The Zeitgeist Movement... why not?

Mmm no, the answer to what is "Better" and "More Comfortable" will change for every individual you can ask. It might be comfortable to sit in a library but I would rather drive a truck all day.

Last Christmas, at 3:00 am a water man burst near my house.

How many people do you think found it more comfortable to come out and bust concrete and stand in freezing mud for 12 hours, than spend Christmas in a warm home with their kids?

Jobs just like that are being done by the millions, every day. You just didn't realize it until this thread... and I still don't think you realize it. I suspect you have lived a very, very, VERY isolated and sheltered life. You're fortunate in that respect, but it's the unpleasant labor of others who have made it possible.
 
How many people do you think found it more comfortable to come out and bust concrete and stand in freezing mud for 12 hours, than spend Christmas in a warm home with their kids?

Jobs just like that are being done by the millions, every day. You just didn't realize it until this thread... and I still don't think you realize it. I suspect you have lived a very, very, VERY isolated and sheltered life. You're fortunate in that respect, but it's the unpleasant labor of others who have made it possible.

You are right, it could be said that I have been "privileged" in that sense. True, I don't really know anything about really unpleasant jobs but for what I have seen on tv or movies.

Still, I do believe we have a social responsibility in trying to get rid of such extreme working environments. Call it morals, but I don't think is right for some to have MUCH BETTER life's than others. True, in other ages the differences were bigger, but it would be obtuse to believe we live in the best possible world right now.

Better life's for more people should be at hand, and we, as society, should make this happen. Now, it will NOT happen as long as greed and money (they work very well together) are in play. Those who enjoy the goods of life on this system (and those who can't see it as a SYSTEM from "the outside") would be the ones opposing anything that can change their way of life.
 
Hey guys. There are a few points I want to make.

It seems there are some people in here that do not know who Jacque Fresco is or what the Venus Project is yet they shoot down Zeitgeist: Addendum which they probably haven't seen.

I just want to make a few things clear. Zeitgeist: The Movie is completely separate from Zeitgeist: Addendum even though Z: A is a sequel.

I am not a 9/11 "truther" and I believe the 9/11 attacks where planned and executed by Islamic terrorists. Part 2 of Z: TM is something I disagree with but that is irrelevant to Z: A and the Venus Project.

Part 1 of Z: TM is not new information. Jesus being a myth and Christianity being based on older religions has been discussed and explored for a while now. I would have to agree with the premise that Christianity is based on other, older religions. Nothing too mind blowing there, right? That is really all part 1 is saying. Even Christians hundreds of years ago wrote about the similarities between Christianity and older religions. I don’t understand all the “debunking” that so many claim to be doing in regards to such simple ideas as this.

Anyway, back to my point...

Basically Z: A proposes a new resource based economy which Mr Fresco has been working on for many years. He has been thinking about a better system ever since he experienced the great depression of the 30's. Since he was about 10.

As stated in Z: A this proposed system is not perfect and is not a utopia although it might seem utopian in comparison to the system that we are currently experiencing. Nothing is perfect. We all know that.

To the people in this forum who instantly disagree with a resource based economy even though they may not understand it, I would like to ask this. Do you think that the current capitalistic American democracy is the best, last, greatest culmination of human social structures? Is there no better way? Should we not think of any other system? Just because it is the only one you have experienced in your life and it is all you know does not make it the best. I see major issues with it. Do you? It seems this current system is failing slowly but surely and I’m not surprised. Inflation is not a normal, good thing. This is a fake economy in many ways.

I think the system proposed by the Venus Project could be really good in many ways. If we used our technology to free humans of laborious, repetitious, monotonous work then many jobs would be unnecessary. In a society without money, this would be a good thing.

Technological progress is held back by politics and money. For instance, the other day I went to a Wal-Mart and noticed that they have automated checkouts that don’t require any humans. You can pay by cash, credit, debit with no need for human employment. I am sure the workers at Wal-Mart are scared of such a system which is why this kind of thing has not been implemented years ago. Take money out of the system and people are no longer threatened by this type of advancement. Machines could build entire buildings and roads with little or no human labor except for upkeep and installation of these automated systems, which brings me to my next point.

