eradicate traits like competitiveness (which is arguably necessary for the evolution of our species) and selfishness, which I personally believe is genetically ensconced into us. Even the most altruistic people on this planet put themselves before other people; it's the way we're genetically hardwired to behave. And Peter's notion that wind power is not unreliable, which he states in Addendum, is not true. You only have to look at Denmark.

Denmark created loads of wind turbines and built up a capacity theoretically of 20% of its total grid and discovered they were only capable of producing a paltry 5% without destabilising the grid. Sun and wave are equally as tenuous. The only energy sources that can cope with the buergeoning population are hydrocarbons and nuclear power, of course, both use up finite resources, but if we changed the energy economies of the world today to the ones that Peter and Jacque Fresco champions, we would be reverted back to the stone-age overnight.

It's easy to get sucked in to what Peter says, because he's so eloquent and almost has an hypnotically-entrancing voice. That said, I do agree that the monetary system is flawed, horribly corrupted and needs to go. The right to print money needs to go back to the government and outside of private owners, we should live in a meritocracy society and we should uphold the principles in our Constitution. That's all that needs to be done IMO. None of these videos of identically-bland white houses with flying saucers in the sky, as depicted in the Venus Project.

Then again, maybe I'm just being naïve.