The Venus Project-Bullshit?

[nasher168]

I know this has been raised a couple of times in other threads, but AFAIK, there are no threads specifically about this.

The Venus Project is one of those things-along with that Zeitgeist film-that seems to be popular amongst nuts of various types. It seems to be striving towards some kind of utopian world and comes up with a few good ideas in terms of technology, but has a sort of cult-ish feel to it. And a few Google searches show that other people get the same vibe from it but I haven't found any clear evidence that they're spouting nonsense as yet?

Are they talking bullshit? And if so, is there a place that explains why?

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

It's based on Jacque Fresco's futurist dream of a resource based economy - in many ways it's an off-shoot of the Technate and other Technocratic based economic models. The most well known example of these sorts of philosophies can be found in the Star Trek franchise, those Gene Roddenberry drew inspirations from technocratic philosophy, not vice-versa.

Basically you set up cities and communities with heavy dependencies on automation for mundane labour (like the robot waiters emerging in Japan) - the cost of an item is based completely on the resources and energy involved in its production and after-production maintenance... services and labour costs are moot. Personal wealth becomes moot, as scarcity is supposedly eliminated.

As to the cultiness of the movement - yeah, kind of. I've watched a few of Fresco's vlogs (he has a youtube account) and he falls under the classic archetype of someone who knows he is right and so there! While I wouldn't say it was a cult, but it has cult like affiliates (well used to), and the real ability to descend into one.

 

[impiku]

Are they talking bullshit?

Yes.

And if so, is there a place that explains why?

Search: Earth to Venus on YT. A user called fringeelements made a good series debunking it.

 

[Dean]

To nasher:

As I direct answer to your question....aah yes. Jacque Fresco's pipe dreams of a resource-based-economy. I still have yet to see any sufficient argument for how technocracy is possible, but...

As for calling the project out on its.... "bullshit", well, I don't think I am aware of any exhaustive sources for something like that, but this you-tube channel is worth a look, at least:

http://www.youtube.com/user/bitbutter

To my recollection, he produced a video called "The Venus Project: mistakes that advocates [thereof] make" in which he critiques Fresco's ideas, and also has a go at Peter Joseph, who represents the Zeitgeist Movement which is what he claims to be the "Activist Wing of the Venus Project".

I have to go, but here's the vid:



"I've been commenting on advocates of the Venus Project. In this video I'll try to clear up some of the misconceptions made by the Project and its advocates"



The main objection here is the assumption that scarcity in the world is something that can simply be wished away, impending some ingenious industrial reformation, in which all resources are made in abundance, given that that is even *possible*. And, as we all know, that is patently absurd.

 

[Dean]

Are they talking bullshit?

[. . .] Search: Earth to Venus on YT. A user called fringeelements made a good series debunking it. [. . .]

Indeed. Thank you. I'll be looking into that when needed.

 

[Case]

...
[. . .] Search: Earth to Venus on YT. A user called fringeelements made a good series debunking it. [. . .]

Indeed. Thank you. I'll be looking into that when needed.

Just don't make the mistake of trusting that guy on everything he says, because I just skimmed one of his blog posts on the 'defense of IQ' (aggregate and blah) and while the general tenets are not wrong, his last paragraph is pretty stupid*. If that's a representative sample of his 'expertise', I'd rather look for someone else to argue against the Venus project. Additionally, I would never put great trust in people who try to appear as if they had great knowledge in more than one discipline. There are people who do, few of them are as young as this guy and even less of them make YT videos. That's not to say the VP was particularly legit, I haven't checked it in-depth, but I'd put my eggs in the emergent democracy basket instead.


*

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[Dean]

@Case
Well, I've had a look at fringeelements' youtube page (I had heard of him before impiku mentioned him). In the past, I haven't really been very impressed by his scientific claims, or his attempts at political discourse on YouTube. I of course am not so naive to take what these sorts of people say word for word, of course. The video I referenced earlier provides a more thorough refutation, though, albeit it IS just one video.