There have been comments in this thread about this system not being possible because someone would need to oversee the robotic systems to ensure they work correctly. Well, if they had educated themselves they could have saved the time to post such a ridiculous comment. Of course the machines would need to be repaired and installed. We would have technicians who would oversee such systems.

Now, some might think “Well! Those technicians would be the new rulers of this new system!” It’s an interesting point but one that seems unfounded and paranoid. I’m sure we could find solutions to prevent such a scenario.

This is a long post but I just want to address some comments I have read so far.

The Zeitgeist "movement" is based on falsehoods, paranoia and lies. That is a poor foundation to start any "movement".

What is your understanding of the Zeitgeist Movement? Please point out the lies and such. Remember, this is the actual movement we are talking about which, from my understanding, is mostly about the Venus Project and how to start to bringing about awareness of this proposed system.

Unlike BDZ, I do actually agree with the views presented by the Venus Project.

And I would like to point out that "Monetary Greed" was the engine behind a great many Scientific discoveries.

And you seem to be leaving Human Nature out of your little utopia.
Yes like the atomic bomb. What a great and useful invention eh?
Forget trying to elevate humans to a new level of consciousness. Lets just blow ‘em up! :P

Greed and the want of power consolidation created the A bomb. I can think of many ways we could have better spent that cash. Like feeding and clothing the entire planet or simply spending the billions and billions of dollars on other, less destructive scientific discoveries.

There is no human nature. Just human behavior. If you think that it’s human nature to destroy and dominate then I would disagree because I, and many like me, are living proof this idea is false. We humans are not like any other animals on this earth.

Also, a resource based economy would not be a utopia.

The Zeitgeist folk ARE paranoid, conspiracy addled and their arguments while can seem reasonable are based on lies. That is a very easy house of cards to collapse.
Poor foundation, poor movement.

Who are the zeitgeist folks exactly? 9/11 conspiracy theorist? People who liked Zeitgeist: The Movie? People who liked Zeitgeist: Addendum? People who are interested in a resource based economy? It’s a vague statement.

Almost all professionals are paid for what they do. They might volunteer their services for causes they believe in, but most of the time they expect to make a living from what they do.
Would you really trust an "amateur" doctor?

Your idea of a “living” is not relevant in this conversation because in a resource based economy your living would be provided for you by the carrying capacity of the earth which is huge. I think professionals would still be easily obtainable should you need them but they would not be doing what they do for cash. Cash would not exist. Their is incentive to learn, grow and become very knowledgeable and skilled in many things without money. Do you think the great inventors and scientist did what they did for a pay check? Einstein? Aristotle? Da Vinci? Did they say “Well, I’ll only be curious and discover the true nature of reality if somebody shows me the money.”? Somehow I doubt it.

Also, many medical operations would be done by machines if we allow technology and technicians to do what they do unfetter. We don’t allow that in this society. We cannot. It would **** up the economy. Machines already do complex medical operations but this would increase 1000 fold if we allow it.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the kind of society discussed in 'Zeitgeist: Addendum' is one where those basics would be provided for me

Just want to make clear that in this resource based economy no one would need to settle for basics of anything. We would all live a life of abundance because the carrying capacity of the earth can provide it without a price tag. Also, our wants would change dramatically. This kind of system requires a totally fresh view, void of many things we understand about life today in this society. Marketing and advertising would be gone for instance. Just imagine how that alone would change things. Mind blowing stuff.

I get the impression that people can’t imagine what the incentives would be without cash. This just goes to show how mentally stuck we are in this system. We can’t imagine much else. Not a great start to thinking about a better system instead of this outmoded one but I have hope:)
If I quote everything I want to comment on It’ll be a lot of quoting so let me just run some stuff through without saying who prompted me to say. I’m sure you know who you are.

1) What we do is paid slavery. It’s good for employers because they don’t have to house and feed their slaves. Works great! When you go to work, you walk into a dictatorship.
2) Jobs like crap cleaners, sewer cleaners, truckers, pilots would be gone. It’s automated. Obviously, we can do that right now but we don’t because of the money economy.
3) Planes would not be used nearly as much. It takes too much jet fuel and it’s expensive and inefficient. Trains would be used instead. You could get across the world in 4 hours on a maglev train and it uses no fuel.
4) It’s funny that a few people in here can’t even imagine an automated dishwasher system. How unimaginative you are! You can’t imagine an automated janitorial system. That’s just wrong guys. Sad sad sad.

