Understanding The Venus Project and RBE

[Prolescum]

Yes. It illuminates the difficulties we are going to have discussing this topic when it's taken this long to get you to admit this simple point.

Fresco has a plenty of warning how our language is a source of conflict and misunderstanding, so I'm really careful. However, I do not believe in winning brownie points by manipulating words, I want an understanding of intention. I didn't know you wanted the same. There are jerks out there who don't.

I don't think you're as careful as you think you are.

Ah yes, your unqualified argument that we are currently not civilised. Still waiting for you to flesh that one out.

The standard Fresco talk is, that we are not civilized as long as we need laws, alarms, policemen courts, judges, prisons and armies. All these are feeble human attempts to patch up a badly designed environment.

Well Mr smart knickers is clearly using a very subjective, barely coherent interpretation of civilised, one that I do not recognise nor accept. Same as yours.

Politicians don't know how to solve a problem, so they pass laws so people are forced to avoid the problem.

This stinks of a libertarian mindset, and I'm not going to discuss that puerile ideology. I will say that the above is genuinely naive.

In TVP instead of making a law and enforcing it, like "don't drive too fast", the vehicles would rather contain a computer, a GPS signal and sensors to drive as fast as they can on a given part of the road, no faster.

...and you miss the point of the reason for speed limit legislation entirely.

Hardly unique.

There's no need to be unique. Fresco has some talks how there are no new ideas, how all ideas develop from older ideas. He takes his ideas from how human organism works.

He expresses an entirely subjective and critically shallow view of humans from what I can see.

Can, possibly. Will? This still falls upon your unsubstantiated claim that we are not civilised; it also suggests you believe we're currently unable to solve problems or communicate without stabbing each other.

In a broader sense, yes. We can only sort of solve problems within our own social group. When it comes to other social groups, we can't have a straight talk with them.

Fucking unbelievable.

Christians and atheists can talk at each other, but they won't hear.

Here you are with definitive statements you can't justify again.

Scientists and astrologers, Communists and capitalists, anarchists and imperialists... We are not talking to each other, our mouth are used by isms trying to push each other from our brains.

We are not homogeneous.

We are not educating our children, we indoctrinate them with our worldview and make them obey us and look up to us. Culturally speaking, we're all like the Borg, in fact countless competing varieties of the Borg. (I hope you like watching Star Trek)

I'm very familiar with Star Trek, and your analogy is risible.

Will they?

Why wouldn't they be?

Because even with an inculcated viewpoint, one can reason toward more than one solution. To suggest we'd all think the same way given the same education is, well, laughable.

Are you taking this so-called individualistic culture into consideration here? Certainly doesn't seem like it.

That's hard to tell. You know what? I'm an individualist, very self-centered. That's because I have a mild form of autism that makes it diffcult to understand other people's intentions.

I get the impression that you're self-diagnosed.

So I can tell, individuality is overrated. It's the American way today, but the Chinese raise their children collectivist and that's not good either. Fresco has an interesting talk. He says that what we call today our individuality, our flaws, idiosyncrasies, personal quirks, phobias, attachments, prejudices and so on, he calls that a bad quality control.

Which is a subjective and unqualified view.

In areas that matter, we don't want individuality, we want functionality. For example our cars, when we turn the keys, we want the car to start and to start at once. Is a healthy, balanced personality that much a different thing?

Yes, and that you ask that question makes me question your ability to reason.

I don't know if that's too much of a bizarre thing to tell you, too easy to misunderstand, but I've had more than my share of individuality and I tell you, it's overrated and I didn't even grow up among American politically correct folks who don't say disability but "difference" and similar nonsense. I'd gladly exchange that for a proper psychologist and neurologist checkup.

:facepalm:

Unless they don't want to.

You think that is a problem for science?

It is a problem for everyone who has experience of children.

Look up the document, Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood. It is a terrible testimony how science can be misused for manipulation of mind. The marketing analysts freakin' measure brain response of children in reaction to visual stimuli to sell them boring and useless crap better.

I'm sure you meant to make a point there.

This is the power of scientific method. As it is today used for evil, so it can be used for good, to actually get children interested in something that is good for them.

Evil is subjective. Good is subjective.

You should really read the Foundation books, in particular, Foundation and Earth.

Actually I did, about 6 years ago. I looked up the book on Wikipedia right now and really, I remember it quite well. What I don't remember, is what are you pointing out. I didn't notice anything in it about the topic right now.

I was referring to the Solarians.

I don't disagree, I'm sympathetic to PAB's view. My preferred social system (or utopia, if you prefer) would look somewhat similar to a meritocratic demarchy.

What, demarchy? You would allow human brains to make decisions? The brains that can only hold 3 ideas at once?

What?

And what would these randomly chosen people do to solve problems, pass laws?

We're discussing your utopian beliefs, not mine.

And what is meritocracy, how does one decide merit? A rule of virtuous people?

No, capable people.

Let's say , if a water pipe breaks in my house, I'd rather invite a dirty, cursing, ugly and hairy plumber than the most virtuous and polite politician. If my network breaks, I'd rather see the most asocial and arrogant IT specialist. If a politician would design my bridges, they'd fall once I drive on them. Virtues don't improve the environment, they just allow to individually resist a bad environment a little longer.

I suggest you re-examine your understanding of meritocracy.

I won't be buying the book or reading from the website if I can help it; I'm only interested in you and your views. If you want to convince me, convince me.

I'm not sure I can.

Neither am I.

Who am I convincing?

Me.

What are you?

A prospective candidate.

What isms in your head am I talking to?

You're talking to me, not an abstract.

What isms in your head might distort my original noble intention into something that is suspicious to you?

:lol: This thread is little more than an ego trip.

I think you're lying to yourself, sweetheart.

Science fiction is precisely what TVP appears to be thus far.

Science fiction teaches us about other possible civilizations than just ours as we know it.

If you think that is the limit of science fiction, you're reading it wrong.

 

[Armitage]

I like the venus project as an Idea, I believe that most of our problems are self created and that the real problems of the world could be greately ameliorated by the correct use of technology and science.

I believe That machines could take the burden of most forms (if not all) of physical work, and eventually might even begin solving engienieriing and scientific problems. (they do nowadays in very restricted environments)

Wonderful! Finally someone understands that science and technology solves problems, not market.

What I find "utopic" about TVP is not the state of living in it, but getting to it.

I don't think humanyty will ever be willing to give up that much control, greed, corruption... etc. because they are endemic to us, taking advantage of the weak is programmed in everyone of us, there are those that resist it better, but we can't just wish away our animal instincts, if food becomes scarce, we will take advantage of the weak to benefit our offspring, if there is a reduced number of females, males will go to absurd lengths to outcompete each other, including but not limmited to cheating, liying, and even killing (it has been so for our entire history).

Humanity is now at a rather interesting point, our frontal cortex gets to dream big and work hard but in the very end, it is the primitive brain the one calling the shots and the primitive brain doesn't like sharing and behaving properly.

How do you know that? Let's try an alternate hypothesis. What if the brain, with all the advanced and primitive abilities does not decide how to behave? What if the way to behave is engrained in our huuuuuge neocortex, that fills out most of the skull?
Now, what is a neocortex? It's the most modern, advanced part of brain that forms and prunes superfluous neurons to speed things up as we learn things and grow up. It is a part of us that gets molded by our culture. We are basically hard-drives walking around, big pieces of capacity ready to be written into by our surroundings. Not by schools, not by ourselves, but by the environment itself. The evolution decided that the best way for human survival is to develop a huge brain capacity on top of the older brain, that is completely free to learn anything that it gets born into. This is why there is no human nature. Humans have no nature, except the huge capacity to believe and copy cultures and ideas and behaviors they see as their own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0eY3qZprTk

Now, it would make sense that whatever gets into this capacity, this is what calls the shots as we live. In almost all situations, except the extreme, like a lack of food or direct danger. This is where all our cultural notions sit, how should women walk and talk, how long their hair should be, how fat or thin should they be, what should they do. What is a man, how does a proper man behave, what is success, what is popularity, the proper way to happiness, why go to work, who to vote for. Do you think we are competitive? First we should look at our women, then at other cultures, see if they are competitive as well, or just forced into a different mold.

This neocortex can still change quite a lot, but it's more difficult. For example, if one believes in God, but then loses his faith, erasing God is not easy. It's literally painful, neurons have to re-arrange themselves. Changing our mind means changing a piece of our brain. Yet we are all born as atheists and we may become atheists again.
It's a good news! There is a way to change people, to make sure their neocortex is filled with content that is actually useful for them and society. It is called education. However a little different than the way you're taught at schools.