Sadly, there is practically always more chaff than Wheat on youtube, so, indeed, I'm having a try looking for independent sources elsewhere on the Web to verify these sorts of criticisms (of the Venus Project) somewhere. Ultimately, it's somewhat unlikely that there will be an exhaustive, thorough refutation anywhere, given the length and distance of fields and areas of expertise that would be required to refute The VP's tenets, if they are indeed seriously flawed. As you said, it would require expertise in more than one field. Unless someone posts a long refutation here of course, supposing that's possible. :|

 

[ImprobableJoe]

BULLSHIT!

I'm pretty sure we had a very long thread on the subject a year or two ago right here, and I used a lot of dirty words.

It is really simple to weed out the bullshit though. Go to their website, and see what they suggest to get from here (reality) to there (utopian fantasy) and see if there's any actual "project" at all, besides scamming people.

 

[impiku]

I would never put great trust in people who try to appear as if they had great knowledge in more than one discipline. There are people who do, few of them are as young as this guy and even less of them make YT videos. That's not to say the VP was particularly legit, I haven't checked it in-depth, but I'd put my eggs in the emergent democracy basket instead.

I don't trust this guy on every subject, he confuses basic philosophical jargon which gives me this impression that he is not well-verse on the matter(I'm not saying I'm particularly well-verse btw). I think his psychology videos are pseudoscience but his politics videos based on libertarian paradigm and genetics are pretty impressive. I'm not sure where this anti jack-of-all-trades sentiment is coming from. Funny thing to note, a biologist once challenged his views on IQ & genetics and got his ass handed. He also accused him of being jack-of-all-trades but it felt like the biologist's "expertise" was even shallower than fringeelements knowledge on the matter.

*

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

I fail to see why that quote is stupid.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm sort of disappointed... usually threads involving that Zeitgeist nonsense even peripherally grow at an exponential rate, and a bunch of people get banned.

 

[Case]

"I'm interested in the "ecological correlation". And the reason is political: there are income gaps along broad racial lines, and so my interest is to show how these broad income gaps can be attributed to broad genetic differences. I'm not out to attack you or say that you are doomed because of your genes. Einstein was certainly much smarter than his parents at a genetic level."

I fail to see why that quote is stupid.

In that case you should be worried.

What he says is:
1) I am not interested in correlation between variables at the individual level, I am interested in the correlation of variables between groups of individuals.
2) There are income gaps between groups of people of different "races".
3) These gaps exist because of genetic differences between these "races".
4) That doesn't mean genes are everything that matters.
5) Einstein was smarter than his parents [the 'on a genetic level' part just doesn't make any fucking sense]

A more polemic and less bullshitty version would read:

1) I once browsed a website advocating ecological correlation and boy, I'm sold. It must be better than that other thing, always!
2) Negros earn less than white dudes.
3) That's 'cause negros are negros, yo. It's genetic. It's natural.
4) Don't hate me now.
5) I don't have even a shred of evidence, but I guess Einstein was CERTAINLY and MUCH smarter than his parents and that somehow proves my other claims.
5.1) He wasn't just smarter on a ... random level, but on a GENETIC level, yo.

If you still fail to see why it's stupid:

1) There are various cases where you want to use individual scores, there are other cases where you want to use group means. There is NO one-size-fits-all statistical measure that is "better" than everything else or even always preferable. Things can be fairly specific and learning what to use under which conditions takes years of study and experience.

2) No references = just a claim. Presents it as universal truth.

3) The claim that black people are somehow less intelligent (and considering the topic, I must assume that's what he's referring to) than white people has been debunked long ago (cf. the studies by James Flynn). While IQ seems fairly hereditary (h2 about .80, ignoring the cringe-worthy methodological problems arising when trying to pinpoint heritability of concepts rather than physical traits), the assumption that any difference between groups of people must be genetic is fallacious and stupid.

4) Oh really?

5) No evidence for that claim, not even an explanation why his idea should a) make sense, be b) likely or c) related to his claims.

That's why.

 

[impiku]

I am aware of those implications and I find your caricature kind of silly. The only thing I want to elaborate is on this:

1) I am not interested in correlation between variables at the individual level, I am interested in the correlation of variables between groups of individuals.

It depends on the context, and the reason why he talks about IQ is because some policies are rationalized on a group level by people on the left, fallaciously starting off with an egalitarian premise that is undermined by studies on IQ.

