Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: we need a resource based economy!!!

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, 12:53 p.m. EST by arjang1a (54)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Please checkout:

thevenusproject.com

zeitgeist 1 the movie

zeitgeist addendum

zeitgeist moving forward

all free on youtube!!!

149 Comments

149 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 13 years ago

............

    Americans are more afraid of the word 'socialism' 
      than they are of cancer, hiv or world war III.
        and they will fight it to their graves …

    Calm down people, you are only fighting a 'word' …    
      Neither socialism or capitalism exist in nature 
                  without the other…
           Alone they are mere philosophies… 

   Socialism without capitalistic freedom & incentives 
            will fail just as miserably as 
            Capitalism without regulation 
              has just demonstrated... 

  We can build a "true democracy" founded on the dreams 
           of all mankind & all ideologies...
                   We are the 99%


                     ............

                    OccupyWallSt

If your going to tax anything... Tax Greed & Corruption ... 

         that is our largest Natural Resource ...

                   We are the 99%


               ............
[-] 2 points by BHicks4ever (180) 13 years ago

I disagree that socialism needs capitalistic freedoms. Freedom is not a capitalist characteristic, socialism can have freedoms and if done right have many more freedoms.

[-] -2 points by poorconservative (2) 13 years ago

humans are greedy by nature. the average american has 16,000 in credit card debt alone. . not only wall street is greedy. I would say 99% of americans are greedy.

[-] 3 points by Heylo (14) 13 years ago

humans beings are not greedy by nature. research EGALITARIAN TRIBES. Consumer society needs to end. We have been trained to be consumers, its not natural. We have been manipulated. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12642.htm

[-] 3 points by Kman (171) 13 years ago

This is a good point. We have been a highly consumerist society and those attitudes need to change. But it was corporate America, of course, that manipulated our minds over decades to think and behave that way ... check out this series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUYFr-uDQgg

[-] 1 points by Juanitho182 (30) 13 years ago

there is no such things by nature, if you see zeitgeist moving forward it will explain to you, in fact there is no evil or good people, there is people who was affected by the environment where they develop,or do you think that a baby born greedy?

[-] 4 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 13 years ago

I've emailed the venus project! They said Jacques would speak in the protest if you guys organize an event for him!

[-] 3 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 13 years ago

He pretty much invented the resource base economy concept. You guys need to give him a chance to share his vision with the world.

[-] 1 points by Juanitho182 (30) 13 years ago

so then lets spread the message.

[-] 1 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

well i talked to jacque in person just weeks ago, i can help if you want to get something organized

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 13 years ago

I'm going to the protest in Miami though.

I would gladly organize something for the protest here :D

And its closer for him so I think it'd be more convenient.

But I'd understand if he would rather go to New York where the spot-lites are though.

[-] 1 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

really?

[-] 3 points by Sovjet (19) from Mačvanski Prnjavor, Central Serbia 13 years ago

NO more ideologies! NO more Philosophies! This is urgent! Our children will suffer from our irresponsibility! There is no more time to waste, it is our best solution.WE are sentient, WE are humans, WE have our right to control ourselves, non shall control US, WE shall protect US, THIS is our home planet, WE have our right to live anywhere, consume anything, do whatever as long as it does not compromise our collective security

[-] 3 points by thiagoaq (9) from Brasília, DF 13 years ago

Pleople should study more the subject before fighting against it.

So far the best choice we got is The Venus Project!

We either start organizing it or I'm afraid of the consequences.

[-] 4 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

thank you finalyl someone with a brain

People are soo ignorant. Instead of actually giving the movies a chance, they ask me a bunch of questions that are ALL explained fully in the movies, but they are too goddamn lazy to check it out and then run here on the forum insulting me and others

[-] 3 points by Kman (171) 13 years ago

I like what the Zeitgeist Movement says about a RBE, but their overall message, I think, is a little over the top. We should definitely figure out how to implement a RBE.

[-] 3 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

its alraedy been figured out. There is a database of scientists, researchers, doctors, engineers, and more all tied into this, and once the world decides to get it's shiit together, this can be implemented globally within a 10 year period.

Right now its not about whether it can be implemented, its about raising awareness to the world about the potential of an RBE

[-] 2 points by Kman (171) 13 years ago

I'll support it if we get there arjang. The one thing that I agree with, but think a majority of people will have a problem with, is the religion issue. That will be an uphill battle convincing them that their beliefs are myths. Of course everything we're talking about is an uphill battle.

[-] 3 points by BillB (14) 13 years ago

A Resource Based Economy will come to be either before, after the planet is ruined near completely or sooner. So why not sooner?

Zeitgeist has some ideas on that. I agree with their analysis of the current systems and effects of socioeconomic stress/inequality but don't agree with a few things.

A Resource Based Economy not just should be given careful consideration. It MUST come to be since the lack of a resource based economy is what is seriously ruining every life source system on the planet as well as our genes and bodies and health.

[-] 2 points by Kman (171) 13 years ago

I agree

[-] 3 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

hitler tried it? really? come and lets have a talk, and i can rip your argument to pieces. NO ONE has tried this, it's unlike ANYTHING tried by man, and if we do not wake the FUK up, we're fukin doomed.

Come and lets have a discussion, I really want to see, what is this thing that hitler tried, and if it has ANY relation to what the aims of the venus project is

[-] 1 points by 666isMONEY (348) 13 years ago

Hitler bartered finished goods for raw materials. Germany had no gold after the Great War. Another interesting thing about National Socialism was one of the major party program planks was to abolish interest. Hitler beat what he called "The Jewish banking system." If he was allowed to go on as he did, the workers of the world would-have adopted national Socialism 'cause they would-have seen how good it was for the worker.

Muammar Gadaffi believed in eliminating money, so did Fidel Castro & Pol Pot. That's why they got demonized and slandered. (Noam Chomsky wrote a good book about Pol Pot called, "After the Cataclysm.")

[-] 0 points by kazoo55 (195) from Rijs, FR 13 years ago

Don't take the bait - it's a waste of energy.

[-] 1 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

really...waste of energy?

Whats the bait? You know its shit like this that confuses me. People on this site all want to ramble their garbage and never actually debate something.

Its not a bunch of garbage, your just not patient enough to educate yourself fully on it

[-] 2 points by AnObserver (9) 13 years ago

Is it so hard to extrapolate the trends of today? Where will we be 500 years from now? How about 10,000 years? Will we be here at all? We the people, have plundered this planet so much in the last century alone. Ecosystems and wild life have suffered and are going extinct every year. Resources are being depleted faster than consumerism can consume and landfills are becoming landmarks. While there are laws which fight to protect these very systems, all laws are for sale in the open market regardless of regulations. Ironically, those who attain the wealth to lobby the laws in their favor, do not always do so in the interest of all. As Jacque would say, we've been given this beautiful gift, and we're lousing it up! I find that to be an understatement.

While many innovations and achievements have come from this economic model, it has served its purpose and is now doing more harm than good. If we choose to continue this path, needless to say, I do not foresee the human race nor any other species surviving the next thousand years. A term coined "The death of birth". Technology is the vehicle which has accelerated so much destruction through its application via economic policy. Now is the time to utilize our knowledge and technology to realize a new way of life, a new standard of living. Not for the privileged, but for We The People.

I have fully studied the resource based economy amongst dated social practices and theories of the past. I am part of this human race and I support this direction. All arguments I've seen against it have been driven by lack of awareness and traditional assumptions, and while some may dispute valid technical points, there's nothing which cannot eventually be agreed upon and worked out when understanding the values and principles. Thank you for reading and remember to consider the gravity of the situation.

[-] 2 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

THANK YOU! I would like to create a database with people like you, keep membership and have it grow, then we can take to wall street or any other protest to debate with people. I mean, I really take a nice deep breath of air when I see someone who actually gives a shit about the future. Again thanks pal, your making my job easier

[-] 1 points by AnObserver (9) 13 years ago

I'd be thankful to help in anyway possible. Thank you.

[-] 2 points by 5thelement (27) 13 years ago

We need to forget about all these systems and 'isms. We can only move forward, but we have to come up with newer, better, smarter, simpler systems that benefit everyone. We've made mistakes (and lots of them) and its about time we learned from them. We now know what works and what doesn't.

[-] 2 points by 5thelement (27) 13 years ago

Some of these ideas are good. One thing is for sure and that is that new, simpler, smarter systems are needed to improve our situation.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

A resource based economy will eventually have to happen. We NEED the authority to see ANY demand met first.-----

Get the sequence right or see all resource destroyed by the nwo who is currently working to usurp the authority we NEED to protect resource.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/only-1-demand-includes-all-others-article-v-of-the/

[-] 1 points by pygmalion (24) 13 years ago

At 63 i support TZM/TVP/RBE and OWS 100%. Don't u c how we have cum 2gether as a global family frustrated as hell bcause every aspect of our lives (& the earth) has been corrupted/polluted almost 2 the 'point of no return.' These events have brought us 2gether so that we cud finally b introduced to something in the works 4 80 years. Jacque Fresco has the outline for a lifeboat 2 a sinking ship. Check this out, if ur really interested in getting off the merry-go-round. I feel deep in my gut a Resource Based Economy CAN work. It's the lyrics of John Lennon's "Imagine" made manifest. How awesom is that!! Let's face it, the money system is dying. Let's allow a new paradigm 2 b born. If at 63 i can change my value system i think this young generation can use technology wisely along w/r knowledge and resources to reclaim the earth and provide 4 everyone. If you're religious, a RBE is like God in action. Your kids/grandkids will thank you. Time to graduate & eventually say "take this job & shove it" YOU KIDS ROCK! Love - Mamma D "^_^" Ohio

[-] 1 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

Hey man I got a question for you, how come at 63 you changed your way of thinking about the world?

Cuz I have an uncle and he is 65, he will take YEARS for me to change as I have already tried with no avail.

But what happened in your life to make you change? I wanna know please describe it in length because this (advocating TVP) is literally my life and I need to get very good at interacting with people

[-] 1 points by pygmalion (24) 13 years ago

Sorry it took so long. I guess it wud b around 1992 when my world came crashing down w/regards: work, religion, marriage, kids and several family deaths. The institutions/expectations of how i was told "things wud be" didn't hold water. Began looking into alternative therapies after a back injury which brought me 2 a holistic bookstore, which brought me 2 meditation, yoga, etc (which 4 me was almost blasphemy being raised Catholic). One thing led 2 another & i opened up 2 (for example) books about other religions/philosophies/spirituality, etc. To my surprise the earth didn't open & swallow me up. There is more 2 this story but let's just say that "you cannot feed someone who is full" My husband & i have lived paycheck 2 paycheck for 41 years and the next step is usually to sell ur house & move 2 apartment (cause it's too hard to maintain anymore). The next step is out o/t apartment & into nursing home where they take all ur $$ and give u maybe $40/month to spend (which is where my mom is now) & then u sit there & wait to die. OH BOY, what a great life that is huh? Anyway, i opened 2 new ideas but my husband & many around me (even 1 of my kids) just "don't wanna hear about it" This system keeps everybody so very busy w/school, kids, jobs, bills, maintenance on house/apt, car, etc, etc, etc that they r too tired or frustrated 2 hear about all the crap or to even hear about a way out. So i keep 2 myself in the family & do my thing as a granny armchair activist because i KNOW in my gut a RBE can work. We're simply moving from the industrial age to the technological age. The only problem is the science/technology are in the wrong hands. Your generation gets the chance to graduate. I'm trying to use some o/t facts i pick up from all this great info being exposed & then what can be done about it. i.e. Someone asks about a horrible car accident and i might thro in there.."hey, did u know that cars don't need to hit each other?" and see where it takes me. Anyway, hope this was helpful, i'm trying 2 answer w/grandkids yellin' for me. Gotta go. Pass on this info OK www.unitinghumans.com is a great collage of info about RBE. Remember, a new beginning is the start of a beginning's end. RBE can be that new beginning. A win/win 4 the whole planet & it's inhabitants. Love, Mamma D "^_^"

[-] 1 points by RBE (13) 13 years ago

In order to achieve a RBE we must break the scarcity paradigm we have and start using technology to create abundance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f04fCbFStks

[-] 1 points by freedomwatch2012 (13) 13 years ago

Ron Paul 2012...we need this man. He votes against every unconstitutional bill. he is the voice of the people. the voice of the OWS and voice of the 99%. he will end the fed. he will bring our troops home. Ron Paul 2012. spread the support. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7RaYbToq7Q

[-] 1 points by AmericanArtist (53) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Wiki Occupy Wall Street

http://www.wikioccupywallst.org

United We Stand ! Let's Build it Together ! Yes we are Us . . .

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

venus project is a cult. the resource based economy idea would have to be brushed off and hard sciences applied to redefine what RBE even means. I am all for RBE.. as soon as the cults get their heads out of their asses and apply the actual sciences instead of BSing us all with Godbot fascism and pack psychology hierarchy and cult ideology, and quits trolling the public as anti capitalists and anti religions.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 13 years ago

Extensive articles on this subject are posted here:

http://metapolitik.org/content/demands

...And here:

http://metapolitik.org/content/deep-green-social-democratic-revolution-starts-now-better-late-never

...It's either this or watch helplessly as our entire planet collapses.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 13 years ago

A boot, stamping a face, forever.

Ignorance is Strength

[-] 1 points by sumdumpunk (29) 13 years ago

Listen, I would love to think we can all live in harmony and pass the peace pipe, but the truth is-- as long as man (and woman) exist-- good will exist with the bad. Greed, envy, malice, lust... will always exist along with those traits trying to combat them. No matter how you spin society... as long as humans exist there will always be an imbalance of power. Someone will always want more. Unless we medicate everyone...

[-] 2 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

im sorry but your just lacking an incredible overhaul in your entire system of thinking in regards to human behavior and nature.

It's one thing to talk about human nature and another to confuse it with nurture. You see, human behavior is 90% determined from the environment one grows up in. By environment i mean the area, weather, food, kinds of people, how scarce the environment is in resources (food, shelter, family/friend support), education, and many other variables.

And finally the interaction a human has from the time it is in the mother's womb. Women who are beat by their husbands while pregnant affect their children. The baby feels the world outside as a cruel place and once born views the world as a hostile environment, and has a higher chance of being aggressive or developing other behavior patterns.

If you want an answer to human "nature" lookup the video wolf girl on youtube, which goes to show, what is human nature, or is there even a thing such as human nature?

Society of today has laws to Fix people who are criminals or to deal with them. But what about trying to prevent crime to begin with? Go into the environment the person was raised in and change it for the better. By providing housing, nutrition, and education to people, most crime would be eliminated overnight as people would have their basic neccessities met. Greed is a product of our money system which makes people want to hoard for themselves but by truly understanding human nature you can understand that every human behavior pattern is learned, there is no "fate"

[-] 1 points by thiagoaq (9) from Brasília, DF 13 years ago

The founder of The Zeitgeist Movement, Peter Joseph just released this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=igGGivft0tg

[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 13 years ago

i would love a resource based economy.

there are many things that i want, that i hope to enjoy before i die.

private islands, yachts, hot girls, and all the time in the world.

[-] 2 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

You can have ALL of this, and more. I mean once we are done with the bullshitting that we do today, who knows what other ideas will spring up? Maybe cities in the ocean? Or what about terraforming other planets?!

[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 13 years ago

fantastic! let's get it done now!

[-] 1 points by gagablogger (207) 13 years ago

OWS need to call for a General Strike! See my post on this.

[-] 1 points by BHicks4ever (180) 13 years ago

Not a big fan of RBEs myself.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

without prices it is impossible to find the value of any resource. the venus projects has many valid complaints, but it would never work. without the price discovery mechanism, how could anyone efficiently distribute resources? money is not the problem. power is... and yes, government planned redistribution of resources has been tried many times in Europe after WW1 and it failed every time.

[-] 1 points by Kman (171) 13 years ago

The value of any resource would be based on its demand by the society. There would be no money.

An RBE would have to be implemented world wide in order to have any chance at success. That's the most difficult part.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

that never works without price and money. go look at the soviet union.... the venus project is nothing but delusional speculation. there are many historical examples showing how it is impossible to find the value of resources without money and price.

[-] 1 points by Kman (171) 13 years ago

History is about to change as evidenced by OWS and Arab Spring, and European protests. Our monetary system is about to collapse under its own wait so what happens next? RBE is a logical next step. Emcalone, have you heard of Chirs Martenson? Maybe you can identify with his approach - it's different than Zeitgeist. Take the Crash Course:

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

what i do know is that the basic principles of supply and demand are that resources are limited and human desires are infinite. without the deterrent of high prices, humans will demand much more than is reasonable and more than is available...

[-] 1 points by Kman (171) 13 years ago

Yes, that's an issue I have a problem with. We would have to instill a minimalist approach in everyone. But what happens when - not if - this monetary system collapses?

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

ill get rich.... jk. i do agree that fiat currencies are bad, but that does not mean that money itself does not work. what we need is a system with competing currencies.

[-] 1 points by Kman (171) 13 years ago

It's not that currencies don't work. It's that they don't work any more. We are about to witness a revolution in our understanding of money, I think.

Did you check out Chris Martenson's Crash Course?

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

just the preview, but it said nothing. fiat currencies never last though... we need sound money

[-] 1 points by Kman (171) 13 years ago

You really have to see the whole thing. I know it takes time, but I found it to be very educational.

Basically when we run out of oil, our society will collapse as we know it. Food production will have to be radically altered. Martenson seems to conclude that we need to take a survivalist approach, but I think we can learn what we're about to face, and create strategies to help us all keep it together.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

look, real money works. gold as money has never collapsed and will never collapse. centrally controlled fiat currencies are the problem...

[-] 1 points by chrischrischris (143) 13 years ago

Is currency not a resource?

[-] 3 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

nope its not a resource has no ties to the actual amounts AND potential for production of any material

by using science and technology, we can create mass amounts of organic food cleanly without pesticides, create the most durable and self sustaining residences, and allow public access to healthcare, education, and every other necessary resource on the planet

[-] 1 points by chrischrischris (143) 13 years ago

You're kidding? This is news to me. I can call up a supplier of any material, send them money and they will send me the material. So, how is money not a resource? What does the sentence, "has to no ties to the actual amounts" mean? And once you create that organic food, how are you going to sell it? What are you going to accept for your food? Who is going to build the residences and how are you going to compensate them? How will the healthcare, education and every other necessary resource on the planet be paid for? You don't expect people to work for free, do you? Please - explain how you plan to provide "every necessary resource" without money.

I haven't heard a convincing argument yet. But I'm super curious... I would really love to hear a good argument for getting rid of money.

[-] 2 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

well thats why you should just watch the videos i sent you the link to, I mean im not gonna sit here for 2 hours explaining it to you. If you so badly want to know, then have the patience to watch the video

As far as getting rid of money, if we took all of the gold, cash, and all other useless junk and dumped it over the coast of alaska, as long as we didnt touch the way of thinking that has brought us to where we are on a technological standpoint, we will do just fine.

So basically it's all technological phenomena, all the recent events of recession and all. Technology has freed man from alot of arduous repetitive tasks which are now even more being replaced by machines, therefore eventually jobs and money obsolete.

But if all of humanity uses the technology of today in its highest standards (sociocyberneering: mechanization, computers) we can rid ourselves of repetitive work and create a world of harmony where 90% of crime would disappear instantly. You give people what they need and there wont be need for laws to arrest them for abberant behavior

[-] 0 points by chrischrischris (143) 13 years ago

And what paid for that technology? How will you continue to pay for that technology? Have you declared we are at a "good enough" stopping point to give it up all and just coast from here on out? You don't think there are more technological advancements down the road? Like curing cancer?

How will all humanity have access to that technology? Who is going to pay for it? And please - explain in twenty-five words or less how JOBS will become obsolete.

You really sound insane.

[-] 3 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

um....you actually sound like the insane one. Why do we need to pay for things??? You basically get rid of money, and there is no ownership (i know u think communism, but wait), there is no need to have budgets for programs to help the world, you just get there and do it.

We dont need money to do all this. basically there would need to be a transition period where money would have to be used for everyone to receive equal pay for their work of bringing about the new system. BUT there is no fractional reserve bullshit and you represent what would be called "reserves" in terms of resources (food, shelter, etc.) that are within reach at that moment.

After the transitional period is finished where there are cities established using the technlogy described in Future by Design (free on youtube i think) or described in the book "the best that money can't buy"), then you get rid of money all together.

Goods and services will be mechanized, where machines that process 3 trillion bits of information will be doing cleaning, building, producing, doing complex heart surgery to name a few (again im not just ranting, this is all accessible right now), and most importantly, these machines will be helping people to "arrive" at the best decisions. You put sensors in the water table for an agricultural spot, and when there is a drought, sensors send a signal to the main computer for the city which indicates there is a problem, and automatically the machines make the decision that water needs to be sent to that area via tunnels or tubing (we have this already in modern plumbing).

If you still dont understand what i'm saying just think of this. We live better than kings did back in the day, because we have cars (chariots), phones (letters), proper healthcare (king could die of a fever), etc etc. Its all science and technology. And with the aadvanced technology we have today we can change our entire perception of the world. And we dont need a penny to do it.

You dont have to work a job, BUT you are free to do as you want. You can get food by going to complexes that have the highest standard organic material for FREE! There is so much of it, no one has the need to steal. Just do your research PLEASE. Im done, thank you, watch zeitgeist: moving forward for the answers

[-] 1 points by chrischrischris (143) 13 years ago

I take a part of that back - there have been times when people worked without compensation - it's called "slavery."

[-] 1 points by chrischrischris (143) 13 years ago

And who fronts all the capital needed to put in place these imaginary machines that don't exist? What you are not understanding is that people DON'T WORK WITHOUT COMPENSATION. You need to understand that. People have never worked without compensation, currently don't work without compensation and never will work without compensation. Simply put, the most efficient way we have developed to compensate people is through our currency. That makes it very easy for people to purchase what they need, instead of bartering for things they may not really need - shutting down trade. Currency keeps trade liquid and efficient.

Machines like you are talking about don't simply appear - they need to be put there by people, and people need to work to get them there, and people need to be compensated to work, and the most efficient way to compensate is with currency. What you are talking about - doesn't exist. It's not possible for it to exist. It just doesn't fall inline with human nature.

[-] 3 points by Kman (171) 13 years ago

Great discussion guys!

chrischris - I understand that you're having a difficult time understanding the concept of a society without money. It's a very radical idea! It took me a few weeks of contemplation to reach a place of understanding about it. But if you watch the video through completely to understand the concepts behind the movement, it might help you. I don't agree completely with the conclusions of the Zeitgeist movement, but it's important for everyone to understand the principles behind it. It's very hard to explain everything in a brief forum like this

[-] 1 points by chrischrischris (143) 13 years ago

I'll watch it when I have time. It's just that every society in history has reverted back to some medium of exchange. You eliminate our current currency, we will move to another currency. Maybe it will be blue instead of green.

[-] 1 points by Kman (171) 13 years ago

After you watch it, tell me what you think. The total economic system is a house of cards that will eventually collapse under its own weight. When money becomes meaningless, we will only have each other, and our own ingenuity to rely on.

[-] 2 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

um... im sorry, but look around you, do some research, machines ARE actually taking the majority of jobs. Most things are now becoming automated. From factories, to delivering good, to even Germany having the very first 100% automated restaurant.

Like I said man, do your research before coming with these asinine answers of yours. And the whole idea that money is an incentive is soooo wrong and misleading. Money IS an incentive when it comes to shitty jobs and having to do something over and over again, but when it comes to creativity and actually using all of your brain, money has NEVER been an incentive, all the great minds contributing to the world have never had money as an incentive.

Im sorry man but your wrong on so many levels. I dont need to talk to you anymore, you jsut dont fukin get it. Your asking me a bunch of questions that are all asked in the movies, but you dont wanna watch them and instead try to make your points when the movies explain the answers MUCH better than i can. Good bye

[-] 1 points by chrischrischris (143) 13 years ago

Alright, you're delusional.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 13 years ago

There's a price attached to the resource which in most cases isn't indicative of what the resource is truly worth. e.g. Oil

So prices often distorts the value of a resource in order for a group to make more money.

There exist self sustainable villages and tribes now which don't rely on money. However they also lack the technologies we currently have which create abundance.

As for providing abundance, we are a society dependent on technology/machines. A RBE simply advocates maximizing the potential of technologies to produce sustainable abundance for people.

Most occupations are only necessary because people need jobs in order to obtain money so they can obtain their survival needs. If everyone became self sustainable the need for money would cease.

Also money relies on scarcity, competition, and infinite growth in order to function. No one would pay for air or sunshine because it is abundant. This need for scarcity creates incentives for businesses to create artificial scarcity. (Supply/demand) These businesses may also use advertising to create artificial scarcity. Money also creates differential advantage which itself only works if individuals 'earn' it. However, as we can see this isn't the case. Also how do we determine the value of artists, educators, cancer researchers, vs people that simply push money around?

There's also less stress on the environment when resources/products are customized by and distributed directly to people because there is no duplication by competing companies. e.g. cell phone

Here's a link explaining the RBE briefly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8

[-] 1 points by UKbob (16) 13 years ago

No my friend, the human race does not require it to live or to progress, in fact it limits what can be done to what people can afford.

[-] 1 points by chrischrischris (143) 13 years ago

That is not the definition of a resource.

[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 13 years ago

It would never work.It depends on pretty much volunteer work and automation. People would have no ambition to do anything that does not directly and immediately benefit them.

[-] 2 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

Wait...volunteer work? Dont alot of people already do that worldwide? They are not asking for money, so what makes you think that in an economy that TAKES CARE (other than exploit: our current system) of people and makes sure they are living to their full potential, that everyone would not be a volunteer? You make no sense man, do your research before making such claims. And let me ask you a question: Edison, Einstein, the Wright brothers, did they have a beneficial incentive to follow for themselves? NO! They did it our of cuiosity and something called HUMAN ENGINUITY, look it up

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

Please get spell-check.

[-] 0 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 13 years ago

You are picking a few people out of millions/billions. Humans by nature are greedy.

[-] 1 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

im sorry dude, but your train of thought IS the reason we have what we have today. The fact that people jump to conclusions and have their "final" answers to everything is the very reason there's so much mistrust and hatred in the world today, If people are united in one cause and that cause being the betterment of man in a symbiotic relation to nature, we can overcome all things like scarcity, war, poverty, and environmental destruction.

There is NO Human nature, that I can tell ya. Most animals have instinctive behavior to save them from death or to drive them to do certain things for survival. But actual thought process and behavior, otherwise known as associative memory at the human level is 90% Learned from the environment the person was raised in and the experiences that person had thhroughout life.

Thats why there is no difference from a ghandi baby to a hitler baby. You should youtube the video of the wolf girl for proof of no such thing as human nature

[-] 1 points by UKbob (16) 13 years ago

That is a misconception, humans by nature are social and caring, look into the first humans who had already worked out that with solidarity comes security and progress. The greed only came about in the last few hundred years.

This is far bigger than 1 government/country this is about the mindset people have been put into and that is what needs to change.

One planet united together, for the greater good of us all.

[-] 1 points by UKbob (16) 13 years ago

I may be speaking for myself but in a world where by things that needed to be done just got done for greater good rather than personal gain, I would use the skills i have to help others and progress.

If more was to think the same then there would be less to do and more time to enjoy life. By life I mean living, doing things that could not be done while busting my ass for someone elses bank balence.

I personally would use that time to build on the skills i have and aquire more so i would have a better understanding and more ability to contribute.

Peace and love, always.

[-] 1 points by Kman (171) 13 years ago

Yes, that's the idea. There are plenty of people that would work to meet the needs.

One of the problems I see is the potential for run-away population growth. We'd have to educate everyone to the point that we keep that under control.

[-] 1 points by UKbob (16) 13 years ago

This is true, i dont know about benifits around the world but in the UK it is the main cause of teen pregnatncies as if you have a child before you leave school the goverment pay for nearly everything...

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 13 years ago

Communism by another name is still communism. "Resource" just means "property". You're welcome to pool your own "resources" for the benefit of your own commune, just don't try to appropriate MY personal property into your "resource" pool.

[-] 1 points by UKbob (16) 13 years ago

We are all the same so why should 1 have more than others?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 13 years ago

We are not all the same. Have you ever read Animal Farm? Why should Boxer) get paid the same as the pigs who don't work as hard?

[-] 1 points by UKbob (16) 13 years ago

Im made of mostly water, i need food, water and shelter to live.

If your different please tell me how?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 13 years ago

The difference that the communists all over this site are trying to eliminate is the difference in pay between a person who works hard, and a person who is either unable or unwilling to work as hard. The pigs can't run their animal farm without building on the backs of workers like Boxer, who are willing to contribute more than their share, to make up for the pigs who contribute less than their share.

I do well under the current system because I'm a hard worker, and I don't want to see the fruits of my hard work taken away by people to finance their Utopian fantasies. I don't want to be your Boxer.

All through that summer the work of the farm went like clockwork. The animals were happy as they had never conceived it possible to be. Every mouthful of food was an acute positive pleasure, now that it was truly their own food, produced by themselves and for themselves, not doled out to them by a grudging master. With the worthless parasitical human beings gone, there was more for everyone to eat. There was more leisure too, inexperienced though the animals were. They met with many difficulties--for instance, later in the year, when they harvested the corn, they had to tread it out in the ancient style and blow away the chaff with their breath, since the farm possessed no threshing machine--but the pigs with their cleverness and Boxer with his tremendous muscles always pulled them through. Boxer was the admiration of everybody. He had been a hard worker even in Jones's time, but now he seemed more like three horses than one; there were days when the entire work of the farm seemed to rest on his mighty shoulders. From morning to night he was pushing and pulling, always at the spot where the work was hardest. He had made an arrangement with one of the cockerels to call him in the mornings half an hour earlier than anyone else, and would put in some volunteer labour at whatever seemed to be most needed, before the regular day's work began. His answer to every problem, every setback, was "I will work harder!"--which he had adopted as his personal motto.

Just like Herman Cain's tax plan is wonderful for rich people and not so wonderful for poor people, your 'resource-based communism' seems like a fantastic thing for people who don't have a lot right now, because they'll benefit if society is equalized. People who have been working hard to get ahead just see it as theft.

[-] 1 points by thiagoaq (9) from Brasília, DF 13 years ago

I see you haven't done enough research on The Venus Project. I recommend you watch "Future by Design" and "Zeitgeist Addendum" so you can open your mind a little. Then you read the book "The best that money can't buy".

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 13 years ago

I've done enough research to see that it's just an attempt to re-brand communism. I think that it would be a great idea for YOU to create a 'resource-based economy', using your OWN resources. Why isn't that happening? Why aren't dedicated, wealthy Zeitgeist Movement believers donating their entire fortunes to technologically-based collectives? There is nothing stopping you from forming a resource-based economy without me being involved. The only reason that you want me involved is that you need my "resources" so that you can redistribute them to other people. Eliminating the concept of money seems like a fantastic idea if you don't happen to have any.

[-] 1 points by thiagoaq (9) from Brasília, DF 13 years ago

You definitely haven't done enough research. I'll stop arguing with you until you realize that.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 13 years ago

And I'll keep pointing out that "resource-based economy" means "communism" unless you can give me a good reason to stop.

[-] 1 points by thiagoaq (9) from Brasília, DF 13 years ago

Ok. Here you'll find everything you want: http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/faq (see questions number 2 and 55 to 58) and http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 13 years ago

This quote was written by somebody who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "communism":

How does The Venus Project Compare with Communism?

Communism being similar to a resource-based economy or The Venus Project is an erroneous concept. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders.

This is the actual definition of communism:

Communism is a social, political and economic movement that aims at the establishment of a classless and stateless communist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production.

How is the ACTUAL definition of communism different from a 'resource-based economy'?

If you're going to say that the Venus Project's vision is to place our trust in machines rather than bureaucrats, then why wouldn't technologists end up in control?

Maybe I should be happy about technologists being in control since I am one... But that brings up another question: where are the experimental resource-based economies? Nothing is stopping YOU from forming a resource-based economy. You don't need MY resources if your idea is self-sustaining, do you? Why doesn't a wealthy believer in the Venus Project donate his entire estate to the collective to get things started?

[-] 1 points by thiagoaq (9) from Brasília, DF 13 years ago

An experimental resource-based economy within the system we have now is impossible. The system is stopping me from forming it. That's why we need a change in our consciousness. We need to stop thinking like these are "MY resources" or "YOUR resources". The actual system demands infinite growth in a finite planet. That's impossible to keep on going forever. The system must change first. Please, watch Zeitgeist Addendum, Zeitgeist Moving Forward and Future by Design. I know you'll change your mind.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 13 years ago

So we will just let you be greedy while we all contribute to the collective whole for the better of all (including you)?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 13 years ago

You're welcome to create your own collective and contribute everything that you own to it. Keep your hands off of my "resources".

Can you guess why there aren't any collectives that are doing really well, with lots of technological resources like they envision at the Venus Project? There are no laws against starting a commune like that. Why doesn't something like that exist?

The answer is that nothing like that exists because for it to exist, a bunch of wealthy people would have to invest everything that they own in a new society. Why would a person who has been successful in THIS society do that?

...which leaves you with one option, if you can't find any wealthy people to join voluntarily: appropriate what they own by declaring it a "resources" that is owned by nobody but "controlled" by "the collective". Ask Fidel Castro how it's done. It's done by stealing property at gunpoint.

[-] 1 points by LibertyFirst (325) 13 years ago

No. Like every other tyrannical dictatorship in history, you will eventually bring out the guns to force those who disagree with you into submission. For the greater good, of course.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 13 years ago

While that sounds nasty, were it actually for the greater good, I would not be opposed.

Though granted it probably wouldn't be.

[-] 1 points by LibertyFirst (325) 13 years ago

And because we have freedom in this country, you can live that dream right now. You can go to Florida and join the Venus Project. Or you can start your own communal group. Find like-minded people, pool your resources and have at it.

If it works, you will not need to convince anyone--people will be lining up to join.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 13 years ago

Try this:

Suppose taking your property was in fact, in the interests of the greater good.

Do you believe I am wrong to do so?

I ask so I can be very clear about what you mean.

[-] 1 points by LibertyFirst (325) 13 years ago

Yes, I do.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 13 years ago

And I gather you believe this because you have, among your other human rights, a right to own property?

[-] 1 points by LibertyFirst (325) 13 years ago

I don't put property rights into the human rights category. I do, however, believe that people have a right to be free, and one cannot be really free without property rights.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 13 years ago

Do you have an argument to support this view? I think I can come up with a counter argument but before I do I'd like to hear what reasons you have.

[-] 1 points by LibertyFirst (325) 13 years ago

People have always striven for freedom. The right to self-determination. I think it is accepted that people prefer to make their own decisions about how they live their life--where they live, what they do for a living, what they can read, what they eat, etc. Private property plays a large role in enabling that freedom. I guess the best example is the difference between being a renter or owning your own home. The old, "I want to put a nail in whichever darn wall I please" expresses this nearly universal desire.

[-] 1 points by LibertyFirst (325) 13 years ago

For some reason, I can't reply to you post below so I have to do it here. I believe the prison argument is a straw man, because you have added a variable we were not previously discussing, to wit, crime.

I believe the most desirable baseline state is for people to be free. There are conditions under which one should lose some or all of that freedom, such as impinging on the freedom of others (e.g. committing crimes).

Taking property away from people who have committed no crime, or otherwise prohibiting private property sets a baseline of less-freedom, which I believe is oppressive.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 13 years ago

Here's something interesting. Do you really value freedom over the greater good? I used the prison example earlier. Surely you don't think sending people to prison is amoral, but it does remove some of the rights of the prisoner (especially freedom), in order to serve the greater good.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 13 years ago

"Jobs are becoming obsolete", is a fascinating new rationalization for not getting a job that I haven't heard yet. I think I have an idea for a new web site...

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 13 years ago

Can't argue with the numbers!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 13 years ago

Okay yeah, here we go. I moved in and occupied the crackpots before. Now I'm going to occupy the excuses and make a collection of some of the more creative rationalizations for not getting jobs on OCCUPY EXCUSES.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 13 years ago

Plus you misquoted me.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 13 years ago

You should post the links above to show what I'm talking about instead of taking a sound bite.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 13 years ago

The quote on that site is word-for-word. Thank you for giving me the idea for a new site. Your is one of the most creative rationalizations yet. I wanted to keep a scrap book of some of the gems like yours.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 13 years ago

"No need to train for a job, jobs are becoming obsolete anyway, says rbe on occupywallst.org."

I didn't say that. You're a con artist. Or an idiot, or maybe both. Experts back up what I say, no one in their right mind would agree with you.

[-] 1 points by Dontbedaft (155) 13 years ago

Doesn't work. Hitler tried it.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 13 years ago

lol ... Is that really true ?

[-] 1 points by unlabeled (112) 13 years ago

Godwin's law. comment is a fail

[-] 0 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 13 years ago

Good luck, all of you humans who are above and beyond Earth's carrying capacity.

The Venus Project is Eugenics in Environmentalists' clothing.

[-] 2 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

no one is above and beyond here, what dont you get? An educated public needs no population control, and utilizing science to it's highest capacity is the key, with environmental concern, and using energy systems that dont produce waste. I mean seriously, theres so much videos on youtube showing the powerful capabilities of mechanization and the use of natural energy generators. I acnt sit here and try to explain everything to you because it will take days, how about you take a couple hours of your time to check it out?

[-] 0 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 13 years ago

Look, hasn't anyone pieced together the idea that this economy is based on carrying capacity?

What happens when the computers 'calculate' that the carrying capacity is only 500,000,000?

Ever wonder what happens to the rest of us? If the program says the Earth can't support that many people, then what do you do with the 80 or 90%? Do you kill them off?

Besides, it seems to me that you would still have people in power, but it would be the people responsible for determining the programs. So the computer programmers would decide who could live where, what resources you could have or not have, and so on.

[-] 1 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

actually no my friend. The computers decide everything important, we humans just become the programmers, and NO, I dont think anyone would have the need to control anyone else because we would all be taken care of so there is no abberant behavior like we see today. I mean just look at scientists, they have always been contributing to the world and giving, and not really expecting much in return. It is the institutions that are to blame for using scientists to make weapons and not use them for positive purposes.

And about population, the reason the earth is so blown up with pepople right now is because of oil and the energy that is was able to provide a century ago that has led now to the population growing times ten in the last 100 years. But by 2050 oil will only be able to support less than half of this population. So sadly, inevitably we will see a huge decline in the human population in the next 70 years.

And again, this is all tied to religion, politics, and all other forms of uneducated ways of dealing with our problems. Religion seems to have nowhere in it saying that we need to control consumption, and according to all the institutions, everyone should get married and have kids. Well thats a very uneducated approach and the venus project feels that an educated public needs NO control

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 13 years ago

You didn't address my point. If we were to clamour for a centrally organized system such as this, who decides who lives or dies? You admitted in your rebuttal that the Earth won't be able to hold so many humans (i.e., we are already well above our carrying capacity).

I think a system like the Venus Project is too easily exploited by the elite and packaged to the masses as the panacea that will save humans and the environment.

However, the dark side of this project (the side socialist eutopians won't talk about) is that in order for us to have this highly efficient resource-oriented planned society, we have to have a hell of a lot fewer humans living here than we do right now.

The Venus Project is Eugenics in modern/resource based clothing. Do you think the children starving in Africa are going to be part of this project? How about the ones born with birth defects from our depleted uranium bombs in the middle east? Are they the throw-aways? Or how about the Japanese? They've poisoned themselves anyhow.

Do you see my point? Also, entrusting all of our 'important' decisions to computers sounds like a recipe for tyranny.

[-] 1 points by arjang1a (54) 13 years ago

wow im sorry but if you complain and have not actually looked at all the material, you are IGNORANT beyond belief.

Well if you didnt already know, theres about a billion people starving RIGHT NOW as we talk, thats about a 7th of the entire population.

And with the system crashing because of oil reserves being used up, by 2030 oil will only be able to support half the world's current population, leading to a huge loss of lives. And unfortunately, in history it has always been when people are desperate that they accepted new ideas and shed old ideologies.

BUT i'll say this. if you read The Best That Money Cant Buy by Jacque Fresco, you can see that government has actually slowed down production and even sabotaged its own national supplies by paying off farmers, factory owners to either not create or destroy current reserves so that the price of the item goes up, since inflation is always a pattern in the money supply. With every dollar created theres debt attached to it, so you cannot solve the debt issue, thus countermeasures that are deadly to the environment and people are taken in order to keep the current system going.

We could have had the developed nations feed the entire world back in 1915 when industry had really started. But now we can have automation in every aspect of life, using sociocyberneering which is a new system of combining mechanization with computer technology

From construction of bridges, dams, cities, to a complete takeover of the service industry, robotics taking over cleaning, cooking, storage, and even complex heart surgery made possible by mechanization, there is no limit to what area of "work life" can be taken over by robots.

Therefore jobs disappearing completely once the system is fully in place. Everyone has access to schools, food made from giant multi floored indoor agriculture centers using sunlight as one of the many forms of natural energy.

We have machines that now can create and repair their own kind, so that leaves even the maintenance of the system up to machine technology, and all man has to do is manage and monitor the system using computers.

Its sad that all these stupid sci fi movies and paranoia spreading books scare people into thinking its some machine takeover, or plan by the elite to rule all.

Yes, technology if used the wrong way can enslave us even worse than now and do horrible things to the environment, but A resource based economy would not be it.

Just think of it. We have always had the resources, the energy, and NOW we have the technology to mass produce using natural tappd energy with no damage to the environment. But these methods cannot bring about financial security for the establishments, that is the SOLE and BIGGEST reason that they are not supported or even mentioned by leaders

[-] 1 points by thiagoaq (9) from Brasília, DF 13 years ago

You can create abundance using technology. Nobody will decide such thing as who lives or dies. We don't have to have fewer humans living here than we do right now. Please, study more about technology we have nowadays that we don't use yet because it's too expensive. When you have no money envolved there will be no limits for its use. You need to study more the subject before posting such nonsense stuff.

[-] 0 points by indivisible (89) from Leeds, England 13 years ago

get a bit of http://www.benlowrey.com/ in your life

[-] 0 points by indivisible (89) from Leeds, England 13 years ago

still need promisary notes

[-] 0 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

i will add however, that the current monetary system is controlled and manipulated solely by the fed. they have a complete monopoly on the issuance of currency and credit around the world. the solution would be to legalize true competition by allowing every bank to issue their own notes on their reserve as well as legalizing gold and silver as currency.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

Do you know that we tried that? It was a total mess.

Some history is not worth repeating.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

free markets are not perfect by any means, but that does not justify giving anyone a monopoly of the most important power on earth. the fed's bond bubble will be the biggest failure that anyone has ever seen. and more poor people will starve than ever before. when the dollar bubble bursts i can see 25 30 or even 50 percent of the population on earth starving...

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

It was a totally unworkable mess, having banks issue their own currency. If you get change in a store, how do you know if all the bills they handed you are good? The bills could also be good today, and the bank fail tomorrow due to fraud. Your money is now worthless. When you are buying anything, do you want to wait while the merchant checks on whether your currency is good? Or they could refuse to take any but a selected list of currency, which would then have more than a dollar's value, while the other dollars were worth less. Talk about the dollar bursting!!

It wasn't the Fed's bond bubble, it was the mortgage industry's and the banks, especially the investment banks that were mainly unregulated, using derivatives which were - and are - utter unregulated.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

lastly, we had bank issuing their own currencies and other non debt based currencies in the united states for the majority of its existence. it can and will work.

p.s. The state should also just issue its own currency without borrowing from banks.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

Billions of people would die within months. And all because we trusted the fed to take care of us...

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

First of all, any merchant can accept whatever they want. What would happen is that they would only accept a local bank notes, gold, silver, and whatever has the best reputation. Which would always end up being gold and silver. Secondly, im not talking about the mortgage bubble. that has already burst. What i am talking about is the dollar bubble that exist because the dollar is the worlds reserve currency. Right now over 70 percent of the dollars in circulation are in foreign countries. When trade wars accelerate and china and russia stop using dollars, that will trigger a global run on the dollar. Food prices will explode and the majority of the 99% will start killing each other for food.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

This history from before a national currency was that it was very hard for both customers and merchants to function, and that was before the current technology that allows counterfeiting to be very skillful. Counterfeit coins were a problem when coins of large value were in use, and the ability to fake is better now.

[-] 1 points by Emcalone (88) from Plano, TX 13 years ago

are you saying that federal reserve notes cant be counterfeited? and also, the history before national currency in the us was that of grater than 10 percent growth per year.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 13 years ago

With money being printed by many sources, counterfeiting was much easier and very, very common. The race to keep notes that are hard to fake is difficult with only one source, and it costs a great deal.

What period exactly are you saying for 10% growth per year? 150 years ago? When we were opening up the west, expansion was very high compared to modern times. The multiple currencies were not the cause.

[-] 0 points by ZenBowman (59) 13 years ago

You are aware that the madman Fresco has been trying for years to achieve this, and he doesn't even have a small city functioning. And you want the entire world to convert to this when he cannot even get a small city going?

Please, for the love of Pete, stick to the basics - end corporate financing of elections, and then let us continue make iterative changes through the democratic process.

[-] 2 points by UKbob (16) 13 years ago

One man could not build this way of life when confined by the system and mentality around. Times have changed and we are now able to sustain life without impact on the planet without the negative impact, the fact is it just is not being done due to cash!

Its interesting how you only pich the venus project to attack when there are many others i posted, including UAE who actually granted planning permission for a self sustaining city but built the complete opposite instead.

Ever herd of henry ford? Yes... What about the EV1 that the users wanted to keep but wasnt able to?

Have faith in humanity, it may suprise you.

Peace and love!