Fresco, first thing he did, he tried to change people's mind, tried to prove that he can do that. If he couldn't do that, there would be no sense in designing TVP, people couldn't live in it.
So he tried to dissolve a group of Ku Klux Klan.

(then a White supremacist group and then went to flat Earth believing group of Arabs, worked the same way)

 

[PAB]

I am not familiar with an analytic research of capitalism. I can only tell you my own analysis - and I think it is a pretty good one. I actually have some education in this

I see capitalism as a positive feedback. Capitalism is a positive feedback in a social system. The reason why this particular positive feedback is so important is, that it affects the economic necessities of life. It also involves money, the rationalized instrument that replaced most of social interactions. And the phenomenon of globalization, which is of technologic origin serves like a Trojan horse carrying capitalism everywhere, wanted or not.......As I said, the problem with capitalism isn't that it doesn't work, but that it works so well that it destroys its own supportive structures, burns itself out like a fire.

Well that's not far off my understanding tbh. Ov problems of capitalism and it " positive feedback".

However...

The problem of the capitalism or any ideology is its one-sidedness. Capitalism knows how to produce wealth. However, it has no means to distribute it. Socialism OTOH is like the negative feedback. It can not produce anything, but it evens out the wealth somewhat and extinguishes social wildfires. This is why most governments adopted some combination of capitalism and socialism. The problem is, this system is subject to wearing out just as much as any mechanical engine.

Firsty, capitalism is genius when it comes to distribution. You know that credit crunch thing..well that was loans to buy goods which people could no longer afford sue to stagnating wages, and falling real wages. Which meant more profits and more profits, via interest and keeping the market. not to mention advertising and the whole psychology of consumerism.

Their is no real socialism in existence, there never has been (USSR wasn't socialist, nor china et al). But their are socialistic elements within capitalism. Such as socialized healthcare....but that's a service...The closest thing to socialized production is co-operatives and sometimes nationalized industries.

See what's my problem with ideologies is? If we make an ideology of something, shit happens.
Ideology is one of my private dirty words, along with belief.

well careful you may inadvertently create Frescoism.

So...Housing.


Now i must have misunderstood...is he saying that you tell the house what you want and it alters itself ...

because the list of available tech...

Homes could be prefabricated of a new type of pre-stressed, reinforced concrete with a flexible ceramic external coating that would be relatively maintenance free, fireproof, and impervious to the weather. Their thin shell construction can be mass-produced in a matter of hours

isn't going to produce the desired results.

And secondly , how exactly does this solve the housing crises (unless it solves it because you can tell one building to be as big as you need)

 

[Armitage]

Politicians don't know how to solve a problem, so they pass laws so people are forced to avoid the problem.

This stinks of a libertarian mindset, and I'm not going to discuss that puerile ideology. I will say that the above is genuinely naive.

I'm not going to do that either. You could learn something about the medieval Iceland and Ireland systems, which worked without a top-down enforced law and had a very low criminality. We know that, because Iceland had a lots of literature and we know the civilization was like a mad Libertarian's dream.

In TVP instead of making a law and enforcing it, like "don't drive too fast", the vehicles would rather contain a computer, a GPS signal and sensors to drive as fast as they can on a given part of the road, no faster.

...and you miss the point of the reason for speed limit legislation entirely.[/quote] Which is....... :?: Why didn't you actually add the point? Do you even know what it is? Not from what I can tell.

He expresses an entirely subjective and critically shallow view of humans from what I can see.

I agree. Now why does he do that? What if the culture actually makes us that way, so he needs to address the problem as it is? Culture: making lots of people behave the same.

In a broader sense, yes. We can only sort of solve problems within our own social group. When it comes to other social groups, we can't have a straight talk with them.

Fucking unbelievable.

Yes! That's what we say! We meet someone from another social group, a Christian for example and he says, "people are born bad because our ancestors stole fruit." And we say, "fucking unbelievable!" We don't say, "that's interesting, how did you find that out?"

Christians and atheists can talk at each other, but they won't hear.

Here you are with definitive statements you can't justify again.

C'mon, you can't be serious. I've been just reading AronRa's thread on debating creationists :lol:

We are not homogeneous.

Who said something about definitive statements? :lol: No, but seriously, nobody is considering homogenity. Except perhaps the Nazis and Stalinists. But our culture is all equally corrupt. There is not a single non-corrupt culture on Earth. It is all based on making up artificial boundaries and conflict zones between people.

I'm very familiar with Star Trek, and your analogy is risible.

Risible, puerile, man, you're broadening my English vocabulary.

Because even with an inculcated viewpoint, one can reason toward more than one solution. To suggest we'd all think the same way given the same education is, well, laughable.

You're right. Why the hell should we get to just one solution? Why not two, three, dozen solutions? Today we are brainwashed at school into thinking there is just one solution to every problem and it's at the back of the textbook. And just one way to get to that solution. You find a new way to solve a mathemathical problem and the teacher gives you a F.

I get the impression that you're self-diagnosed.

Yep, I don't have money for the full diagnosis. However I have the signs, from sensory integration disorders to extreme left hemisphere thinking, overlooking social cues, slight face blindness and so on, it's really quite obvious.
You know what? The doctor told me, diagnosing adults is difficult, so I was told to bring all the earliest childhood materials I could find. And pay a few hundred per hour, essentially telling the doctor things that I already know so that she can say the verdict, which actually does not enable me for any kind of welfare or therapy in itself. I said, fuck that. The new number is 1 person on the spectrum in 50 and they still suck at diagnosing it. The doctors are overwhelmed by the demand, the waiting time for diagnosis is 6 months at least (usually over 1 year) and I decided there are people who need the paper much more than I do and have money for it. I can find my own solutions.

Now, what did you say about everyone reasoning towards one solution? :twisted:

So I can tell, individuality is overrated. It's the American way today, but the Chinese raise their children collectivist and that's not good either. Fresco has an interesting talk. He says that what we call today our individuality, our flaws, idiosyncrasies, personal quirks, phobias, attachments, prejudices and so on, he calls that a bad quality control.

Which is a subjective and unqualified view.

That's an interesting opinion, how did you find that out?

In areas that matter, we don't want individuality, we want functionality. For example our cars, when we turn the keys, we want the car to start and to start at once. Is a healthy, balanced personality that much a different thing?

Yes, and that you ask that question makes me question your ability to reason.

Well, the feeling is mutual. You actually haven't showed any reasoning abilities of your own. If someone programmed a software bot that analyzes forum text and then posts a denial of everything after every paragraph, you wouldn't pass the Turing test.

It is a problem for everyone who has experience of children.

Here's the thing again with generalizing statements If you reason with children like you "reason" with me, I can understand their frustration. The thing is, we're not taught how to communicate, we sort of pick it up as we go along and blame the failures in communication on the other person's stupidity. Then we sit into an airplane and presume the pilot is educated on how to fly and do not presume he just sort of figured it out. If we want to do something properly, we need to educate ourselves.

You should really read the Foundation books, in particular, Foundation and Earth.

Actually I did, about 6 years ago. I looked up the book on Wikipedia right now and really, I remember it quite well. What I don't remember, is what are you pointing out. I didn't notice anything in it about the topic right now.

I was referring to the Solarians.[/quote] In that case you should read the second half of the book Looking Forward, it's a piece of sci-fi a well and it is actually about TVP. You will find the world quite different, so much that Solarians didn't really come to my mind.

I don't disagree, I'm sympathetic to PAB's view. My preferred social system (or utopia, if you prefer) would look somewhat similar to a meritocratic demarchy.

What, demarchy? You would allow human brains to make decisions? The brains that can only hold 3 ideas at once?

What?[/quote] Human brain is really bad at considering let's say, a thousand data inputs per second to make a decision. Looks like it can handle about two. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multitasking-two-tasks
This is why I don't trust political decisions, most of them are made as a private deal long before the voting.

And what would these randomly chosen people do to solve problems, pass laws?

We're discussing your utopian beliefs, not mine.

Beliefs you say? Don't use dirty language here! :evil:

And what is meritocracy, how does one decide merit? A rule of virtuous people?

No, capable people.

How do we know who is capable, for the task? Right now we are ruled by people good at lying to us.

I suggest you re-examine your understanding of meritocracy.

Wonderful! Got any videos, films, talks, books? Something more than the Wikipedia page? What's the Meritocrat movement up to, these days? How do they propose to reverse the degradation of environment, stopping the wars, eradicating poverty, decresing criminality?

A prospective candidate.
You're talking to me, not an abstract.
:lol: This thread is little more than an ego trip.
I think you're lying to yourself, sweetheart.

Not exactly. I've met spambots who had more personality than you. Is that some kind of moderator's instrument that you turn on and set at newcomers when you're not online, just for the fun? And all the other forum veterans are having a laugh right now?

If you think that is the limit of science fiction, you're reading it wrong.

That's interesting. How did you find that out?

 

[Vivre]

It is called rationalization.

Developing a routine I'd rather call an automatism if needed.

Most of people I've ever met in city streets wanted money from me.

Sorry to hear. You might widen your focus on further social habits to expand your experiences.

We express our feelings with donations.

I don't.
A donation can't transport feelings but be a sign of agreeing to a need.

Hey, I have an unfair advantage here because I'm mildly autistic, so I was actually rather original.

Wow - are you aware this can be taken offensive?
Besides do you really think that a specific (not uncommon) burden is what makes you original?

Ego is just a protective cover over the neurology,

Ego is a means of brain functionality allowing you to not run into every wall that surrounds you ... [sarcasm]but rather spin in circles[/sarcasm] ;-)

Sorry - but all these 'we's you're using don't apply to me, so you must be talking about 'WE - the TVP-Believers'.

Just a rhetorical device, meant to induce a warm feeling of inclusiveness

You don't charm me but show your strong need to pursuade by deliberate manipulation.

I wanted to use this hypothetical example

I'd prefer you'd speak of real issues but artificially constructed ones, only aimed to show off. It'll not help you to become constructive.

Having an ism, an ideology

It's not I wouldn't get what you're aiming at. But the way you're presenting your conclusions as given facts is nothing I can buy. You teach me that representatives of TVP can't be trusted, given you'd be one of their relevant supporters.

:lol: I

At least we can share a laugh
... But then commencing with showing your possession of pride to sustain the following arguments I cannot other but skip it.

I can't help it but feel a little insulted that I would endorse an ideology that is so easily refutable.

And again - pride is a central issue.

 

[Prolescum]

I'm not going to do that either. You could learn something about the medieval Iceland and Ireland systems, which worked without a top-down enforced law and had a very low criminality. We know that, because Iceland had a lots of literature and we know the civilization was like a mad Libertarian's dream.

Centuries-old systems of government aren't comparable with modern ones in this instance for reasons such as population, technology, and education.

This also doesn't reinforce your statement that politicians don't know how to solve a problem, so they pass laws so people are forced to avoid the problem in any way.

...and you miss the point of the reason for speed limit legislation entirely.

Which is....... :?: Why didn't you actually add the point? Do you even know what it is? Not from what I can tell.

I left it out on purpose in the hope that you'd think about it. You clearly haven't, but that's alright. Why let practicality get in the way of your pipe-dreams, eh?

He expresses an entirely subjective and critically shallow view of humans from what I can see.

I agree.

That his perception is subjective and shallow?

Now why does he do that? What if the culture actually makes us that way, so he needs to address the problem as it is? Culture: making lots of people behave the same.

What exactly are you saying here? That our culture made him subjective and shallow (unverified), and by extension, we're all subjective (true) and shallow (unverified)?

Citations, please.

Yes! That's what we say! We meet someone from another social group, a Christian for example and he says, "people are born bad because our ancestors stole fruit." And we say, "fucking unbelievable!" We don't say, "that's interesting, how did you find that out?"

What? Your statement that we can only sort of solve problems within our own social group. When it comes to other social groups, we can't have a straight talk with them is unverified; it is your unwarranted certainty that is fucking unbelievable.

I also notice that you've again avoided to answer directly the question I posed about our being apparently uncivilised. Yes, I'm counting.

C'mon, you can't be serious. I've been just reading AronRa's thread on debating creationists

I'm serious.

Cherry-picking an example that fits your delusion argument does not validate your statement.

Who said something about definitive statements?

I can show you inter-faith dialogue, I can show you political treaties; I can point to hundreds of cultures. My statement is verifiable and, for all intents and purposes, true. Yours on the other hand...

No, but seriously, nobody is considering homogenity.

Indeed.

Except perhaps the Nazis and Stalinists.

Or any other fascist group. How does TVP deal with them, btw? Lemme guess: they won't exist?

But our culture is all equally corrupt.

Another unqualified statement based upon an opinion; you're quite good at these. Shame it's not a competition.

It's more of a shame that they have no value.

There is not a single non-corrupt culture on Earth. It is all based on making up artificial boundaries and conflict zones between people.

People can be corrupt.
Culture is not a person.

You waffle on and on about clarity in communication, yet your sentences are full of a most dreadful lack of drafting.

Risible, puerile, man, you're broadening my English vocabulary.

I'm glad the web has some utility for you.

You're right. Why the hell should we get to just one solution? Why not two, three, dozen solutions?

So basically what we do now. Right. Thanks.

Today we are brainwashed at school into thinking there is just one solution to every problem

No, "we" aren't.

and it's at the back of the textbook. And just one way to get to that solution. You find a new way to solve a mathemathical problem and the teacher gives you a F.

Whichever school you went to needs a visit from the inspectors. It seems to be fundamentally broken. That, however, should not reflect upon the efficacy of all education establishments in the world. If that school taught you to extrapolate from an example of one, it should be shut down.

I get the impression that you're self-diagnosed.

Yep, I don't have money for the full diagnosis.

I knew it was probably nonsense, a smokescreen to garner sympathy or soften the criticism of your beliefs.

However I have the signs, from sensory integration disorders to extreme left hemisphere thinking, overlooking social cues, slight face blindness and so on, it's really quite obvious.
You know what? The doctor told me, diagnosing adults is difficult, so I was told to bring all the earliest childhood materials I could find. And pay a few hundred per hour, essentially telling the doctor things that I already know

Are you qualified to "know"? I somehow doubt it, given your education at that crappy school.

so that she can say the verdict, which actually does not enable me for any kind of welfare or therapy in itself. I said, fuck that.

Of course you did; it's easier to maintain a cocoon of delusion that way. I love a bit of Indigo Child syndrome.

That's an interesting opinion, how did you find that out?

By applying my mind to the task of thinking about what you say your guru says. How else does one inform an opinion?

Well, the feeling is mutual.

Lol, I'm sure it is.

You actually haven't showed any reasoning abilities of your own.

What, none at all? Care to verify this view? I assume it's easier to show the veracity of this one than any of the many other ridiculous claims.

If someone programmed a software bot that analyzes forum text and then posts a denial of everything after every paragraph, you wouldn't pass the Turing test.

Your dedication to your argument is admirable.

Here's the thing again with generalizing statements

As already noted, there's a qualitative difference between what one can consider broadly true and the gibberish you believe to be true about people. You, like conspiracy fruitcakes, seem to believe that we're all thick and pliable, that we'd be eternally blissful if only we believed whatever it is you believe. Could it be because we're not all thick (varying levels of thickness, no less), and we ain't as pliable as you'd like?

You've asserted that we're brainwashed, incapable of seeing past the colours of national flags and interest groups, parochial and uncivilised, none of which you've shown to be true. Saying my statement that children will not always want to do as requested is in any way comparable with the claims you've made is, quite frankly, hilarious. Dunning-Kruger hilarious.

If you reason with children like you "reason" with me, I can understand their frustration.

Your inability to recognise the flaws in your belief system have nothing to do with my inability to engage children.

The thing is, we're not taught how to communicate, we sort of pick it up as we go along and blame the failures in communication on the other person's stupidity.

Blimey, I think you need a bigger screen for your projection there, cupcake...

We're back to your "education" again... I have pointed out numerous times how erroneous your views of worldwide education standards are; perhaps you should attend it. This is also quite hilarious coming from a chap who expended thousands of words to defend his preferred society from a comically loaded interpretation of utopia only to concede that it is indeed a utopia by any rational understanding.

Meditate on that. Seriously.

Then we sit into an airplane and presume the pilot is educated on how to fly and do not presume he just sort of figured it out. If we want to do something properly, we need to educate ourselves.

We don't presume that at all. We assume he is educated because pilots are required to be licensed. There is no reason for everyone to learn how to fly a plane; we specialise for a reason. Care to guess what that reason is?

In that case you should read the second half of the book Looking Forward, it's a piece of sci-fi a well and it is actually about TVP. You will find the world quite different, so much that Solarians didn't really come to my mind.

I already told you, I'm not interested in his arguments, I'm interested in yours, and your interpretation of his. Your descriptions in this thread look like a proto-Solaria to me.

Human brain is really bad at considering let's say, a thousand data inputs per second to make a decision. Looks like it can handle about two. http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -two-tasks
This is why I don't trust political decisions, most of them are made as a private deal long before the voting.

Yes, much of which is published before an election in manifestos, and there are various other avenues to register your views besides voting in general elections. You don't seem to know much about the democratic political process. I'm guessing you've never engaged in it.
Which makes you part of the problem.

Beliefs you say? Don't use dirty language here! :evil:

We all have beliefs, you particularly. There are probably dozens in this thread by now.

How do we know who is capable, for the task? Right now we are ruled by people good at lying to us.

I'm not getting into discussing the merits or otherwise of my preferred system of government, you came to promote yours, as flimsy at it appears to be.

Not exactly. I've met spambots who had more personality than you.

How exactly did you meet a spambot? Oh wait, that was an attempt at goading. Sorry, I'll switch my anger on now.

Carry on.

Is that some kind of moderator's instrument that you turn on and set at newcomers when you're not online, just for the fun?

No. You're only a newcomer for one post.

And all the other forum veterans are having a laugh right now?

They can speak for themselves. This thread is certainly amusing.

That's interesting. How did you find that out?

You seem to have missed the conditional clause.

 

[Armitage]

Firsty, capitalism is genius when it comes to distribution.

I'd say capitalism distributes well only within a very specific set of boundaries. We call these boundaries "ideal competition" and "monopolistic competition", while in practice most of markets are oligopoly or monopoly.
This is, because capitalism always tries to maximize monetary profit and sooner or later it breaks most of barriers that prevent it from profiting - such as laws or lack of laws in its favor. The failure of capitalism is, that sooner or later some capitalist gets rich enough to bribe a politician and get a law in his favor. This reverts into state subsidy of industries, protectionism and yes, corruption. This is what happened after WW2, America was mostly isolationist, but businessmen convinced the politicians that it is a good idea to send tractors to Europe as a part of Marshall plan - only the government has to buy the tractors first. Obviously not at a market price. Businessmen got a lot of profit they otherwise would not get and they repeated the successful deal with the government. So that now America is the most statist country. It has lots of pseudo-socialistic redistribution, but going the opposite way taking from people and giving to corporations. Big government is the capitalists' best deal ever. I recommend the document by John Stossel, Is there anything government can't do?
http://dotsub.com/view/fc4cfa30-7332-4232-a729-2c2f62ba7001

"In his classic book Capitalism, socialism and democracy, (1941) Joseph Schumpeter claims that capitalism very successfully creates and distributes social goods, but its political organization will probably be still more socialistic. Capitalism will be undermined by its own success." The big business undermines the middle class, the small businessman as an innovator was replaced by research teams. The sense of property was weakened by corporate ownership, bonds and shares. Families became less able to found family trade dynasties.... (Harrington, Modern social theories)

You know that credit crunch thing.. well that was loans to buy goods which people could no longer afford sue to stagnating wages, and falling real wages. Which meant more profits and more profits, via interest and keeping the market. not to mention advertising and the whole psychology of consumerism.

Wasn't that a sub-prime mortgage thing? Bankers made packets of debt, mixed some government bonds with good reputation together with poor student loans and sold these for lots of money... You see, capitalism doesn't even need real goods and services to make money, it's selling make-believe.

Their is no real socialism in existence, there never has been (USSR wasn't socialist, nor china et al). But their are socialistic elements within capitalism. Such as socialized healthcare....but that's a service...The closest thing to socialized production is co-operatives and sometimes nationalized industries.

Yep. I just know Libertarians who call a highly redistributive big state socialism, this is how they talk.

well careful you may inadvertently create Frescoism.

Fresco doesn't advocate Frescoism! He tells people to use scientific method to arrive at results. The scientific method is important, not what Fresco says. He said that himself in some video, but I can't keep track of them all. All that he designed is meant to be improved with science, it is not meant to stay the same.

So...Housing.

Now i must have misunderstood...is he saying that you tell the house what you want and it alters itself ...

because the list of available tech...

Homes could be prefabricated of a new type of pre-stressed, reinforced concrete with a flexible ceramic external coating that would be relatively maintenance free, fireproof, and impervious to the weather. Their thin shell construction can be mass-produced in a matter of hours

isn't going to produce the desired results.

The video speaks about a computer in a TVP city, where a central dome has a facility equipped with
- holographic projection of a house
- architectural software
- voice commands (but that can be simplier, of course)
This Fresco says as an example of true democracy, to design your own house to be assembled on a chosen place (a while later, obviously). Of course, today a smart TV from Samsung could do the same job, maybe sans the voice recognition.

And secondly , how exactly does this solve the housing crises (unless it solves it because you can tell one building to be as big as you need)

By automated assembling and giving people a house of their own design and updating the design on demand if they wish so. The big and smaller machines that built the city stay in the city and serve to rebuild the parts that someone wants to have rebuilt.
To build another city, there must be machines that can build their own type and then a standard set of specialized city-building machines. Plus of course the cities nearby may loan their own spare capacities to make the process faster.

 

[Armitage]

So Prole, Vivre, it's obvious you don't share my (or Fresco's) values, opinions and yes, even beliefs. We can't communicate, because the language we have today is mostly hinting at shared values, which is what I've been doing mistakenly all the time. But there might be one thing we share.

The scientific method.

What happens, if people apply the scientific method to problems of housing, food production, medicine, transport, education and distribution?
I don't mean paying someone to do these jobs, or find a way to make profit out of these, but to use science. How would that work?

 

[PAB]

Fresco doesn't advocate Frescoism! He tells people to use scientific method to arrive at results. The scientific method is important, not what Fresco says. He said that himself in some video, but I can't keep track of them all. All that he designed is meant to be improved with science, it is not meant to stay the same.

So did Marx and Engles, urge the scientific method. And Marx also famously said he was not a Marxist. Sets of ideas and paradigms form isms...just saying ...if TVP doesn't end up in the dustbin of history and somehow makes some impact then it could easily become some form of ism such as Frescoism....but its all rather trivial

The video speaks about a computer in a TVP city, where a central dome has a facility equipped with
- holographic projection of a house
- architectural software
- voice commands (but that can be simplier, of course)
This Fresco says as an example of true democracy, to design your own house to be assembled on a chosen place (a while later, obviously). Of course, today a smart TV from Samsung could do the same job, maybe sans the voice recognition.

And secondly , how exactly does this solve the housing crises (unless it solves it because you can tell one building to be as big as you need)

By automated assembling and giving people a house of their own design and updating the design on demand if they wish so. The big and smaller machines that built the city stay in the city and serve to rebuild the parts that someone wants to have rebuilt.
To build another city, there must be machines that can build their own type and then a standard set of specialized city-building machines. Plus of course the cities nearby may loan their own spare capacities to make the process faster.

But this is what's so Utopian about TVP, and i don't mean in the sense of an ideal goal or aim..all political ideology and human aim should try to progress humanity (otherwise we would be stuck in nihilism and pessimism). I mean it is more "no Place", just an ideal abstracted from reality.

The housing crisis isn't because people don't like the houses they are offered, people aren't homeless and living in shanty towns due to the fact they didn't get to design their perfect home. The problem is that their is in many countries not enough housing, and secondly affordable housing is diminishing. That's the reality TVP side steps. You cant create these new houses on a private basis to solve the issue because then it can only be done to the restrictions of the market - effective demand. And to do it with government money would be tricky. Almost every single world government is in a bit of a pickle with their finances ...just to keep on top of things they will have to either take even more money from the poor or money from the rich. I.e. this is not technology...its politics. And even if you convince a government to carry out or help a TVP city project, the government money will have to be again taken from the poor or the rich - and who would the city belong to -the national government or Fresco...all of this is political action and it comes with consequences, consequences which are left unexplored because TVP relegates politics into some ancient outdated practice which computers can solve.

Also you mention "automated assembling" what does this mean, is this more future tech or is this existing tech. What im getting at is that you have stressed that TVP concerns using existing technology, im skeptical that this housing design is built, maintained and designed by existing tech....

 

[Armitage]

So did Marx and Engles, urge the scientific method. And Marx also famously said he was not a Marxist. Sets of ideas and paradigms form isms...just saying ...if TVP doesn't end up in the dustbin of history and somehow makes some impact then it could easily become some form of ism such as Frescoism....but its all rather trivial

Truth be told, I think science itself is becoming rather institutionalized, "scientistic". Conservative journals are conservative and the government funding even more so, subconsciously preferring big and expensive projects instead of small and efficient ones, in cases such as the cold fusion research.
In my opinion, this is due to monetary and power (comptetitive) motivations, factors that should be non-existent or negligible in TVP. (different environment and economy, different culture)

One thing that caught my eye in textbooks was... Other civilizations always had better technology, science and mathematics than Europeans, namely the Chinese, Arabians, Egyptians maybe... The problem is, they couldn't use it. They saw it as a part of sacred, occult or religious knowledge. However, the Western civilization used this knowledge in a secular way, for business, war, architecture... And so we left China far behind in development, though they had compass, gunpowder and paper for many centuries.

I feel we are in a similar situation today. We have our sacred traditions of unlimited private ownership, capitalism and representative, indirect democracy. This tradition says, "Thou shalt not give anyone anything for free" and yet it says "Thou shalt do thy best to get whatever thou can for free." The mythical hero of this tradition is an American self-mademan, who pulled himself up by his bootstraps.
We also have lots of very valuable and powerful scienfitic knowledge. Yet our sacred traditions do not allow us to use in a direct way to solve problems of everyday life. That would not allow the accumulation of wealth. Every problem in the world makes someone vulnerable... pardon, in need of our product. Solving his problem would destroy a market and create a competition. Businessmen don't help businessmen, they outcompete them, keep them down, get them bankrupt and buy out their business cheaply.

But this is what's so Utopian about TVP, and i don't mean in the sense of an ideal goal or aim..all political ideology and human aim should try to progress humanity (otherwise we would be stuck in nihilism and pessimism). I mean it is more "no Place", just an ideal abstracted from reality.

Maybe from our everyday world, projects such as military or NASA engineering of total enclosure systems (space suits, orbital stations) people have to design a living environment that takes care of people's needs without monetary economy. They are not self-sustainable of course save for energy, but space is not exactly an abundant environment. Earth is.

The housing crisis isn't because people don't like the houses they are offered, people aren't homeless and living in shanty towns due to the fact they didn't get to design their perfect home. The problem is that their is in many countries not enough housing, and secondly affordable housing is diminishing. That's the reality TVP side steps. You cant create these new houses on a private basis to solve the issue because then it can only be done to the restrictions of the market - effective demand.

TVP does not operate on a private, monetary or governmental basis. It is not limited by available money. TVP relies on building a sufficient infrastructure first, in this case, renewable energy infrastructure, thus eliminating the scarcity of energy. TVP relies on systematic automation and cybernation as a fundamental part of Fresco's design, thus decreasing the need for human labor. In principle, TVP is limited by available resources - steel, glass, concrete. However, there is a great resource of these - the modern urban architecture, aglomerations, suburbs and sprawl. Generic non-historical cities would be mined for resources to build TVP cities. The rest would become conserved as museums.

It is very easy to create abundance of let's say, housing, if the production is not limited by scarcity of money, energy and labor. It is necessary to use our best technology to overcome these scarcities, make them go away as much as the reality, the environment itself permits. The only thing to be respected is people's demand and the carrying capacity of the environment, both of which must be digitally queried and measured.

And to do it with government money would be tricky. Almost every single world government is in a bit of a pickle with their finances ...just to keep on top of things they will have to either take even more money from the poor or money from the rich. I.e. this is not technology...its politics. And even if you convince a government to carry out or help a TVP city project, the government money will have to be again taken from the poor or the rich - and who would the city belong to -the national government or Fresco...all of this is political action and it comes with consequences, consequences which are left unexplored because TVP relegates politics into some ancient outdated practice which computers can solve.

TVP needs the government money to build a single city as a research project. After this project is successful, TVP becomes a new open-source model of urban, industrial and economic design that every government may carry out on its own territory. The goal is of course to provide evidence that this model is very desirable in every sense on global scale, such as the technology of tractors would be desirable to a 16th century farmer, although it would mean a change of his life style and field layout.

The actual implementation of TVP would not use money or taxation in the classic sense. It would be rather similar to the economy's war effort during WW2, directly using resources to produce the needed technology. But unlike WW2, the model of TVP is the best investment that would pay off immensely and save much more resources in the future.
This somewhat controversial act would of course require to change the legal status of natural resources, such as coal or steel, into a universal heritage of mankind, not usable for private enterprise. However, it should not upset many people - most people do not care about the stuff of periodic tables and Earth's bowels. They vaguely know gold and silver, but they don't own the mines...

We can not let capitalism waste global resources for private profit, the resources must serve all humanity. Legal definition of ownership is not set in stone and states already often make exceptions in cases of natural resources. It is not legal in many states for a private person to own a coal mine, a gold mine, or a river, for example. Either we share all the natural resources and use an equivalent of TVP to use them efficiently, or we kill each other in wars for them. USA is only 5 % of world's population but consumes 20 % of global resources and 25 % of energy. It is also the most aggressive, invasive state with known history of attacking oil-rich regions.
This is unsustainable and unacceptable.
Everyone can enjoy even a higher standard of life than Americans, if we use the resources efficiently with newest technology and without the monetary system.

Also you mention "automated assembling" what does this mean, is this more future tech or is this existing tech. What im getting at is that you have stressed that TVP concerns using existing technology, im skeptical that this housing design is built, maintained and designed by existing tech....

TVP uses mainly the existing technologic level and possibilities, not all of which is actually today used for construction of buildings. For example, Fresco designed self-erecting buildings, based on the memory properties of certain metal alloys, that would erect themselves on spot if the metal wires or springs are heated. They would come pre-packaged, without the need to move too much heavy machinery into the urban area. Fresco also speaks how our architecture has too many columns and too little space, architects still think in terms of making heavy buildings out of stone, concrete, bricks... Fresco would rather work with carbon-reinforced ceramic-concrete shells, alloys and hardened glass and plastics. Glass can be today as hard as steel, even roads can be built of it.

This is reflected in the design of his buildings, he doesn't design them as heavy-set stone cubes, but more like... airplanes or ships. He was an engineer in aeronautics, after all!

There are three approaches to this, that I identified from Fresco's models and contemporary technology alternatives, also featured on TVP website.
- continuously extruded building structures and apartments which already have built-in all electronics and devices, ready to be moved on site and placed into some support tower with elevators
- separately produced (also extruded?) building parts, moved and assembled on site by automated cranes standing on four tanks (or whatever the hell it is)
- buildings formed on site by moving a concrete 3D printer on the place and "printing" the building there. This is a contemporary technology. Furthermore, I have heard of dome building method, basically inflating a huge balloon and coating its exterior with liquid concrete, then deflating and removing the balloon.

 

[Vivre]

Well Armitage, I don't think it's necessary to share the same opinions... to communicate on a subject, but it is beneficial to the dialog to share the understanding.

Having said that it would be good to know either what scientific method you think people could apply to solve problems or do you mean enable people to cope problems by addressing them via scientific strategy?

What do you mean by 'use science'?

 

[Armitage]

Well Armitage, I don't think it's necessary to share the same opinions... to communicate on a subject, but it is beneficial to the dialog to share the understanding.

Having said that it would be good to know either what scientific method you think people could apply to solve problems or do you mean enable people to cope problems by addressing them via scientific strategy?

What do you mean by 'use science'?

Use both scientific method and any of the contemporary knowledge already accumulated by science... to identify and solve problems.

In application to the problems of living and housing, first we have to measure carrying capacity of the land. We have to know how much food it can produce, what is the quality and amount of arable land, fresh water sources, possible energy sources and so on. From that we can determine how many people the land can comfortably carry without breaking down the ecosystem. This sets the limit for a number of people that can live in that area and for housing capacities to be built.

The premise is, Earth is abundant and if we measure and uphold the capacity of environment, it can accommodate even the present or greater numbers of people, without waste, suffering, conflict and war. It might however be necessary to build sea settlements, again, keeping up with the environmental capacity.

A scientist and engineer sees legal and political boundaries as artificial and unnecessary, even harmful. Historically, ownership is nonsense, people first steal land from native population and then make laws saying do not steal. Nobody actually created the natural resources, so who has the right to own them? Distribution of goods and services is just another scientific problem that may be solved through automation and cybernation. A scientist is concerned with real problems, such as land capacity, energy sources, food quantity, diseases and wearing out of body and mechanical devices...
Problems of law and politics are unreal and do not solve problems, do not make them go away. Bacteria, viruses, parasites and old age do not obey the government, economy or prayers. Only the knowledge and application of natural and social sciences actually increases our well-being.

 

[Vivre]

Oh well, it was as I feared a catchy question just to present some ready made solutions.

"What happens, if people apply the scientific method to problems of ...." [whatever]?

Hypothesis: They will start to think for themselves, become fairly independent and come up with an unforeseeable amount of creative solutions ... and start arguing about it ... start building specialized groups and inter-share means and professions ... develope a kind of 'transfer-value'

I doubt this will lead anywhere ... :!:

 

[Armitage]

Oh well, it was as I feared a catchy question just to present some ready made solutions.

"What happens, if people apply the scientific method to problems of ...." [whatever]?

Hypothesis: They will start to think for themselves, become fairly independent and come up with an unforeseeable amount of creative solutions ... and start arguing about it ... start building specialized groups and inter-share means and professions ... develope a kind of 'transfer-value'

I doubt this will lead anywhere ... :!:

Quite opposite. Science can and does solve problems and extend our possibilities. Science has also a way of achieving consensus, or as close as we can get to it in reality. Any solution is good, practicality of its application is the ultimate test. And this application is based on engineering. Engineers and certain branches of science have a special language. It is a language that can not be interpreted in any but one possible way. There is no way to argue in this language. It is the language of blueprint, chemical formula, computer code, mathematics... If you make a blueprint of a car and give it to a Chinese engineer on the other side of the world, you'll get a car that will drive just as well as if you gave the blueprint to an English engineer.
And then anyone can pick the blueprint and improve upon it in countless ways, the countless ways being tracked by GitHub, an online service of version tracking, that allows many people to work on a single piece of software. Don't ask me how it works, but it's amazing, says someone who worked almost two years on a game and had to swap the file with a buddy, doing nothing in meantime.

Have some trust in science and objectivity, man! Don't succumb to the despair and doubt of of post-modernism! The rational values of enlightenment are still alive. So I just had read in my sociologic textbook. The problem are our modern institutions that do not ask whether a scientific knowledge is true, but what is the use? Is it marketable? Is it powerful?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Let us make one think very clear. You are not a scientist, you are not an engineer. Thus you are not qualified to say what scientists or engineers can or can't do, or that should or shouldn't do. PERIOD

Having said that, your views are extremely naive, to much up Fresco's ass for you to be able to see reality.
Not everybody is an engineer, not everybody is a scientists, not everybody is an artist. Most people don't have a clue about any of those things, you must live in a society where those people exist, you have to live in a society where people have conflict of interests, you have to live in a society where there are people who can't work, where there are people who wont work, where we live in poverty if not for man power, where there are people who's only intent is to do harm.
And before you try to peddle that bullshit that there is no such thing as human nature, something that Fresco's in his abject ignorance spoon feed you, like so:

The evolution decided that the best way for human survival is to develop a huge brain capacity on top of the older brain, that is completely free to learn anything that it gets born into. This is why there is no human nature. Humans have no nature, except the huge capacity to believe and copy cultures and ideas and behaviors they see as their own.

Bare in mind that it is to much proved that there is a correlation between genetics and aggression, the same way genetics also plays a part in IQ, self esteem and allot other personality traits. Infants are instinctively afraid of the dark (something that you have to learn to overcome), they smile when they are happy and they cry when something afflicts them, they naturally form superstitions and shame of sex. Although culture is not genetic, the ability to assimilate culture, the capacity for innovation, and all behavior in general is. And how could it not be this way? We need a brain to process this higher forms of abstractions, and what is a brain if not an evolved organ?

And by the way, I am still waiting for an answer to those problems I have pointed out earlier. Have they answered you yet?
The Venus project is nothing but a senile and naive view of an Utopian future still stuck in the 80's.
It says dumb shit like combining innovation and prefabrication.

My suggestion to you is that you stop for a second, take a step back and then take a good look at it.

 

[Armitage]

Let us make one think very clear. You are not a scientist, you are not an engineer. Thus you are not qualified to say what scientists or engineers can or can't do, or that should or shouldn't do. PERIOD

Having said that, your views are extremely naive, to much up Fresco's ass for you to be able to see reality.
Not everybody is an engineer, not everybody is a scientists, not everybody is an artist. Most people don't have a clue about any of those things, you must live in a society where those people exist, you have to live in a society where people have conflict of interests, you have to live in a society where there are people who can't work, where there are people who wont work, where we live in poverty if not for man power, where there are people who's only intent is to do harm.

There are relatively few farmers today, yet there doesn't seem to be shortage of food. In fact, the more farmers a country has, the more hunger. And even though there are relatively few engineers and scientists too, there doesn't seem to be a lack of technology around us.
Why? Because the technology made both agriculture and engineering so effective, that we can have this greatly wasteful modern market of all kinds of products, most of which never last and are quickly replaced.

And just like I don't have to be a farmer in order to eat, I don't have to be an engineer to know the technologic level of today and what applications could it have if it was not limited by monetary system. How do I get to know these things? I look them up on Youtube and listen to Fresco, who happens to be an engineer. TVP does not require everyone or even most people to be scientists and engineers. Or artists.
However, our current monetary system suffers from the same flaw that you accuse TVP of: it does require almost everyone to become workers, employees and earn money, even though most of these jobs do not actually contribute to well-being of others. (most worthwhile jobs were taken over by technology, but people still need to earn money) More so, capitalism requires someone to stay at home and care for family and home, which is an unpaid labor so even this becomes difficult. From this point of view the monetary system is a great waste of human potential and creativity. People at work learn nothing, they do not get better, because the work is not interesting to them and they don't bring up better children.
Sociologists like Georg Simmel noticed, that people do not have more freedom today than our ancestors, they only can choose which institution to serve, which factory to work at. This creates an illusion of choice, an illusion of freedom, but did not increase our capacity.

And before you try to peddle that bullshit that there is no such thing as human nature, something that Fresco's in his abject ignorance spoon feed you, like so:

The evolution decided that the best way for human survival is to develop a huge brain capacity on top of the older brain, that is completely free to learn anything that it gets born into. This is why there is no human nature. Humans have no nature, except the huge capacity to believe and copy cultures and ideas and behaviors they see as their own.

Bare in mind that it is to much proved that there is a correlation between genetics and aggression, the same way genetics also plays a part in IQ, self esteem and allot other personality traits. Infants are instinctively afraid of the dark (something that you have to learn to overcome), they smile when they are happy and they cry when something afflicts them, they naturally form superstitions and shame of sex. Although culture is not genetic, the ability to assimilate culture, the capacity for innovation, and all behavior in general is. And how could it not be this way? We need a brain to process this higher forms of abstractions, and what is a brain if not an evolved organ?

Surely there are individual variations, but humanity is so interbred, that it averages out. Fresco places more emphasis on epigenetics, the changes during pre-natal development that switch certain genes on and off depending on how the mother feels. If the mother experiences lots of stress and malnutrition, it affects the baby epigenetically. For example, stress means increased testosteron levels and testosteron makes the developing brain more left-hemisphere-oriented, more "male", more autistic, oriented at systems and problem-solving instead of forming social bonds. Epigenetics can be inherited, but it's not set in stone. Another argument in favor of engineering the environment, new generations in a favorable environment will be literally different people.

The only area where I'd believe genetic aggresivity plays a role would be the Yanomamo tribes in Venezuela, where 40 % of adults used to participate in a homicide and stealing women, thus passing 2,5 times more of their genes forward.

And by the way, I am still waiting for an answer to those problems I have pointed out earlier. Have they answered you yet?
The Venus project is nothing but a senile and naive view of an Utopian future still stuck in the 80's.
It says dumb shit like combining innovation and prefabrication.

My suggestion to you is that you stop for a second, take a step back and then take a good look at it.

I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to understand where's the point in your arguments before and I doubt I got so wiser in meantime. As you know, people may read Bible for decades without noticing anything wrong with it. You could however try to re-phrase them in a new way, maybe something will click.

What if you said how do you imagine the technology is supposed to be used? What is so awesome about the monetary system that does us so much good and uses our resources and engineers so efficiently?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

What part of "you are not qualified to say what scientists or engineers can or can't do, or that should or shouldn't do", you do not understand?

There are relatively few farmers today,

And?

yet there doesn't seem to be shortage of food.

Except of course in places like the African continent , India, almost every desert, dictatorships like North Korea.
But don't let that stop you, go on, Your point Was?

In fact, the more farmers a country has, the more hunger.

So your plan to end world hunger is to abolish farmers?

And even though there are relatively few engineers and scientists too, there doesn't seem to be a lack of technology around us.

And?

Why? Because the technology made both agriculture and engineering so effective, that we can have this greatly wasteful modern market of all kinds of products, most of which never last and are quickly replaced.

And? I still haven't heard the part where this would be any good to make the Venus Project function.

And just like I don't have to be a farmer in order to eat, I don't have to be an engineer to know the technologic level of today and what applications could it have if it was not limited by monetary system.

No, Wrong. You don't need to be a farmer to eat, nor you don't need to be an engineer to use the technology. Just because you can use the technology it doesn't mean you know squat about it. What you think you know about technology is simply trivia from the users perspective, you ain't got a clue on how to build a phone or how it even works in principle in order for you to be able to press some keys and then you are talking to the right person on the other end.

How do I get to know these things?

You don't know these things!

I look them up on Youtube and listen to Fresco, who happens to be an engineer.

[sarcasm]Ah yes, another Youtube graduate. How could I ever put into question the knowledge you collected by listening to a senile old man on the internet.[/sarcasm]
The guy could even be Richard Feynman for all I care, if it is bunk it is bunk. You say he is an engineer as that would somehow impress me, well I'm an engineer to, so what now? Now I am here talking in the first person, the argument you are making is "I don't know, but look at this awesome guy that should have known", but the bottom line is you don't know. If Fresco wants to argue with me on how I am wrong, then I can talk to him, not to you. If you want to talk to me you have to bring me something that you yourself understand otherwise there is no point, I can talk you and tell you what is wrong but that wouldn't make any difference because you have no clue.

However, our current monetary system suffers from the same flaw that you accuse TVP of: it does require almost everyone to become workers, employees and earn money,

It is not the same flaw, it is not even a flaw. Welcome to the real world where things like laptops don't grow on trees, even if it did there would still be the necessity for workers to tend to those trees and pickup the laptops. Life is tough, do you want those laptops? those widescreen tv's, fully equipped kitchens, gas water and electricity in your house (not to mention the house itself), nice furniture, a nice car. Well you got to work for that shit, and the guy who makes all that shit, he has to work his ass off for you to get it. You talk like some overprivileged rich kid who gets everything from daddy and didn't had to work one day of his life to get anything, things don't spontaneously appear in the supermarket.

even though most of these jobs do not actually contribute to well-being of others.

Says Who?

From this point of view this is a great waste of human potential and creativity. People at work learn nothing, they do not get better, because the work is not interesting to them.

Should it?

Sociologists like Georg Simmel noticed, that people do not have more freedom today than our ancestors, they only can choose which institution to serve, which factory to work at. This creates an illusion of choice, an illusion of freedom, but did not increase our capacity.

If I wanted to argue with Georg Simmel I would have talked to him. However since he is not here, all I have to say is that this is categorically wrong, ask your own grandparents, maybe you would learn a few things.

Surely there are individual variations, but humanity is so interbred, that it averages out.

Says who?
Even if so, Does that make a killer less deadly just because on average everybody is a good guy? Plus I am not talking about things that some rare amount of people may have, I am talking about things that are predominant in almost every human being.

Fresco places more emphasis on epigenetics, the changes during pre-natal development that switch certain genes on and off depending on how the mother feels. If the mother experiences lots of stress and malnutrition, it affects the baby epigenetically. For example, stress means increased testosteron levels and testosteron makes the developing brain more left-hemisphere-oriented, more "male", more autistic, oriented at systems and problem-solving instead of forming social bonds. Epigenetics can be inherited, but it's not set in stone. Another argument in favor of engineering the environment, new generations in a favorable environment will be literally different people.

That is woo! Is Fresco a biologist now?

I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to understand where's the point in your arguments before and I doubt I got so wiser in meantime. As you know, people may read Bible for decades without noticing anything wrong with it. You could however try to re-phrase them in a new way, maybe something will click.

No something will never click, no matter how much physics I have to teach you. It can't click, it is wrong! And the faster you admit this, the better it will be for your sanity.

What if you said how do you imagine the technology is supposed to be used? What is so awesome about the monetary system that does us so much good and uses our resources and engineers so efficiently?

For one it gives a motive to compete. But I digress, I am not defending the monetary system, I'm demolishing the TVP system.

 

[Armitage]

What part of "you are not qualified to say what scientists or engineers can or can't do, or that should or shouldn't do", you do not understand?

Is THAT what do you say?
Am I qualified to say what scientists and engineers already did? I hope so - they can build ocean liners, oil rigs, Olympic towns, dams, aircraft carriers, submarines... And most notably, they can build quite amazing and hi-tech buildings and artificial islands in Dubai.

Well, fuck me, I think this is pretty impressive. Who the hell am I to doubt they could build a mere TVP city? Of course they can.

[

So your plan to end world hunger is to abolish farmers?

To provide a better alternative, to make something obsolete with better technology is not abolishing and it already happened in many areas.

The question is, do you agree that technology can decrease and replace human labor? Last time I checked, I haven't seen people hauling buckets of water and sheets of ice from the river.

No, Wrong. You don't need to be a farmer to eat, nor you don't need to be an engineer to use the technology. Just because you can use the technology it doesn't mean you know squat about it. What you think you know about technology is simply trivia from the users perspective, you ain't got a clue on how to build a phone or how it even works in principle in order for you to be able to press some keys and then you are talking to the right person on the other end.

It's meaningless what you or I think. Look at the achievements of technology. What about trying to use them in a unified way? Making them fit together? Let's say, what if cargo ships weren't unloaded by one container after another, but the whole loading section would come off? What if cities weren't built with random layout and size of streets, but in such a way that all apartments are equally distant from the central district, would that shorten bus paths? Last time I checked, a circle had the shortest circumference from all geometric shapes.

The guy could even be Richard Feynman for all I care, if it is bunk it is bunk. You say he is an engineer as that would somehow impress me, well I'm an engineer to, so what now? Now I am here talking in the first person, the argument you are making is "I don't know, but look at this awesome guy that should have known", but the bottom line is you don't know. If Fresco wants to argue with me on how I am wrong, then I can talk to him, not to you. If you want to talk to me you have to bring me something that you yourself understand otherwise there is no point, I can talk you and tell you what is wrong but that wouldn't make any difference because you have no clue.

The things I understand are inter-disciplinary, social, economic, political, legal, philosophic and psychologic aspects of TVP, are you interested in these?

It is not the same flaw, it is not even a flaw. Welcome to the real world where things like laptops don't grow on trees, even if it did there would still be the necessity for workers to tend to those trees and pickup the laptops. Life is tough, do you want those laptops? those widescreen tv's, fully equipped kitchens, gas water and electricity in your house (not to mention the house itself), nice furniture, a nice car. Well you got to work for that shit, and the guy who makes all that shit, he has to work his ass off for you to get it. You talk like some overprivileged rich kid who gets everything from daddy and didn't had to work one day of his life to get anything, things don't spontaneously appear in the supermarket.

The question is, how long and in what way do I have to work for this shit? What amount of work did it take in 19th century, then in 20th century and now in 21st century? What amount of work can it take if human element is replaced with modern automation? Is it possible to decrease the human element even further, by a special interconnected design of machinery, product models and transport systems?

I'm not a rich kid, I'm a poor kid. I worked most of my life with stuff like coal, wood, gravel and dung on a small household farm. I saved some money, got out of there and now I'm at the university. I had half a year at car factory of conveyor belt labor, worst six months of my life.

even though most of these jobs do not actually contribute to well-being of others.

Says Who?[/quote] Statisticians, psychologists, doctors, policemen, judges, prison guards, victims...

From this point of view this is a great waste of human potential and creativity. People at work learn nothing, they do not get better, because the work is not interesting to them.

Should it?

Of course it should! Look up the Dan Pink TEDx speech. Interesting work increases productivity and helps new solutions to old problems.

Surely there are individual variations, but humanity is so interbred, that it averages out.

Says who?
Even if so, Does that make a killer less deadly just because on average everybody is a good guy? Plus I am not talking about things that some rare amount of people may have, I am talking about things that are predominant in almost every human being.

There is a genetic research on aggression and it gives results. However, genes that increase agressivity do not seem significant compared to environment until there's about 8 genes known to cause aggressivity. Usually environment is principal in triggering and expression of the aggressive behavior.
OTOH, a bad environment may change a completely genetically "clean" person into a serial killer, gang killer, drunk killer, thief... Bad childhood experiences and so on.
The problem is, in the corrupt culture and environment any kind of genetic or behavioral difference becomes a problem, a source of conflict and a possible "cause" of violence. Be it a psychosis or autistic spectrum disorder that have 70-100 % rates of becoming victims of bullying or sexual abuse depending on gender. From the hands of "normal" people. Therefore, science is unable to solve the problem of violence at genetic level. It just can't be done, neither with Ritalin and Zoloft. Nobody can drug the whole culture or drag it on a psychiatrist's couch.
So the obvious thing is to try redesigning the way of living, the environment and culture. Our culture is violent, competitive, obsessed with sexuality and scared of it, undergoing waves of addictions and distractions, in short, completely psychotic. Lots of things that wouldn't be problem otherwise are a problem.

The best thing we can do is to design a method of living that can sustain people without perpetuating the corrupt culture.

That is woo! Is Fresco a biologist now?

So your argument is, to make an argument from some area, one has to have academic credentials from that area. I for one would like to see your credentials in physics.

What if you said how do you imagine the technology is supposed to be used? What is so awesome about the monetary system that does us so much good and uses our resources and engineers so efficiently?

For one it gives a motive to compete. But I digress, I am not defending the monetary system, I'm demolishing the TVP system.

And you think this is good? Have you ever seen an equal, fair competition? Even symbolic competition of the sports is ridden with drugs, steroids and backstage deals. Now real competition for jobs, markets and paychecks is just as dirty.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well, fuck me, I think this is pretty impressive. Who the hell am I to doubt they could build a mere TVP city? Of course they can.

And who the hell are you to say that they should?

The question is, do you agree that technology can decrease and replace human labor? Last time I checked, I haven't seen people hauling buckets of water and sheets of ice from the river.

It can in principle. That however never happens in practice. There is more employment now than there was 200 years ago.

No, Wrong. You don't need to be a farmer to eat, nor you don't need to be an engineer to use the technology. Just because you can use the technology it doesn't mean you know squat about it. What you think you know about technology is simply trivia from the users perspective, you ain't got a clue on how to build a phone or how it even works in principle in order for you to be able to press some keys and then you are talking to the right person on the other end.

It's meaningless what you or I think. Look at the achievements of technology. What about trying to use them in a unified way? Making them fit together?

No, bullshit! You are technologically illiterate, don't try to blow smoke on my face.

Let's say, what if cargo ships weren't unloaded by one container after another, but the whole loading section would come off? What if cities weren't built with random layout and size of streets, but in such a way that all apartments are equally distant from the central district, would that shorten bus paths? Last time I checked, a circle had the shortest circumference from all geometric shapes.

Do you want to still pretend you are qualified? Ok, lets play that game.
Lets analyse your loading sections idea.
How would the containers get on the loading section exactly? And what would I gain from loading containers into a loading section instead of just loading stuff into the ship? Nothing! Actually you lose, because now you need a bigger lift to load the loading sections into the boat, and extra step that could have been saved by just loading the things into the damn boat to start with. And what happens to the boat while the loading sections are being loaded? Well that is right, its stays there until the loading sections are returned. [sarcasm]But wait, I have a better idea, why not make each loading section the capability to float on its own and go to the destination without needing a boat? Wouldn't that be awesome?.... What we already got that? What's it called?... a goat? a moat?[/sarcasm] Yeah it's called a boat!
So what about your city planing?
Why does every apartment need to exactly at the same distance from the central district? Why does there even need to be a central district? If you want the apartments closer to the central district why not build them right besides it? ... [sarcasm]What was that again? Circles aren't efficient at compacting apartment, and people wouldn't like to live in banana shaped houses? You don't say?[/sarcasm] Ok, what happens when you get out of your apartment and want to do business lets say in the other side of town? Well you got 2 options, or you either go around or go trough the hub. What happens if we go trough the hub? Grid lock, because you designed a traffic system where half of the entire town will try to use it concurrently paths. Ok, so what happens if we try to go around? Well it takes a long ass time, not to mention that the trams are padded full because the other half of the town decided to go around. You have just concentrated every human being into few alternatives instead of dissipating the traffic.
Now what happens when cities become to big, lets say 2 million 3 million people? What are you going to do then? There is no way anyone will want to spend hours in traffic to go about their daily business, so pretty soon you will another city. How will you connect those cities together?...What was that again about circles wasting tones of space?
Ok, lets say you would try to do it. What will you do about water lines and topographical irregularities? Are you going to flatten the entire world? And what about the different soils? Not every construction can be done on every soil, are you going to revolve all the soil as well?
Do you know what would be better, decentralized cities, with mostly square blocks when possible so that you can efficiently pack and harmonize the city, you try to flatten within reason but you will follow the contours of the terrain and avoid water lines, so that it doesn't take forever to build a city with to much human cost and your house doesn't get flooded. How about that? Wouldn't that be nice?

The things I understand are inter-disciplinary, social, economic, political, legal, philosophic and psychologic aspects of TVP, are you interested in these?

No you don't. You think you do, but you don't. You are as arrogant as you are ignorant.

The question is, how long and in what way do I have to work for this shit?

As long as it takes. If we could have done better we would, but we can't so we don't and that is that.
And before you give the predictable response "but we can figure it out if we work at it", well then figure it out!.... Have you figure it out yet? What you can't because you are not an engineer? Well that is to bad ain't it? How hypocrite is that?

I'm not a rich kid, I'm a poor kid. I worked most of my life with stuff like coal, wood, gravel and dung on a small household farm. I saved some money, got out of there and now I'm at the university. I had half a year at car factory of conveyor belt labor, worst six months of my life.

Doubt it! If you did, then you should have known better.

even though most of these jobs do not actually contribute to well-being of others.

Says Who?

Statisticians, psychologists, doctors, policemen, judges, prison guards, victims...

Bullshit! Do not evade the point. By what standard do you measure that most of the jobs do nothing to contribute to the well-being of others?
You don't need to answer that, you just pulled that out of your own ass.

Of course it should! Look up the Dan Pink TEDx speech. Interesting work increases productivity and helps new solutions to old problems.

If I wanted to argue with Dan Pink, I would have talked to him instead. This is the second time I am calling you into the attention to not commit the fallacy of "X says that". Now tell me how would an interesting working environment increase the creativity of a factory worker on a production line?

There is a genetic research on aggression and it gives results. However, genes that increase agressivity do not seem significant compared to environment until there's about 8 genes known to cause aggressivity. Usually environment is principal in triggering and expression of the aggressive behavior.
OTOH, a bad environment may change a completely genetically "clean" person into a serial killer, gang killer, drunk killer, thief... Bad childhood experiences and so on.
The problem is, in the corrupt culture and environment any kind of genetic or behavioral difference becomes a problem, a source of conflict and a possible "cause" of violence. Be it a psychosis or autistic spectrum disorder that have 70-100 % rates of becoming victims of bullying or sexual abuse depending on gender. From the hands of "normal" people.

How would you fix that? By enacting a broken culture like TVP? And what point were trying to make with this exactly?

Therefore, science is unable to solve the problem of violence at genetic level. It just can't be done, neither with Ritalin and Zoloft. Nobody can drug the whole culture or drag it on a psychiatrist's couch.

Actually science can, but what was the argument you were trying to make????? Thank you for making the case for me, I guess?

So the obvious thing is to try redesigning the way of living, the environment and culture. Our culture is violent, competitive,

Obviously not, humans are naturally competitive.

obsessed with sexuality and scared of it,

We are sexual animals, and naturally predispose to fear being caught having sex because of the genetic conditions of our great ancestors, what else were we supposed to do?

undergoing waves of addictions and distractions, in short, completely psychotic.

You can thank your brain for it.

Lots of things that wouldn't be problem otherwise are a problem.

They are, always will be, because we are human beings. What you are asking is that we stop being humans.

The best thing we can do is to design a method of living that can sustain people without perpetuating the corrupt culture.

There is, it is called law and law enforcement.

So your argument is, to make an argument from some area, one has to have academic credentials from that area.

If you are going to make such sweeping abject statements, then you must absolutely do. Else on what are you basing those statements on? In Fresco's case, its out of his ass.

I for one would like to see your credentials in physics.

You could if I wasn't anonymous. But then again I don't have to prove shit to you.

What if you said how do you imagine the technology is supposed to be used? What is so awesome about the monetary system that does us so much good and uses our resources and engineers so efficiently?

For one it gives a motive to compete. But I digress, I am not defending the monetary system, I'm demolishing the TVP system.

And you think this is good? Have you ever seen an equal, fair competition? Even symbolic competition of the sports is ridden with drugs, steroids and backstage deals. Now real competition for jobs, markets and paychecks is just as dirty.

Bullshit! Why would the corruption in sports be an argument against the fact that "need gives a motive to compete and competition increases productivity that otherwise wouldn't be available"?

 

[Vivre]

Have some trust in science and objectivity, man!

Might take that into consideration after transgendering.

The rational values of enlightenment are still alive.

That takes the biscuit ~

~ That knocks the bottom right out of the barrel.


You are dreaming - Wake up Man!
You are wasting your precious life as second hand menial of a recursivism

PLEASE
_ Don't preach science
__ Learn scientific methods
___ Practice scientific thinking