The Venus Project: Everything Wrong With Utopian Fantasy In 108 Simple Questions.

Posted on February 24, 2014. Filed under: Astrology and Related Bunk, Atheism, Atheist Ethics, Humour, Politics, Science, Social Justice |

Climate change denial.

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Creationism.
Birthers.

We spend an inordinate amount of time as liberals making fun of the teabagging wingnut nutjobs and their seriously delusional conspiracies.  It makes us feel superior.  It makes us feel smart.  It makes us feel gratified, justified, and warm inside.
But it also helps us ignore the fact that there are some liberals with some very ignorant and intellectually lazy ideas.

Anti- GMO.
Anti-Vax.
Alternative medicine.

We don’t have a monopoly on rational thought.  In fact, if “Rational Thought” was a game of Monopoly, some of us would still be trying to unfold the board with the thimble up our nose.  People believe lots of silly stuff because it is epistemologically expedient.  Liberals trend toward anti-corporatism, so Big Agra and Big Pharma must be nefarious.  Natural is always better.

So it doesn’t surprise me that so many of my liberal friends fall head over heels in love with The Venus Project.  It is as though someone sat down to write liberal porn inspired by a crack bender they once had with Karl Marx while watching a Star Trek marathon. It’s an intoxicating, confusing, and entertaining  pile of escapism.

If you don’t want to read through my enlightening FAQ and just want the tl;dr- there are three main facts that I think cannot be disputed when discussing the Venus Project:

  1. The Venus Project is a cult.  Every person who knows anything about the Venus Project knows that the ideas,
    Image from wikipedia

    Image from wikipedia

    mission, and credit belong to one person.  You can’t navigate a page on their website or magazine without seeing the name Jacque Fresco.  Even when he is spectacularly wrong, his acolytes can’t muster more than tepid deference. The only argument you can make against this is that a cult traditionally has a charismatic leader, and Jacques Fresco has all the personality of Joe Leiberman on Unisom.

  2. The Venus Project is naive scientism.  Science is not going to solve all the worlds problems, it’s just not.  It’s not going to make human dynamics less complicated and it’s not a panacea to every imaginable problem.  Sometimes problems require more than just an invention or technology.  Even if Jacque Fresco could invent a machine to bring Nikola Tesla back to life- it still wouldn’t solve all our problems.  Well, most of them.  But not all.
  3. Jacque Fresco knows how to design a building.  Jacque Fresco does not know how to design a society or an economy.  He certainly doesn’t know anything about sociology, psychology or economics.  He is a futurist- but unless technology can make humans behave like algorithms- he is just blowing smoke.

The rest of this post will be my attempt to answer the FAQ on The Venus Project website.  Are my answers flippant?  Sure.  I would argue they are no more flippant (and far more honest) than what you will find on their site.  Each question is linked to the FAQ page of The Venus Project website, and I invite readers to click through and see the answers provided there- which in many cases are more evasive and more comical than my own.

Frequently Asked Questions (With Answers)

1.What is The Venus Project?

The Venus Project is the reason Jacque Fresco is awesome.  In fact, Jacque Fresco is so awesome, he is the Jacque Fresco of Jacque Frescos.  The Venus Project is an organization created by Jacque Fresco to reshape our human existence by plagiarizing 1950’s Sci-Fi drawings and selling them back to you as an ideal future.   The Venus project is the Jacque Fresco of Utopian Sci-Fi organizations.
From the 19th century until the 1950’s, science fiction authors and artists imagined the planet Venus as a warm, habitable world filled with lush vegetation, new discoveries and boundless wonder- until science came along and spoiled all their fun by proving Venus to be a brutally unlivable hell-hole where it rains sulfuric acid.  From a distance, the planet appears to be great but on closer inspection it is unfit for human habitation.  In this way, the Venus Project is apparently quite aptly named.

2.What is a Resource-Based Economy?

A resource-based economy is one where we continue to use resources but stop using money to represent the ownership of those resources.  It’s so awesome, some people say it’s the Jacque Fresco of economic systems.
I know what you’re thinking- it’s going to be hard to fit three T-bone steaks and a pound of lentils in the pocket of your jeans when you want to buy the new Zeitgeist documentary on Blu-Ray.  That’s okay, because you won’t have to! You just go and pick it up at the store- because resources are all shared.  And by shared I mean rationed, because you can’t just get whatever you want. We call it “sharing” because we won’t have to ration because you are only ever going to ask for what you need because we are all totally unselfish. Get it? It’s kind of like communism but this is not communism because it’s called a resource-based economy. It’s totally different because it has a different name.
If you want to learn more about a resource-based economy, just send a cheque or money order (sorry, we do not accept resources) to The Venus Project for their fantastic book on the subject- The Best That Money Can’t Buy.

3.Why do you feel that an approach as revolutionary as The Venus Project is necessary?

Our current system is not capable of providing a high standard of living for everyone, nor can it ensure the protection of the environment because the major motive is profit.  Therefor, we have to tear the whole thing down and start all over from scratch- because Jacque Fresco is the world’s most awesomist inventor but he can’t figure out how to work within a monetary paradigm.  He’s the Jacque Fresco of visionaries.

4.Isn’t it just decent people that we need in government?

We don’t need government.  We need benevolent plutocrats making all the important decisions.  Nothing could possibly go wrong with expecting a privileged few people to always choose the best possible policy for the use and distribution of resources.  It will be like a fiefdom, except that all the things you hate about fiefdoms will be different.

5.Elaborate a bit, if you will, on your views regarding money.

Are you going to buy one of my books or DVDs?  Are you going to tour our headquarters?
I guess what I’m asking is “Is this a trick question?”

6.What are some of the detrimental effects of The Monetary System?

It forces me to ask you for money, so there’s that.

7.You mentioned economic collapse in your book. Do you believe this is the only way our society can escape a monetary economy?

Yes.  Incidentally, waiting for an economic collapse allows me to continue to collect donations without having to, you know, do anything.
It’s a win-win.

8.Wouldn’t there be Resistance of the Rich and Powerful?

No.  People in the future will love giving up all their wealth. Because in the future, science is magic!

9.In the idea of future, do you think that the regional differences will still have the greatest influence as they do today? Or will these differences disappear?

In the idea of the future, I think that regional differences no will longer have the as great influences.  Like spambots will talk similar to others. This question makes super quality, and to help others to understand the qualities better.

10.What types of pressures would be alleviated in The Venus Project’s designs?

Why?  Do you feel pressured?  Come and lie down in this building shapes like some boobs.

11.What is the single most important aspect of the project?

Collecting donations for The Venus Project.

12.What is the Plan?

The plan has four phases:

  1. Build a place in Florida for Jacque Fresco to live.  Ask people to pay lots of money to see it. This step is done.
  2. Make a movie.  Ask people to pay lots of money to buy it on DVD.
  3. Build an experimental city.  Ask people to pay lots of money to have it built.
  4. Build a theme park.  Ask people to pay lots of money for admission.  Interactive displays will explain why if you give us more money, some day you won’t have to use money to get into theme parks.

13.How do you see the collapse of the present system occurring?

With your eyes.
See what I did there?

14.How do we get from here to there?

By adding a “t”.
See what I did there?

15.What are the first steps taken toward a global resource based economy?

Step 1: Wait for the economy to collapse.
In the meantime, you are welcome to make all donations payable to The Venus Project.

16.What can be “the turning point” of the future? Do you have any idea about it?

I have lots of ideas.

17.How would you describe the recent economic crisis? Can it be a lesson in today’s society?

I would describe it as a crisis.  A crisis of the economic sort.
The lesson is “I told you so.”

18.By the way, what do you think about the “New World Civilization”?

Is that like the “New World Order”?  Because I understand people don’t like that.
So it’s nothing like that.

19.You couldn’t just plop the first city down and expect people to respect it…. you would need to slowly develop the cities as it becomes harmonized with the evolving social consciousness. What are some of the steps to accomplish this?

  1. Send us money.
  2. We will use the money to inform people why it is a good idea.
  3. Send us more money.
  4. We will use the money to make a DVD that costs $30
  5. Send us more money
  6. We will build a city once the economy collapses.
    Any questions?

20.What is, and what do you think about it, the relationship between habitat and place of living? Which variables do you consider in conceiving architecture, or even a city?

Are you the same guy who wrote question #9?  Also, that’s a great porn site linked to your comment, too bad it’s in Cyrillic.

21.I noticed a certain nearness between your thinking and the French architect Le Doux about the concept of ideal city: do you believe that the eighteenth century idea of ideal city could apply also to a future city?

Le Doux is the Jacque Fresco of Eighteenth Century architecture.
In other words, he’s awesome.

22.What would you consider to be the most difficult technological hurdle to overcome before building the Circular City?

I don’t understand.  Building a Circular City is as easy as Pi.

23.Many of your designs seem to reflect retro-mod trends. What was your thinking behind the shapes and the black/white façades of the structures?

I’m old.
My conception of the future was cemented in 1952.

24.What would be done with the old cities?

Rebel bases for people who think having no choices is dystopian.

25.What main concepts do you keep in mind whenever you design structures or transportation?

WWJVD?  What Would Jules Verne Do?

26.Can you briefly describe the process you used in designing the Circular City? What factors were most important?

I started by making a circle.  Then I placed buildings in the circle.  It was important to make it circular since I wanted to call it the Circular City.
In the first draft it was shaped like a rhombus.  This made it hard to call it the Circular City.

27.What kind of change do you expect in architecture?

In the future, architecture changes you.

28.How would one choose a home?

In the future, home chooses you.

29.Is everything going to be easier than today regarding the materials we use at home, for example, white goods, furniture, etc.? Then, how is it going to be changed?

Science will make everything easy.  They will be changed to be more science-y.
Also, you need to, you know, possibly try to, just, maybe, lay off the use of so many commas.

30.In your project new social mentality is introduced. What novelties in architectural forms and constructions does the Venus project offer?

Civilization is going to collapse.  We are going to enter a period of unprecedented social disorder.  Our economy is going to tank and billions of humans are going to be systematically displaced by the unrest.
So by all means, let’s talk about how cool it will be to live in a geodesic dome.

31.What kind of change do you expect in health equipment?

Health equipment will be better because science.

32.What kind of change do you expect in communication?

Communication will be better because, well, science.

33.What kind of change do you expect in transport?

Transportation will be worse.
Just kidding!
Science!

34.Is it possible to see flight cars in the near future?

Will giving you a flying car distract you from the fact that none of this is plausible?
It will?
Then yessss…..

35.What kind of change do you expect in urban development?

See questions 31 through 33.

36.From a technological point of view – is the Venus project real?

No.

37.Are there necessary materials, technologies of constructing and maintenance of eco-cities nowadays?

Nowadays we are pretty close. Tomorrowadays, anything is possible.

38.What present-day materials, technologies can be used in constructing the Venus project?

Imagination.

39.What scientific developments (materials, technologies) should be done to realize your project?

We need to create a machine that takes hopeless pipe dreams and converts them into reality.  I expect such an invention in the next few years.

40.How do you imagine the building processes of the projects – standard, using prefabricated units or some other technologies?

I imagine. That’s a good way of putting it.

41.Is there a preliminary cost of this kind of the complex? Is it cheaper or not?

It should be cheaper because nobody gets paid to build things in the future.

42.In your opinion, when will such towns be constructed?

There are already towns like this.  Since they weren’t built by Jacque Fresco we don’t talk about them.

43.Is there any one field of discipline you find most promising right now, as far as technological advancement? Architecture? Material science, perhaps?

Whichever discipline Jacque Fresco is using at the given moment.

44.Could individuals live outside the cities?

They won’t want to because the cities were created by Jacque Fresco.

45.But, what if someone wanted to go out into a remote area, far from the cities?

Why would you want to be far away from the genius of Jacque Fresco?  This question makes no sense.

46.I was trying to think of an intermediate/bridging solution to the problem of automobile collisions. I’m curious as to his thoughts about such a common problem. 6,289,000 occur every year.

We need to wait for the economy to collapse so I can give you flying cars.  Problem solved.

47.Why is this concept superior to other intentional community projects?

Jacque Fresco.

48.How are Resources Distributed Equitably?

Rationing.  Except I will call it something else because that sounds bad.

49.What is the role of the family?

To distract you from the fact that you have limited choices, exactly like today.

50.What is the approach to professionals running this new society?

We will be getting rid of many professions.  Like lawyers because there will be no crime or disagreements.  And bankers because there will be no money.

51.Will there be a government?

Eventually computers will replace governments because they make better decisions than you can.  You can’t be involved in decisions.

52.What is the role of Cybernation as Decision Makers?

Your robot overlords will always look out for your best interests.  You have nothing to worry about.

53.How do you evaluate the robot conception in the future? As in the science fiction movies, everything is going to be done by robots. Is everything going to be different or will humans be the most effective factor?

Are you that guy from question #9 and #20 again?
I evaluate that conceived robots in future will be awesome. Human effective factors will be different so everything conceived robots factor to be more of an affect.  Science fiction makes robot affects to human factors conceived for evaluation.

I hope this answers your query.

54.Is this what Karl Marx advocated?

No.  Karl Marx didn’t have robots or science.

55.How does The Venus Project Compare with Communism?

It has a cooler name and it is more like Star Trek.

56.How does this system differ from Marxism, besides the technological use?

Because this system was created by Jacque Fresco, and Marxism was created by not Jacque Fresco.

57.How does this differ from Communism?

It has robots, flying cars, and retro-mod architecture.  Will nothing make you happy?

58.Could you respond to the 1949 essay I sent you from Albert Einstein regarding his views on socialism?

He’s a fucking idiot.

59.How can the use of Laws be eliminated?

In the future people won’t do anything wrong.  This makes total sense if you stop thinking about it.

60.In all your books, but most of all in The Best That Money Can’t Buy, you deal among other subjects (as the need to rethink the set of priorities of society, to suppress crime and war, to take care of our planet’s health…) also with the need to understand the close bond that man entertains with nature: which are the properties of the world (planet-society) that have to change to re-establish this bond?

Has this question rally been asked “frequently”? Really?  Worded like this? Why do people keep sending me such poorly worded questions?  This question is barely in English.

61.Wouldn’t change come about through a reasonable and logical progression?

No, change is inherently unreasonable and illogical.  In fact, the change will likely come before the process taken to effect it.  Because logic.

62.What Guarantees People The Right Of Participation?

As long as by “participation” you don’t mean “political participation” or “democratic participation”, then no worries.

63.What do you consider a “high standard of living”, which everyone in the world is entitled to? And who is the one to decide this?

A resource based economy means that the economy has a finite value based on available resources.  Every single person will have the same standard of living regardless of where they live.  This means that the total available resources divided by the number of people on earth will equal the value of your fixed standard of living.
You will have an equal share, but it might be wise to keep any large boxes handy- just in case we have a resource shortfall and you need, you know, a place to sleep or something.

64.Who makes the decisions in a resource based economy?

Your robot overlords. We already discussed this.

65.Will people all be alike?

No. Some people will be happy being housepets to their robot overlords, others might think that there must be a better way.  The latter people will, of course, be wrong- because the robots say so.

66.Will people who do more work, such as doctors, demand more resources than someone like an artist?

Who says doctors do more work?  Who says artists do little work?
Just fucking with you.  They might demand more resources, but the robot overlords will fix them.

67.Inventors and designers are constantly improving methods and technology, yet can like-minded people work towards goals similar to the ones you presented in your book, while still operating within a monetary system? How do you suggest we keep ideas and technology from contributing to the cycle (away from military hands, etc.)?

My goals cannot be reached in a monetary system.  You got that?  Sheesh.  Things will never change in a monetary system.  We have had a monetary system for thousands of years and not a single new political idea, scientific advancement, or cultural shift was ever achieved in this period.
Look it up.  (but seriously, don’t look that up)

68.What are the safeguards against abuse of power in the society you envision?

Robots don’t crave power.  Have you not read Issac Asimov?  (again- seriously, don’t)

69.Do we have enough energy to eliminate scarcity?

As soon as someone figures out how to convert pure energy into arable farmland and water, yes.

70.In a system where everything is available without a price tag, would this eliminate incentive?

No.  It will put the company that makes price tags out of business though.

71.Would people lose their incentive?

If they don’t need to work, why would they need an incentive?

72.Why the emphasis on the cybernated approach to the social operation?

Because if people operated the economy then they would have power over those that didn’t make the decisions.  And since I’m guessing you are a communist and don’t like class-based economic systems, I thought I could solve it with robots.

73.The world you describe requires the planetary resources of legions of engineers, artists and craftspeople to design, fabricate, assemble and calibrate. What happens three or ten generations later when the back-up systems are breaking down and the population has only poets and theoretical physicists?

We will write epic poems about our love of string theory.  Duh.

74.History shows that advanced technologies and skills have been lost within generations and a fully automated cybernetically managed economy/ecology/society would be vulnerable to system decay, malfunction and collapse in a way that would render humanity helpless and then destitute with neither the technical skills nor the emotional maturity to resolve the resulting crises.

Hey smartypants, that’s not a question- is it?

75.So why not plan on simple modular self-sufficient economies, or inter-dependant low tech economies that advance sustainable technologies and skills within each community?

Because if I did that I would have to do something useful with your donations instead of hoarding donations till the economy collapses.  Why would anyone do such a thing?

76.Could you describe the distribution of food and/or other objects of desire, like telephones, computers, or books?

If you are hungry, you will go to a distribution center to get food.  If they are out of food, you could try eating other objects of desire, like telephones, computers, or books.

77.What will people do?

Stuff.

78.You place great emphasis on human behavior as opposed to human nature. Would you define both?

Human behaviour is defined as how humans behave.  Human nature is defined as how humans nate.
Got it?

79.Isn’t this against Human Nature?

No. Deflecting serious questions and being evasive is totally natural for humans.

80.How do “Restless Teenagers” fit into the system? Or rather, what is available for them to do?

Perhaps they could watch “The Young and The Restless”?

81.Would The Venus Project be for deviants?

There will be no deviants, because science!

82.What would be done with that percentage of society that would be agitators or malcontent such as Timothy McVeigh who were brought up with a normal upbringing?

There will be no agitators or malcontents, because science!

83.What about crimes of jealousy?

People won’t be jealous.  Just because.

84.For reasons best known to geneticists, some people inherit different colored eyes from those of other people around them. In a grand overall vision of social and economic reform such as The Venus Project, what about those few who will always exhibit aberrant behavior under any system?

Programming.  But we won’t call it that- we will call it “better education”.

85.Do you advocate killing people with aberrant behavior?

No, but I said I don’t think people in the future will exhibit aberrant behaviour- because “better education”.  Checkmate, rationalists.

86.Isn’t technology very often detrimental to people and the cause of many of our problems?

Tell that to your new robot overlords…….

87.In this new culture, do you propose to utilize a technical elite that would decide the direction for society?

No.  the technical elite will program the robots that will decide the direction for society.  Huge difference.

88.How does one solve the problem of excess (say a person or people wanting more than is available)?

“Better Education”.  Which is totally not like “programming”.

89.How will people get along in the Middle East? How will the question of religion be resolved?

Ignore them, leave them tot heir own devices, let God sort them out.
Unless they want to stop- then your question is irrelevant.

90.What about religion?

Many people in the future will worship Jacque Fresco.  If some people want to continue to give all the credit to Jesus or Allah- then I can’t really stop them.

91.Many people claim that when spirituality fails in bringing up social changes, the use of violence is rationalized. Do you agree with this opinion?

Do I agree that there is a dichotomy between spiritualism and violence?  I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.

92.What can you tell us about The Venus Project’s approach to education?

We plan on educating people.

93.What would the education be like?

It would be like education now, but better.

94.How are Learning, Cooperation, and Gaining Health, Built into the System?

Again- I have to ask- exactly how does a question like this get asked “frequently”?
Really?

95.What about food? Would people eat meat?

Bacon for everybody!  (Unless your not into that kind of thing…)

96.What about drug addicts and alcoholics?

No more drugs.  Because science!

97.Is The Venus Project interested/capable of co-ordinating with other groups, intentional communities, individuals, to organize a resource based society distributed throughout the current society? Put another way, is TVP organizing the transition itself? Or just providing an example of what is possible with the intention of society as a whole enacting the switch over?

The Venus Project is just waiting for the economy to collapse, then for the military dictatorships to take over. This is when we think it will be easiest to broker change.  This totally makes sense if you don’t think about it.

98.How do you think people react to your proposals, that I would label “virtual proposals”, about the future of the world, and what is your relationship with them? How important is fulfilment in terms of credibility and concrete experience?

People react poorly to many of my ideas.  This is because I’m right and they are wrong.
Look it up. (Seriously though, don’t look it up.)

99.Is The Venus Project a Utopian society?

Yes, but I’ll never cop to it.

100.Future plans? What are you going to do now? What are you going to do next?

Next I’ll need you to buy my complete lectures on DVD.  Then I’ll need you to donate money.  After that, we just need to wait for the economy to collapse.

101.More than a few people would say they are fed up with living in a money-driven society, and wish to live a more self-fulfilling life. What advice would you give these people?

Turn your dreams into a reality by giving me your money.

102.Do we have enough time to see all of these changes?

No.  But I’m not going to tell you that.

103.If you had to choose one idea that would describe the essence of this new society, what would it be? Unity? Discovery?

Jacque Fresco.

104.What about the use of drugs in the future?

Once people have taken enough drugs to think my ideas make sense, there will be no need for drugs.

105.What is your take regarding Sexuality?

I’m all for it.

106.What is your take regarding the separation from the Zeitgeist Movement as the activist arm of The Venus Project?

There are two main problems that led to the decision to dissociate The Venus Project from the Zeitgeist Movement:

  1. Those guys are friggin’ nuts
  2. Too much 9/11 denial, not enough Jacque Fresco worship.

107.What is your take regarding overpopulation?

There are finite resources and an infinite potential for population growth.  Given these two facts, I have decided that overpopulation is a myth.

108.What is TVP’s stance on personal possessions?

You currently possess money.  We would like to free you of that burden as soon as possible.

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

140 Responses to “The Venus Project: Everything Wrong With Utopian Fantasy In 108 Simple Questions.”

RSS Feed for Misplaced Grace Comments RSS Feed

“The man-worshipers…are those who see man’s highest potential and strive to actualize it. The man-haters are those who regard man as a helpless, depraved, contemptible creature – and struggle never to let him discover otherwise.” -Ayn Rand

Okay so many of the ideas about the whole cyberneering aspect might be going a bit to the extreme. Jacques Fresco as well as the Zeitgeist movement might not be the answer to all our problems. But it has some good ideas, that goes without saying. Everyone that has a left a comment, think about this. How would you feel if you personally witnessed children dying of starvation or diseases in poverty stricken countries like Ethiopia and other parts of Africa and India? That’s a human being! If you know and understand what governs our world, that is profit, you’d feel pissed about what they doing. War is unnecessary. America has made us view an Arab as being dangerous, wherever you’d go you’d still have that feeling. See at the end of the day our world is f***ked up. What we can do however, is try and make a change. Maybe a an RBE could be a solution, but aint gonna happend anytime soon. Give or take 500 to 1000 years.😦 All I can say is that if you feel strongly about something you should fight for it, become an activist or doing fricken something !! No point in Writing about it all the time.