Sorry for the long post but I just wanted to comment on all the things that I felt the need to comment on so far.
 
Mr Mix, glad you joined the discussion. Are you part of the ZM? or merely sympathize with them? I have the impression that you only read a couple of posts in the thread, because we have left behind somethings that you are bringing back to the table.

I agree with you in that the ZM has not being "debunked" and even if there are historical misreadings in their movies they do not "prove" that the movement is not pursuing a very desirable goal.

Now, it strikes me that you mention that I do not agree with the views presented on the Venus Project, when I'm the only one here arguing in favor of them!!

True, I'm not a member (I don't even know how to become a member) and I have taken some of the principles behind the ZM and VP to express my own ideas, but, it should be transparent clear that I'm urging people in here to exercise their critical thinking in to telling me any good reason not to try to implement something like what the VP and ZM are proposing.

Now, I would like to discuss these:

1) What we do is paid slavery. It’s good for employers because they don’t have to house and feed their slaves. Works great! When you go to work, you walk into a dictatorship.

Couldn't agree more. And I didn't have to read the ZM to realize this, I have been aware of it since I were a little boy. I would add that current schools are good for creating employees, or slaves, and have contributed poorly in to increasing critical thinking in general.

2) Jobs like crap cleaners, sewer cleaners, truckers, pilots would be gone. It’s automated. Obviously, we can do that right now but we don’t because of the money economy.

I have argued this, but I do it just from wishful thinking, have someone actually solved such problems? Are there any engineers working as we speak to make this happen?

3) Planes would not be used nearly as much. It takes too much jet fuel and it’s expensive and inefficient. Trains would be used instead. You could get across the world in 4 hours on a maglev train and it uses no fuel.

I disagree here, for instance, if money and costs are not an issue anymore, why do you mention this about planes being "expensive? And what does efficiency have to do with being up there in the sky, admiring the world in a way that every human in our history would have loved?

4) It’s funny that a few people in here can’t even imagine an automated dishwasher system. How unimaginative you are! You can’t imagine an automated janitorial system. That’s just wrong guys. Sad sad sad.

Agreed. I believe the reason most of "crap jobs" exists is because it is cheaper to simply hire desperate people to do them, but again, I'm talking from wishful thinking, I don't know the details and I'm surely unaware of millions of small things that could render machines unpractical for some tasks. So, again, who is working on this?
 
Last edited:
Still, I do believe we have a social responsibility in trying to get rid of such extreme working environments.
Yes it would be great to wave your hand and make all the dirty and tough jobs go away. Come up with a better way to do these jobs and go for it.

Once again the technology isn't there to have machines do all the work and once again that is why VP is a fantasy.

There is no human nature. Just human behavior. If you think that it’s human nature to destroy and dominate then I would disagree because I, and many like me, are living proof this idea is false.
The rest of the world throughout history proves you are wrong. There is human nature. VP concept of reprogram/retrain/reeducating people has been tried and failed by all types of societies.

Technological progress is held back by politics and money.
You will not get rid of politics in the VP scenario. Greed and power are part of the human nature which makes politics, thus every organization has and always will have politics.
 
BDZ: I think you said something to the affect of you not really subscribing to everything The Venus Project proposes although I do realize you find it interesting and I see you agree with a lot of it. I think I read that on the first page but I don't recall. I just wanted to point out that I totally do agree with the Venus Project so far. I have to look into it and think about it a lot more because the ideas are kind of new to me. I never spent much time thinking about a society with no money and such.

Apologies if I have brought up old stuff in the thread. I got excited after scanning the posts to the third page and then just started typing hehheh.