He enumerated all sorts of IQ studies, maybe not much on that post but you can search it up if you managed to find his blog/videos by the way.

You said: "The claim that black people are somehow less intelligent (and considering the topic, I must assume that's what he's referring to) than white people has been debunked long ago (cf. the studies by James Flynn)" Really? It has been debunked? What specific study are you talking about?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I am aware of those implications and I find your caricature kind of silly. The only thing I want to elaborate is on this:


It depends on the context, and the reason why he talks about IQ is because some policies are rationalized on a group level by people on the left, fallaciously starting off with an egalitarian premise that is undermined by studies on IQ.

He enumerated all sorts of IQ studies, maybe not much on that post but you can search it up if you managed to find his blog/videos by the way.

You said: "The claim that black people are somehow less intelligent (and considering the topic, I must assume that's what he's referring to) than white people has been debunked long ago (cf. the studies by James Flynn)" Really? It has been debunked? What specific study are you talking about?

Oh wow, you're a racism apologist too? What a surprise.

 

[Dean]

I can see where this is going ..... Well, I'll recuse myself once more.

P.S .: Good to see the discussion has progressed, though now subsiding again, somewhat.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I can see where this is going.....

Well, I'll recuse myself once more.

P.S .: Good to see the discussion has progressed, though now subsiding again.

Well, someone who is a fan of libertarian ideas is very likely to be sympathetic towards racism as well... it confirms all the immature, narcissistic ideas that lead people to libertarian ideas in the first place.

I'm not particularly interested in following this line of discussion either, since it is sort of off-topic and we know where it goes.

 

[Case]

Happened because nasher didn't pick any specific parts of the VP to be examined, neither did he quote what he found questionable.
Unless you do that, the discussion will almost certainly be about a broad range of topics and it's only logical that it would be.

 

[impiku]

Oh wow, you're a racism apologist too? What a surprise.

I expected you to come around and throw me labels like this on the thread. You are literally a reactionary equivalent to the retarded fundie-conservatives. I am sure liberals like you have a cognitive dissonance on the matter regarding intelligence and evolution. Evolution did not stop at the neck, now, if you're reasonably intelligent you would know that intuitively, races having an equal level of intelligence is an absurd position and a cosmic joke of a coicidence given that evolution took place in different environmental conditions. But it seems like this is not the case for you.

Libertarians usually despise racists, but we do not believe that the government should force association and no libertarian is for de'jure racial segragation. Libertarians also understand that discrimination can be rational in a certain context.

I stand for facts, I don't adopt any illogical stance because I am butthurt about reality, people are not inherently equal, aggragate differences of races exist. I'm sorry that this is too much for soft-hearted liberals like you but hereditarians are clearly on the winning side when it comes to this debate.

..Also, Case, you can launch another thread for this matter if you want.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Evolution did not stop at the neck, now, if you're reasonably intelligent you would know that intuitively, races having an equal level of intelligence is an absurd position and a cosmic joke of a coicidence given that evolution took place in different environmental conditions.

So you're not an apologist, you're an out and out racist. And you're PROUD of it, and think your racism makes you smarter and better than other people... again, all part of the childish narcissism of your entire worldview.

 

[kenandkids]

..Also, Case, you can launch another thread for this matter if you want.

Well, now that he has the permission of someone that believes some races are smarter than others...

 

[impiku]

Evolution did not stop at the neck, now, if you're reasonably intelligent you would know that intuitively, races having an equal level of intelligence is an absurd position and a cosmic joke of a coicidence given that evolution took place in different environmental conditions.

So you're not an apologist, you're an out and out racist. And you're PROUD of it, and think your racism makes you smarter and better than other people... again, all part of the childish narcissism of your entire worldview.

Reality is racist, sorry about that, stay in your lala-land Joe. At least you'll be able to maintain a false sense of emotional security. It's all good, for people like you who are so fragile to face the truth. You're not interested in pursuing it, you are just inept at it, you get your feelings all over the place and you fail to be objective.

IQ, whether it can actually measure intelligence or not, is a useful predictor of crime rate, and productivity, and discrimination on the basis of facts can be reasonable.