So, in your ‘humble’ opinion, betterment of the human race is an unrealistic dream and a selfish endeavour? Maybe I see your point… Continuing to spend every human life (not to mention finite planetary resources)securing money and power for the already rich and powerful is a much worthier goal.
Did this article make you feel superior?

If the goal of The Venus Project is “betterment of the human race”, then it’s doing a piss-poor job of making any real world “betterment”.
A movement can have noble goals and still have a complete lack of focus and effectiveness. It can have noble goals and ridiculous ideas. It can have noble goals and leaders who hamstring it by their egotism.
If all you care to examine is a groups stated intentions and not their actions, efficacy, or process- then yes, TVP is a top notch organization that is bound to save the world.
If you want to have a grip on reality, you might want to expand your investigation to what an organization really does in the real world.
Thanks for the comment!

I do not blame the author as a person for this post. I understand that it is most likely because of his background and environment that he grew up in that led him to believe this way. However, his ideas are just ignorant. His comments and remarks are based in zero evidence, unlike those of Jacque Fresco. If he had ever spent the time to read any of Fresco’s books, he would see the hundreds of citations and scientific sources backing up all of his claims and facts. He clearly has not taken the time to actually acquire an in depth knowledge of Fresco and his ideas. The author believes that society can never achieve this level of effectiveness, much like how our great grandparents never thought we could send somebody to the moon. This post is outdated and lacks fundamental knowledge and understanding of the history of human sociology. Unlike Fresco, the author lacks any real substance in the answer to his questions. Sarcastic remarks with zero evidence backing them can be thrown out, because opinions and beliefs with no evidence serve no purpose in our world. The author represents nothing more than an american who has been sociologically conditioned to fear change and the future. He is stuck in his ways in believing that things cannot and will not get better, but it is not his fault. When a society conditions you to believe something your entire life, it can be hard to advance your level of thinking beyond that of the society and governing bodies that control you. I am not mad at the author, I just suggest to continue learning. Never stop thinking. Try, if it wouldn’t kill you, to think of The Venus Project from Fresco’s perspective. Even if you don’t believe it will work, create an essay outlining why it will work, just to put yourself in somebody else’s shoes. I can understand your claims, but in the end, the claims with the most evidence are more reliable. Although now you may not have the capacity to fully see The Venus Project from an objective point of view, keep trying. Keep learning about the world we live in by taking on perspectives from others. If you truly do not believe that the world can become a better place, keep thinking until you see that point of view. Do not doubt progress, because it has been historically proven to prevail over stagnation. Always. Do not contribute to the stagnation of our society, strive for ways to make things better. Complaining about our problems will never help fix them. If you cannot offer a relevant and viable option that doesn’t involve giving up and stagnating, then you have nothing to offer the conversation of bettering the world. Whether you like it or not, the world is moving on. It may not be exactly as Fresco plans, but things will get better, as they always have. So keep thinking, keep trying to educate yourself on these matters, and continue to talk with others. Education is the key to understanding and bettering the world.

Wow.
Reading comprehension is not your forte. Please site references from my post where I said “Things are awesome the way they are” or “I don’t believe in progress” or “things suck but will never change”.
You complain that I haven’t read a Fresco book, but you didn’t even take the time to read this post- which is by an order of magnitude shorter.
Listen, you and I can both agree that the world is in need of drastic changes. But if someone suggests we should just genetically engineer future humans who ingest carbon dioxide and shit out soft serve ice cream, then you and I both have a right and a duty to point out how utterly ridiculous that plan is.
Criticizing ideas is not the same as affirming the status quo.
Things will get better, I agree. Progress will march on and my grandchildren will look down on Jacque Fresco and his legacy of failed Utopian idealism the same way I look down on it today.

I believe several times throughout Jaque’s writings, speeches and essays he rejects the idea of Utopianism as static and unable to work effectively for very long… Just saying brah…

Sure.
You can also tell people you are a feminist and believe a woman’s duty is to silently serve her husband.
You can say anything you want, it doesn’t make it so.
Just saying brah….

If you dont think the Venus Project will work then fine you are entitled to your opinion. However its an innovative idea and at least we have people proposing changes. But instead of downing EVERYTHING he stands for, try to figure out why something wont work and figure out a way that it will – an improvement. Ur quick to judge but he is attempting to save the world from the capitalistic pigs like monsanto? He has been around since the 20’s!!! the man has seen more than you know. We know shit…ur probably not even 30..just guessing by your ignorance to debunk everything. Debunking is an art I get it but clearly you are full of fear and fear only stems from two things – not getting what you want or losing something so the question is….what do u have to lose from attempting this kind of society? or what do u think u wont have by living in such a society.

This society for me is based on one thing and one thing only….making sure this planet lives – however you go about that is 100% ok with me. This is an environmental move that would make oil obsolete. Tapping volcanoes and harnessing their energy. Easy to do with the technology we had in the 70’s. We are now in 2014 and we create mini big bangs in Scandinavia. Using solar, wind and water – these are things we do but not things we depend on. Why are we wasting our time on fossil fuels that are FINITE – to an alien species looking down at us we have to be the dumbest race out there. But a person looking down on us would say OH OK>>>>>the reason they arent being efficient is cuz 1% of the ppl are controlling the earth with MONEY POWER AND GREED

If you have a million you can invest and make 400,000.00 but if I want to borrow 400,000.00 i have to pay off god knows how much. Richer get richer and poorer get poorer get poorer

Capitalism doesnt work
politics dont work….as long as politics rely on the votes of ppl there will always be corruption
Science however provides the best answer

ALL A RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY is a society that applies the SCIENTIFIC METHOD
thats it…..there is no room for beliefs….its just science – if something doesnt work thats great!!!! u just improve it

People die for their beliefs and go to war – this is hardly sustainable thinking

Why base a society on someones beliefs

A society is should be built with reasoning and you have to be able to QUESTION everything – debunkers are crucial – that what a scientist is
A scientist is a debinker because scientists dont let bad science exist – everything is tested – so if your wrong ur wrong there is no opinion

I gotta go…thank you for this article and although i’ll never change your mind it is important to let others know how flawed this system is and just how unhumanistic it can be

Venus project is looking out for the planet – as carl sagan once said….we are going to have to think of this world as ONE SINGLE ORGANISM
and an organism that is at war with itself is Doomed

I went to some of Fresco’s meetings in the 1970’s. My uncle lived next door to him. I had Jacque’s booklist he originally gave attendees and read and studied all the books on it. I was sent tapes of Jacque’s weekly lectures, and these became an ingrained part of my life. I am quite familiar with the man and his ideas. My uncle was a devout follower most of his life, and like Roxanne (Jacque’s girlfriend), is an intellectual clone. My uncle had a girlfriend back then in the early 80’s, who was a sociologist. She called the group a cult.

Many of the ideas I am going to mention are ideas Fresco and Roxanne have downplayed, if not completely ignored, over the years in an effort to gain a wider audience and financial support. You need to understand, this stuff is not science. It’s science fiction fantasy.

– Jacque Fresco is a proponent of social engineering and B.F. Skinner and behaviorism. Skinner was all over Jacque’s original booklist. Walden Two, Skinner’s science fiction book, was on there, as was Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. So was Looking Backward by Bellamy. As was Norbert Wiener’s and Cybernetics. By the way, as you probably know, Skinner was discredited long ago regarding human complexity and social conditioning. Noam Chomsky discredited Skinner’s verbal claims.

– Fresco’s future has children born outside the womb and nurtured in cybernetic nurseries. Look to his first book: Looking Foreword and Social-Cyberneering. Fresco believes that raising children cannot be entrusted to conventional parenting. Children will be raised by daycare centers and the community, like in the science fiction book, Walden TWo.

– Fresco’s future consists of open relationships and free partnering that will replace nuclear and extended households. It is a future of the “individual,” as you can read in his book: Looking Foreward.

– Technocrats, that is scientists, will be entrusted to run central planning before society is eventually completely computerized and cybernetic. And we all know that we can completely trust anyone in power. Mr. Fresco easily divorces science from power, prestige, and personal egos.

– Fresco doesn’t believe that love exists, or many other feelings and ideas we consider human phenomena. This is because he adheres strictly to the Cartesian idea that all human phenomena should only be view through the lens of the material, physical sciences. He believes people are nothing more than complex machines. Hence the Skinnerian simplicity and conditioning he adheres to. The problem is, if you consider people as nothing more than machines, you will end up treating them as such. For an example, Mr.Fresco is a self-professed child rearing expert. Yet, not many people know that his son committed suicide. He extends science, which is nothing more than a tool for thinking, and generalizes it to all of society and human behavior. This is naïve, and very dangerous.

– In Fresco’s world, words need to have one given meaning, in order to make conversation more efficient. Sound Orwellian? Of course, this is not how language and meaning works in our minds. Again, he is a self-proclaimed expert on this, as well, but really understands very little.

Like my uncle, their education exposure is limited. So it’s easy to come to the final solution. Fresco’s ideas on social engineering were too extreme back in the day when he didn’t care what people thought. And his group went nowhere. He’s learned how to play a lot of that down.

Thank you for the insight. I would have reported on these facts had I have known them at the time of publishing.
If your comments are factual, and I don’t doubt that they are- they deserve an entire post all on their own.

You are absolutely welcome. And I am glad I could add to your site. Some comments you make like, ‘we can’t design ourselves out our problems,’ and that, ‘people would need to act like algorithms for his system to work,’ I thought we exactly right on. I smiled to myself. It was so refreshing to see you absolutely got it.

My uncle, who lives in Coral Gables, Fl. still visits Jacque, and Roxanne, on occasion. As you know, Fresco is getting up there in age. My uncle, one of the original group members, had been invited to move up to Jupiter, Fl. when Jacque first relocated from Miami. He didn’t accept at the time, not being sure how he was going to make a living there. Back then there wasn’t much in that part of Florida. Anyways, talking to my uncle is like talking to a recording of Jacque, or Roxanne. It can be infuriating the level to which these people discount those who don’t fit their potential model. And they all sound exactly alike! The other day my uncle said he didn’t believe in the word “open-minded,” and wanted to play Fresco’s semantic word-games with me. You can see this semantic word-play in action, online. Watch Fresco’s YouTube called: “Love is Bullshit.” It’s a good example. Fresco evasively changes the word “love,” to “like, ” and thus eliminates love from the human lexicon. Also, if you listen closely to just about any of his videos, you will realize he is mechanizing people. People are reduced to machines in his strict empirical philosophy, only to be conditioned. You can see what I’m talking about especially in his YouTube called, “How to Raise Children.” It’s rather frightening. You can plainly hear he’s talking about manipulation, and Skinner conditioning. There is no love, care, or gentle nurturing mentioned in this clip.
Anyway, these people can be very demeaning, to say the least. And let me say, simply totalitarian. To the degree to which they can stretch scientific thought – a tool for thinking – and extend it to society, individuals, and language, is simply frightening.
I’m a little older, now 53, and just recently began watching some of Fresco’s stuff online, hearing the old stuff again, and thought I had something to add to the conversation about The Venus Project. I then wanted to see who was challenging this stuff. I was so glad to find your website, and intelligent remarks.
You may find this interesting. I recently wrote to Peter Joseph from Zeitgeist. I asked him directly if he advocated social engineering, Skinnerian behaviorism, open relationships, etc… all pretty much the things I wrote in your blog, The Venus Project’s underbelly. I let him know I wasn’t a journalist and wasn’t writing a book, but was simply trying to find out to what extent his group followed TVP. Basically he said that the economy comes first and the rest will work itself out. He did say Operant Conditioning has its place. So it seems some of Fresco’s social engineering may have seeped in. Peter Joseph is smart enough to know that you can’t be up front to the public about social engineering. Something Fresco had to learn, as well. This is why Fresco;s ideas didn’t get much air when he was younger. He simply scared the hell out of most people. It was all about control. Social-Cyberneering, Fresco’s first project, had its name changed, no doubt, to the friendlier: The Venus Project, to re-image themselves.

Well, I guess I pretty much talked your ear off. Keep up the good work.

Charlie

It’s funny, he attacks communism as perpetuating the monetary system but he seems to be suggesting exactly the same sort of thing. No money, with planned distribution of resources.

Love it. I want to start sending donations to the guy that wrote this. Brilliantly written.
Because, science!

So, besides bitching about the Venus Project, what is it exactly that you’re doing to make the world a better place?

First of all, thank you for your website.

I went to some of Fresco’s meetings in the 1970’s. My uncle lived next door to him. I had Jacque’s booklist he originally gave attendees and read and studied all the books on it. I was sent tapes of Jacque’s weekly lectures, and these became an ingrained part of my life. I am quite familiar with the man and his ideas. My uncle was a devout follower most of his life, and like Roxanne (Jacque’s girlfriend), is an intellectual clone. My uncle had a girlfriend back then in the early 80’s, who was a sociologist. She called the group a cult.

Anyway, I quickly glanced over your website. Let me mention a few things I didn’t readily see. Many of these ideas Fresco and Roxanne have downplayed, if not completely ignored, over the years in an effort to gain a wider audience and financial support.

– Jacque Fresco is a proponent of social engineering and B.F. Skinner and behaviorism. Skinner was all over Jacque’s original booklist. Walden Two, Skinner’s science fiction book, was on there, as was Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. So was Looking Backward by Bellamy. As was Norbert Wiener’s and Cybernetics. By the way, as you probably know, Skinner was discredited long ago regarding human complexity and social conditioning. Noam Chomsky discredited Skinner’s verbal claims.

– Fresco’s future has children born outside the womb and nurtured in cybernetic nurseries. Look to his first book: Looking Foreword and Social-Cyberneering. Fresco believes that raising children cannot be entrusted to conventional parenting. Children will be raised by daycare centers and the community, like in the science fiction book, Walden TWo.

– Fresco’s future consists of open relationships and free partnering that will replace nuclear and extended households. It is a future of the “individual,” as you can read in his book: Looking Foreward.

– Technocrats, that is scientists, will be entrusted to run central planning before society is eventually completely computerized and cybernetic. And we all know that we can completely trust anyone in power. Mr. Fresco easily divorces science from power, prestige, and personal egos.

– Fresco doesn’t believe that love exists, or many other feelings and ideas we consider human phenomena. This is because he adheres strictly to the Cartesian idea that all human phenomena should only be view through the lens of the material, physical sciences. He believes people are nothing more than complex machines. Hence the Skinnerian simplicity and conditioning he adheres to. The problem is, if you consider people as nothing more than machines, you will end up treating them as such. For an example, Mr.Fresco is a self-professed child rearing expert. Yet, not many people know that his son committed suicide. He extends science, which is nothing more than a tool for thinking, and generalizes it to all of society and human behavior. This is naïve, and very dangerous.

– In Fresco’s world, words need to have one given meaning, in order to make conversation more efficient. Sound Orwellian? Of course, this is not how language and meaning works in our minds. Again, he is a self-proclaimed expert on this, as well, but really understands very little.

Like my uncle, their education exposure is limited. So it’s easy to come to the final solution. Fresco’s ideas on social engineering were too extreme back in the day when he didn’t care what people thought. And his group went nowhere. He’s learned how to play a lot of that down.

Well, just a bit off the top of my head. Again, great stuff on The Venus Project.

Charlie, thank you for your comments. You’ve shared a lot of perspective on the origins of The Venus Project which isn’t easy to find.

There are many reasons to be skeptical of The Venus Project—it’s essentially a one-man think tank with tremendous scope. However, I feel there is some crucial information missing in your statements. I will address one in particular, which bothers me the most.

“For an example, Mr.Fresco is a self-professed child rearing expert. Yet, not many people know that his son committed suicide.”

Jacque Fresco had two children during his marriage with Patricia, a daughter and a son. This marriage ended in divorce while their children were still toddlers, with Patricia taking the custody of the children. In other words, Fresco did not have a significant influence on the rearing of his children.

In the mid ’70s or so, Richard Fresco shot himself (he was in his 20s.) It was a tragic incident and I feel it’s unfair to make it seem like it was due to Jacque Fresco’s radical ideas. At the time, it was thought that Richard was disgruntled over a breakup with his girlfriend.

If Fresco didn’t have a ‘significant influence on even his own children,’ as you say, then how can he claim to be a child rearing expert? Please take a few minutes and watch the Youtube video with him called: How to Raise Children. If I’m correct, he mentions for one example off the top of my head, that the best way to teach a child how to swim is to throw them into the pool.

The speeches I heard from him when I was younger focused a lot on how to raise children for a “healthy society,” or as he’d say how to “properly condition” children so they can get along in society. He also mentioned that relationships should be, and eventually will be “open,” and ideas like jealousy and ownership will be obsolete.

As I previously mentioned from his earlier book, Looking Forward, which you alluded to but incorrectly quoted, and from lectures where I heard him, Fresco paints a future world where children, to be properly conditioned, are born outside the womb and parent’s influence by the greater technocratic society. It’s only in this way, Fresco presumes the idea of direct parental influence of the children can thus eliminated. The children are to be raised by societal day care centers where they can be “appropriately” conditioned by eliminating also the corrupting influence of the parents.

I personally once found all this stuff truly fascinating and spent much time reading the books on his original booklist in my most influential years. I then then realized that that life was far more complicated than Fresco’s world. For an example of this simplification and manipulation in action, again watch his Youtube, “Love is Bullshit,” and watch the man conveniently eliminate the idea of Love from the human lexicon. I have mentioned this before, and if you’re familiar with it, I apologize. His “lectures” all over Youtube, are rife with simplification and reductionism. It sounds like you already know all this anyhow.

If you feel there may be any more “crucial information missing” in my previous statements, please feel free to mention them, and I’ll do my best to answer them.

Charlie

I’m sorry Robert, I couldn’t find what response you were replying to, and so unnecessarily ended up repeating some things I’ve already repeated before!

Robert, I do find this site a bit confusing. Not only could I not find out what you were responding to, I also thought you were some one else and thought you had previously misquoted me, which I now see, you did not. My mistake. Thanks again for your reply.

Charles.

I don’t blame you for your ignorant fears, author. it’s not going to take over the world, it might start as a nation, and you can visit, and see how much of an idiot you used to be, but now that you are there, you can learn and grow as a proper human being🙂 and life will be better. you can still get things you want, you think artists and craftsmen are just going to disappear? there are no rations, but if you want more of something, you probably have to do a little more for it, as much as that will pain you in your 24 hours of free time most days because this world will have no use for you other than your divine influence; freedom to output the ideas of your wildest dreams all day long!!! it sounds horrible… lordie save us!

Lol.
Yep, Jacque Fresco continues to peddle his science fiction to the gullible, and they continue to eat it up.
Changing the world (or even a nation) is not like changing your underwear. Jacque’s ideas are idealistic, simplistic, and ignorant of reality.
It’s like if I had a car that wasn’t working and I’m stranded on the side of the road- one guy comes up and says it could be a bad piston or maybe my camshaft but either way it’s going to take a mechanic to fix. Another guy comes up and says “I’ll just stick this banana in the carburetor and everything will be fine”.
I might like the second guy’s answer, because it is comforting, cheap, and quick- but the first guy is more likely correct, even if it is disheartening, expensive, and time consuming.
The difference between that analogy and the Venus Project is that nobody in the real world believes a banana is going to fix a car, but too many people think a senile coot divorced from reality is going to fix the world.
Have fun with that.

I’m not surprised this guy is synical. But replacing petty critiques and comparing it to logic is pretty awful. I think this is another situation of some asshole just wants to talk shit because he/she doesn’t have any better ideas.

At least the organization is trying. I don’t know how to be nice to people like this guy. It’s tough because they’re such assholes. They think they have thought out their rationale but they haven’t. It’s okay to critique something but there’s a big difference between a useful critique and some jerk who thinks they know more, “just because.”

One of your critiques are “what do humans do with free time on their hands.” This is a question posed by someone who doesn’t understand the system. What don’t you do? You have the freedom of a full life, you would be free to pursue any endeavor.

This author also doesn’t seem to understand the nature of unnecessary culture such as Academia. Academia is an awful thing and unnecessary yet the author makes the case that it’s fine. The standard of how things are are simply the way they should be. But academia is the most unnecessary part of the sciences. A standard that should go away.

Lol. Travis didn’t read the post. You know how I know? I didn’t ask “what would people do with free time on their hands?”
I’m sure people ask that question, but I’m not one of them. I’m sure Travis cruises the web looking for posts critical of the VP, and likely does a nice cut/paste comment before running away. He won’t respond to this comment because he isn’t interested in discussing ideas, just defending dogma.

Its always easy to criticize, but what is your solution George?

I’m a long time advocate for Zeitgeist and a RBE, so I have dealt with a lot of guys like you, but as per usual they never ever ever ever have a viable solution, I’ve looked into many many various other systems with supposed “solutions” only to come up against the same old problems until I found Zeitgeist.

The RBE is the closest I’ve currently seen that we can use, in order to have true equality, a symbiotic relationship with our planet, a system promoting humanity over profit and abundance for all more than any other system or theory on the planet.

I’m very open-minded, give me your solution I’ll genuinely look into it. I’m all ears (eyes really as I’m reading haha!)…..

Unless Peter Joseph has an agenda (which I highly doubt, but it isn’t impossible) and he has hidden a huge flaw in the RBE from us all that not ONE other person has thought of, then I doubt that YOU would be able to challenge him any more than the usual “de-bunkers” until he “de-bunks” your “de-bunks” as per usual. If you actually did further research you’d find all the answers to all of your questions with a satisfactory outcome either from Peter Joseph, Ben McLeish, Jacques Fresco, the Zeitgeist FAQ page or the Zeitgeist forums.

If you do however have questions or have found genuine flaws or holes in the entire THEORY (you are forgetting that it is just that…. a theory) and I will point out that an RBE is being lived by various people around the world as I type this (Look at Earth-ship communities for a very primitive version) then ask away, ask in the forums, ask Peter himself or Ben, I’m sure if you think you’re the one person who has finally found a huge flaw, then as logical and rational thinkers (who thrive on being wrong as it is not equated to failure) then this will be taken on board and considered, if there is no answer and it is a genuine flaw then let me know because I do not want to promote a flawed system either, but until then do research further.

As for every single point you have in the above blog, each one of those points can be answered for with a decent, logical and satisfactory answer, and I for one0 do not have the time or the compassion to answer each and every one of these just for you, the reason I know this, is because I asked many of the same questions or points when I was first learning of the RBE. To my own detriment at the time, I was wrong.

But please George, please give us your incredible solution, and if it’s that incredible and better than the proposal of a RBE, then I apologise in advance for my ignorance and scepticism but until then save your own time and everybody else’s, you’re not special, you’re not THE ONE to disprove an RBE and you are certainly NOT original.

We’ve heard it all before……..

….. After reading that back, I wanted to quickly add in here that I’m not a huge supporter of ALL of Jacques Fresco’s ideas because as an INDIVIDUAL I think some ideas are good and some are ridiculous, in fact I barely support the Venus Project at all, even more so after learning of the split with Zeitgeist and other things with Jacques.

I’ve heard that Jacques has had some pretty wacky and “out-there” ideas or quotes from the past, I also don’t always like the answers he gives, he tends to waver in a completely different direction and goes on about unrelated topics from the questions asked a lot of the time (he is 97 y/o however!!).