I don’t think there is an official membership of any kind for the Zeitgeist Movement but if you like it, consider yourself a member :)

I can’t wait for the forums to open up at the website so I can talk more about it there. I just found this forum on a google search so I decided to chat about it here since it seems like a lively discussion so far. Plus James Randi is cool :)

I think we are posting in here for the same reasons. There are critical thinkers in here (or there are supposed to be) so I thought it would be a good place to find out why TVP is a bad idea. So far the arguments against it are elementary at best but I hope to be enlightened soon.

Now, about the jobs being automated. There are very few people working on automating these kinds of jobs because the economy would lose money. If there is no money to be made in automating jobs with technology then it will not be worked on. Almost every job in the world could be automated using machines, robots, technology but if everyone would lose their jobs why would it happen? Why would we work on that?

Take money out of the equation and technological innovation would flourish. We could do these things now. We have the intelligence, material and know how to make these thing realities but there is no money in it so it will not be done in this society. It will not be studied, worked on, thought about at all.

For instance, why would our government legalize marijuana? There is a big war on drugs industry which makes lots of money. It best for the government to keep the prisons, police and lawmakers as they are because there are a lot of jobs and money to be made there. Legalization of drugs would **** up the economy. If cops had no “grow ops” to bust that’s just one less thing they have to do. Instead, our tax dollars are spent on cops being paid and equipment being bought for our police forces to do these awful things.

Same for the automation of many labor intensive jobs. Yes, robots can do it now but we have not looked into it because it would ruin the economy. We don’t even study these things because there is no money in it. It will only weaken the economy. The fake economy.

Like I said before, technological innovation is held back by money. If we had been at the forefront of technology in the past fifty years we would see things now you would not even believe. I think that technology is moving forward but not at the rate it could be. Not even close. In fact, in this current society it must not.

All of that information is in Z: A and also TVP website so its kind of redundant for me to repeat it here...you have read the site and seen Z: A right?

About the airplane thing: Good point. What I meant is that its time and energy consuming. We expend a lot of time and energy to get fossil fuels plus they are non-renewable resources because they take millions of years to form, and reserves are being depleted much faster than new ones are being formed.

Planes are not efficient or even really that fast in comparison to maglev technology. Flying is great but at what expense? If people want to fly, they can hop in an air balloon hehheh:)

Again, its all in Zeitgeist: Addendum.

The complete automation of many labor jobs would require a redesign of certain aspects of current urban designs. For instance if you want build a building using little or no human labor then the building would look different because they are being built different. I don’t want to talk too much about that yet because I’m still going through all the info that TVP has to offer but I’m learning a lot. Interesting stuff.

The Venus Project has some good info on city design that would make automation much easier. It would be challenging to retrofit machines to work in current designs but new cities, buildings etc would be much easier because they would be built from the ground up to be automated.

When it means the alleviation and liberation of humans from outmoded labor so that they may spend their time doing meaningful things with their lives instead of labor that makes them ignorant, then all option should be considered.

Neally. Interesting points. In regards to you comment about humans throughout history: Well, throughout history there has always been these issues but that does not mean it is an infinite condition. Humans will mentally evolve. The concept of humans being naturally war like is an awful idea. So very wrong on so many levels yet it seems to be believed to this day by many.

First, you will need to explain why I am not greedy, violent or war like. Of course, you don’t know who I am but I assure you I am not that way. Is everyone you know greedy? I doubt it. How do you explain the people who are not greedy, war like, violent or oppressive? Are they not truly human then?

There is no such thing as human nature. We are conditioned to act the way we do through experience. If you grew up in violence, you will be violent. Yes, there is always choice. People choose their own actions but that choice is based on that persons experience.

Neally says that re-educating has been done in all types of societies but those societies all had money and competition for labor in them. We are talking about a whole new society here. It has never been done with this level of technology involved and of course, it could not have been done because technology was not at the level it is at today so comparisons to past attempts are totally irrelevant. How can we compare this to anything else when there has never been anything else like it tried before?

No Money. No competition for labor. No “jobs”. No politics. Eventually there would be virtually no laws. No advertising. People will act differently. You may not even be able to comprehend the affect this will have unless you think about it a lot or actually see it in action. Perhaps re education would not even be necessary.

Also, new humans would not need to be re educated since they would be born into this new society as a clean slate.

I'm not sure I really understand the need for re education. Re educate who? Why?

I also want to point out that when I say no jobs or work I mean no labor employment. No paid slavery. We will all work in this society just as I am working right now to discuss this new society. This is work I love. I am still typing and going through the motions of, say, a receptionist except this work actually matters and is much more meaningful. That’s just an example.

We will all “work” in this society it’s just that it would actually contribute to the lives of everyone in meaningful ways. That’s incentive enough for me but there would be all kinds of incentive we have not even thought of yet. We don’t know this kind of place because we have never thought about it before.
We will not just say “Oh hey I’m gonna lay around in the sun all day!”
There are all kinds of incentive you have yet to imagine because you have never had a reason to imagine them. All we can think of is “how much money do I get?”

I think the insistence that humans will always be violent or always be political and that this is perpetual without end is a sign that many people don’t understand the symbiotic and emergent nature of the human species and, therefore, do not understand their own nature and existence. All they know is what they been taught to do and act like. People speak rhetorical nonsense and, like many, will refuse to accept any new information, only the same outmoded mindframe that gets perpetuated through this society. I know people can break out of that mind frame thought. Actually, it’s inevitable. :)

The human species as a whole is rather close to a major mental shift in how we think about ourselves and everything around us. I can’t wait for it to really take hold. Should be fun! :)

We are emergent, constantly changing advanced organisms. We cannot stay the same forever. The nature of the universe is not like that. It's evolution, baby.
 
I would still like someone to explain how the current system is broken when it has resulted in millions of people in Asia being elevated from short lives of starvation and poverty (with millions more in the queue, of course) to a half-decent and improving lifestyle? Not perfect, but I need far more evidence before replacing our capitalist system with a utopian fantasy.
 
This is a lengthy post, so I just want to jump in on this bit:

Now, about the jobs being automated. There are very few people working on automating these kinds of jobs because the economy would lose money. If there is no money to be made in automating jobs with technology then it will not be worked on. Almost every job in the world could be automated using machines, robots, technology but if everyone would lose their jobs why would it happen? Why would we work on that?

Firstly, if automation is/was profitable, then that is what will be done, and the economy will grow, not shrink. The reasons for automation are numerous, but a central reason is it's cost-effectiveness. If you can make a machine for $100,000 that replaces five workers who earn $50,000 per year, you the business owner have saved money. The money saved can then go into investing in other areas, thus expanding the economy (in simple terms).

Secondly, there is not a finite amount of work to be done. You seem to think that if automation takes place there will be no more work, and everyone would lose their jobs (suggesting a finite amount of work). Instead, you get displaced workers which re-train and/or move on to a different field (perhaps as a maintenance tech who fixes the new technology).

Take money out of the equation and technological innovation would flourish. We could do these things now. We have the intelligence, material and know how to make these thing realities but there is no money in it so it will not be done in this society. It will not be studied, worked on, thought about at all.

You have it backwards: money provides a strong incentive to create new innovations. There is a truckload of money to be made on innovating a power-drill that is easy on the operator's arms and shoulders, or engineering a safer, more stable ladder.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, it seems my illustration of the problems of a moneyless society was conveniently ignored.


In Town X, before the establishment of the moneyless society, there is one baker who provides the town with bread.....except the baker doesn't want to be a baker, he always wanted to be a archeologist and with the elimination of money he might as well go do that.......so now Town X has no baker and no bread. Consequently the people of Town X get angry and demand a new baker but nobody wants to be the one to do it (they're all too busy being astronauts, rock climbers and Colonial Marines) so they demand a robot baker but no one wants to build one because they are much more interested in building sex robots that also play badminton. In desperation some of the Colonial Marines take the guy who now tries to teach squirrels sign language and tell him to be a baker or else. He retaliates by getting the guy who makes robot ninjas to wage war on the Colonial Marines who prevail by numerical superiority but now also have to force people to run the water treatment plant and shoe factory because they were killed by the robot ninjas. These people don't like this one bit since they aren't being compensated and are being forced to do a job they don't want by pain of death. To deal with this the Colonial Marines strip them of their names, give them ID numbers instead and install surveillance everywhere.

Congratulations the Moneyless Utopia is now, by necessity, a Fascist Dystopia.

Bottom line is that a society where people only do what they find to be "fun" is never going to work. Peoples desires and goals are completely disassociated from the needs of reality and outside of using "incentives," like money, to get people to do the unfun jobs the only way to get them done will be to use force. Frankly I'd rather work in a crappy job because I'm getting paid to do it than to be told to do it or I get shot.
 
If debt is akin to 'anti-money', then the monetary system is already largely illusion.

Capitalism in no way prevents the situation in which one might be shot for not doing what they are told to do.

The definition of work precedes the invention of money.
People that don't need any money often find reason to preform useful work.

Some people that could have made a lot of money find reason to eschew that lifestyle for an 'earthier' lifestyle that involves lots of grunt labor.

Volunteerism is alive, in spite of lack of monetary incentives.

To some extent, a large extent, even, we have invented the need for toil.
We are very puritanical that way. Must keep busy. Keep the day job even though you win the lottery. We resist evolution, to some degree. Because we fear greater freedom and well being.

"Money is the root of all evil" is an old adage that is not without merit.
Making money from money was seen as problematic long ago, and it still is, at least to some extent.
 
Why? Because the current system efficiency sucks thats why.

What for? To implemente a more efficient system.
[ . . . ]
AND YES, IF SUCH A SOCIETY WAS FOUNDED I WOULD HAVE ZERO PROBLEMS ACCEPTING THAT WHAT CONSTITUTES A PROPERTY IN HERE IS NOT NECESSARILY A PROPERTY IN THERE.
[ . . . ]
And please point me to a single phrase in which I claimed to have answers. All I have been doing, and you can find this several times in the thread, is asking why it is not possible to organize a society in such a way that money was no longer necessary.
The "efficiency* sucks", and you want to "improve" it but you have "no answers", yet if someone comes up with a more efficient system that allows you to do without title or money, you'd have "zero problem" accepting it.

OK I think I get that. Trouble is, it's riddled with hogwash and devoid of critical thought.

* BTW--Please state which definition of efficiency you are using. Or will you reconsider and say: "Efficiency is a human construct, why don't we throw it out and come up with a system where it is not necessary" . . .
 
Well, throughout history there has always been these issues but that does not mean it is an infinite condition. Humans will mentally evolve. The concept of humans being naturally war like is an awful idea.
Cancer is an awful thing also, but it exists. Just because you don't like the world as it is, doesn't mean you can just wish it away. Evolution continues, but there is a huge gap from where we are and the crime free utopia of VP and the point again is that there is no "how to" that will get us from here to there other than humans evolving to a much different creature.

First, you will need to explain why I am not greedy, violent or war like. Of course, you don’t know who I am but I assure you I am not that way. Is everyone you know greedy? I doubt it. How do you explain the people who are not greedy, war like, violent or oppressive? Are they not truly human then?
There is a huge range of personalities and human tendancies. History has clearly shown that power and greed are part of the human being. Some more so than others. The fact that there have been Gandhis doesn't erase the fact that there have been Hitlers.

There is no such thing as human nature. We are conditioned to act the way we do through experience. If you grew up in violence, you will be violent.
We are what we are as a result of both genes and environment.

It has never been done with this level of technology involved and of course, it could not have been done because technology was not at the level it is at today so comparisons to past attempts are totally irrelevant. How can we compare this to anything else when there has never been anything else like it tried before?
And it can't be done with today's technology. There are two things that make VP science fiction:
1. There is no level of technology today that will enable no one to have to work. The elimination of money will not cause an explosion of technological advances that will change this.
2. Even if #1 was possible, a society where there is no crime as the VP promises would not exist because of greed, self interest, and power will still exist in humans. These tendencies will result in politics and crime. No amount of training, retraining, education, programming, etc. will wipe these tendencies out.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, it seems my illustration of the problems of a moneyless society was conveniently ignored.

[ship]


I thought it was obviously irrefutable.

I assumed everyone except the hippy agreed with it. ;)
 
I thought it was obviously irrefutable.

I assumed everyone except the hippy agreed with it. ;)


Change that to hippies, since another one showed up.
I still think a major motivation behind buying into the Venus project nonsense is laziness: They don't want to have to work for a living.

The idea that Mr Mix has about maglev replacing airplanes is a good example of ignoring reality, the reality being it is sort of hard to build a railroad across the Atlantic.

And that is why I maintain these two alleged "Critical Thinkers" are not Critical thinkers at all: There whole attitude of "When Reality Conflicts With My Theory, Reality Must Be Disposed Of".
It is the total disregard of reality that gets to me about those two.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, it seems my illustration of the problems of a moneyless society was conveniently ignored.




Bottom line is that a society where people only do what they find to be "fun" is never going to work. Peoples desires and goals are completely disassociated from the needs of reality and outside of using "incentives," like money, to get people to do the unfun jobs the only way to get them done will be to use force. Frankly I'd rather work in a crappy job because I'm getting paid to do it than to be told to do it or I get shot.


You just don't get it, Travis.
In the Venus plan, no one will have to work, it will all be done by robots!:eye-poppi
 
You just don't get it, Travis.
In the Venus plan, no one will have to work, it will all be done by robots!:eye-poppi

But all the robots will be sex robots that play badminton. I mean unless someone decides to build sewer plant robots or street paving robots for fun........which I doubt.
 
If debt is akin to 'anti-money', then the monetary system is already largely illusion.

Capitalism in no way prevents the situation in which one might be shot for not doing what they are told to do.

Yet those types of situations have steadily decreased as capitalism became dominant.

The definition of work precedes the invention of money.
People that don't need any money often find reason to preform useful work.

Who are these people who "don't need money?" Noble savages?:rolleyes: Millionaire playboys living off a trust?:rolleyes:

Some people that could have made a lot of money find reason to eschew that lifestyle for an 'earthier' lifestyle that involves lots of grunt labor.

Awesome, you've discovered that humans are variable individuals. Now if only you could point me to the people who repair electric utility poles for fun.

Volunteerism is alive, in spite of lack of monetary incentives.

Volunteerism is subsidized by monetary incentives. How do things like Opensource software projects get done? By guys who do it when they aren't doing their real jobs. Take away that real job from them and see how much enthusiasm they have to do that volunteer work.

Things like soup kitchens still need donations......of money! Or donations of goods produced by......money!

Please show me any philanthropic endeavor that is completely detached from the goods and services of the money world.

To some extent, a large extent, even, we have invented the need for toil.
We are very puritanical that way. Must keep busy. Keep the day job even though you win the lottery. We resist evolution, to some degree. Because we fear greater freedom and well being.

I see that you have somehow decided that evolution has "goals" that can be resisted and that keeping yourself from being bored is one of them.

"Money is the root of all evil" is an old adage that is not without merit.
Making money from money was seen as problematic long ago, and it still is, at least to some extent.

You know what else is a root of all evil? Sex. Look at all the bad things in history that have happened because of sex; murders, wars, thefts and religious persecutions. Clearly we need to eradicate sex to improve our lives.
 
The idea that Mr Mix has about maglev replacing airplanes is a good example of ignoring reality, the reality being it is sort of hard to build a railroad across the Atlantic.
What are you talking about? According to Mr. Mix, maglev trains require no fuel.
 
Once again the technology isn't there to have machines do all the work and once again that is why VP is a fantasy.

How do you know? I certainly don't, and I'm convinced in that, in order to state this, we need first to make a rather long list to include everyone of such works, and then having a field of engineers, inventors, industrial designers to work on this and decide if it is technologically plausible or not. Sorry but stating "its impossible" before sounds exactly like religious dogmas. Or even ignorant claims "it is impossible to fly in an object heavier than air"...

You will not get rid of politics in the VP scenario. Greed and power are part of the human nature which makes politics, thus every organization has and always will have politics.

This was not directed to me, as I reckon such human characteristics. Still, I have a question. In this society greed is expressed towards money and power. Take away money and power and these tendencies would be naturally expressed elsewhere. Simple logic.

Still... as I stated before, to claim something about how will humans will behave in a society that it doesn't exist is futile, this is what we invented science.

I'll answer more posts later...
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom