This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Redefining Individuality
We all love our individuality. It is what shapes us as human beings and not some brainwashed robots, right? But how free and individual are we really? Can anybody, regardless of their situation, go to any local store and buy the food they need, rent an apartment that provides them with the human and sanitarian needs such as sleep, a shower to clean themselves and a place to cook their food or perhaps book a flight to India the next morning that would enrich their life personally and socially purely out of the enjoyment of visiting and exploring other cultures and places? No. You are only as free as your purchasing power. That means from the day you are born you are dependent on other people to take care of you and provide you with the necessities of life until you are old enough to attend school (assuming it is free), memorize the information that will hopefully grant you with a diploma and that would hopefully make you able to compete with many others to a job that will likely rob your personal freedom to express your individual desires to take on your own projects, just so you make enough money to survive. Is this truly individuality?
Now, what if we made a society where we utilized science and technology to intelligently manage and allocate our resources to meet the needs of all human beings on the planet by claiming all of Earths resources as the common heritage of all mankind. Where we collectively would utilize technology to free mankind (through automation of jobs and labor) in order for every human being to be able to reach their fullest potential personally, socially and culturally. That sounds like a society that cherishes the individual, right?
Louie Cesario
There needs to be a series of steps and milestones for our society to reach before pushing such a movement-- and it will only start with a more informed citizenry-- People shouldn't be told to put down the US weekly and read the WSJ, it should be second nature.
If we as a society are going to take full use and advantage of resources and technology that are available, the people who control those means must use them to effectively inform-- to create a more intelligent people and ultimately encourage the use and emergence of entrepreneurial ventures that shape a new definition of how an individual acts and is informed in terms of his/her own and others cultural, social and economic position.
Krysta Bok
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Collectively we educate that the individual can do anything and can be anyone they want. In another sense, we inspire positive individualism - as the main drive of individualism seems to be idealistic.
Ironic as a well paradox... A 'system' that cherishes individualism.
I would agree with you Mats; we need something that can inspire the collective to truly care about individuals as opposed to what individualism has inspired.
This seems to be socialist? Yet, that ideology could not function without crafting a new system which would allow it to evolve in light of good. If we implanted socialism today in America, the current culture of individualism would abuse to the system, to the point of bankruptcy - although our system is arguable heading there anyways.
I don't think any ideology implanted into today's existing system will carve the path towards a 'united world'. Because that is what you are hinting at, and that is purely idealistic as of today.
In order to achieve a system where everyone is taken care of in equal fashion... we need to take a first step. That step to me is looking at what already exist and has existed and objectively considering what has/does work[ed] and the contrary. The goal is true equality - which is a social, culture and civil issue - baby steps. We can, more than ever, look at the examples history has to provide and make a conscious effort towards what is in fact humanitarian and virtuous for all mankind, let alone just individual countries.
Again, I feel that is where you are hinting your discussion is going - an united world. Especially since you come from one of the happiest nations in the world, as well as one of the most successful. It seems likely you are inspired to wanting to know how the rest of the world can be on the same page...
That will come from questioning our immediate existence; the concern of money will always arise.
Adriaan Braam 20+
My personal opinion is that whatever we get for free is worthless.
Would your idea make schools redundant? Why go to school if there is nothing to do?
Would your idea make e.g. supermarkets redundant, or car dealers? Would each individual home receive a package (each day?) containing food, clean clothing? And if a tap develops a leak, a machine will come to the house..?
What is wrong with money anyway? I think it can be just as useful, or dangerous, as a gun or a car.
Do you have any opinion as to why we are in this world?
Personally I think it is more about being useful, than being happy and content while being useless. That's why I believe heaven is a kingdom of uses, not sitting on a cloud playing harp.
All this does not seem very realistic, but that is just my opinion.
Rachel Pool
David Hamilton 50+
"Can anybody, regardless of their situation, go to any local store and buy the food they need, rent an apartment that provides them with the human and sanitarian needs such as sleep, a shower to clean themselves and a place to cook their food or perhaps book a flight to India the next morning that would enrich their life personally and socially purely out of the enjoyment of visiting and exploring other cultures and places? No"
That is not freedom, that is entitlement, and slavery. Freedom, and individuality... are your right to fly to India... If you can build a plane, and refine fuel. In the words of Louis CK "I hate Verizon... How can that thought exist? Really you hate them? Well... build your own. You go out there with antenna's and wires and see how close yours is to perfect!"
Freedom to have someone else do your plumbing for you? What kind of backwards freedom is that? That's "Until everyone in this country has water, our society must force people to plumb"... Isn't it much better for plumbers to occasionally become rare, and thus desired and profitable, so that people choose the profession? That's freedom, you can do whatever you want for society, as long as you contribute, and how much you contribute, is based on how rare and qualified you are at your labor, and how much society chooses to value it freely.
In Europe, America, and many western nations, people do not want to do tradeskills anymore... They're getting lazy. Slowly, over time, that makes less and less qualified tradeskill labor, which causes the price for that labor to rise naturally. Thus people who fail at their dream job, now see plumbing as a way to make 60-80k a year and buy a house.
That is a good, free, and just society where you can express your talents in their highest form. Now, no society, actually operates entirely on these free market principles, but it would be the direction to move in, imho.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
How is collectively utilizing technology to free mankind (through automation of jobs and labor) in order for every human being to be able to reach their fullest potential personally, socially and culturally anywhere near slavery? Entitlement? Sure, it should be a right that all people got access to the necessities of life. Your hundred year old ideology will never manifest in this day and age.
"Freedom to have someone else do your plumbing for you? What kind of backwards freedom is that?"
Once again, your mind is all over the place and this is what happens when you don't pay attention to what the case really is. Automation would replace humans for low-skilled and medium-skilled jobs and labor, so that humans can focus on _important_ and _desirable_ stuff that enrich their lives.
Rachel Pool
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Rachel Pool
As I said, in my opinion, any vision of the future must include room for the visions of others. I respect your point of view, even if I don't agree with it. :)
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Furthermore, the teachings or the information in the Venus Project is not what Jacque Fresco dictates. It’s first doing a survey of the carrying capacity of a given environment and maintaining a population in accordance of the Earth's resources, not Fresco's opinion. We have to learn how scientists arrive at decisions. Once you use the scientific method, it doesn't mean that your decisions will be perfect. They'll be far more accurate than just opinions. Opinions are very dangerous, because they aren't based on scientific studies.
Here's a direct quote from the director of The Venus Project: "The social designs that are proposed in [The Venus Project] merely provide the opportunity for individuals to develop their fullest potential in whatever endeavor they choose without the fear of loss of individuality or submission to uniformity."
Rachel Pool
Rachel Pool
Mats Kaarbö 10+
"I'm not attacking the project, just stating that I as an individual would not choose to be involved with it."
That is fine. The project doesn't want to create followers, but thinkers. But if you have any inquires or questions towards the project, please feel free to address those directly to the project and don't post things that could be lead to misinformation by posing your personal opinion of it, without even looking into it thoroughly. I know its easy to fall for the temptation to just pose a comment on it, but that doesn't serve any constructive dialogue which we cannot afford in these trying times. You can tell I'm passionate to keep things clean and to the point and so should you, if you are interested in making a change. And I believe you are.
Rachel Pool
1di·a·logue noun ˈdī-ə-ˌlȯg, -ˌläg
Definition of DIALOGUE
1
: a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing
2
a : a conversation between two or more persons; also : a similar exchange between a person and something else (as a computer)
b : an exchange of ideas and opinions
c : a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution
3
: the conversational element of literary or dramatic composition
4
: a musical composition for two or more parts suggestive of a conversation
After reading a fair bit about it, It seems that it is a very dangerous kind of social engineering. I think in theory perhaps it could be a good thing, but man's greed and lust for power will inevitably rear it's ugly head as it has since the beginning of time, and corrupt the system. At some point in the future, when humanity is able to overcome this, there may be room for this type of system. But who gets to make that decision? Who ultimately has the power to put this system into effect, and what happens to people like me that refuse to be a part of it? Do I have a right to choose not to conform to this system that requires the cooperation of the entire world? Don't you need my cooperation? It's a global socio-economic system. I am part of the globe. Once a system like this is established, where do I go and what do I do to protest a system I don't believe in? Am I then a societal outcast? Am I told that living under this system is what's best for me so I have to suck it up?
Mats Kaarbö 10+
You have plenty of space to address your opinion, no one has ever denied you that. But how are we going to have a constructive dialogue if you merely point out the shortcomings of my proposals and do not offer an alternative or build on my ideas?
"I think in theory perhaps it could be a good thing, but man's greed and lust for power will inevitably rear it's ugly head as it has since the beginning of time, and corrupt the system."
I urge you to read and learn more about behaviorism.
"But who gets to make that decision? Who ultimately has the power to put this system into effect, and what happens to people like me that refuse to be a part of it? Do I have a right to choose not to conform to this system that requires the cooperation of the entire world? Don't you need my cooperation? It's a global socio-economic system. I am part of the globe. Once a system like this is established, where do I go and what do I do to protest a system I don't believe in? Am I then a societal outcast? Am I told that living under this system is what's best for me so I have to suck it up?"
Nobody makes the decision. There is never a quantum leap from one state to another. There is always in between systems. In terms of a moneyless society based on technological abundance, we all arrive at the decision that this is the way to go. If you don't approve of it, you are not forced to be a part of it and can live your life anyway you want to and you are always welcomed if you change you mind.
Before I go into any further discussion with you, I want to ask you a question: Do you believe that people have free will? That we act without influence?
Rachel Pool
Mats Kaarbö 10+
In terms of robots, I don't see how less usage of this would make any sense? Nearly everything you have in your house is made by automation and the fact is that robotics/automation is increasing our ability to produce abundance and is at the same time liberating us to focus on stuff we really want to do like creative things that enrich our lives, which you sought after. However, that doesn't mean that you wouldn't be allowed to be a chef and open up your own restaurant just because food production could be automated, if you know what I mean.
The future of existing cities would depend on a couple of things. But the way I see it however, it would be much more effective to just build new ones and mine the old ones for resources needed for the new ones. Of course, some building and cities would be kept and preserved for future generations to see what kind of society we lived in before. But, its really not my call. Whatever happens in time, happens.
Rachel Pool
Most of the old cities would be leveled and mined for their resources. They are too inefficient to maintain. Some of the cities would be set aside as museum cities.
This is a direct quote from the website FAQ and for me, it's a deal breaker. If my city is one of the cities planned for levelling and mining, where do I go then? I have to suffer the loss of my home, and my community to build a "better" city someplace else? They will demolish an entire city because it's "too inefficient to maintain"? What if I don't want to move? I have to live in the skeleton of a demolished city? Why is it any less logical to take all of this incredible technology that is proposed in this project and implement them in existing cities to make them MORE efficient without destroying the homes of millions of people and erasing hundreds if not thousands of years in cherished local histories? And what of indigenous peoples that see their ancestral homes and lands as a part of who they are? If they are truly after making meaningful change, they really ought to start in a more practical way, such as helping to provide this technology in a more accessible way. To advocate these types of buildings in everyday construction situations. To work with what already exists to make it better rather than destroying what doesn't fit into their idea of perfection. This isn't global improvement, it's global replacement and I do not support erasing history to make room for a thinly veiled closed minded vision of the future. NOW I'm attacking the project and since I am now unable to comment without being overtly disdainful in my comments I will say no more on the matter. I wish you all the best, sincerely, and thank you for taking the time to talk with me.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
I wish you well and I hope I haven't completely turned you off to future discussions, since I admire your passion and insights.
Andres Aullet 10+
We depend on technology for survival nowadays, and our ancestors survived without our technology. I don't see it as mutually exclusive. I don't see any of them intrinsically better than the other
I grew up into what i call a blue whale approach to knowledge, i try to extract something useful wherever i hear/read/see it, without caring of the useless info that surrounds it. Sometimes its tiny, and sometimes it comes from the most unexpected sources.
Yes i too am aware of the venus project and the zeitgeist movement, and even from them i have learned some. It is in one of those videos that i heard a nice concept: technology is also a pencil and paper that allow us to put our ideas out of our heads. If given the choice, if we are to change or ways of living, i would like to keep pencil and paper in my toolkit. And a computer too, probably.
I like your ideas about the future, and i don't see them too different from those of the venus project. The key concept seems to be to free people up so they can raise above their current limitations, and of course this can allow them to express themselves more, promote culture, technology, etc
I guess one of my points is that a world explained and assisted by science and technology does not take away the beauty and mystery of what makes us, us.
And if the lowest common denominator is the curiosity of what a money-less world would look like, is it worth putting heads together to build up from that minimum common?
cheers
Rachel Pool
I think science and technology have their place and should be balanced by an equal amount of hard work and creativity.
Gail . 50+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Jedrek Stepien 10+
But, please, do not redirect me to any website, I do not have time for this. Just say it plain and simple, twitter style.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
we need to hand over all production to machines. including the organization of production. supercomputers would decide what to produce, how to produce, what to produce from, how and where to distribute. and we humans would not have to work or pay for goods. there would be no money, and everyone could consume as he sees fit.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
pat gilbert 100+
Gail . 50+
It is based on the notion that when automation takes over the jobs that no human really wants, and manages our resources, that we will be free to contribute our talents to our society in a moneyless soceity.
Jedrek Stepien 10+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
We have to learn how scientists arrive at decisions. Once you use the scientific method, it doesn't mean that your decisions will be perfect. They'll be far more accurate than just opinions.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Rachel Pool
Mats Kaarbö 10+
We have to learn how scientists arrive at decisions. Once you use the scientific method, it doesn't mean that your decisions will be perfect. They'll be far more accurate than just opinions.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
What both (Fresco and his V.P followers) note, is that the current system is corrupted and evil, because money is the difference between someone eating and surviving.
Upon establishing a system where basic needs are given as a human right (which can be created by use of technological progressions) - money systems will surely be needed in order for an individual to achieve their desires or continual requirements of improving themselves further. Think Star Trek - The Federation is designed for humanitarianism and spreading those values to other worlds by means of understanding and sharing, in order to explore the unknown universe. Oh yes... This science fictional dream is apparently ignorant and destructive to some, because of the socialistic attitudes that are required...
This is the mark Kris and many miss - thinking the situation is cut or dry. Money or no money.
Obviously we need a trading system always, but no system should exist that entails a holocaust of children dying annually, globally. No amount of argument can suggest a system that would prevent the above is stupid, unless the person is in fact ignorant themselves of the entirety of the idea - which is all V.P claims; ideology.
Gail . 50+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
A truly equal world.. That is too idealistic and ultimately useless to think about. However, at the same time we should look into what would be the first steps into such a world - in order to make this one better.
Fresco, like many, is selling an image - he is a philosopher; needs to sell the thoughts he had lived his life investing in - never would I believe he is foolish enough to believe money will be forgotten, even if his project would be picked up by the world tomorrow. There are many futurist/transhumanist philosophers and almost none believe in no monetary systems, at least for a very long time.
Money is not the problem, and is not innately what separates or creates inequality. It is a tool. Science, philosophy, religion, art.... these things are more likely to separate cultures and people than money.
The problem is, money further the divides when money is not being considered as a real primary factor in the modern world. When people in capitalist countries are not interested in where their systems monetary exchanges, imports and exports are going... Then there is the room for the money movements to be controlled by those who do understand the above.
There is no one problem with this world. Suggesting money is the root of all evil merely dismisses what really is; ignorance. With an education system that was globalized, multicultural and virtuous (taught manners) - money wouldn't be an issue; people would just realize life is worth far more than a fancy car.
As an American, I am witnessing our Golden Age. In history there is nothing after this age...
Money may blind efforts, but it is only a tool. Our thoughts are to blame, not a tool for trade.
Gail . 50+
Just because you cannot envision a moneyless society does not mean that a moneyless society is not viable. There have been moneyless societies in the past. They were destroyed with the introduction of ownership of land as well as trade rather than gifts.
Julian Milargio
*Culture here is used as a meaning for a education(formal and informal) that the individual received,that shapes how he/she interacts with the Environment around .
Rachel Pool
Gail . 50+
The thing about retirement that amazed me is that I am far busier on more important things than I ever was when I worked for money. All of my retired friends say the same types of things.
What can your gift be? If you are a musician, then give a concert. If you are an inventor, then join with other inventors to improve society through your inventions. It is a people-centered soceity rather than a money centered society.
Though I have many problems with the Venus Project as it is now described, I am a fervent supporter of a moneyless society.
David Hamilton 50+
If we had the technical expertise, and resources, to have already automated all labor, we would have done it. This is an evolving process that takes the work of some of the most brilliant mathematical minds that have ever lived. Recruiting them takes societal perks, ie money... Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
In what way?
Mats Kaarbö 10+
However, 'The Venus Project' realize that the architectural designs and blueprints alone doesn't provide a true path for the future, so they also include the social aspects of how we should conduct ourselves and what values are sustainable within the moneyless society they propose. This is probably the most 'controversial' aspect of the Venus Project, which gets most attention, as it pretty much tells people that their values are obsolete thus people feeling that their identity is under attack. This is understandable and I felt the same way until I realized that my identity is the result of my experiences and is shaped by my environments, not something that is inborn.
The teachings or the information in the Venus Project is not what Jacque Fresco dictates. It’s first doing a survey of the carrying capacity of a given environment and maintaining a population in accordance of the Earth's resources, not Fresco's opinion.
Gail . 50+
Still, there is much about it that I can admire. Once the holes are filled in (sicence that is now studying the "mind" as well as quantum mechanics will fill in that void as soon as more researchers come into agreement.) That which is missing is the best part and the way to get to a better VP than has been suggested.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Could you please elaborate in detail what you feel is missing about The Venus Project?
Jerry Whidby
The internet provides a great way to explore the world now, and talk to people from those countries. I can not imagine the damage that would be done to the planet if billions of people just started exploring all at once. I do have a shower and I can buy what I need at the grocery store. I often hear about countries where people have less than I do. Rarely do I hear what happened in their part of the world to create that situation. Many times, no matter how much people assist those countries, it just continues to be a dreadful place to live. Many people sent food to North Korea as an example. Sometimes the people of those countries have to want a change bad enough to rise up against oppressors.
Another point to consider is a possible population explosion. Come on, that much free time. What do you think people will do. That would strain our resources even more. I think that one day we may be ready for that step, but we have not reached that point. People who get off the grid are the closest to that dream, if you exclude the very wealthy, in my opinion
Rachel Pool
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Are you suggesting that in a society that calls for equality in terms of opportunity and basic needs met wouldn't have problems? Of course it would. And by freeing man from useless jobs and labor by utilizing technology and automation, humans could focus on what's really important both socially and creatively. Imagine if all the scientists in the world where gathered to find a cure for cancer. Or if all of the engineers were to find a way to explore space more effectively. Or where people got time to bridge the differences with other cultures. Or artists that has the whole world at their fingertips for inspiration and beauty. I don't see how constraints of these freedoms would generate pride and belonging, quite the contrary.
Gail . 50+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Would it make sense from a resource or environmental standpoint for everyone to start hopping planes all the time to travel half way around the world to enrich themselves personally? Is it not possible to be independent of mind and taste and still live within the contraints of what is good for the community and the environment not just in the present but for future generations? Must individuality involve rampant exploitation of resources for private ends? (Note, I take no issue with the idea of seeking to provide universally for the health/nutrition/shelter/learning needs, but it sounds like the demands you propose to place on resources to facilitate everyone's private projects vastly exceed that).
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Not necessarily, but that is what most people associate individuality with, in regards to their society. The opposite being limited mobility and flexibility. Individuality could also be about free speech and expression. That is however not relevant in this context.
"Would it make sense from a resource or environmental standpoint for everyone to start hopping planes all the time to travel half way around the world to enrich themselves personally?"
There are other ways of traveling that is both clean and resource effective, like monorails, mag-lev trains and pressure-tubes trains. From a human behavioral standpoint it is necessary for humans to be positively stimulated both socially and culturally to feel that we belong and to develop understanding of the world we live in and communication skills to survive thus enriching our lives. If you constrain people from certain things, it could result in neurosis that could in turn have a devastating effect in the society. Today this neurosis could be poverty as a result of decreased and negative social relations and limited access to the necessities of life, which leads to crime and violence as a result of both the the negative feeling of social stratification and of course the biosocial pressures to survive.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
It helps, if we want to use resources responsibly, to be honest with ourselves about ways of feeling connected and fulfilled that do not need to be massively exploitative of the planet. Some things are luxuries rather than necessities. We can feel fulfilled also by what we give.