I’m not entirely sure if this post is mainly intended to be ad hominem towards Jacques I know not enough of the man to comment, but I know enough of his (I say his, but it is from various sources) idea of an RBE to not shoot the messenger but listen to the message itself.

I’ll admit I know a lot less of the Venus Project than I probably should, but I know a lot of the RBE concept and of Zeitgeist and when it comes to the RBE (I’m unsure if the RBE differs between TVP and TZM, although I don’t believe it does!?) there are no unanswered questions other than points that are unable to be proven until the implementation and transitional period has begun, so it is unfair to comment (although highly educated “guesses” have been made to give an answer).

The point I’m making again is though, George, please tell us YOUR solution all knowing one…. Thanks🙂

Dr. Mantooth ( I do like that name, by the way🙂 ) I didn’t read your second comment about your first until after I had already responded. And it does appear you’re aware of much of Fresco’s wackiness. I actually asked Peter Joseph and if his RBE followed any of Fresco’s earlier ideas like operant conditioning. He replied that operant conditioning it has its place in society. So to what extent he believes it has its place hasn’t really been answered. Again, and George just may tell you same thing. Fresco isn’t offering us anything new. It’s simply a new brand of utopianism. Another ‘final answer,’ that’s going to fix it all. As I said previously, it doesn’t fix the perpetual human problems, such as greed, etc. That is, how to get people to play nice in the sandbox. So for that problem Fresco had robots, and conditioning people, for the answers. Otherwise, a RBE isn’t anything new. It’s the way we have always lived. Yet today, resources and prices are simply manipulated by highly monopolized and controlled capitalism. Money is simply a piece of paper, or a promise that we live by, and a part of that complicated process of work and pay. Eliminate work, and you can eliminate money. But like I said, until robots can wipe the buts of the senile and elderly, someone’s going pay someone to do it, unless we revert back to a much, much earlier, less technological world. Anyways, in our highly regulated capitalism, you see things like “scarcity and planned obsolescence,” to use Fresco’s terms. The answer to eliminating greed is easy on paper, its the implementation that’s difficult.

Dr. Frankie Mantooth,

Though George can readily defend himself, I couldn’t help respond to you myself. I’ll begin with a repost that at I sent to George a little while back.

Here it is:

I went to some of Fresco’s meetings in the 1970’s. My uncle lived next door to him. I had Jacque’s booklist he originally gave attendees and read and studied all the books on it. I was sent tapes of Jacque’s weekly lectures, and these became an ingrained part of my life. I am quite familiar with the man and his ideas. My uncle was a devout follower most of his life, and like Roxanne (Jacque’s girlfriend), is an intellectual clone. My uncle had a girlfriend back then in the early 80’s, who was a sociologist. She called the group a cult.

Many of the ideas I am going to mention are ideas Fresco and Roxanne have downplayed, if not completely ignored over the years in an effort to gain a wider audience and financial support. They were simply extreme. You need to understand, this stuff is not science. It’s science fiction fantasy.

– Jacque Fresco is a proponent of social engineering and B.F. Skinner and behaviorism. Skinner was all over Jacque’s original booklist that I read and studied. Walden Two, Skinner’s science fiction book, was on there, as was Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Fresco talked regularly of Pavlov and Watson. So if you’ve ever wondered how everyone was going to be so well behaved in Fresco’s science fiction project, now you know. For a brief windo into his ideas of control and indoctrination, watch Fresco’s Youtube clip, “How to Raise Children.” The book Looking Backward by Bellamy, was also on that list. As was Norbert Wiener’s and Cybernetics, and Alfred Korzybski’s: Science and Sanity. By the way, as you probably know, Skinner was discredited long ago regarding human complexity and social conditioning. Noam Chomsky discredited Skinner’s verbal claims.

– Fresco’s future has children born outside the womb and nurtured in cybernetic nurseries. Look to his first book: Looking Foreword and Social-Cyberneering. This is where his social engineering begins. Fresco believes that raising children cannot be entrusted to conventional parenting. Children are to be raised by daycare centers and the community, like in the science fiction book, Walden Two.

– Fresco’s future consists of open relationships and free partnering that will replace nuclear and extended households. It is a future of the “individual,” as you can read in his book: Looking Foreword.

– Technocrats, will be entrusted to run central planning before society is eventually completely computerized and cybernetic. And we all know that we can completely trust anyone in power. Mr. Fresco easily divorces science from power, prestige, and personal egos.

– Fresco doesn’t believe that love exists, or many other feelings and ideas we consider human phenomena. You simply need to watch his YouTube: “Love is Bullshit” for this, where he semantically denies its existence. This is because he adheres to the strict empirical view that all human phenomena should only be view through the lens of the material, physical sciences. He believes people are nothing more than complex machines. Hence the Skinnerian simplicity and conditioning he adheres to. The problem is, if you consider people as nothing more than machines, you will end up treating them as such. For an example, Mr. Fresco is a self-professed child rearing expert. Yet, not many people know that his son committed suicide. You need to watch his YouTube on “How to raise children,” to hear his interesting ideas on child rearing. There is no mention of love or gentle nurturing there. Fresco extends science, which is nothing more than a tool for thinking, and generalizes it to all of society and human behavior. This is naïve, and very dangerous.

– In Fresco’s world, words need to have one given meaning, in order to make conversation more efficient. Sound Orwellian? Of course, this is not how language and meaning works in our minds. Again, he is a self-proclaimed expert on this, as well, but really understands very little. Numerous YouTube’s of his display his wish for language control.

Like my uncle, their education exposure is limited. So it’s easy to come to the final solution. Fresco’s ideas on social engineering were too extreme back in the day when he didn’t care what people thought. And his group went nowhere. He’s learned how to play a lot of that down over the years. End of Post.

Dr.Frankie Mantooth,

So, let’s say that Fresco doesn’t adhere to these more extreme ideas any more, nor does Peter Joseph, (though the two have now interestingly disassociated themselves from one another.) Does that mean that a socialism with cybernetic machines doing all the work in order to eliminate class division is the answer advanced society has been looking for? I myself personally believe socialism is the only alternative to a destructive, disaster capitalism that commodities everything, ruining everything it touches. Yet, until machines can build and repair themselves, and learn how to nurse the elderly, and fix broken plumbing at two in the morning, we will still have class division, exploitation, etc.

When you take away the Fresco’s pretty round buildings, and the fancy gadgetry, you still have people problems. Problems you can’t invent, or 3D print, your way out of. Sure there are communes existing, as you mention. There’s a vegetarian community in Tennessee that’s been around since the 1970’s. There’s also monasteries where the monks are self-supportive, and live in relative peace. There are the Amish, many who live even with little technology. So ultimately there is nothing unique about Fresco’s ideas of living without money, and sharing, and his so called “resource based economy.” Native American communities still existing in the Amazon have lived this way for thousands of years. Fresco simply wants to put machines into the mix, to do the work. That is, if you can forget about all the other stuff he has written and mentioned over the years, and much of it that is now on YouTube, that is downright frightening.

“Its always easy to criticize, but what is your solution George?”

Solution to what??? That’s always the response: “Oh it’s easy to criticise, but what’s YOUR solution to the world’s problems”. “The world’s problems?”. What is that? Would 18th century sea piracy come under the heading of “The World’s Problems?”. The solution to that was to send in the Royal Navy. Solved. Next.

The question alone presupposes that there’s some single ur-problem underlying all of life’s little problems, like the annoying need-to-work-to-eat and other bugbears. Like there’s some prefabricated utopia waiting for us if only we’d get over our gratuitous flaws. There’s no cure for life.

Coming from a part-time blogger who is too “coy” or “ambiguous” to include a last name. *Golf claps* for the man who has the furthest distance to look down his nose, rather than concoct any kind of alternative plan. “Meh, somethings wrong with the world, but it’s just too darn hard to fix.” Please continue to feed into your super edgy lifestyle of being an atheist blogger, rather than publish books, hold seminars, or create working “sci-fi” structures. I’ll be sure to google George W the blogger and see all of your accomplishments, society goals, and patents. And as for a response back from me, you’re unlikely to receive, not due to the “defending dogma” as you so eloquently stated in the comments, but because I think someone who is so trigger-happy to pull apart a man who is (not perfect but) trying to make society better, and has stated that this is not a “quick fix” but will take many, many years doesn’t even have the gaul to include enough credentials for anyone to research only proves that you are gutless. I hold you in the same realm as I do the people who hide behind their screens and cast judgement on YouTube videos. You might be telling yourself, “Well, you didn’t leave your last name”, and you’d be correct, because I didn’t discredit an amazing author, that word being much different from blogger, for 108 reasons and therefore I feel no need to give you my credentials.

An “amazing author”? Who Fresco? So have we now idealized and moved this self-professed expert into the “amazing author” category, as well? You people amaze me. As far as I know, Fresco has only co-written one, (that is 1) book: It’s called Looking Forward, and was written with Ken Keyes Jr.
Fresco’s Sociocyberneering was self-published, and spiral bound at your local copy franchise. And The Venus Project has most of its ideas taken from these two previous texts.
I’d put, say, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. into the “amazing author” category. One co-written book, and two self-published “projects,” is a far cry from a real “amazing author.”
Since it seems to me your definition of “amazing author” is a little skewed, you should probably know that not everyone’s attempts to ‘make society better’ are worth the paper they’re written upon.

“Social-Cyberneering, Fresco’s first project, had its name changed, no doubt, to the friendlier: The Venus Project, to re-image themselves.”
Not that “They operate out of a 21.5-acre Research Center located in VENUS,FLORIDA.” I find it odd you make outlandish remarks at each turn, only to be proved wrong by simple research. It seems Charles is everything and anything not “Fresco.” There is no reasoning with this troll.

I apologize that I was unable to reply to the exact post where you made this comment.

Fresco’s Sociocyberneering was virtually identical to TVP. So why the name change is the question here?

(By the way, Fresco owned land in Venus and Jupiter Florida long before the name change to TVP).

But again, why the name change. And again, my view is that back in the day Fresco was very outspoken about conditioning and social engineering with regards to humans and society. Many people, in academia and elsewhere considered this downright kooky, as Skinner’s theories with regards to complex human behavior was shown to be naïve and too simplistic. Even Fresco was smart enough not to clearly mention his views about conditioning and training people on the Larry King show. It was just too far out there.

Sociocyberneering sounds to many who knew, and know, F’s background, as meaning cybernetics running society, not people running society, or society and people viewed as machines to be programed. My point was that TVP simply sounded more friendly, and that it was basically a P.R. move, stressing less cybernetics with relation to society, less the ideas of social engineering and planning, and less the idea of social control. After the name change, Roxanne and F. could focus more on The Resource Based Economy aspect, downplaying the social engineering angle. As I say, I believe it was P.R. move.

(If you haven’t, please read F.s first book to get an idea of what role cybernetics are to play in the upbringing of children in F.’s well-run social system.)

And I am always open to correction, and differing ideas. So for one, I’d surely like to know your opinion and reason for the name-change. If it wasn’t a P.R. move for you, what was it?

P.S. I believe you have confused critiquing, or simply an opinion, with trolling. Trolling, the way I see it, is intentionally causing discord, or unnecessary harassment. Please explain to me how my original opinion written on this blog, a blog whose viewpoint I readily share, is trolling?

Why bother changing the name at all? If you think it was a perfectly good name (perhaps it was more honest and descriptive), why bother changing it at all?
People rebrand products all the time. This is a fact. And don’t fool yourself, The Venus Project is very much a consumer product.

Thomas,

I do hope you are going to respond and prove yourself not to have just been “trolling” on this site, as you ridiculously claim I have been. I’d also like to see some of those “outlandish” remarks I’ve made. Outlandish is a strong word, so it should be easy to back your claim.
You’ll also find me clear and very easy to ‘reason with,’ if you yourself use reason, and not just engage in name calling and empty insults, which comes across to me looking like a weak, defensive rant.

Very poorly written with extremely poor or no arguments at all, but mere subjective statements without anything to base your assertions. You state something and that’s it, you forgot to base almost everything you stated, no evidence for your claims at all. I think you should learn to be constructive and start searching for arguments / evidence rather than to go full bigotry and subjectivity. Also, there are some points you didn’t get about Venus project and you went off shore.

I didn’t forget to back up my assertions, Ex. This post was a humorous re-imagining of the FAQ page from the Venus Project website.
I stand by my assertions, regardless of the humorous intention of the post. Is there a specific one you would like me to tackle in a serious way- or did you just come here to be blindly critical and then run away? I’ll bet it’s the latter.

Yea, this guy is……like a not as powerful version of L Ron Hubbard.

Baloney detection kit:

• Ad hominem – Latin for ‘to the man’, attacking the arguer and
not the argument.

You focus too much on Jacque Fresco “the man” and too little on the ideas.

From the same Baloney Detection Kit:

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will. -C. Sagan

First of all, if you read this website and know anything about Fresco and his ideas, you should’ve had a good laugh. Secondly, since Fresco is just about in perpetual motion machine heaven, you should now be wondering whose pocket your donations will end up in. Thirdly, if you took this website personally, you’re a true believer and need to get to any cult counselor immediately.

I don’t care much about how I think or what I believe, cause I can be wrong for sure. I just can’t see anything better than trying a different way of managing society. At least trying. If it fails, let’s go back to the way we are now. I have studied Business Administration and Economics at college, I should be laughing at these ideas, but I am curious about them. We won’t know if it works until we put them into practice, as an experiment. Going back to Carl Sagan’s book, laws and policies are ways of experimenting with society.

I will appreciate if you let me know the reason’s why you have a good laugh looking at the website. To be honest, every time I see or read anything related to the ideas stated on The Venus Project, I can’t help but start laughing when I compare them to the ideas we are putting into practice to deal with society nowadays.

*reasons

First let me say that I am with you. I laugh not only at our crazy world, as well. Here’s just a couple quick ideas touched upon above that made me laugh. One is the portrayal of goods being shared. The idea of who is going to decide what is going to be manufactured, and the idea of people sharing. When was the last time you went into a shared public restroom and didn’t have to wipe shit and piss off the toilet seat to sit down. That’s how people share things. But also, the other point is who is going to decide what’s going to shared before the super-duper brainy computer is online to submit our personal requests to the robot slaves. As Fresco’s tells us, first it will be the ever wise and benevolent technocrats. Because once we hand over our power to these egoless and non-power hungry people they will never abuse their power. And we have precedents for this where?

Another point to at least giggle at is the part robots will play. I’m sure you know that robots are Fresco’s answer to class division. And class division has been the reason he believes revolutions have failed in the past and will continue to fail. Yet, if robots do the work, the age old problem between management and labor is resolved. No more arguments. No more wealthy, no more poor. Just get the robots to wipe the rear ends of the aged and demented, get robots to counsel unruly teens spray-painting graffiti on white buildings, or break up late night domestic arguments, or put braces on your kids teeth, and even to incubate children! (for that one you’ve got to read Fresco’s first book: Looking Forward). Well, I hope you get the point. The idea that somehow people problems are going to be resolved because money is removed and material “things” are now available and scarcity no longer exists, if you know anything about people, and I’m sure you do, this is quite laughable. Mysteriously no more societal or personal disorders, no more cliques, or teen adjustment problems, no more hormonal deficiencies, or personal existential dilemmas or crises. This is because supposedly that not having to work, and having wealth and all our needs met creates happy, well-adjusted, non-greedy people who want to share everything. No longer will exist people like the sociopathic, mal-adjusted billionaires in our society who only want more even though they have enough, and even though scarcity doesn’t exist for them. Hmmm…

So I could talk about Fresco’s ideas all day. You can read my post above to see my background with them. Do I think an RBE, or basically socialism with robots doing the work is bad, or other ways of living for that matter? No. Look to the Amish. Take out the religion and you have a very sustainable way of living. You have Indians in the Amazon living sustainably for thousands of years. What I can tell you is this. Most people in our society, like those societies, don’t need much to make them happy. A living wage, not a horrible job with horrible hours, a local library for lending, decent food, decent public transportation. If minimum wage was today equivalent to the 1960’s, it would be $15.00 an hour. Just make this small gesture and watch domestic violence go down. Cut the military, reduce poverty, and refund education in the country, and watch student’s test grades increase. Tax the wealthy like we did in the 1960’s, and put that money back into our infrastructure. De-personalize corporations. These are less drastic measures than Fresco’s science fiction project. As far as our global environment, this is now a priority. What I am saying is that if we consider that people and their children matter, simple changes can and will be made. Who is an economy for? If we still don’t give a shit about people, it doesn’t matter whether it’s robots or trained kangaroos doing the work, it won’t work. The romantic idea of the genius white-man engineer “scientist” who comes up with a final solution and saves us all is part of the grand narrative of Utopianism. Many small ideas are changing the world every day, with small attacks upon establishment structures that want to maintain the status quo. I don’t find any of that laughable. I see that as our only hope, albeit small.

Because reality has never been pretty, it’s always been easy to believe in gods, priests, or even the Jacque Frescos of the world that offer us an organized society where people behave as they “should.” Those systems of the past maintained power for the few. Democracy has also been a rigged system, as well. From its inception, from early Greece to early America, it was monopolized by male land-owners.

Everything worth living for has had to break that age-old monopoly of power. Many died in this country getting unions organized in order to counter-balance wealth and power. Women also died getting the “right” to vote. It was also a battle getting little children extricated from coal mines and cotton mills, or getting an 8 hour workday for adults, as it was a battle getting African Americans even considered humans and thus citizens. Never have the powerful handed over any “rights” and subsequent powers to anyone or group because it threatened their place.
Our “basic” rights have always had to be taken by force. They took caring, organizing and effort. Not wishing for someone to do it for us.

If your belief is that TVP will fix everything, that’s your religion. Problem is everything doesn’t get fixed by someone else. Democracy is a group activity where everyone needs to play, and with no guarantee of winning. And rights still need to be fought for. Turning your bull-shit meter off, handing over your critical thinking ability and your allegiance to another individual or “system,” and closing your eyes and thinking of a happy place doesn’t resolve anything. Reality is that we don’t get to test-drive another system to see if it works. Read your history and understand that people have been the problem with any social system. And Fresco’s solution to engineer social behavior from a young age is not any solution, it’s another form of power and controlling the “masses.” It’s a science fiction solution.

Sitting back and letting the present powers that run our system continue to entrench themselves into our political system and laws without a fight, without making any effort other than waiting for the solution to fall into your lap, will more than likely ensure your future will look neo-feudal, rather than Futurerama.

If you just graduated from college and have student loans up the wazoo and have to work a shitty job just to live at home with your family or merely survive to pay them off, I understand the need for a quick ‘get-well pill,’ and TVP offers this. Just send them your money. Well, I say, don’t just dream about the future, get involved in the present. Don’t play by the rigged rules any longer. Fall out of the credit/debt society. Find another way. Make this your protest. Be proactive. Vote with your lack of dollars. Or write Senator Elizabeth Warren who is on your side and ask her what you can do to get involved. Join other groups out there that are against student loan debt and are trying to break the capitalistic/corporate stranglehold upon education, and the rest of our world. There are plenty of battles out there being waged on many fronts.

It’s still a fight for the powerless, as its always been, and now for our world, as well. We either reinstate controls upon psychopathic corporations and billionaires running the show, or we let them take down the planet with their greed and corruption. They’re not giving up their power anytime soon, or without a fight. They’re attempting to lock up every avenue of control that they can. If there ever is a so called “civilization collapse,” a new beginning based upon TVP isn’t going to arise from the ashes, I can tell you that. That environment will probably look more like the chaotic dark ages than The Jetsons.

Cynicism at is absolute best! and while I am a “fan” of the venus project, I appreciated the critique, but I was also pissing myself at some of the things you said. Bravo sir.

On a more serious note though, I do believe that some of these things needed saying. Firstly its understandable that people want a better world after all the crap we see on the news everyday how couldn’t anybody imagine a better world. So therefore its equally understandable why people attach themselves to ideologies like TVP without giving it any real thought as to how things will be run, how you get things, the logistics and time required to transition from here to there (without just adding a ‘t’), and these are some of the questions i asked when I found TVP on-line as I was wallowing under the pressures of the current capitalist system.

Capitalism is awful, it promotes materialism and selfishness, it creates a system where success is measured by your next promotion or your bank balance and people go to extreme lengths (especially those less fortunate) to get that success, raconteuring, extortion, theft, blackmail and these activities go all the way to the top of governments. But you sit there and twiddle your fingers until you come across like minded people who also want to make change which is what TVP is just people wanting to make a difference with similar opinions, I wouldn’t go as far as describing it as a cult.

I openly admit TVP is not perfect, i’m not naive and think that these things are just going to fall into place and everybody will be like ” yeh that’s cool, i’m happy with that”, JF just had a few good ideas that we all know wouldn’t be beyond the reach of human technological capabilities and that could (if implemented in the right way) make the world a better place. However as you stated JF was not a psychologist and he didn’t have a clue about how you change the mindset of billions of people who have thousands of years of capitalism embedded into their history, its impossible. So the way you do it is change the reward system.

So money is the reward, however it is earned by most people out of purely selfish goals. What if we changed it and instead of rewarding individuals for helping themselves why not reward people for the amount they help others or the environment. You are rewarded just like money and you can spend that like you would normal money. Except the principle is that you earn while you improve the world around you. The idea is a principle called copiosis (www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZRy9fP041k, have a little watch ) which I found through a guy on TVP.

We don’t actually need money, economics has made this virtual system which is so fragile that it destroys the lives of millions of people in seconds, its all to do with rich greedy people moving their money around from one account to the other looking for personal gain. We see people dying all over the world as the rich with-hold resource and wealth from the poor. No one has the right to say you can’t eat or drink, everyone is born with a right to food and water, and when its beyond their control to obtain you start to ask questions. But let me add i am not blaming the rich i am blaming the systems although many of the worlds problems could be solved if the rich were a little more charitable.

whilst these ideas may not come into fruition any time soon it is always good to challenge the system if it can be better, but change is slow. Technological change is rapid however social change is the limiting factor, best thing everyone can doe at this moment in time is start making little difference. a little stone can make big ripples you just got to throw it in.

Apologies for the essay, Peace x

Some quotes from TVP website worth a second look, with some background included.

“Experience tells us that human behavior can be modified, either toward constructive or destructive activity.”

F. is talking here about operant conditioning, and on a grand scale you can call it social engineering. Fresco is a proponent of B.F Skinner. Skinner wrote a book called: Beyond Freedom and Dignity, where the title says it all. It’s a book worth reading. You can also read Walden Two by Skinner. Both of these books were on Fresco’s reading list he handed out to those who attended his lectures in the 70’s. However, don’t be mistaken here, by “modifcation” F. means modifying or changing human behavior, what some may call indoctrination, or re-indoctrination.

“Either we continue as we have been with our outmoded social customs and habits of thought…”

What Fresco or any other technocrat thinks is “outmoded social customs and habits of thought” you and others may not, and so this quote should concern you. Who, I ask, would you want to hand that kind of power or control over to, and who would decide what “habits of thought” are not longer important?

“…it is based upon years of study and experimental research by many, many people from many scientific disciplines.”

He means he’s read some stuff in books and threw together his own ‘unified theory’ of how everything could work, if of coarse, it was that simple. Books, however, are not reality. For example, B.F Skinner’s research on pigeons and rats has long ago been discredited with regards to complex human behavior.

“Human behavior is subject to the same laws as any other natural phenomenon.”

This should frighten you. Complex human behaviour is here extremely simplified. F.’s saying that human behaviour is no different than a piece of coal, or should be observed no differently than a lab rat. Individual humanity, as well as respect and dignity for the individual, can be eliminated. It’s a fanatical empirical approach brought to human behavior. In the end this ideology enables F. to believe that people can ultimately be controlled and engineered because we are nothing more than simple feedback mechanisms, and many of his Youtubes verify this. (Roxanne believes this as well). Watch F.’s Youtube on How to Raise Children where you will hear no mention of love or gentle nurturing with regards to raising children, this is because feelings complicate the mechanistic viewpoint of people. And then consider that this self-professed child-rearing expert had a son who committed suicide.

“It is doubtful that in the latter part of the twenty-first century people will play any significant role in decision-making.”

F. actually believes that people need to be taken out of the decision making process in order to ensure our own survival. Sound like a contradiction to you? Well, he thinks humans are too irrational, and this is why the super duper brainy delux computer will need to make our everyday decisions for us, because it can do it rationally. F. believes that feelings are messy and they get in way of proper decision making.

“Everyone is free to practice whatever belief system they have but can not force it upon others. This will not interfere with their religious beliefs, social customs or traditions. These can not be forced out, you can only educate out beliefs that are irrelevant.”

The key points here are the last word “irrelevant,” and then ‘educate them out.’ Again, what one considers irrelevant, another may not. And who has the control to “educate them out,” who makes these decisions of relevance, and based upon what, the engineers, technocrats, the max-computer, and which social customs or traditions are irrelevant, why are they irrelevant, and then who decides…

Also ask yourself if uniformity of behavior is going to make everyone finally get along. Can you even make people uniform, is it even ethical to try, and then is not pluralism an important part of life’s richness?

Strict empiricism with regards to human behavior, and then deciding what is relevant or not, can be completely justified under an extreme belief of rationalism. Anyone powerful enough to decide what is “irrelevant” behavior for the “betterment on humankind” will also be justfied in their ‘behavior modification, ‘ and it all can be done in the name of order and what they consider is “better” for The New World Order of how things should be.

Again, just some food for thought.

Peace.

.

Nobody is saying that the ideas of TVP or J F are entirely worthless. They are just not seriously well considered or thought out. This is the case with the bulk of science fiction- only those authors present their vision as fiction and not ready-to-order revolution.

I would agree with you, but you have a serious personality issue. You start off by saying that liberals don’t hold a monopoly on rational thought, then proceed to write this article, which is basically you jerking yourself off. At least it’s good that you’ve found a way to feel superior to everyone.

In short, if you would stop sucking your own dick for five seconds, people would take you seriously.

It appears you’ve considered this tongue and cheek commentary as a personal assault on the focus of your hero worship. And that’s painful, no doubt. If George, however, ends up deleting your comment, it will merely be the virtual equivalent of putting you out of your misery. That’s another rhetorical device, by the way, don’t be alarmed.

I’ve done a lot of knocking Fresco on this blog. But I’ll give some credit now where credit is due. When J.F. was younger, when I heard him the 70’s, he was a great talker, very charismatic, and fun to listen to. I think he does have some higher education. Sociology I think… this stuff is coming from my memory banks… I don’t think it’s a Ph.D., or anything. What I think I figured out when I was young, was that he called himself a doctor because he thought titles, and most of the people that held them, didn’t know much, and thought he could do a better job. He saw most of life as theatre and “bullshit” in his lingo, and enjoyed snubbing a highly constrictive, conservative era in this country.
He’s mostly self taught. He was an engineer by trade, and quite excellent at it. And a great illustrator. He’s the artist of many of those beautiful representations. I’m pretty sure he retired young, in his 40’s or 50’s, living off the money of his inventions. In many ways he was ahead of his time. In the 1940’s and 50’s he was talking about and spreading ideas that only now have come into their own. Magnetic Levitation trains, computerized cars, etc… He was talking about globalization back then, and the need to eliminate borders. He visited Russia during its revolutionary years, and attempted to get them to accept some of his efficiency designs for cities. When he saw what happened politically to Russia, he came to the conclusion that the division of labor was the age old problem of humankind. People were always going to be at war, and societies always in conflict, as long as there were those who primarily did the work, and those who primarily did the managing, or owning the means of work. This is where he came up with the idea of cybernetics to do the work for people, thus eliminating this endless conflict. A noble idea, really. Norbert Weiner’s: Cybernetics was on his early booklist, as was Thorsten Veblen’s: Theory of the Leisure Class. Where he loses me is in his reductionism, seeing people as blank slabs to be programmed, and his influence here is B.F Skinner. Many of the ideas he has promoted, many of those also not his own as you’ve mentioned, especially with regards to efficiency and engineering, I suspect will probably come to fruition one day if we survive as a species. Much of science fiction isn’t any longer fiction. If your son was going to find a guru, there’s worse he can do. I suspect your son will go through many changes. And it looks like he has an engaged, questioning, and skeptical mother to help him along the way.

Just read this book given to me by my easily influenced son to try and show me the light. It has not. The book is poorly written with many contradictions. J. Fresco sees himself as a visionary, which is in the book, he is not, all the ideas he comes up with are not new or his own. There is absolutely no scientific research in his book to back up anything he is saying. He supposedly quotes many people; Poets, Writers and Artists but again with absolutely no reference to any of their work or findings. Its a book on his collective thoughts and opinions only. And you know what is said about people’s opinions … not worth a dime coz everyone’s got one. He uses such negative terms for the present and past but paints his future Utopia as only positive and do-able for everyone which is laughable. He gives no indication how all of what he says will be put into practice, it is pure science fiction. There will still be elitism, greed, love, fighting, a black market. He say’s Love will change to Extensionality, different word same thing. The man has no accreditations to his name, he’s not been to university and has no formal qualifications yet calls himself DR on the Larry King show.
Couldn’t agree with this blog more it made my day. The world does need to change, become kinder, more thoughtful. I don’t agree with inbuilt obsoloescence, food should be shared globally but I do not agree with J. Fresco’s vision. If anyone wants to help change the world thats very noble their are many other organisations out there, go join Greenpeace.
Regards, Diana

An entertaining summation. I google Venus Project every now and then to see if this idiocy is still going on. Things have been pretty quiet for this group for a year or two, so I assume that the naive joiners who thought that they had found something amazing finally moved on. Thanks for the laugh.

This faq feels like it was written by a 12 year old, showing no actual reasoning or evidence.

I have to confess that at first i was quite impressed by the concept of project when i watched first few videos about TVP. After that, I was watching quite some interviews with JF, and almost every time he was making a good impression on me, giving the “damn, that guy is right” reaction.
Since then about 2 years have passed (i am 26 now), and the more i think about the Project occasionally, the more i realize that it is impossible to implement and sustain.
To summarize TVP as i see it now, i can say the following:
TVP is the virtual project without any real suggestions on society improvement, based on the vision of one man. The main flaws of the project: They A) consider robots as non-corrupt (what about those who program/control/maintain those robots? “NWO” imminent) B) treat humans as biological machines without conducting any serious psychological studies and without even knowing how exactly brain works (no one knows that at the moment) C) offer to raise the state-of-art techno-society after collapse of existing economic/political system (impossible, it will be too chaotic – a lot of people will want to seize the chance to get power in their hands and craft something else, probably worse than we have now) .
The only thing TVP is ready to offer today – taking money from you, offering implausible fairy-tales in form of books, or the righteous feeling “i donated for better world to happen, maybe they will even remember me once we settle this Project down and i will get some credit”.

What captures people’s minds about TVP (and, to my shame, i admit that it was very appealing factor for me as well – i am a humble student with little chance of having a well-paid ‘dream job’) is a very simple thing: You will not need to work, and everything will be provided. You can have your free time basically 24/7, whereas now in real world you have debts and have to spend 12 hours a day on work and all kinds of house chores.

The more i live, the more i get convinced, that for every good change there has to be lots of suffering, pain, and hard work behind, and if you see someone offering a rather easy fix for something, especially something like world peace, that’s most likely a scam.
Do i call TVP scam now? Yes, i do, because they provide materials with implausible scenarios of, allegedly, world fixing… for your real cash.
it does not matter what kind of amazing society you can build on paper, what matters is if you can actually make positive change _happen_ in real life given the world’s political/economical/social status-quo.

It’s funny though, what made me find this wordpress article: I was on TVP official website, trying to find JF’s books to download, and “enlighten myself, or convince myself he’s wrong”… i couldn’t. Well, I could, but not on official web page. Then i thought: How can you claim you want to change the world and educate masses, when you don’t even provide your idea for free? Why you take money for letting people visit your mini-city? Why not give all possible materials with no charge, on your project’s web page, if you claim to be doing it for future of humanity? So i googled what other people think about that matter, and here i am.

Thank you everyone for participating in this discussion; kept me busy for few hours and indeed provided a few giggles.
Special thanks go to Charlie and George W.

From what I see, the one big division factor of this argument, is the debate over human nature. Over the argument that once Humanity has everything it needs, the ugly side of humanity like greed, racism, violence and exploitation will be a thing of the past, or are things like violence and greed inherent in all people, and are just suppressible? These are the questions that we need answers to.

Plus people seem to think this is a plan that wants to be realized overnight, but this end game is simply a goal. I mean, it’s foolish to think that you could eliminate money overnight. It’s going to start with small baby steps, namely as of right now Bernie Sanders. Getting money out of politics. Downsizing the military and stop exacerbating the wound that is the Middle East. Start eliminating fossil fuel dependance, and promote green Energy across the world. I mean if something like the Venus Project is to be realized, it’s going to take baby steps. And I’m not really sure where you’re coming from with this babies born outside the womb raised by robots talk, But in a future where ideally people are significantly more intelligent and educated, and there’s no more domestic violence and abuse, I believe parents could easily be trusted to raise their children. And as to the thought of conditioning, well conditioning is something that has always been used, and always will be used. Like right now, the United States is conditioned to fear Muslims. Because of 9/11 and the war on terror, Islam is considered the enemy to America. That’s conditioning. The ruthless exploitation of African Americans as slaves for hundreds of years, in the white man’s other lack of empathy, that was conditioning. The conditioning doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing, you can condition people that hurting people is wrong, that judging someone based on the color of their skin or eyes is wrong, that wanting more than you need is wrong, that hurting animals is wrong. All in all, this is all just total conjecture and hypothesis and theory. The first true test of the theory of the Venus Project, would be to have an experiment with 100 or so children, taken from all spectrums of life, all nationalities, happy parents, gay parents, parents with mental illnesses, parents that were violent offenders, even one or two parents that may be a serial killer, or a rapist. And the goal would be to raise these children exactly the same, in identical conditions and see if some developmental conditions like schizophrenia or psychosis or ADHD or multiple personality disorder appear without a trigger, see if any exhibit signs of greed, or racism. See how sexual orientation affects children’s lives in the same environment. And seriously just do some in-depth psychological tests to see what makes humans human. To see if you take a hundred kids from different spectrums of life and raise them the same, will they grow up to be the same? It would be foolish to think that there would be no individuality, but would there be evidence of the crippling human conditions that we have in our society? Or are the crippling aspects of human nature caused by a society that doesn’t care enough about its people, that allows terrible things to happen to children? I don’t know, and you don’t either. I feel it’s an important psychological test that needs to be done. Finally try to answer the nature vs nurture argument. One last Point against your criticisms, automation obviously couldn’t occur overnight. But most certainly the vast majority of jobs could be eliminated in a few short years with automation. We will still need engineers and scientists, biologists and chemists, to run the day-to-day operations. But over time, less and less workers will be needed, as automation technology catches up with the more advanced roles needed like doctors and nurses, construction work and gardening. It would be a revolution of baby steps. The time it would take to get to a final working model, could be several lifetimes. I would be willing to work towards this though, because I refuse to work towards the exploitation of this planet anymore. Things have to change in this world, and soon. Otherwise, be it global warming or World War 3, it will be too late to save us from ourselves.

“And I’m not really sure where you’re coming from with this babies born outside the womb raised by robots talk…”

The Venus Project, re-branding from Sociocyberneering, downplays many of Fresco’s more extreme Science Fiction ideas. Please read his first book co-written with Scott Keyes Jr. It’s called Looking Forward and can now be found online.

Fresco’s book list given out in the 70’s, and his lectures back then were heavily influenced B.F.Skinner and Behaviorism. How far they both BELIEVED Behaviorism could be strictly applied to human behavior moves into the realm of religion.

“And seriously just do some in-depth psychological tests to see what makes humans human.”

The problem with this statement is the problem with all mechanistic thinking. Science is reductionist, and must reduce the “human” element to numbers on a graph. What makes people “human” are ideas like meaning, purpose, dignity, imagination, creativity, and hope, etc…

I am with you as far as conditioning. It’s done all the time. But raising children, and bringing up people in society is an art. Freedom, and education, are to be balanced with constraint. Skinner, and Fresco extremely simplify humans and human behavior.

So let me ask you something. Do we need TVP to tell us we’re polluting our world? Do we need it to tell us the world’s wealth is not being distributed? Do we need the TVP to tell us families here are poorer than ever and that translates into more domestic violence and poor retention, failed schooling, ADD, and any other numbers of problems. Do we need to TVP to tell us to re-distribute that wealth? What about dismantling unions, do we need TVP to tell us that eliminating Unions took away the counter-balance to wealth distribution, or that making corporations citizens, along with the Citizens United ruling, is corrupting politics even more? What does TVP tell you that you didn’t know already? Have you read your Marx? Did you needed to be told that money corrupts, I don’t think so.

Marx said it all. Fresco only differed with Marx in that Fresco believes cybernetics will be needed to eliminate class division. If we survive as a species long enough, I’m sure many of the socialist ideas of TVP will surely be implemented in time, because there’s no doubt unregulated Capitalism is destroying us.

Who wants to bet me that the Author is voting Donald Trump?

So… I stumbled upon this, a year later… but I just have to say, as someone who has read, and listened to TVP and Fresco, that this author simply has not.

It reads very clearly as someone who may have listened to a sound byte, or basic overview and immediately disagreed with the principles, so they went no further.

This article is full of half truths, straight falsehoods, and opinions… but has no research or value. The author skips the most basic parts of TVP, like the very flawed premise of a utopia.

Honestly, the entire article was a waste of time… not only for the author, but for any of us unlucky enough to read the ramblings of someone who obviously didn’t even do their research.

Whilst I didn’t massively enjoy this article at first and I HAD fell in love with The Venus Project – I loved Zeitgist: Moving forward – because I have children now in this stressful, greedy system and it gave me some hope for their future world. Reading what another commenter, I think Charles, pointed out above about Jacque Fresco’s system not recognising how important love and nurture are – and his kooky ideas about separating child from parent – was like the warning bell I needed.

Too often we are desparate for solutions that we are blinded to the flaws – focused only on the parts that sound like ‘saviour’. I must admit I got excited about TVP and hadn’t started to question anything. However about a year ago I tried to buy the book – it would have ended up costing me around $60 to get this book and ship to UK. The irony of the expense of this book that was going to detail our new world that wanted to do away with money! I couldn’t bring myself to buy it and wrote a complaint to TVP.

The Venus Project isn’t our solution – it’s just an idea but we need many more ideas out on the table. Our current system is broken and perpetuates greed, selfishness and manipulation – the devastation of the planet and disregard for emotional and mental wellbeing. What we really need is transition and smaller steps to make the world better.

One system can’t dictate how everyone lives either – we all need freedom – maybe some of these new planned cities can be put in place soon and people can have the choice of what they want to live in. There are enough people who want out of the rat race.

I will still visit TVP in Florida, I want my son to see examples of future cities and systems – but I will take a list of questions with me now. I had made the mistake of glorifying TVP in my mind – because of how disheartened I am with our current system. It’s interesting how the mind works.
So thank you!

Nicely written; I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Since you mentioned “we need many more ideas out on the table,” I wonder if you would be interested in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQThrCBfv3M

Dr. Dennis Meadows is one of the few academics willing point out the need for *drastic* social change if humanity has any hope of surviving.

If agree with this, you are ignorant as him. All he is doing is talking smack. And not offering any workable solutions and alternatives.

To be honest, I only said that to encourage discussion about what other alternatives are out there. Personally, I think TVP offers one of the most sensible directions that humanity can move in.

As for other alternatives, there is Lester Brown’s Plan B 4.0, but it does not challenge capitalism: http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb4/pb4_table_of_contents

There is also an interesting talk on systems thinking by Peter Senge I’d like to share: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QtQqZ6Q5-o

I take it back….:-)

While I don’t agree with Fresco on everything – like his notion that “education” will somehow eliminate aberrant behavior, I think it is ignorant to just dismiss all of his ideas. I think his architectural ideas, in particular, are brilliant, and that we would be well-served by implementing them if we are serious about creating a society that can coexist with the natural world (we’re not, so yeah). I also believe he is absolutely correct when he says that we should be using technology to create societies where people are required to do far less work but still have a decent standard of living. In my own job, I am often struck by the fact that I could realistically do all my work in about 3 hours and leave. But because of the traditional “work day,” I am forced to sit around wasting my time for absolutely no reason at all, and dragging my work out through the day to give some appearance that it makes sense for me to be there for 8 hours. In talking to people in my social circle, this is a common theme. The problem, of course, really is the monetary system. It is absolutely true that we could replace at least 50% of service jobs with computers. There is no reason at this point to have cashiers anywhere. But we have to have somewhere for all these unskilled laborers to go, so we maintain this idiotic system where people are standing around doing boring, tedious work that is unnecessary and pointless, because if we don’t, unemployment will rise.

I believe in eliminating the monetary system – at least as it is. I think we should work toward a hybrid of Fresco’s utopia and the current system. With that said, I don’t spend much time even worrying much about it, because at this point, we don’t even have real democracy, so what’s the point? The ruling elite are certainly not ready to give up their lifestyles. And unless we’re ready to rebel, there’s not much we can do about that (we’re not ready to rebel). It’s a shame, really, because we could be well on our way to some Star Trek-esque awesome future, but because we’re a pack of numb sheep, we’re more likely to end up living in flooded or deserted ecosystems with a population that is mostly in poverty. Oh well. Oops.

This a sorry excuse for an article. All this is doing is making Jacque Fresco look bad. Without offering any alternative. How pathetic….

What a joke. I was actually searching for some different opinions on this Project, an alternative, some points that could open a new discussion, suggestions. It looks like your obsession with Jacque Fresco actually is very similar to theirs counting the number of times you mentioned it. However, an idea must start from someone, there usually is a person who rises and tries to get others to do it as well. This is how it works. The answers to ‘FAQ’ are just a try to being sarcastic and funny, I guess. I was expecting to be counter arguments to their real answers. Waste of time.

“…there usually is a person who rises and tries to get others to do it as well.”

It’s obvious that the “obsession” with Fresco is all yours, and all “counter arguments,” or even humor, only exposes this zealotry. Get a clue: You are the “joke” the above commentary is poking at!

hey just because you are too narrowminded to see the possibilities of this idea and want to destroy it at all costs,doesnt mean its not a very good and valid idea! in fact,i happen to had the same idea as this guy,i just didnt know it was already being put in practice…actually,by the way u speak it looks like you agree with the shitty sistem we have now!! and if u dont,what are u doing to change it?? its easy to talk and to destroy,but are you constructing anything good or viable for the benefict of people?

” i just didnt know it was already being put in practice…”

TVP doesn’t even have a wash machine on its premises to clean cloths. Lodgers need to travel to the nearest town and back with their laundry sacks to get clean laundry. That’s some of the reality of TVP.

Hey everyone,
I found this site to be a bit disappointing and “narrow-minded” and certain statements poorly supported/explained.
I have been thinking, reading and watching J.F for years and there are definitely things in the VP that needs clarification and reconsideration, however, Jacque has several times stated that the VP is only a suggestion/starting point for future generations to build their ideas and developments upon.
I have compiled a site with information about all the things I believe I find relevant from TVP including educational text etc. – e.g. about what will matter in the future and be a part of our lives when we move on (hopefully one day) from a monetary system feeding on greed and anyone’s individual power.
So please check out some supporting texts for J.F. instead via the following site :

https://socialchangenow.wordpress.com/

All the best

I also have a history with and have thought about J.F.’s ideas for years. And I think you’re mistaken. Fresco’s premises are the “starting point” from which many of the things be believes in evolve from. So once you buy his ideas of mechanistic thinking, and operant conditioning, everything else falls into place.

If you’ve expanded upon or yet offered more utopian wet dreams, and like Fresco, prefer print over the actual implementation of those ideas, I find your offering ultimately “disappointing,” “narrow minded,” and as “poorly supported” as Fresco’s reductionist views regarding human beings.

When Fresco had the opportunity in the 80’s to attempt to realize a community functioning on TVP principles, he chose instead to live an isolated life with his young girlfriend at the time, Roxanne. That’s simply because it’s much easier keeping ideas to paper than actually implementing them. When people are involved they all don’t necessarily want to follow the self-chosen leader. And when ideas (and ideals…) attempt to become reality with people from differing backgrounds, viewpoints, and belief systems, those ideas will get messy and complicated really fast.

I’m sorry to say this, but I honestly believe you’ve completely misunderstood J.F’s points and general ‘message’/direction.
Firstly, you are speaking about JF as if he is obligated to make his life’s idea and work function under the current system we live in today. I do not see any of his ideas/thinking as mechanical or that he is generating operant behavior – on the contrary.

Secondly, the fact that you are describing J.F’s life work as utopian proves that you haven’t listened or understood the basic philosophy behind his statements and ideas.
It sounds to me like you’ve been offended and have something personally against the guy since you say “reductionist views regarding human beings”.
He is trying to open our mind man. Not to deprive people from thinking, having personal wishes or trying to control humans through conditioning. He is trying to give us tools to think creatively and reflect on real problem solving i.e. what are the root causes of problems we see around the world today and how can we solve them.

You say that J.F attempted in the 80’s to realize a community functioning on TVP principles – well go figure. Today we have money, we are conditioned from childhood through media, movies our parents narrow views and stubbornness, so how can we adapt to TVP. It’s impossible in today’s monetary system and education system. I believe that’s what he concluded from that experiment. He isolated himself because he could not live by the values in which most people live their lives in society today. Human values are shaped by culture, and the societies around earth today are so corrupt and ‘out of touch’ that he simply could not relate to it or live by those values.

During my recent years of reflecting and studying J.F’s statements, I’ve realised that the hardest thing for today’s people to understand is, that for J.F.’s RBE to work, a redesign of our education system, values and the way we raise our children is necessary. You cannot expect J.F to implement his ideas under today’s system.
I guess this insight, and/or ability to see “further” (or the bigger picture) isn’t easy for every individual.
Good luck.

At socialchangenow you can view Fresco’s YouTube: Investigating Human Behavior. My take is below. And I’ll show you how Fresco rationalizes away individuality, human propensities and values. He then eliminates ideas like freedom, choice, love, and hope. Then after stripping all this away, he finally brings indoctrination into play. Which is the underbelly to TVP.

So let the quotes begin:

J.F. “The brain is a responding mechanism.”

J.F. ‘If a neurologist believes in free-will, he cannot look at anything objectively…’

J.F. “When I say there’s no such thing as human nature, there’s human reactions to the environment.”

—Fresco claims human nature doesn’t exists because he believes all behavior is strictly conditioned by environment. Human psychological and behavioral characteristics don’t differ from say African lions, or marmots. Forget about the ability to self-reflect, or ideas like meaning, purpose, hope, morality, or complex problem solving. Even though our digestive systems are not capable of surviving off raw, rotting road-kill like lions or dogs, and we have language, J.F. doesn’t believe he’s simplifying here. I ask you, if humans have no distinct natural abilities, talk this over with a mouse. Noam Chomsky similarly states, that saying human nature doesn’t exist “…amounts to the belief that the next human zygote conceived might just as well develop into a worm or a crab as a human being.” https://chomsky.info/199808__-2/

J.F. ‘When a guy says to a girl, “I love you more than myself,” he’s saying nothing. Instead, he should say, “how can I meet your needs…”’

—So don’t waste your time telling your wife or children you love them. Instead watch J.F.’s Youtube: “Love is Bullshit. And you also can feel superior.

J.F. 44:25 ‘There’s no such thing as individuality. People say they want to be free. They’re never free. You can’t be free of your background.’

—So now it’s getting interesting. Freedom doesn’t exist for Fresco. Nada. And since you also “can’t change your background,” and your “individuality” doesn’t exist, and you’re not free to change behavior, you thus have no freedom of choice. Self-reflection must also not exist.
So logically, in Fresco’s reductionist world of no freedom, and no choice, technocrats are legitimized, or free to indoctrinate. Hence, the next quote.

J.F. 45:20 “The Zeitgeist movement should be a system that indoctrinates people to a working system that’s beneficial to most people.”

—So here you have it folks. But what about those who don’t see the ‘benefits,’ or don’t want to be “indoctrinated,” or what if the Kool-Aid doesn’t work, what’s the Plan-B, a more sever method of indoctrination? Well, don’t worry. You will respond appropriately. That’s because…

J.F. 57:40 “The mind is a responding organism.”

—The problem here with reducing people to simple machines, or “responding organisms,” is that you’ve now justified treating them as such. This “philosophy” opens the door to all kinds of cruelty. But don’t worry they’ll tell you, the technocrats only have your best interest in mind. And we have precedents of this where?

I still don’t believe you’re understanding the bigger bigger Fresco tries to draw. He trying to say that we NOW (in the monetary system) actually live in a reductionist society. If you don’t see that it’s going to be hard for us to communicate I’m afraid. You’re quoting very short sentences that cannot stand by themselves because he is spending sometimes 10 min. just to explain one concept. “But what about those who don’t see the ‘benefits'” .. well that’s a shame that you cannot see the benefits. Why do you think Fresco talks about how we develop the best society for humans? Why do you think he has spent his life on this project? Is it just to “create human machines”so the future can control people? No – I can promise you this.
“The mind is a responding organism.” By this he means, a responding organism in relation to our environment. E.g. If ‘decide’ to put down my computer and move – there’s a reason for me doing so. Be it I’m thirsty, hungry, need the toilet, feeling cold or want to check something in a book. Every move we make is caused by something else. A lust, a need, or a necessity at a given moment.
By mentioning the neurologist and explaining that he “maps out the areas of the brain” he basically tells us that a neurologist cannot understand the mind. They can only look at where things originate from and the brains reactions, but they cannot understand the mind and how it works and what causes the way humans think…

“There’s no such thing as individuality”
He is trying to explain that everything we humans learn is caused by something else (be it our environment/other people/movies, books etc.) or a continuation of a concept/idea/project that we’ve learnt about from prior research.

Sorry to say this, but I honestly believe you’ve completely misunderstood J.F’s points and general ‘message’/direction.
Firstly, you are speaking about JF as if he is obligated to make his life’s idea and work function under the current system we live in today. I do not see any of his ideas/thinking as mechanical or that he is generating operant behavior – on the contrary.

Secondly, the fact that you are describing J.F’s life work as utopian proves that you haven’t listened or understood the basic philosophy behind his statements and ideas.
It sounds to me like you’ve been offended and have something personally against the guy since you say “reductionist views regarding human beings”.
He is trying to open our minds man. Not deprive people from thinking, having personal wishes or trying to control humans through conditioning. He is trying to give us tools to think creatively and reflect on real problem solving i.e. what are the root causes of problems we see around the world today and how can we solve them.

You say that J.F attempted in the 80’s to realize a community functioning on TVP principles – well go figure. Today we have money, we are conditioned from childhood through media, movies, our authoritarian parents and their conditioned views and stubbornness, so how can one adapt to TVP. It’s impossible in today’s monetary system and values. I believe that’s what he concluded from that experiment. He isolated himself because he could not live by the values in which most people live their lives in society today. Human values are shaped by culture, and the societies around earth today are so corrupt and ‘out of touch’ that he simply could not relate to it or live by those values.

During my recent years of reflecting and studying J.F’s statements, I’ve realised that the hardest thing for today’s people to understand is, that for J.F.’s RBE to work, a redesign of our education system, values and the way we raise our children is necessary. You cannot expect J.F to implement his ideas under today’s system.
I guess this insight, and/or ability to see “further” (or the bigger picture) isn’t easy for every individual.
Good luck.

“Firstly, you are speaking about JF as if he is obligated to make his life’s idea and work function under the current system we live in today.”

When you tell others that you have an idea, you’ve designed something, or that something can work and yet have no proof for it, you create a prototype, otherwise it’s nothing but opinion. If you say it can only work in the future when people are ready for it, well, that’s a Utopian idea Sparky.

“It sounds to me like you’ve been offended and have something personally against the guy since you say “reductionist views regarding human beings”.

Fresco is a mechanist, and thus a reductionist with regards to human behavior. If you don’t know this by now, or don’t understand the term, I’m not sure what exactly you’ve been studying all these years. It’s basic and fundamental to his view on education and conditioning. If you want to know how I know this, and my experience with Fresco and his ideas, please read my comments above. Start at the top. Here’s also a brief YouTube of J.F.’s called: Science and Social Change; Mechanisms of Behavior. It’s doesn’t go very deep into his ideas, but it’s basically about reducing humans to the”mechanisms” that generate their behavior.

You’re obviously starry-eyed and smitten with your hero. And like any good fanatical follower, even mentioning anything that might be considered derogatory traits is heresy. I’m assuming I have a lot more history and background with Fresco than yourself, and like I said, I have plenty of comments above that further explain myself.

Cheers.

I understand what you think Fresco means, but you don’t understand what Fresco means.

I was listening to Fresco’s talks in the 70’s and 80’s, in person and by tape that were regularly sent to me. A close relative who was a core group member, (who just visited J.F about a month ago…) used to live right next door to him in Miami. I have been discussing these ideas over with my relative for many years. There was an original booklist given out back then and I read them all and studied them intensely. When I tell you J.F. has a mechanist philosophy, I am not being flippant. You can find evidence for this all over his lectures. It is fundamental to his philosophy of social engineering.

It’s quite obvious from what you’ve written you don’t understand this nor the ramifications of it. But tis is how the whole TVP thing ultimately works for Fresco. This is how you supposedly get everybody on board. I recently pointed out to you where he mentions: “The Zeitgeist movement should be a system that indoctrinates people to a working system that’s beneficial to most people.” But like I said, who decides what is beneficial? Fresco? You? The Technocrats? Who do we allow that power?

Sure differing groups in society achieve indoctrination to limited degrees, but we don’t allow a system of intense indoctrination upon individuals. Why? Because it’s unethical. This is where Fresco differs. Since everything we do is due to conditioning, not any free choice involved, he figures why let random forces in society do it, that is, when the State can do it for intentional ends. For what he calls: ‘… a working system that’s beneficial to most people.” And these ideas come from his background and belief, notice I say Belief, in behaviorism. And behaviorism reduces people basically to simple machines to be conditioned by the environment.

Though all this stuff is in his lectures, non of the newbies see it or understand it because they have no knowledge or background in it.

What I truly find interesting is how many of Fresco’s followers, like yourself, believe Fresco is not properly understood, yet at the same time misunderstand this site. This site is making fun of someone, it could by anyone, who claims to have the final solution. Especially when that group, TVP, charges people money for it’s books, lectures, guided tours, etc.. And this group advertises so much but has really done so very little more than talk and set up a few buildings, a website. And what have you actually seen being done with those donation? Where’s the movie even? Besides the simple fact it regularly touts science as its backbone, that it’s all established in the scientific method, yet there is absolutely no real science to back anything J.F. says.

P.S. I understand that J.F. is saying there is no “individuality” because as you say, “everything we humans learn is caused by something else (be it our environment/other people/movies, books etc.),” I completely understand this. But I don’t in any way agree with this. Because it is all these specific events, and the way you interprets them, and how you reflect upon them that makes you specifically an individual. You, as an individual, uniquely reflect upon the innumerable stimuli from your environment and come up with new and creative connections and solutions. It is your unique outcomes which makes you the individual you are. Sure, you may have similarities to others from your culture, your background, etc. but you are still uniquely individual the way you’ve turned out, and because of this uniqueness, you deserve inherent respect and dignity. Fresco doesn’t believe this, and Skinner didn’t either. Hence Skinner’s book: Beyond Freedom and Dignity. It was on Fresco’s early booklist. Follow Fresco’s line of eliminating the individual, the ideal of freedom, individual choice, and then call people “responding mechanisms,” a Skinnerian term, and you’ve justified “indoctrination” on a grand scale. But who do you give this control to? In J.F.’s world, the technocrats. No thanks.

Ok. Thanks for explaining. I can see your point. I will be a little more sceptic in the future. However, I still believe that Fresco only has the best intentions for future generation, because – if we continue todays’ policies and keep making nuclear bombs and don’t priorities education then we’ll have big problems down the line. You can’t argue with that.

You know, instead of being an idiot and using ad hominem attacks, perhaps you should use real arguments to prove your point. Scratch that, you didn’t even make any real ad hominem attacks, which more or less proves you have no clue about any of this.

Fresco’s work is an attempt to offer a rational alternative to the hell-bent trends of scarcity-based economics (capitalism, communism, etc.). If you have a better idea, try presenting it and stop this idiocy.

Calling me an “idiot” and then blaming me for a ad hominem attack is interesting, to say the least. If you have a problem with someone I’ve said specifically, have at it.

“If you have a better idea, try presenting it and stop this idiocy.”

I have a better idea for you. Democracy is a group activity. Get involved. There’s plenty to do in the here and now. Sitting around waiting for The Jetsons to happen isn’t anything to brag about.

Charles – if you truly believe that democracy is working out just fine, then you’re simply not opening your eyes and doing enough proper research about today’s reality on planet earth. The human race is on its way to a downfall. Sorry to say this but you are a bit ignorant, to say the least.

Democracy has never worked “out just fine.” You really are clueless.

Read your history. It’s always taken great effort to get things done. Like getting women’s vote, slaves freed, children out of coal mines, African Americans considered human beings, etc…. These things have always taken effort. They weren’t achieved by those whining that the times were too difficult and instead waited for Utopia,

And the human race has always been “on it’s way to a downfall.” It seemed it was for the Greeks as the Romans invaded, at the end of Rome, during the French revolution, just name your time.

Not only have you not read your history, and understand that it has always taken effort by concerned, hard working citizens to achieve any of the benefits we enjoy today, but you don’t even understand the underbelly of Fresco’s social engineering program. You’re clueless on that, as well. Fresco thinks he can social engineer plurality out of existence!

Most followers of Fresco simply don’t want to work, or put the effort into democracy, attempting to move it in the direction they want. And it’s the only relatively decent working system we’ve presently got. I got news for you, you don’t get to test-drive and test out another system. Most Fresco followers would rather live in a dream world were robots are going to fix their pluming at three o’clock in the morning. Good luck on that. I consider that nonsense more than ” a bit ignorant, to say the least.”

I knew you would go strong against me on this one. I’m not talking about history or downing democracy per say. Of course I know about all the things you mention here, but I’m referring to the corruption, poor politics, greed and selfishness within our democracy.

I apologize if I was too “strong.” You have been very polite. I’m used to dealing with a different element around here.

Your cause is noble. And for all the reasons you’ve mentioned. I’d like to briefly mention something. On your website you say that religion is an “infection” upon society that must be eradicated. People must be made ‘scientifically literate.’ Now, I’m not any fan of religion. But let me briefly respond to two points here.

Firstly, is it really just “facts,” or empirical data, or being “scientifically literate,” that gets people to change. Well, let’s look at an example: I think it’s quite commonly known today, and a generally understood fact, that factory farming and animal production and consumption for food leads to at least half, if not more than half, of the contribution to global warming. Not even getting into what it does to our resources. I’m sure you probably know this, as do many scientists. Yet, how many people are Vegan because of it? What’s the percentage of vegetarians? Not many. But the “facts” are out there. Something to think about.

So this brings me to the second point: Belief. The majority of people believe that it’s their right, and it’s natural to eat meat, and to exploit animals. They ignore the suffering and compartmentalize cows, chickens and pigs as being different from say dogs and cats. It’s a belief system that’s difficult to change, and no doubt as well ingrained and justificed as any healthy religion. Has the fact of factory farming contribution to global warming changed that belief, or changed many people’s behavior? I don’t think so. Again, food for thought.

And now Belief goes for good atheists like same Harris who’ve replaced religion with something else. For Sam, it’s the State aparatus. For him, our country doesn’t engage in terrorism of any kind: economic, militarily, cultural, or colonial, etc… It’s just Islam and religion that’s the problem, and he fails to look at underlying causes for extremism. He doesn’t and can’t see that it could possibly be western culture and its values that are destroying the planet. For him the major enemy is Islam, and religion.

So my point is that belief, and you can call it religion of anything, comes in many faces. And is it really scientific literacy, or the facts, that change behavior? And if not, what does change behavior? I think is an important question. One can’t even think about social engineering until one understands one’s own values, behavior, history, intentions, and fallacies. And, of course, we are an evolution, not for the individual, and for cultures, but humankind in general. To me these are important questions. And I skeptically question, and am skeptical of anyone who has the solution.

Thanks for listening,

Charlie

Dear Author,

You used no evidence, only opinions. Science is based on empirical data, not opinions. Technology is created through science, not opinions. You’re a dumbass is my opinion, and it doesn’t change the fact that you used “it just isn’t” as an explanation for your claim of why science is incapable of solving the worlds problems, which has no validity because of your lack of empirical data.

You say its all about Jacque Fresco in The Venus Project, but ideas are fluid. The logicality of Fresco actually coming up with it all on his own is ridiculous. Perhaps there are so may pictures of him because he died and had a dream this would help people. Is that so terrible? To want to help people?

You need to work on your argument.

P. S. You’re not comical, just an arrogant asshole.

Dear Frescoite,

Since the author of this humorous blog isn’t claiming it to be science, and Fresco is claiming that TVP is, please tell me where can I find the “empirical data” backing J.F.’s “opinions.”

What’s the actual research going on at TVP Research Center?

Inquiring minds want to know these things.

P.S. Are “Dumbass,” and “arrogant asshole” examples of the advanced language we can expect in the Fresco Future?

I hope we can maintain the conversation to the 3 top points or highlights of criticism without diverting to much. Certain types of conversation always go astray. Your 3 absolute statements about the Venus Project were of interest to me.

1) The Venus Project is a cult.
2) The Venus Project is naive scientism.
3) Jacque Fresco knows how to design a building.

I don’t like absolutes, lesser in very biased, pessimistic and extreme negative viewpoints. I rather like some evidence and a well constructed arguments which helps to gain a clearer view and understanding. Also a “pro” and “con” style presentation give a better view of what the person has understood.

Number 1:

Now, is the Venus Project a cult? The word “Cult” is very broad used now a days. Semantically speaking it is used wrong in most of the cases if at all. Let’s take a look at Wikipedia how “Cult” is defined (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult).

—–

“In academia, the term “cult” has no prevailing consistent definition or practical usage,[1] and has a long and revered history in the sociology of religion.[2] Some reject the term entirely, since most people, mistaken about cults, use the term to dehumanize the members of groups.”

Furthermore …

“The sociological concept[1] of a cult may be that of a sharply or diffusely bounded social group[3][4] whose members are almost entirely controlled by, dominated by,[4] or held together through shared commitment to a single individual (the charismatic leader[3]) or organization;[4] the movement promotes a transcendental ideology,[3] which may be expressed through effective, socially established and ordered forms or in concrete external actions performed within the congregation or community.[5]

The irrationality or absurdity of the beliefs of a cult are less important than the nature of its defining operational methods for persuading and motivating people; as such the present-day cult may be defined as a small movement that demonstrates a large dedication to an object of faith, manipulatively uses thought control methods to gain and keep members, causes them to become psychologically dependent, uses them for the cult leaders’ goals, and inflicts psychological damage upon them.[6]”

—–

Now, at first sight, you might find yourself confirmed and supported by the second paragraph since characteristics you pointed out, are shared by the sociological concept. For me however, the last paragraph is of interest, especially on the end. That section is the relevant part when it comes to cults. If you can prove that people (supporters of the Venus Project) are psychologically dependent and/or suffer from psychological damage, than I would accept the expressed. Psychological Control and Domination are key elements of a cult. I speak out of experience. Just because people follow a person (Leader) who stand out very boldly, does not make a cult. I think that the Academic view is more sound in the given context of this Blog message in reference to the Venus Project.

Number 2:

Is the Venus Project naive scientism? First we have to ask ourselves that is science.

“Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding1. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions.” Source: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html

Science is a tool. The best tool that humanity has discovered. It is solemnly responsible for all the improvements in human live. Take away all that what was arrived from science and engineering and ask yourself what is left for human betterment. The answer is quite simple, not much. Science is also not only for technology. Science is part of Psychology as well as Sociology. The study of human behavior and wellbeing. Therefore it is understandable that Science is the primary key element in the RBE. Knowledge is gained over time, understanding changes with new discoveries. There is no absolute in science, nor will be all known. This leads me to Nikola Tesla. Why would you think a person of the past, who has obsolete knowledge about a time which has past would be seen as a solution for todays problems? That was not a good example or argument in the first place how science could be used to solve todays problems.

Number 3:

Jacque Fresco knows how to design a building but nothing more? The RBE is defensively closer to an economy than that what we have now. Also most alternative offered don no look much better. The word “Economy” is again very broad used, just google all the definitions, and in most cases not semantically correct applied. So first we have to ask what is an “economy”, semantically speaking. The closest definition I found came from here https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/economy

“Careful management of available resources”

It means, by definition, to strategically preserve and create efficiency so resources are not wasted. Ironically, the Oxford Dictionary refers only to fuel economy, a natural finite resource, and skips the rest. Like there is no other finite resource on this planet. As far as I can tell, the Venus Project or RBE is the closest concept to that sane definition of “Careful management of available resources”; since it focus on that what is relevant for human survival, natural resources. The other so called economy ideologies are irrelevant! I will not continue of what is believed that Mr. Fresco knows or not. On the economy part he was spot on. So I lean towards the conclusion that he knows from what he talks about.

Final words. It appears to me, that the writer feels threatened by the Venus Project in some way. It’s not bad thing to have a portion of healthy paranoia and skepticism but it can get quickly out of hand. This was a bit too negative and biased for me. Sometimes when I see articles like this, I see the fear of change, needed change, by people who are not willing to change out of whatever reasons.

“If you can prove that people (supporters of the Venus Project) are psychologically dependent and/or suffer from psychological damage, than I would accept the expressed. Psychological Control and Domination are key elements of a cult… ”

Have you read some of the amazingly defensive rude comments on this site by these “psychologically damaged” followers of TVP. Their “psychological dependency” is evident by the extreme anger they express, and their inability to accept any criticism, or even find any humor about their leader and his ideas on this site. And that, by the way, is the reason they get so angry: their idol has been defamed. Looks like a cult to me.

Looking up any definition of a cult: Sociological, religious, etc.. and I’d say Frescoites fit the bill.

“Science is a tool. The best tool that humanity has discovered. It is solemnly responsible for all the improvements in human live. Take away all that what was arrived from science and engineering and ask yourself what is left for human betterment. The answer is quite simple, not much.”

Bullshit. Is morality science? Is empathy science? Is Science better than empathy?
Have all the best things in life been because of “science”? Really? What about all the bad things that’ve come about via the ‘scientific tool’? This is just more Fresco pseudo-science bullshit that sounds like religion to me.

“Therefore it is understandable that Science is the primary key element in the RBE.”

Please show me any references for the “Science” inolved in RBE. Where is there any science backing anything Fresco says! Where are the scientific studies?
And PLEASE, will somebody tell me what’s the actual RESEARCH going on at TVP’s so called “Research Center.” I’ll tell you. There’s absolutely no real “Science.” It’s all just bullshit! Snake oil. But make sure you DONATE! And, oh, there’s a movie coming soon! (And don’t worry, when the movie comes out, that’ll make it real…)

“As far as I can tell, the Venus Project or RBE is the closest concept to that sane definition of “Careful management of available resources”; since it focus on that what is relevant for human survival, natural resources.”

It appears you’re not familiar with the “Careful management of available resources” of the Native Americans living in the Amazon region, or Indians in the mountains of Peru, or tribes living is Papu New Guinea, who’ve lived off the land for thousands of years. Though they don’t have the “science” you speak of so proudly, they do have plenty of problem solving skills. And THEY haven’t destroyed their evironments. That’s been left to the cultures who’ve created all the ‘benefits we now have from science.’

“The other so called economy ideologies are irrelevant!”

Judging other ‘economic ideaologies” as irrelevant based upon a half-baked Utopian dream doesn’t render your ideas any more relevant.

“Final words. It appears to me, that the writer feels threatened by the Venus Project in some way.”

Not half as threatened as most of those who respond to this site. Those who constantly attempt to legitimize Fresco to an author who has mocked them and their leader. Those people who just can’t seem to understand why the world hasn’t found TVP. Or why it hasn’t realized Fresco as a genius?

“It’s not bad thing to have a portion of healthy paranoia and skepticism but it can get quickly out of hand.”

Well, it’s a good thing you’re here to keep us all in check. We surely don’t want to get too cynical. We want to be ready and able when someone promises us a golden future based on nothing but opinion.

Quote: “Have you read some of the amazingly defensive rude comments on this site by these “psychologically damaged” followers of TVP. Their “psychological dependency” is evident by the extreme anger they express, and their inability to accept any criticism, or even find any humor about their leader and his ideas on this site. And that, by the way, is the reason they get so angry: their idol has been defamed. Looks like a cult to me.

Looking up any definition of a cult: Sociological, religious, etc.. and I’d say Frescoites fit the bill.”

Sorry, but this is an unsound comparison and fundamentally illogic. Just because a small group of persons behave in an unacceptable manner, doesn’t mean that you can apply it so general to everybody. It’s like blaming a pacifist leader and his or her pacifist collaborates for a violent act of a few which lack commitment and understanding. Logic fallacy: It’s like Garfield is human, Peanuts are bad, Garfield likes to eat Peanuts and therefore he is a bad human. This kind of thought is one of the most destructive forms of thinking which is responsible for a lot of violence in the world. Just think about it. If that is your arguments that the TVP is a cult than you stand on a very weak foot indeed. As said, cults use fear to control and dominate so they create emotional slavery which make people become depended psychologically speaking. It requires a certain language to accomplish that. Marshall Rosenberg has a good inside in that language of domination. I only can recommend it.

Qoute: “Bullshit. Is morality science? Is empathy science? Is Science better than empathy?
Have all the best things in life been because of “science”? Really? What about all the bad things that’ve come about via the ‘scientific tool’? This is just more Fresco pseudo-science bullshit that sounds like religion to me.”

If you ask those questions, I get the impression that you do not understand what science is. Science is a tool which can and could help to explain what morality and empathy is and from where it comes from. But science is not morality or empathy, morality is unique human concept. Empathy is another thing for itself which is not unique to humans. I don’t even understand how someone can take Morality and Empathy in such abstractions. What you do with a tool depends upon the society and person(s). A knife can be uses to slice a bread and improve live but also be used to hurt a human being and be destructive. What has that to do with science? Morality from my point of view is a word with little meaning, and lesser in the way it is being used. The concept of Morality has it’s root in “Religion”. I hope you are aware of it. It was used and is still used to claim superiority and to justify cruel, violent and inhuman acts again those who are considered inferior. That is an observable fact.

Things to look into.

Dr. James Gilligan. Morality is the Problem – https://youtu.be/JG_RFwoCt_0
James Gilligan: Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous Than Others – https://youtu.be/oWul3iczMJo

Understanding The Effects Of Hierarchy In Society | Dr.Robert Sapolsky – https://youtu.be/9aDTAX7V5Ew
Dr. Robert Sapolsky: Are Humans Just Another Primate? – https://youtu.be/YWZAL64E0DI

That is science! So if TVP is science, depends upon your understanding of science and it’s methods. From the last quoted. I get the impression that you do not understand what science is and for what it is being actually used for.

Quote: “Please show me any references for the “Science” inolved in RBE. Where is there any science backing anything Fresco says! Where are the scientific studies? And PLEASE, will somebody tell me what’s the actual RESEARCH going on at TVP’s so called “Research Center.” I’ll tell you. There’s absolutely no real “Science.” It’s all just bullshit! Snake oil. But make sure you DONATE! And, oh, there’s a movie coming soon! (And don’t worry, when the movie comes out, that’ll make it real…)”

Again, this depends upon your understand of “Science”. I see a problem in logic here. A Planetarium is a “Research Center” for those who are interest to learn about Astronomy and/or Astrology. It doesn’t change the fact that no one really looks at the stars or is a astrophysicist or astronomer. It is still an educational environment into the science of astronomy. TVP started as a research center, not only for Jacque Fresco but for those who are interested to learn about the RBE. You claim that Jacque Fresco knows only how to design buildings, this means Architecture. Architecture is a science, applied science to be precise ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Applied_sciences ). Therefore you contradict yourself. Also the Wikipedia page about Mr. Fresco points out that he worked at Douglas Aircraft Company and at the Army Air Force at Wright Field design laboratories in Dayton, Ohio in the aviation discipline which also is a scientific discipline. So, he is defensively very well experienced in the scientific disciple.
Now, DONATE MONEY? If you can name me one Organization or Institution which can operate without Money in the Monetary System than I would be very interest to know about it.

Quote: “It appears you’re not familiar with the “Careful management of available resources” of the Native Americans living in the Amazon region, or Indians in the mountains of Peru, or tribes living is Papu New Guinea, who’ve lived off the land for thousands of years. Though they don’t have the “science” you speak of so proudly, they do have plenty of problem solving skills. And THEY haven’t destroyed their evironments. That’s been left to the cultures who’ve created all the ‘benefits we now have from science.’ ”

Sorry, but things where not so beautiful as you try to paint them. You seem to have a romantic view of Native American Culture. Many tribes were very violent, just the Aztecs and Mayan should be enough to make that point clear. (http://www.science20.com/news_articles/the_most_violent_era_in_america_was_before_europeans_arrived-141847) Maybe a couple of tribes were living a bit more in harmony but only if there environment permitted it because they had abundant resources.

Quote: “Judging other ‘economic ideaologies” as irrelevant based upon a half-baked Utopian dream doesn’t render your ideas any more relevant.”

My ideas? I just did a reference to what a real economy should look like if a proposal is given.

Quote: “Not half as threatened as most of those who respond to this site. Those who constantly attempt to legitimize Fresco to an author who has mocked them and their leader. Those people who just can’t seem to understand why the world hasn’t found TVP. Or why it hasn’t realized Fresco as a genius? ”

That is your opinion which gives me nothing to work with.

Quote: “Well, it’s a good thing you’re here to keep us all in check. We surely don’t want to get too cynical. We want to be ready and able when someone promises us a golden future based on nothing but opinion.”

I’m here out of curiosity, not to check on anybody. Also, I do not like falsehoods, saturation, oversimplification and overgeneralize viewpoints. I see the need to challenge such believes.

Enough of the rope-a-dope diversion. You made the claim that “Science is the primary key element in the RBE.”

So where is it?

P.S. I have no illusions about Native American, or any other. Still, claiming I ” have a romantic view of Native American Culture” is pretty special coming from someone like yourself.

I do not feel the need to go beyond my written points. What for? You have build up a strong enemy picture which you will defend no matter what I write and prove. I came to understand and challenge your opinions, to simply find truth, which I gained. Not as you might think though.

“Real learning comes about when the competitive spirit has ceased.” – Jiddu Krishnamurti

I surly appreciate you time spent for this interesting conversation. Thank you!

Of course you “feel no need to go beyond” what you’ve already written, because you’ve got absolutely nothing to back your empty claim Sport.

I knew you couldn’t back your claim, or TVP’s claim: that ‘Science is its key element.”

Again, it’s just more cult-like behavior on your part. Think about it. You’re claiming something exists that doesn’t. That looks awfully like religion to me.

Charismatic cult leaders make ludicrous claims with nothing to back them. And their followers uncritically pass on their nonsense.

Your a textbook case.

I’ve surely enjoyed our time, as well. Thank you!

Prove this isn’t a cult, and just point to the evidence based, empirical data, supporting your claim that “Science is the primary key element in the RBE.”

You’ve made the claim (as have many others on this site) that TVP is science based, and so I’d like to see it for myself. Where’s is this science, the studies, the empirical data? Not the claims, and opinions about how glorious it all can be. That’s not science. Do you know the actual difference?

P.S. Gullibility is the foundation of any good cult.

Since I got so nicely invited to continue to play “rope-a-dope”, I will continue more of my thoughts and efforts to clear things up a bit more. I do not know what affiliation you have with the author of this post; or, if you are one and the same. Apparently, you are sharing the same believes. However, when you ask me to proof that the TVP is not a “Cult”, something felt incredibly odd. I ask myself, why should I poof something doesn’t exist? I didn’t claim anything. So I think, I do not have the burden of prove. I think, if you share the views of the author or you’re the author than the burden is yours, not mine. The post has no proof what so ever! It’s just an opinion.

I do not like to repeat myself; but, since you do not pay very much attention what I wrote, I will be so kind to repeat it one more time for you.
Architecture is applied science, Aviation is applied science and Economics (including theories) is applied science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Applied_sciences). Just follow the link and all disciplines of applied science is listed. So science is a key element of the TVP. Do you know what science is?

Furthermore:
—————–
Question of utopianism

The Venus Project states on its website states that it is not utopian.[66] Nikolina Olsen-Rule, writing for the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies, supports this idea,

For most people, the promise of the project sounds like an unattainable utopia, but if you examine it more closely, there are surprisingly many scientifically founded arguments that open up an entire new world of possibilities.”[67]

Morten Grønborg, also of Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies, points out The Venus Project is,

… this visionary idea of a future society has many characteristics in common with the utopia. … the word utopia carries a double meaning, since in Greek it can mean both the good place (eutopia) and the nonexisting place (outopia). A good place is precisely what Fresco has devoted his life to describing and fighting for.[68]

——–

Comments on Fresco

Hans-Ulrich Obrist notes, “Fresco’s future may, of course, seem outmoded and his writings have been subject to critique for their fascistic undertones of order and similitude, but his contributions are etched in the popular psyche and his eco-friendly concepts continue to influence our present generation of progressive architects, city planners and designers.”[69]

Fresco’s work gained the attention of science fiction enthusiast and critic, Forrest J Ackerman,[11] Fresco would later attract Star Trek animator, Doug Drexler, who worked with Fresco to produce several computer renderings of his designs.[70]

Commenting on Fresco, physicist, Paul G. Hewitt, wrote that Fresco inspired him toward a career in physical science.

——-

Source: http://www.wow.com/wiki/Jacque_Fresco

Claiming that economics is a science is fine. It’s not a hard science, for sure, and many “scientists” would disagree with your claim. There may be some “science” to it, but there’s also some science to Salesmanship. Can it claim it’s a science? It seems for someone who doesn’t like absolutes, you seem pretty absolute about what is and isn’t science.

If you want to claim that economics, and your RBE is a science, that’s fine. But if all “economic” systems are scientific, that doesn’t put you in good company. Ever heard the term “voodoo economics”? And many consider economic systems to be highly ideological, not science, eg. socialism, capitalism.

Of course you don’t like that the word Utopian labeled on your hopes. I understand this. And since TVP claims it isn’t so, this is obviously enough for you. I won’t offer tit-for-tat opinions of Fresco that contradict yours.

I’ll simply say that there’s a famous Biologist who believes God exists, and he’s a Catholic, and there are more than enough “scientists” who also claim God exists. I haved no doubt that somewhere, someone people, with some “science” credentials, find Fresco authentic.

There is no reason to be paranoid. I am not the author of this site. The author spends of this site spends, I’m sure, about as much time arguing with Christian Fundamentalists as with you guys. My history with this group can be read in the above comments.

Quote: “Claiming that economics is a science is fine. It’s not a hard science, for sure, and many “scientists” would disagree with your claim. There may be some “science” to it, but there’s also some science to Salesmanship. Can it claim it’s a science? It seems for someone who doesn’t like absolutes, you seem pretty absolute about what is and isn’t science.”

What some scientist opined is irrelevant, “Economics” is a scientific discipline!

Quote: “If you want to claim that economics, and your RBE is a science, that’s fine. But if all “economic” systems are scientific, that doesn’t put you in good company. Ever heard the term “voodoo economics”? And many consider economic systems to be highly ideological, not science, eg. socialism, capitalism.”

It’s not my RBE! RBE is an economic model promoted by TVP and brainchild of Jacque Fresco. “Barefoot Economic” is not “my” economy. It’s the brain child of Manfred Max-Neef, an economist from Chile. As said, you have strong enemy images which you personify quite well. I never claimed that all economic system are scientific. I provided a semantic correct definition of an economy which I hoped to serve as a reference on how an economy should look like. The Indigenous of America had no scientific based economy, there had culture based economics. There economics were derived from adaptations and basic understanding of natural processes which was passed on to the next generation by mythology.

Quote: “Of course you don’t like that the word Utopian labeled on your hopes. I understand this. And since TVP claims it isn’t so, this is obviously enough for you. I won’t offer tit-for-tat opinions of Fresco that contradict yours”

It’s right I do not like that word, not though as you might think. I do not care if you use it in the context with TVP. It’s a meaningless word in itself coming form persons which seen things fanciful and unimaginative. So I see it.

“There is something very utopian about what I do. But utopia is nothing more than a truth that the world is not yet ready to hear.” – Yann Arthus-Bertrand

“We are at heart so profoundly anarchistic that the only form of state we can imagine living in is Utopian; and so cynical that the only Utopia we can believe in is authoritarian.” – Lionel Trilling

“Universities are like a utopia in a way, because you’re mentally stimulated, you’re challenged, and you have a lot of young, creative minds wanting to do new things, different things. Better things.” – Ashton Eaton

So what does utopia really mean, semantically speaking?

Quote “I’ll simply say that there’s a famous Biologist who believes God exists, and he’s a Catholic, and there are more than enough “scientists” who also claim God exists. I haved no doubt that somewhere, someone people, with some “science” credentials, find Fresco authentic.”

I really don’t care if some scientists are religious. I do care about the information presented and if it can withstand the scrutiny of those who aren’t religious. Science is a method to find truth, not believes.

Quote: “There is no reason to be paranoid. I am not the author of this site. The author spends of this site spends, I’m sure, about as much time arguing with Christian Fundamentalists as with you guys. My history with this group can be read in the above comments.”

I’m not paranoid, I just like to understand the relations between the writer, author and with whom I dialog. Would you be so kind to clarify what “you guys” means?

“What some scientist opined is irrelevant, “Economics” is a scientific discipline!”

As it’s also irrelevant what some scientist opine about Fresco.

If you spent any time in college, the first thing you you should’ve learned is the difference between the physical and the social sciences. For example, sociology is a social science, and much of what is sociology isn’t graphable, or redily decucable, but instead conjecture, and supposition. This goes for economics, as well. They’re not a science like physics. Some social scientists agree with some ideas in their field, and not others. Much of it is debatable. And that goes for your RBE, as well. Very questionable.

“I never claimed that all economic system are scientific.”

You said: “Economics (including theories) is applied science.” That would make them scientific! More rop-a-dope. I’m assuming your claiming Fresco’s RBE is scientific, while some others aren’t. Again, this is all just opinion. What Economic theories does RBE use that are scientific? Please attempt to prove this claim. I’m still waiting.

“I provided a semantic correct definition of an economy… as a reference on how an economy should look like.”

You have provided nothing but hyperbole. And if you’re saying an economy should look like socialism with robots, well I got news for you, Marx had no idea how to actually achieve socialism, and actually when there, what it would actually look like. The same goes for Fresco’s pipe dreams. Waiting for the world to collapse isn’t a plan. There’s no plan for how to get there. And there’s not any proof of it working.

“The Indigenous of America had no scientific based economy,”

Magic robots meeting our every wish isn’t sciencetific either, it’s science fiction!

And I got news for you Sparky, much of how indigenous Americans live can be considered having a scientific understanding of their environment. I find you conveniently change your definition of science to fit your present argument. At one point, you called a science a ‘tool for thinking.’ And you’re correct. And that’s how indigenous Americans have survived for thousands of years. Did you think it was by superstition? They’ve learned how to control their environment by using highly skilled problem solving methods. That’s applied science. They make medicines, tools, grow crops (agriculture), raise animals (animal husbandry), understand season changes (climatology) etc…They barter with other tribes and share resources amongst themselves. They live in primarily a Resource Based Economy without the robots! Get a clue. Your education to me is extremely limited, and since your understanding is so limited, the little understanding you’ve acquired makes you very dogmatic in your beliefs.

“I really don’t care if some scientists are religious”

The point has again went far over your head. If you’re going to quote a couple people with scientific credentials that back Fresco, I can show you scientists that’ll back just about anything. Yes, even Fresco. Claiming an RBE, or Fresco claiming TVP is scientific, outside of him using a couple applied sciences for building and boats, doesn’t make it any more scientific than Salesmanship. And an RBE has about as much scientific foundation.

“I’m not paranoid, I just like to understand the relations between the writer”

You’ll notice the author and I have different names. That should’ve been your first clue.

Where have you gone… there surely must be more than this?

I asked for the science backing TVP, the empirical data, the studies, etc. and you give me that “Architecture is applied science, Aviation is applied science and Economics (including theories) is applied science.”

So economics – the wiggliest of the social sciences – architecture, and aviation, are the ‘sciences, that are the “key element” of Fresco’s RBE. This is pretty flimsy.

Well, let’s forget about the buildings and aviation for now, and I’d say RBE is not even really an economic theory, but rather a social theory. And a Utopian one at that. Let me explain.

Here’s a couple quotes from Fresco in Bloomberg News’s: The 100-Year-Old Man Who Lives In The Future

“…a master plan for a City of the Future without money, a place where all needs are met by technology. That city… will be run not by politicians but by a central computer that will distribute resources as needed …A machine doesn’t have emotions … It’s not susceptible to corruption. Social engineering and favorable living circumstances will ensure that people act responsibly toward one another.

“all needs met by technology.” (…not even some, or most, mind you, but “all.” That’s purely Utopian.)

“computers distributing resources” by “machines without emotions” (Again, “all” your needs are being met by computers that don’t have emotions. Why? So they can’t make mistakes. It’s more Utopian perfection….)

“Social engineering” to “ensure that people act responsibly toward one another.” (Social engineering, or indoctrination, to “ensure” people behave “responsibly.” Again, more ideas of perfection, and more Utopianism. By the way, who decides what is “responsible,” and how is it all “ensured,” because it works?
Again, got absolutely any proof to any of these claims?

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Carl Sagan. That’s how real science works. You claim it, you back it. Otherwise it’s just another opinion among the many.

u·to·pi·an
/yo͞oˈtōpēən/
adjective
adjective: utopian

1. modeled on or aiming for a state in which everything is perfect; idealistic.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-10/the-100-year-old-man-who-lives-in-the-future

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=utopian+definition

Quote: “Where have you gone… there surely must be more than this?”

Also, I have to do other things. My time is relative scares.

I will not quote the following. It would be too long. So I will just give a short answer.

The author of this site clearly stated that Fresco knows how to build. This is a applied scientific discipline which inherently makes the TVP a scientific project just alone on this premise, empirical speaking.

“Hypothesis” and “Theory” are an essential part of the scientific method and discipline. As said before, I get the impression that you do not understand what science is.

I already shared my mind on the word “utopia”.

Social Engineering aspect of TVP.

I’m a quite curious person and as said I was intrigued by the TVP. So I was looking for means to validate the “Hypothesis” and “Theories” of the TVP.
I was quite able to find references in our current social and economical paradigm. I used to live in Mexico and I found an interesting community which started as a Social Experiment. It was quite successful and should give enough inside into Social Engineering and validate most of Jacque Frescos theory of human behavior and how it can be positive influenced with help of science. Also you will find some things familiar and agreeable.

“we believe that psychology and science in general can provide a solution.”

Los Horcones Community
http://www.loshorcones.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=23

Read there history and what the community is all about.

As the author of this site clearly, concisely, and humorously states, building a building is quite different from running an economy, and managing society. People aren’t buildings. Only the truly naïve can’t see the difference.

Fresco is talking about applied Behaviorism applied to people on a mass scale.

I understand your time is limited. So I’ll leave you with these last thoughts:

If Fresco says: “Social engineering will ensure that people behave responsibly,” where is there any proof for this? How will we be “ensured”?

Do we all agree with what is considered “responsible’? What if there’s disagreement in the population?

Who ultimately decides what’s “responsible” ? And what if you personally don’t agree?

What if this social engineering doesn’t work? Has Fresco designed any prisons? Do we need police in his future?

Inquiring minds want to know all these things.

Nice talking with you.

Peace.

I do understand that the author has serious concerns, so you and most likely the rest of the group. The RBE is a quite ambitious economical model. It’s new and unfamiliar ground to all of us. It surely makes me feel uneasy and uncomfortable even that I have an understanding. We all need certain warranties to feel animated to support such an endeavor and risk. And, a risk it is.

I just wished that the author had not tried to assassinate the massager and rather focus upon the message of the TVP. He could have tried to outline the project and marked the serious questions and concerns. This way people could have looked into it more objectively and tried to find answers and better understanding. By doing so, someone will find by far more out, including the falsehoods and lack of evidence. If no answer can be found, things should be taken with more caution.

I think the most important aspect of social engineering is to reduce violence, passive as well as physical, as much as possible.
I do know that egalitarian societies are lesser prone to violence, internally speaking. As you noted, some indigenous culture live quite in harmony even they didn’t use science as long there environment permitted it. They even could live peacefully with there neighbors.

I personally think that humanity is not quite ready for an RBE. It might be a too steep and dramatic change. A between thing would not be bad. I was looking therefore to other more known economist like Max-Neef, Prof. Bernd Senf etc etc … which still advocate a monetary system but more egalitarian structure and focus on human need. So to speak, put the human on the first place.

In the case the RBE is being implemented in small scale, one should keep a good eye on the project and make sure that the Theoretically Economy Model doesn’t turn to a pseudo science, like capitalism, free market, and socialism.

I share the sentiment, I enjoyed the talk with you!
Take care!

I think you sound ridiculous trying to ‘debunk’ something so badly that merely talks of trying to make a better planet. Then you call it a cult, wow. Just wanted to let you know your whole article sounds very childish and like it’s written by an uneducated teenager. I can’t believe people read this.

“I can’t believe people read this.”

Apparently you have, as did I, and have many others. I even laughed out loud! So you can believe it. It is true.
Not everyone finds Fresco’s ideas, or TVP credible.

“…your article sounds very childish and like … an undedicated teenager.”

The idea that all our needs can be met by technology, or that social engineering will ensure people behave responsibly, (whatever that means??…) all sounds pretty naïve, and childish to me. Actually, I’d say just like an “an uneducated teenager.”

“Then you call it a cult, wow.”

It’s quite apparent you’ve made TVP sacred, and beyond any criticism or humor, and so I’d agree with the author and say that’s sounds cultish.

cult
/kəlt/
noun:
cult; plural noun: cults

a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
“the cult of St. Olaf”

•a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
“a network of Satan-worshiping cults”

synonyms: sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction
“a religious cult”

•a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
“a cult of personality surrounding the leaders”

synonyms: obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of
“the cult of eternal youth in Hollywood”

I think you sound ridiculous trying to ‘debunk’ something so badly that merely talks of trying to make a better planet. Then you call it a cult, wow. Just wanted to let you know your whole article sounds very childish and like it’s written by an uneducated teenager. I can’t believe people read this.

@Amber

“I can’t believe people read this.”

As Charlie pointed out, you read it. So what is your point?

“I think you sound ridiculous trying to ‘debunk’ something so badly that merely talks of trying to make a better planet. ”

The planet does not need anyones to better it. The planet can take care of for itself. That is typical human arrogance. Nature does not require help. Humanity is another story.

“Just wanted to let you know your whole article sounds very childish and like it’s written by an uneducated teenager”

This is your personal opinion with seam to come from a very emotional biased viewpoint.

“Then you call it a cult, wow.”

It is not difficult to imagine why the TVP is labeled by some humans as a “Cult”. When I read comments like this, which are loaded with emotional babbling, then I can understand why the word “Cult” has been associated with the TVP. Therefore, I understand the authors issues, so of Charlie and his group, even when it is falsely directed. While I think that it is not the fault or attempted outcome of the TVP and core supporters; it still is a grave nuisance that some people have an emotional and religious approach to the project. I’m personal intrigued by the project and think it would positive impact to human society but I have no personal stake in it. I have no emotional attachment, nor do I see it as the absolute salvation. It is a direction out of many, nothing more.

Hey Garfield,

Good to hear from you again.

Let me just add a bit to your reply.

For me it’s a bit more than Amber’s “emotional babbling” that labels this group as a cult.

For Fresco’s RBE to work, people will have to be able to share not only goods and ideas, but also behave responsibly towards one another.

Amber is one example of how unaccepting and antagonistic people can be when another shares their ideas, especially if it disagrees with their own.

But what about the sharing of actual goods, the premise of RBE. How and why is it that people are going to finally act responsibly towards one another?

How is that library book is going to be returned if there’s no a fine attached to its being late?

Fresco’s belief in Skinnerian behaviorism’s leads him to say, “Social engineering and favorable living circumstances will ensure that people act responsibly toward one another.”

And this is how his RBE ultimately works. People are to be conditioned to be nice and friendly, and then share.

But this is a FAITH-BASED SYSTEM. This is what J.F. believes. This is his personal belief. His belief system.

It is premised upon the belief that people can be socially engineered to act responsibly. With no proof of this anywhere, it is nothing more than wishful thinking.

It’s no different than any cult leader saying aliens from another planet will save us in the year 2020, or that Jesus is coming to save humankind. It is nothing more than another belief system.

This is why for me TVP is a cult.

It is a faith-based belief system.

Because:
Behavior modification is extremely limited. It can only work in specific situations, with specific people, under specific circumstances, and often for a limited amount of time. Basing the innumerable intricacies of socio-/economics, and complex human behavior upon this simple supposition, upon something so wiggly and with so little substance, is exactly what cults are made of. Fresco has taken simple Skinnerian conditioning upon rats and pigeons and erroneously extrapolated it to complex human behavior. And this is ultimately how his RBE works with nice, friendly, sharing people.

The only problem is that if people could be as easily trained as mice, you can bet that it would’ve been done long ago.

Fresco captures the imagination of the gullible who don’t feel the need to look any deeper into what he says other than his RBE requires no money, and no work. For me, it’s a faith-based cult founded upon nothing more than wishful thinking. I see it as a science fiction fable. Nothing more.

Hi Charlie!

It’s nice to see some written words from you again. As it looks like I will get only the chancee to write on weekends😦

Don’t misinterpret me please. I did make a clear separation from the TVP and some Humans who have an emotional approach to the TVP. As said before, I do not like oversimplification. I do not judge a group of humans, on the action of a few misguided. I see things on individual bases; therefore, I felt the need to point out the error of/to Amber.

I hoped, I provided a good example and reference of a positive contribution of Social Engineering with the Los Horcones Community in Sonora, Mexico. They created an environment, conditions, in which each Human could flourish and contribute positive to the community. This has been done voluntarily, nobody got forced! They are very compassionate people and care a great deal for each other. They do not suffer from violent crimes. There are plenty of references of the positive impact of egalitarian social structures from which humanity and science can learn a great deal. In fact some scientist already do.

—-
Dr. James Gilligan: “Violence is not universal. It is not symmetrically distributed throughout the human race. There is a huge variation in the amount of violence in different societies. There are some societies that have virtually no violence. There are others that destroy themselves. Some of the Anabaptist religious groups that are complete strict pacifists like the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, among some of these groups, the Hutterites – there are no recorded cases of homicide.

During our major wars, like World War II where people were being drafted they would refuse to serve in the military. They would go to prison rather than serve in the military. In the Kibbutzim in Israel the level of violence is so low that the criminal courts there will often send violent offenders – people who have committed crimes – to live on the Kibbutzim in order to learn how to live a non-violent life. Because that’s the way people live there.

—–
British child psychiatrist, D.W. Winnicott: The Buddha argued that everything depends on everything else. He says ‘The one contains the many and the many contains the one.’ That you can’t understand anything in isolation from its environment, the leaf contains the sun, the sky and the earth, obviously. This has now been shown to be true, of course all around and specifically when it comes to human development. The modern scientific term for it is the ‘bio-psycho-social’ nature of human development which says that the biology of human beings depends very much on their interaction with the social and psychological environment.
—–

It’s all about environmental conditioning, Charlie. Even the language we, use plays an important role.

Look up in Youtube:
Nonviolent Communication Part 1 Marshall Rosenberg
Nonviolent Communication Part 2 Marshall Rosenberg
Nonviolent Communication Part 3 Marshall Rosenberg

So Jacque Fresco got it quite right with Social Engineering to create a positive environment to the benefit of humanity. So it is not a believe. It’s scientifically proven and it is not so limited as you might think.

Just to provide the other side of Social Engineering in which we are currently live in.
Human Resources: Social Engineering In The 20th Century (Full Length Documentary)
youtu.be[/]eIKIoe5b4I8

So, I would not say it is very limited as one can observe.

Garfield,

I have no doubt there are many well-intentioned, non-violent, people like yourself involved in this group. I also have no doubt there are many when given the opportunity of power and control, would take advantage and abuse their power.

There are also many others in society who are violent, and do mean harm, that don’t want to share, and will take as much as they can without any consideration of others.

I also find Dr. Giligan who you quoted must have received his education from the University of Gilligan’s Island.

The Anabaptists along with the Amish have a long, extreme history of violence. Violence in these secret societies has now been documented from those who’ve escaped the violence and abuse, though the violence is often contained and well hidden within the group from child molestation, to misogyny, domestic abuse, and yes, even murder. One needs only to read about the early history of the Anabaptists to see how violent these groups have been, and why they keep themselves isolated, and secretive.

Your optimistic examples of war pacifists is wonderfully optimistic, but for me it doesn’t outweigh the many who are angry and violent, and continue to look to war for conflict resolution. I wish the world was getting more peaceful. But as Fresco will tell you, ‘war is the natural state of humankind, there has always been war.’ Not that I think it can’t change. I just don’t see any hope in the distant future.

“It’s all about environmental conditioning, Charlie. Even the language we, use plays an important role.”

I don’t completely disagree with you Garfield. I do believe a large amount of who we are is do to environmental conditioning. But that is not the whole story.

People ultimately still have a choice, and they’ll use it, no matter what the conditioning. And they may decide not to follow your “scientific” decisions.

And that’s because people can reflect upon their behavior, analyze their thoughts, their intentions, and directions, and decide to do something completely different in the name of “freedom.”

This behavior is the foundation of imagination, creativity, and/or freedom.

Many people also need to find meaning in being alive, and that purpose may ultimately conflict with your “scientific” answer that’s based upon numbers, graphs, or the deductive process. People may disagree with your view of human nature, (or Fresco’s view that it doesn’t exist..) and how people should behave, or ultimately disagree with the answers the technocrats have arrived at. And, of course, this is what we call pluralism.

We are not machines simply to be programmed, and what comes out exactly what you put in. There is no indoctrination method, or conditioning system that could ensure even a dog will do exactly what we train it to do all the time, let alone highly complex people.

Again, saying it’s “all environmental conditioning,” for me, is to reduce humans to nothing more than simple machines to be programmed, a technocratic solution, missing completely what distinctly makes us human. And this reductionism opens the door to all kinds of potential abuse.

Orwell’s 1984 was a fictional example of State operated negative reinforcement. Fresco’s fictional example is an example of potential State operated positive reinforcement and operant conditioning.

However, neither one of these methods have been proven to work all the time, or to completely control people, or get them to “behave,” or to be able to get them to fully accept what you’re preaching, which is what you’re ultimately saying “all environmental conditioning” actually does.

So it’s not, and can’t be, “all environmental.” There’s the internal, as well, where information is processed, evaluated, judged, critiqued, reflected upon, patterned, analyzed, and ultimately experimented with. That it’s “all environment” is just too simple, and Utopian.

after politely questioning their ability to resolve conflicts of ideology with other groups that are similar (and being blocked from the group!)
I have big suspicions as to the structure of society they would form
Personally a group that cant work with other opinions and ideology are not good and open systems.

And also their need to build a working model.

Shibu, this sounds interesting. How did they actually block you from the group?

And I’ll give you the answer they wouldn’t.

Fresco’s answer to conflict resolution is not all that dissimilar to Huxley’s Brave New World. However, instead of using Soma to keep people in order, Fresco believes conditioning and proper living circumstances will ensure people get along.

And, of course, he’ll tell you this isn’t Utopian in any way.

As far as a “working model,” there has never been and never will be a working model because that would mean not only working with other people with differing ideas, views, and the possibly of different directions, but also opening themselves up to scrutiny and questioning of the methods and direction of the conditioning that Fresco so adamantly believes in.

When Fresco did have the opportunity to make a prototype, that would’ve meant relinquishing some control. But when only you have all the answers, that isn’t going to happen. You can see what happened between TVP and the Zeitgeist movement. And so in the end, it’s as you say, not an ‘open system.’

But Fresco believes ‘open systems’ are essentially the problem with societies. He believes that since we’re all just of compilation of conditioning, technocrats should take control and do the conditioning of everyone for the overall betterment of humankind.

One could imagine all kinds of nightmare scenarios as technocrats attempt to practice conditioning on citizens in order the get it right, as children are taken away from parents, or even raised without parents (… you can actually read about this in Fresco’s first book: Looking Forward), and even perhaps the possibility of negative reinforcement as acceptable.

In the end, it was much easier for Fresco to keep his ideas to paper. He’s said the world just isn’t ready to accept his ideas.

So TVP’s answer for conflict resolution, and people playing nicely in the sandbox, is Skinnerian operant conditioning. They blocked you out because their answer to your question would scare and confuse many people, and ultimately mean less donations.

@Shibu

Since I do not know exactly, what was exchanged in point of information, I assume they lost out of some reason the patience. Humans do irrational things when they get desperate. Also I think it is a degree of laziness which got facilitated by the easy use of simply blocking someone. It’s an unfortunate development now a days. That is one reason why I kind of like this group here. They simply do not do it and with a patience🙂

To your question what would happen in a RBE when people have a different way of thinking, so to speak, have there opinions and ideologies. I hope I can give you some inside.

The RBE uses the scientific method to arrive at decisions. Since Ideologies and opinions have no weight in science, it will be most likely ignored, to be blunt. Now the question that I assume that will follow is, what will happen to people that will not conform to the RBE way of life? To provide a simple and strait answer, nothing. They can continue there way of live as they see it fit as long no violence is used. I should not see any problem with violence since in the RBE will provide help and support for groups outside of the RBE value system. It is not forced upon them in any way! There is not reason to force people and it would result in violence anyway. The RBE will demonstrates thou example the better live it will provide so people can see the benefit. It would be beneficial to provide all what is needed to all Humans. RBE is an egalitarian society model which uses the scientific method of decision making so Human live in harmony with nature and consequently with themselves. That is RBE in a nutshell.

“They can continue there way of live as they see it fit as long no violence is used.”

What if someone spreads dissension in the community, like Socrates did. Is that violence?

What if some people don’t share, don’t want to share, don’t clean up after themselves, hoard, or waste resources, pollute, is that considered a violent act?

Why are people suddenly going to behave different than they do now?

“Since Ideologies and opinions have no weight in science…”

Can science be divorced from opinion?

What about the opinion of abortion: Is abortion o.k. in your future? Many religious people don’t morally agree with abortion, and can be quite violent in their resolution. Will we jail them all? Your jails might actually be bigger than you think…

Are owning guns o.k. in your future? Because here In America it’s gonna be difficult to get all those violent guns away from those many trigger fingers. Millions are gonna get nasty real quick. (Your technocrats might have to get pretty violent to take them away..)

Many in the Vegan/Vegetarian movement consider eating animals, factory farming, and animal exploitation, an act of violence of the highest order, so will eating meat and this violence be outlawed in your future?

Will some people in your future have higher status than others, will they also get privileges that others won’t, and will this cause animosity among the ranks?

What if people want to own animals, like pets?

Who takes personal care of the disabled elderly who may have no one left. If there are no jobs, who cleans them, and who feeds them?

Who does the difficult job of managing schizophrenics, the mentally disabled, and how are these “workers” compensated for?

What about the demented, and the growing number of Alzheimer patients, if there’s no jobs, who takes care of them?

How do you handle domestic violence, or violence in the community, with a court system?
So do you have judges, lawyers, and police?

Abortion, gun rights, animal exploitation and food production, domestic and societal violence, ownership and non-sharing, dissention, these are all details that have no easy answers, except in Utopia

How does one come up with one “scientifically” “correct” answer for everyone, how will it get implemented, and how will you get everyone to follow it?

Hi Charlie!

“What if someone spreads dissension in the community, like Socrates did. Is that violence?”

First, Socrates lived in an era where science and the scientific method did not exist! Second and last, as Humans we care about disagreements and different views but they must eventually prove to be scientifically correct to be taken seriously.

“What if some people don’t share, don’t want to share, don’t clean up after themselves, hoard, or waste resources, pollute, is that considered a violent act?”

You talk about different levels of aberrated or twisted behavior, sourcing from the environment. In my view, you ask the wrong questions. In my view, the question should be, what causes those aberrant and twisted behaviors? Let me ask you why the criminal courts in Israel sent violent offenders to live on the Kibbutzim? Answer, because a positive environment and a solid education changes human beings in a positive manner.

“Why are people suddenly going to behave different than they do now?”

Suddenly most likely not. Everything is a process and our social and cultural environment is quite aberrant and twisted.

“Can science be divorced from opinion?”

As mentioned before, in science you use Theories and Hypothesis which are based on the observable, not opinions.

“What about the opinion of abortion: Is abortion o.k. in your future? Many religious people don’t morally agree with abortion, and can be quite violent in their resolution. Will we jail them all? Your jails might actually be bigger than you think…”

Again, you ask the wrong question here. Why do certain women feel the need to abort? You try to make a moral judgment toward the women with abort. This will not provide an answer and worse a solution. With the answer to the right question, you will find also the solution.

“Are owning guns o.k. in your future? Because here In America it’s gonna be difficult to get all those violent guns away from those many trigger fingers. Millions are gonna get nasty real quick. (Your technocrats might have to get pretty violent to take them away..)”

It’s not my future. You personalize again. My question would be, for what you would need to use guns in the first place in a society with provides all and is non-violent?

“Many in the Vegan/Vegetarian movement consider eating animals, factory farming, and animal exploitation, an act of violence of the highest order, so will eating meat and this violence be outlawed in your future?”

Vegan/Vegetarian movement is a good thing but also very flawed. Not all humans are suitable to eat meatless diets, like the Eskimos for example. They feet themselves for generations on only meat diet.

‘The Inuit do not become obese when eating their original diet, and don’t seem to develop type two diabetes, an epidemic currently sweeping the western world. Their teeth and jaws also appear to be better formed than those eating SAD diets.’
Source: http[://]www.raw-food-health.net[/]Eskimo-Diet.html

This is the first flaw. The second and last is that Vegan/Vegetarian see themselves not violent when it comes to plants which do live and suffer as well.

‘A number of studies have shown that plants feel pain, and vegetables are picked and often eaten while still alive. Animal rights activists are often in the news, but has anyone ever protested for vegetable rights?’
Source: https[://]www.theguardian.com[/]notesandqueries[/]query[/]0,,-83446,00.html

As said, nobody is going to force to alter there diet and views but be ready to face scientific facts in the end.

“Will some people in your future have higher status than others, will they also get privileges that others won’t, and will this cause animosity among the ranks?”

Again, it is not my future. Status come from a society which is hierarchy structured, meaning, not egalitarian. The RBE is egalitarian social model, where is no status structure or social hierarchy. And as science has proven hierarchy are socially offensive, destructive and generate violence.

“What if people want to own animals, like pets?”

Why not? Is there any scientific reason for not having an animal? As far as I know, being with animals is a positive thing.

“Who takes personal care of the disabled elderly who may have no one left. If there are no jobs, who cleans them, and who feeds them?”

Only I can provide my experience I have from some culture I visited. This will be a mixture of voluntarism and technology.

“Who does the difficult job of managing schizophrenics, the mentally disabled, and how are these “workers” compensated for?”

Why would humans, which are taking care of sick human beings, want compensation when all is provided for?

“What about the demented, and the growing number of Alzheimer patients, if there’s no jobs, who takes care of them?”

Again, is will be a mixture of voluntarism and technology.

“How do you handle domestic violence, or violence in the community, with a court system?
So do you have judges, lawyers, and police?”

Again, those are wrong questions. The question should be why is there domestic violence, or violence in the community? What is the cause?

‘The modern criminal justice system is incompatible with Neuroscience. It simply is not possible to have the two of them in the same room.’ – Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University

Once you have your answer to the right question, you will note that there is no need for Judges, Lawyers and Police.

“Abortion, gun rights, animal exploitation and food production, domestic and societal violence, ownership and non-sharing, dissention, these are all details that have no easy answers, except in Utopia”

I already shared my view on the word “Utopia”.

“How does one come up with one “scientifically” “correct” answer for everyone, how will it get implemented, and how will you get everyone to follow it?”

There is no such thing as one scientifically correct answer to all or to everything. How does that supposedly go?

“You try to make a moral judgment… This will not provide an answer and worse a solution.”

It is not I who make this moral judgment on abortion, guns, or any of the other quandaries people attempt to resolve in their everyday lives. It is reality. And how to get from here to where you want is something TVP doesn’t have an answer for except financial collapse and somehow TVP arises from the ashes.

I know Fresco’s thinking on this subject, and his belief that morality can be eliminated is Utopian, despite the fact that TVP itself has its morality, its own ideas on what is good or bad, or “irrelevant,” or not.

Let me also say, that not only do many people disagree with scientific outcomes, for example, here in the states with regard to global warming, but the point I was making was that many issues cannot be resolved “scientifically.” The question is: Can science tell us what is right and wrong, good or bad, irrelevant or not?

Fresco would say there’s no right and wrong, that is “irrelevant,” and this is moral relativism. But I can tell you it isn’t irrelevant to those concerned. And society will still have to answer to them. You can’t just eliminate the religious, or those who don’t agree with you, or re-condition them into your views. The thought they’re all going to accept your worldview is again, Utopian, and wishful thinking, to say the least.

G:“How do you handle domestic violence, or violence in the community, with a court system?
So do you have judges, lawyers, and police?”

C: “Again, those are wrong questions. The question should be why is there domestic violence, or violence in the community? What is the cause?”

There is always going to be a why. The problem continues to be that you have no answers to these questions. Of course you believe that domestic abuse will not exist in the future so there will be no need for lawyers, judges, and police. You’re somehow going to magically resolve it before it happens. This is all a textbook definition of Utopian.

Despite the scientific fact that over half of Global Warming is due to animal production, I assume many of your followers have no problem with the violence done to animals in order to fill their bellies. Your proposition of “do no violence” is a Specieist perspective, very conventional and prejudiced towards the human animal. This is an un-objective, and what I would consider, an un-scientific position.

I see you as having nothing but conventional, or Utopian answers to these questions I’ve posed.

“First, Socrates lived in an era where science and the scientific method did not exist!”

Ancient Greece is considered the birthplace of Science! Holy shit, man. Have you never heard of Archimedes, Aristotle, etc.

I was and am in such shock by how little you know about the world and history, I couldn’t and can’t even respond to all of it.

Have you never read or studied any history at all?

Here is an extremely small list of Greek scientists off the top of my head.

Democritus expanded the concept of atoms and showed that atoms are the basis of all form of matter. He recognized that the Milky Way consists of a number of stars and that the moon is similar to Earth.

How about Euclid, you must have heard of him?

Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine.

Plato, Protagoras, and Thales of Miletus who was an astronomer, a mathematician, and philosopher, who predicted he solar eclipse

Pythagoras of Samos was a mathematician. He was the first to believe that the Earth was a sphere rotating around a central fire. He also believed that the natural order could be expressed in numbers.

By the way, you should also know that science was in ancient India -though its not considered it birthplace- where cosmology was well understood, and mathematics was expanded. We get the mathematical idea and symbol of infinity from them. Science was in ancient Islam, as well, and you should know Algebra comes from them, and much else. Science and engineering was in Egypt.

Please don’t attempt to tell me how much you know of science, or how you’re going to solve the world’s problems with science, when you know nothing of it’s history, where it comes from, and obviously, what it’s about!

P.S. I’d love to respond to your misinformation about Inuit health problems, vegetarianism, and the many other misconceptions you have and the information appear to lack, but I’ll have to stick with Greece for now, what is considered the birthplace of science, and leave it at that.

“Ancient Greece is considered the birthplace of Science! Holy shit, man. Have you never heard of Archimedes, Aristotle, etc.
Have you never read or studied any history at all?”

Socrates was not a scientist, he was a philosopher. So you used a reference to non-scientific person. I responded to that. The first baby steps of science did not start with ancient Greece! It started with Ancient Egypt or better said on the African continent. That is the reason why most stars in astronomy carry Arabic Names, not Greek Names😉

Ancient Egypt made significant advances in astronomy, mathematics and medicine.[13] Their development of geometry was a necessary outgrowth of surveying to preserve the layout and ownership of farmland, which was flooded annually by the Nile river. The 3-4-5 right triangle and other rules of thumb were used to build rectilinear structures, and the post and lintel architecture of Egypt. Egypt was also a center of alchemy research for much of the Mediterranean.The Edwin Smith papyrus is one of the first medical documents still extant, and perhaps the earliest document that attempts to describe and analyse the brain: it might be seen as the very beginnings of modern neuroscience. However, while Egyptian medicine had some effective practices, it was not without its ineffective and sometimes harmful practices. Medical historians believe that ancient Egyptian pharmacology, for example, was largely ineffective.[14] Nevertheless, it applies the following components to the treatment of disease: examination, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis,[2] which display strong parallels to the basic empirical method of science and according to G. E. R. Lloyd[15] played a significant role in the development of this methodology. The Ebers papyrus (c. 1550 BC) also contains evidence of traditional empiricism.’

Source: https[://]en.wikipedia.org[/]wiki[/]History_of_science
Source: http[://]archive.aramcoworld.com[/]issue[/]201005[/]arabic.in.the.sky.htm

As I pointed out, “Baby Steps”. Furthermore, a lot of mythologies (religious dogma) got mixed in, so it was not pure science to current empirical standards. Even Newton was very influenced by his religious views. And expressed, I refer the empirical form of science and the scientific method.

“Here is an extremely small list of Greek scientists off the top of my head….”

Congratulation for your excellent memory, you must feel quit good about yourself, even superior to me

“It is not I who make this moral judgment on abortion, guns, or any of the other quandaries people attempt to resolve in their everyday lives. It is reality. And how to get from here to where you want is something TVP doesn’t have an answer for except financial collapse and somehow TVP arises from the ashes.”

Sorry, it sounded as it sources from you. You spoke generally, the society in some geographic regions, called Nations, like the USA. Not all nations share those views and values though. Unfortunately humans are not quite open to change, especially when it is something that is related to society as a whole. The majority of the humans are religious. It will be a process and a process that will take time. Time is a in our current state a luxury. However, I do not see the need for a total collapse, neither I think, that the elite will allow a total collapse.

“I know Fresco’s thinking on this subject, and his belief that morality can be eliminated is Utopian, despite the fact that TVP itself has its morality, its own ideas on what is good or bad, or “irrelevant,” or not.”

As said, the concept of morality does not provide answers and understanding, therefore no solutions. Morality goes hand in hand with religious believes and sources of ignorance. It also is a tool to claim superiority over others, and consequently, justification for the use of violence.

“Let me also say, that not only do many people disagree with scientific outcomes, for example, here in the states with regard to global warming, but the point I was making was that many issues cannot be resolved “scientifically.” The question is: Can science tell us what is right and wrong, good or bad, irrelevant or not?”

Science does not care if people agree or disagree. It only presents facts and the observable. If people ignore it, than they should not be surprise of the results of there ignorance. So personally, I do not care if people in the States agree or disagree with climate change, only the scientific facts matter. But, people in the States should be aware of the consequences when not responding to the potential threat. Also be aware that we live on one planet and that there ignorance will not only affect them.

Science can tell us what is right and wrong in the perspective of what is hurtful for our species and the individual human. This counts also for what is irrelevant and not. Good and Bad is again more a moral judgment which provides nothing to guide humanity.

“Fresco would say there’s no right and wrong, that is “irrelevant,” and this is moral relativism. But I can tell you it isn’t irrelevant to those concerned. And society will still have to answer to them. You can’t just eliminate the religious, or those who don’t agree with you, or re-condition them into your views. The thought they’re all going to accept your worldview is again, Utopian, and wishful thinking, to say the least.”

I think, he speaks from the scientific viewpoint when it comes to moral relativism. As said, everything is a process. You can not eliminate religion. As George Carlin said so wisely: “As long as humans are afraid of death, as long we will have religion.” They don’t have to accept “my” or anybody else’s world-view, simple “my” or anybodies else’s world-view could be wrong. As said, if they are ignoring facts, than they are ignorant. And nobody cares what ignorant people have to say or disagree with. Do you?

“Morality goes hand in hand with religious believes and sources of ignorance.”

Garfield, respectfully, you obviously have no idea what morality is, or really what you’re talking about at all. And this is the kind of ignorance and arrogance that displays to me why TVP will remain a fringe group, and why Fresco and his pseudo scientific views will remain irrelevant.

The higher primates, dolphins, and even dogs have morality. Humans have morality that isn’t connected to any religion, or what you consider ignorance. Religion is often is immoral, while the non-religious may have views that are not. Science may inform many peoples moral values. Your need to bring religion strictly into morality shows to me your TVP indoctrination, and lack of further education.

The Golden Rule, for example, is not religious. Confucian morality is no religious. Science informs many of my personal, moral, views.

Morality is as old as the human species, and as I’ve mentioned, even older, and not just human.

Even TVP has morality, and its own moral code. It cannot divorce morality from itself, let alone individuals.

If you or TVP think science is necessary to resolve most, or all human problems, that is a moral belief since the definition of morality is: a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

“Socrates was not a scientist, he was a philosopher. So you used a reference to non-scientific person”

You have still missed the original point with regards to Socrates, and you continue to miss it, and then display your lack of knowledge about ancient Greece by saying the “scientific method did not exist!”

The original point wasn’t whether he was scientific or not.

The original point made about Socrates was in relation to inciting violence. What I didn’t realize at the time was that your historical knowledge is nil, otherwise you would’ve received the point. .

Socrates was an example of someone condemned for what society considered inciting violence. So I so asked you if that would be considered violence in TVP’s future. The point was, what exactly is violence to you, so I could understand what you mean by it.

I’m finding talking with you is like having a discussion with a fundamentalist Christian. Instead of everything referenced in relation to the Bible, with you it’s all in relation to what you mistakenly believe is science. And like a devout Christian, I find your knowledge of history and the world is seen first only through the eyes of your religion. You’ll even attempt to take a point made about Socrates, and violence, and attempt to qualify his value by whether or not he is a Christian, or in your case, whether or not he’s a Scientist. I have to say, you appearing like a cult follower to me, smitten with your religion. I’ve had similar discussions with fundamentalists, and see a similar pattern here.

“So now you need to name ONE large society that doesn’t have any violence. And it’s not the Amish, because there’s plenty of violence towards women, and children, and to those who don’t follow the program, in this rigid, patriarchal society, despite what Gilligan says.

I’m also not talking about small, tribal communities where conflict is minimal and so resolution is minimally needed.

The idea that any large scale society doesn’t have, or will not have to deal with violence, is again, Utopian.”

As said before, this also can be implanted in larger scales. But I will try to provide one example even it is not 100% … ICELAND also there is Denmark and Austria.

“A study of the Icelandic class system done by a University of Missouri master’s student found only 1.1% of participants identified themselves as upper class, while 1.5% saw themselves as lower class.

The remaining 97% identified themselves as upper-middle class, lower-middle class, or working class”
Source: http[://]www.bbc.com[/]news[/]magazine-22288564

As said, it is not 100% since it still very depended upon the current limitations of the system in which Iceland operates. However, it demonstrates what is possible when more egalitarian social structure and positive environment are implemented. And to be honest, it seams ridicules to ask for an large scale example in out current social and economic environment in which we are. It is only possible to move outside such environment in small scales when most people even have clue. Large scale goes only if a large population supports it, obviously.

“When you can figure out that, let me know. Fresco couldn’t even get along with Peter Joseph with the Zeitgeist Movement because of their disagreements, and it would’ve taken a lawyer and a judge to separate them if they were mutually invested.

How you’re going to get everyday people on the street to get along with each other without resorting to violence, or people to return that library book without being fined and share, are age old questions.

When you’ve answered that, you’ve done what no one else have ever managed to do since time immemorial.

Charlie
December 3, 2016”

I personally don’t care what happened between Peter Joseph and Jaqcue Fresco (TVP). Furthermore, it didn’t require any judge to solve whatever conflict they had. Apparently they where able and grown up enough to manage without any third party.

As said before, it is process and the goals are clear. How to get there should be managed by the scientific method since it is the most efficient way to arrive to a sound decision.

‘You have still missed the original point with regards to Socrates, and you continue to miss it, and then display your lack of knowledge about ancient Greece by saying the “scientific method did not exist!”’

The original point wasn’t whether he was scientific or not.

The original point made about Socrates was in relation to inciting violence. What I didn’t realize at the time was that your historical knowledge is nil, otherwise you would’ve received the point. .

Socrates was an example of someone condemned for what society considered inciting violence. So I so asked you if that would be considered violence in TVP’s future. The point was, what exactly is violence to you, so I could understand what you mean by it.”

I quote your question: “What if someone spreads dissension in the community, like Socrates did. Is that violence? ”
I quote my response: ““First, Socrates lived in an era where science and the scientific method did not exist!””

While my response was rather clumsy since I refereed to the current empirical form of science which was not quite present in that time. You right that some people had scientific knowledge and abilities. However the question was how to confront humans who spread dissension.

My point simple was, that the era in which Socrates lived was not scientifically oriented. It was based upon opinions, believes and mythologies.
How much difference would Plato and Aristotle do in such a time. Even today I would say we are not really 100% guided by science. We are still guided mostly by the same principals as the Greeks, dominantly by opinions, superstitions and money. In case of Socrates to have a different view is not violent. But if he is confronted be scientific minded people and ignores facts which have been presented. Then, he should not be surprised if he is being ignored for being a ignorant. If Socrates has sound facts to demonstrate his dissension, I see no reason why people would see it as violent.

“I’m finding talking with you is like having a discussion with a fundamentalist Christian. Instead of everything referenced in relation to the Bible, with you it’s all in relation to what you mistakenly believe is science. And like a devout Christian, I find your knowledge of history and the world is seen first only through the eyes of your religion. You’ll even attempt to take a point made about Socrates, and violence, and attempt to qualify his value by whether or not he is a Christian, or in your case, whether or not he’s a Scientist. I have to say, you appearing like a cult follower to me, smitten with your religion. I’ve had similar discussions with fundamentalists, and see a similar pattern here.”

To be honest, I had this same feeling about you. Since I only got words but nothing to back it up. I at least tried to provide some references to facts but you? You havened even buckled an inch, no matter what I presented, not one agreement in any point I made. To be religious is nothing more than being static and you have been static indeed. So when it comes to fundamentalist views you surely have proven it.

I find it interesting that the person who is now responding is not the same as the first, whose English and writing wasn’t as good. None of the consistent mistakes the first person made, Garfield, are now evident. So it appears the reins over to someone else.

“To be honest, I had this same feeling about you. Since I only got words but nothing to back it up. I at least tried to provide some references to facts but you? You havened even buckled an inch, no matter what I presented, not one agreement in any point I made. To be religious is nothing more than being static and you have been static indeed. So when it comes to fundamentalist views you surely have proven it.”

You should and need to attempt to back up your claims, since you’ve made them.

Lousy references with silly claims for example by a Dr.Gilligan, who claims that the Amish aren’t violent, isn’t worth reading. I’ve studied the Amish, written papers on them, and all anyone needs to know about the Amish and internal violence is a Google away. It’s that simple. Do your homework.

Now, if someone like myself doesn’t follow your views, that’s just the opposite of following. I find your logic fundamentally flawed. And if you don’t convince me, and claim it’s because I’m “closed minded,” well that also sounds like a Cult to me.

If you make all kinds of claims about TVP and how it can create an alternate society, then you need to show people how it’s going to do that. If they don’t buy what your selling, there’s a good chance other won’t as well.

All I’ve seen is an attempt to legitimate yourself and show me how smart you are with references from all over the map, from Buddhism to naïve views of the Amish. Still, how is TVP, what you so firmly believe in, going to work? How is that conditioning going to ensure everyone’s on board, that they want to share, etc…What ensures it success, when so many other Utopia communities have failed. For these questions I’ve received nothing but hyperbole

“I find it interesting that the person who is now responding is not the same as the first, whose English and writing wasn’t as good. None of the consistent mistakes the first person made, Garfield, are now evident. So it appears the reins over to someone else.”

A: Assumption again! I’m still the same but I improve quickly. Thank you for the compliment. I had extensive praxis with someone🙂.

‘“To be honest, I had this same feeling about you. Since I only got words but nothing to back it up. I at least tried to provide some references to facts but you? You havened even buckled an inch, no matter what I presented, not one agreement in any point I made. To be religious is nothing more than being static and you have been static indeed. So when it comes to fundamentalist views you surely have proven it.”

You should and need to attempt to back up your claims, since you’ve made them.’

A: What are all those links and references I provided? Just words?

“Lousy references with silly claims for example by a Dr.Gilligan, who claims that the Amish aren’t violent, isn’t worth reading. I’ve studied the Amish, written papers on them, and all anyone needs to know about the Amish and internal violence is a Google away. It’s that simple. Do your homework.

Now, if someone like myself doesn’t follow your views, that’s just the opposite of following. I find your logic fundamentally flawed. And if you don’t convince me, and claim it’s because I’m “closed minded,” well that also sounds like a Cult to me.”

A: Now you get emotional, not good. The word “lousy” is a personal judgment and a opinion at best. You loosing integrity.

If you make all kinds of claims about TVP and how it can create an alternate society, then you need to show people how it’s going to do that. If they don’t buy what your selling, there’s a good chance other won’t as well.

A: I do not claim anything, I just provide real world reference which support the claims made by the TVP. Big difference!

“All I’ve seen is an attempt to legitimate yourself and show me how smart you are with references from all over the map, from Buddhism to naïve views of the Amish. Still, how is TVP, what you so firmly believe in, going to work? How is that conditioning going to ensure everyone’s on board, that they want to share, etc…What ensures it success, when so many other Utopia communities have failed. For these questions I’ve received nothing but hyperbole

Charlie
December 4, 2016”

I do not have the need to legitimate myself, for what? I just question the posted and try to find the truth. That is all I care about. I also do not believe, I observe and see what works. That has nothing to do with TVP. Failure is part of the process of learning. So the phrase which includes “other Utopian communities” does not impress me. I just see it a part of getting closer to the goal, scientifically speaking. Science is try and error in the nutshell.

‘G:“How do you handle domestic violence, or violence in the community, with a court system?
So do you have judges, lawyers, and police?”

C: “Again, those are wrong questions. The question should be why is there domestic violence, or violence in the community? What is the cause?”

There is always going to be a why. The problem continues to be that you have no answers to these questions. Of course you believe that domestic abuse will not exist in the future so there will be no need for lawyers, judges, and police. You’re somehow going to magically resolve it before it happens. This is all a textbook definition of Utopian.’

“Dr. Gilligan was brought in as the Medical Director of the Massachusetts prison mental hospital in Bridgewater, Massachusetts because of the high suicide and murder rates within their prisons. When he left ten years later the rates of both had dropped to nearly zero.[5]”
Source: https[://]en.wikipedia.org[/]wiki[/]James_Gilligan

That has nothing to do with magic, just understanding. As I pointed out, there are already communities and cultures which do not have violence. So they do not need Soldiers, Judges, Lawyers and Police. So we already know what we have to do. That has nothing to do with Utopianism. It requires only to make people understand in which direction we should go as a species. If we stay on this path of violence, we will auto-destruct. It’s just a question of time.

‘Despite the scientific fact that over half of Global Warming is due to animal production, I assume many of your followers have no problem with the violence done to animals in order to fill their bellies. Your proposition of “do no violence” is a Specieist perspective, very conventional and prejudiced towards the human animal. This is an un-objective, and what I would consider, an un-scientific position.

I see you as having nothing but conventional, or Utopian answers to these questions I’ve posed.

Charlie
December 3, 2016’

You ask too much at once. I agree that people eat by far too much meat and many animal process production facilities are a horror. As said, I have not problems with Vegans and Vegetarians since I see a positive evolutionary step. They have defensively a more compassionate outreach which is not selfish. Also they have my respect, I have tried so many times to stop eating meat and I can say they have a strong determination which I simply can’t reach😦.

All is a process and there must be priorities. First, we have to find ways in which we remove the need for Soldiers, Judges, Lawyers and Police. Simply put, remove first violence form the human society. Also one of the highest priority should be the protection of the natural environment since we are part of it and depend upon for survival. Human wellbeing is essential in an RBE and I’m sure when enough people are effected that some rethinking will occur. However, we do not have to wait for the RBE for that. Look …

3D printed lab-grown meat could be in stores in the next five years
http[://]www.3ders.org[/]articles[/]20151020-3d-printed-lab-grown-meat-could-be-in-stores-in-the-next-five-years.html

And the same thing you could do with veggies. So no more suffering, flora or fauna.

I LOVE SCIENCE!😀

“As I pointed out, there are already communities and cultures which do not have violence.”

So now you need to name ONE large society that doesn’t have any violence. And it’s not the Amish, because there’s plenty of violence towards women, and children, and to those who don’t follow the program, in this rigid, patriarchal society, despite what Gilligan says.

I’m also not talking about small, tribal communities where conflict is minimal and so resolution is minimally needed.

The idea that any large scale society doesn’t have, or will not have to deal with violence, is again, Utopian.

“First, we have to find ways in which we remove the need for Soldiers, Judges, Lawyers and Police…”

When you can figure out that, let me know. Fresco couldn’t even get along with Peter Joseph with the Zeitgeist Movement because of their disagreements, and it would’ve taken a lawyer and a judge to separate them if they were mutually invested.

How you’re going to get everyday people on the street to get along with each other without resorting to violence, or people to return that library book without being fined and share, are age old questions.

When you’ve answered that, you’ve done what no one else have ever managed to do since time immemorial.

I’m still waiting for that ONE society that doesn’t have violence. Making empty claims isn’t backing anything you say.

And I’m still waiting for what I asked you for weeks ago, for which I never received a satisfactory answer for.

Where is the Science in the so called “economics” that TVP uses? You claimed TVP was backed by science, therefor it should world. Architecture, and recycling isn’t going to maintain your society. What is the science, and how will it work?

P.S. Backing my clams that Greece is the birthplace is unnecessary to me, my education goes well beyond high school, you should know this. Knowing about different cultures like the long, jaded, and violent history of the Anabaptists shouldn’t require references for you either, if you’re any kind of student of cultures and religion. But you’re not. You’re actually a follower of one. This has become evident.

Enough of the nonsense. Back your claims.

If someone claims there’s a god they need to back it.

If you claim science will ensure TVP success, name it, and tell me how. Back it. If you claim there are societies without violence, back your claim.

1.) Again, name the ONE society that doesn’t have violence, to prove that TVP can work.

2.) What is the actual science backing TVP that will enable its success. (The applied sciences and economics is not an answer, we have those now..) What is that science TVP will use that will somehow be magically implemented for suceess.

“I’m still waiting for that ONE society that doesn’t have violence. Making empty claims isn’t backing anything you say.
And I’m still waiting for what I asked you for weeks ago, for which I never received a satisfactory answer for”

Definition of society: “an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.” Reference: http[://]www[.]dictionary[.]com[/]browse[/]society

I already provided one non-violent society “Los Horcones Community” by definition. If you ignore it that is … !?

“Where is the Science in the so called “economics” that TVP uses? You claimed TVP was backed by science, therefor it should world. Architecture, and recycling isn’t going to maintain your society. What is the science, and how will it work?”

We already talk about it (economics) and this appears to be a circular discussion which will lead to nowhere.

“P.S. Backing my clams that Greece is the birthplace is unnecessary to me, my education goes well beyond high school, you should know this. Knowing about different cultures like the long, jaded, and violent history of the Anabaptists shouldn’t require references for you either, if you’re any kind of student of cultures and religion. But you’re not. You’re actually a follower of one. This has become evident.

Enough of the nonsense. Back your claims.

If someone claims there’s a god they need to back it.”

I do not back you, sorry! Definition of Birthplace: “the place where someone was born or where something began”
Science was not born in Greece. Source: http[://]veda[.]wikidot[.]com[/]info[:]birthplace-of-science

“If you claim science will ensure TVP success, name it, and tell me how. Back it. If you claim there are societies without violence, back your claim.

1.) Again, name the ONE society that doesn’t have violence, to prove that TVP can work.

2.) What is the actual science backing TVP that will enable its success. (The applied sciences and economics is not an answer, we have those now..) What is that science TVP will use that will somehow be magically implemented for suceess.”

Science already has proven to be successful, just need to open your eyes and observe. And again, you ignoring (“Los Horcones Community” is a scientific managed society and has no violence), includes point one.

2) Is an assumption and a big one. First we have no real economics, we have a casino. A real economy provides for all and has no gamble mechanism build in, like a stock market and currency speculation. So what are you talking about? We have science but it is not the primary decision mechanism. It is onions, superstition and money. Science comes afterwards including humans.

I’m sorry, but TVP simply using “Economics” (which by the way is debatable…) TVP doesn’t qualify it any more than any other system that uses economics, capitalism included.

Claiming TVP is based upon Science because it uses economics is an answer that doesn’t guarante no more success than what we have now.

If this is all you’ve got, you ain’t got much. Good luck on convincing anyone besides the gullible who are wishing for a hail Mary.

Sounds like Trump’s “let’s make America great again.” By the way, that’s also based upon the economics, the economics of Trickle-down theory. So you can see, you’re in good company.

Fresco is one man, trying to solve a series of global problems. It is evident he is not going to be able to design every single aspect of this new society to the smallest detail. As such, of course a lot of things are left to be designed and thought of. That being said, he certainly takes MAJOR steps in the right direction. A resource based economy is the only way to go, humanity has reached a technological know-how that pretty much guarantees we will eventually nuke each other for access to resources. That only happens because there are many entities (countries) with conflicting interests. If we had one entity to manage everything, that would be absurdly more effective and peacefull. The monetary system IS BROKEN by default. It relies on population growth and economic growth to function. That will colapse soon because there can be no infinite growth within a finite system. technology MUST play a crucial role in solving our problems because it is often the most effective, comprehensive and repeatable way. This man is trying to solve these and other issues in the best way he can by designing a detailed alternative, and in my opinion it is by far the best one so far and far better than what we have today. Does it have flaws? of course! Does it have the right mentality to tackle those flaws and other difficulties? hell yeah! I mean did you expect this project to be flawless? there is no way it could!! Can anyone tell me in what way our modern society is better than the one Fresco proposes?? (answers like “i can own a Bugatti if i work hard enough and want one” are stupid because that same system that allows you to have a Bugatti makes thousands of homeless and starving people.) The answers for the question I just made must take into account all the facets of the systems that allow for the advantage you are describing, they must weigh pros and cons. I mean, what does the writer suggest? that we should strive to maintain this broken system that fuels inequality, suffering and conflict?? if not, provide some alternatives, give suggestions instead of cheaply criticizing the best attempt that has been made so far to solve many serious problems with a comprehensive system that considers them all.

I am with you!

That author poking fun at Fresco saying that all people have got to do is share everything is only ‘cheap criticism.’

We all surely know that in America it takes nothing more than a dream, a charismatic figure, and merely wanting to get something done, and with magical thinking we can accomplish anything.

So let’s all just chip in, what’da say, and win one for the Gipper!

“I’m still waiting for that ONE society that doesn’t have violence. Making empty claims isn’t backing anything you say.
And I’m still waiting for what I asked you for weeks ago, for which I never received a satisfactory answer for”

Definition of society: “an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.” Reference: http[://]www[.]dictionary[.]com[/]browse[/]society

I already provided one non-violent society “Los Horcones Community” by definition. If you ignore it that is … !?

“Where is the Science in the so called “economics” that TVP uses? You claimed TVP was backed by science, therefor it should world. Architecture, and recycling isn’t going to maintain your society. What is the science, and how will it work?”

We already talk about it (economics) and this appears to be a circular discussion which will lead to nowhere.

“P.S. Backing my clams that Greece is the birthplace is unnecessary to me, my education goes well beyond high school, you should know this. Knowing about different cultures like the long, jaded, and violent history of the Anabaptists shouldn’t require references for you either, if you’re any kind of student of cultures and religion. But you’re not. You’re actually a follower of one. This has become evident.

Enough of the nonsense. Back your claims.

If someone claims there’s a god they need to back it.”

I do not back your claim of Greece birthplace of science, sorry! You are wrong. Definition of Birthplace: “the place where someone was born or where something began” Science was not born in Greece. Source: http[://]veda[.]wikidot[.]com[/]info[:]birthplace-of-science

“If you claim science will ensure TVP success, name it, and tell me how. Back it. If you claim there are societies without violence, back your claim.

1.) Again, name the ONE society that doesn’t have violence, to prove that TVP can work.

2.) What is the actual science backing TVP that will enable its success. (The applied sciences and economics is not an answer, we have those now..) What is that science TVP will use that will somehow be magically implemented for suceess.”

Science already has proven to be successful, just need to open your eyes and observe. And again, you ignoring (“Los Horcones Community” is a scientific managed society and has no violence), includes point one.

2) Is an assumption and a big one. First we have no real economics, we have a casino. A real economy provides for all and has no gamble mechanism build in, like a stock market and currency speculation. So what are you talking about? We have science but it is not the primary decision mechanism. It is onions, superstition and money. Science comes afterwards including humans.

That community you mention Interestingly it appears to be the only one on earth, since it’s the only on that you can mention. Good luck on people believing you on that. That you’d think that would be enough for me or anyone else, I think says volumes about your thought process

And as far as your believing that TVP will somehow properly use economics the “scientific” way, whatever that is exactly, is again what you Believe, and wishful thinking is not an argument, with nothing to back it.

How you’ll get others to believe you is another question. Because you surely haven’t convinced me, and most people want more than what you yourself are easy to believe, just as many cannot easily accept what Christians believe, or Jehovah Witnesses believe, etc…

So we’re back to the old, “it’s easy to say something, but proving it is another question.”

So I think we’ve put down enough on this website between the two of us to give readers answers to their questions, which is my intention in these discussions.

I’ll give you the last say.

It’s been informative.

Charlie

Can you give the readers of this site a little more substance than some small, isolated community that you visited, that no one can verify.

And since you were naïve enough to think the Amish have no violence, I wouldn’t say you’re the best judge. I’d also say you don’t know how to vetted references.


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: