TED Conversations

Amy Novogratz

TED Prize Director, TED Conferences


This conversation is closed.

If you could make a wish on behalf of The City 2.0, what would it be?

Today, TED announces the winner of the 2012 TED Prize: the City 2.0. The City 2.0 is the city of the future ... a future in which more than 10 billion people on planet Earth must somehow live sustainably, together. The City 2.0 is not a sterile utopian dream, but a real-world upgrade tapping into humanity's collective wisdom. The City 2.0 promotes innovation, education, culture and economic opportunity. The City 2.0 reduces the carbon footprint of its occupants and eases the environmental pressure on the world's rural areas. The City 2.0 is a place of beauty, wonder, excitement, inclusion, diversity, life. The City 2.0 is the city that works.

A range of visionaries around the world will be advocates on behalf of the City 2.0. We are listening to them -- and to you.

What is your wish for The City 2.0? A wish capable of igniting a massive collaborative project among the members of the global TED community, and indeed all who care about our planet's future.

Share it below.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Dec 6 2011: The goals of the Venus Project are admirable and inspiring.

      Unfortunately, the actual ideas it proposes fall flat on the ground, and its very approach to solving the problems of our civilization violates the most important principle of viable transformation: solutions to complex, interdependent problems can not be imposed by a grand design, but must evolve in a competitive, creative environment where new ideas can be tested, failed, re-engineered and re-launched quickly.

      Venus project thinking is also utterly blind to the most important phenomena of our times - the exponential growth of knowledge and technology. Its obsession with the removal of obsolescence is entirely self-defeating.

      Lastly, the Venus Project utterly ignores everything we are learning about human nature from the sciences of evolutionary and social psychology as well as behavioral economics and ethics.

      Perhaps the Venus Project can be a great foundation for a StarTrek-like TV series about the future where humanity has transcended its limitation, but it is no more than a fantasy.

      That said, anyone who has a couple of hours of free time will enjoy exploring the Venus Project as a fun intellectual exercise in critical thinking.
      • thumb
        Dec 6 2011: Michael: Agreed that the Venus Project’s “grand design” approach is overly ambitious. On the other hand, isn’t there a place for urban planning? Haven’t some examples of cooperative community organization been successful? I mean, think of cities which you might enjoy living in. Haven’t government based initiatives played an important role in making those cities appealing?

        So where/how do we draw the line between centralized planning and distributed decision making?


        So what exactly is "City 2.0"? Is it anything like Web 2.0? That is, all hype and no substance?

        Anyone got any links?
        • thumb
          Dec 6 2011: This is not an conflict of urban planning vs. ad-hock development...

          Rather: how can the goals of urban planning be achieved through evolutionary design methods -- light on ideology and heavy on experimentation and feedback -- what might be called "scientific governance."

          Having a vision (think Steve Job's OSX / iOS ecosystem) helps, but it is evolved over time with market feedback -- and occasional surprises.
        • thumb
          Dec 7 2011: Tim, check out my response above, but I believe that TED is discussing, as Michael is pointing out, that CITY 2.0 is not a zero-base, start-from-scratch-masterplanned city as much as a "real-world upgrade."

          Simply put, as shiny and clean as Venus Project's ideas are, they are more futurist than real-world. $100,000 won't go a long way to buy his magnetic rail systems and polymer houses.

          TED is looking for what massive impacts we and our collective innovations can do right now. I lay some of that out above.
        • Dec 8 2011: Tim, Michael, Grant--

          You asked for a link so i thought i'd share! I did a project a while ago for the Living Building Challenge that did precisely this...where we tried to imagine a world where distributed decision-making was the norm and where the broad stroke efforts at sustainability and collective community didn't completely mask the individual's expression (which a lot of master planning inadvertantly does). I posted earlier but it feels like this thread has become more about proselytizing and "the venus project" than it is about throwing ideas around. I don't claim to have all the answers but i will claim to have worked my tail off trying to arrive at a visual presentation that describes precisely what you've referred to (the winter image comes the closest). I hope you take a look, read a bit, and enjoy! I won't be insulted if it's nothing more than a few hours of critical thinking :) All the better!



          (team credits are listed on the main site)
      • thumb
        Dec 6 2011: I really think that the venus project is a possible way of living with some changes. It is a great vision of what can be, and I think that in some countries, they have adopted a little of that style of living. It really brings forth a closer community and convenience. It could be a lifestyle for some people I think and I also like the option of having what we got as well.
        • thumb
          Dec 7 2011: To Michael Vladstone:

          "what might be called "scientific governance." "

          You have just arrived at the very underpinning tenet of The Venus Project.

          As someone who has applied some critical thinking to TVP I notice that most of the points you raise seem to be based on a misunderstanding of what the Venus Project is about.

          For eg. the anti obsolescence point assumes that products would not develop however TVP merely advocates that innovation should be freed from corporate ties allowing it to develop exponentially which I believe was exactly what you are calling for.

          So perhaps the critical analysis will take more than 'a couple of hours' ;)
        • thumb
          Dec 7 2011: Mercury Boy - Your comment comes closest to nailing it, and I really appreciate that you focused our attention on a key issue. What is utterly broken in the USA and many other countries is the political system, not the economic system (i.e. capitalism). Corrupted elections and bureaucracies are effectively run by bribery of special interests - from corporations down to teachers unions. The "revolving door" system makes it possible for supposedly "public servants" to go in and out of private sector, collecting time-shifted compensation from corporations - another form of bribery. Finally, mostly utterly ignorant, uneducated population votes for candidates they feel comfortable having a beer with, rather than carefully considering their character and qualifications.

          The TVP will be up against the same challenges in order to make the transition - it assumes a very large group of highly educated individuals to run the proposed system. The problem is, there is no pathway proposed to get from here to there: first, it is impossible to vote TVP in because it is counter intuitive to at least 80% of the population, and even if it had George Clooney as the winning candidate, it would suffer the same fate as the Obama administration - gradual dilution of principles and ideas under the pressure to compromise with the status quo, sliding back into corruption and inefficiency.

          Competition works because no single group ever has the complete answer. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and FaceBook are transforming global business and culture in a hugely positive direction precisely thanks to ruthless competition and responses to each other's successes and failures.

          There is another comment elsewhere about TVP emerging in time of global meltdown crisis. I will answer it there
      • thumb
        Dec 7 2011: I believe evolution is a constant trial and error process, the "strongest survive."

        I also believe that we have the capabilities for trials, with the errors being at no cost of lives. Granted, IF, that is the common goal of man one day. Which is not near in site.

        However if the aim/goal/ambition/path is to make the world run on reusable energy, Eco-friendly, equal for all, unified, whatever... V.P project has already pieced together a lot of details, considerations, and designs for those altruistic goals.

        It's really sci fi when you think about it, because everyone would ultimately have to reject the mass educations of civilization, then sacrifice, in order for the future. The immediate transaction from here to V.P is indeed ridiculous.

        I think therefore I am - > mass mimetic-education involved in multiculturalism - > we think therefore we are

        Jacque Fresco is just a bright guy with a good idea, I am sure he wouldn't care if you named the idea "take a dump in your hand and throw it on the ground for soil." He, I and many TEDsters would enjoy this goal. Instead of nay saying and then saying "..anyone who has a couple of hours of free time will enjoy exploring the Venus Project as a fun intellectual exercise in critical thinking."

        How about critical thinking the details that are in the way of making now to something LIKE-V.P Instead of dictating what is wrong with something that is a little bit more complex than 2000 characters.

        Point A - It does ignore modern cognitive sciences data, BUT it is also a really old idea. I posted it myself because it has surpasses just science, it's another artists desire of the future, which maybe science fiction in practical implications, but so was flying vehicles, which we have, "airplanes."

        Point B - A good REAL education would provide means for the anticipation and nature to question new information. Also the anti-nature of "self" to become "individual anarchist."

        A lot of Star Trek stuff, is today, factual.
      • Dec 7 2011: Michael I'm afraid you have misunderstood or not have done thorough research on the ideas proposed by The Venus Project.
        First of all you are confusing the overarching concepts with the city, transportation etc. designs themselves. The former are those that are important and the latter will be constantly updated. It's not a static societal model that's being proposed, but an emergent one. TVP designs will have to be tested and improved continuously as new methods, materials etc. are found.
        As far as your claim regarding competitive environment being the most important principle for viable transformation, I would have to disagree. There are two types of competition in regards to species. Intraspecific and interspecific competition. Biologists tell us that species with extensive intraspecific competition have either become extinct or are under extinction. I would suggest looking at cooperation within the species if you want to achieve long term sustainability.

        You mention:
        "Venus project thinking is also utterly blind to the most important phenomena of our times - the exponential growth of knowledge and technology. Its obsession with the removal of obsolescence is entirely self-defeating."
        I have not seen any signs of that at all. On the contrary as I mentioned above, TVP mentions about how science and technology are racing forward but human values have stayed behind and haven't kept up. The intrinsic and planned obsolescence of the market system is a reality and leads to enormous waste of resources, having profit as the underlying principle.
        Technological obsolescence which occurs due to advancements, is dealt with modular design methods that embrace change.

        Lastly, in terms of human nature and human behaviour, I suggest you to watch the following video presenting research on behavioral science:

        I don't see how this is going against the things TVP talks about. On the contrary it supports its claims.
        • thumb
          Dec 7 2011: OK... Where to begin addressing the mountain of ignorance and inexperience...?

          You are able to have this argument with me on a computer that did not cost you a fortune and is super easy to use thanks to the ruthless, profit-motivated competition between Apple, Microsoft and Google. That competition (and cooperation of engineers within these corporations) also gave birth to the iPhone, the iPad and now the Kindle Fire - at $200 a pop!

          "Cooperation" and "philanthropy" delivered the cute green turd of a laptop known as the OLPC. But where is OLPC 2.0 - the tablet?

          It was a noble cause, but now it appears to have been entirely unnecessary. The private, competitive IT industry will deliver less and less expensive, reliable, high-performance tablets to the entire world in the next few years that any peasant will be able to figure out how to use. In hindsight, I'm embarrassed that I supported that approach when it was presented and promoted at TED. Yes, OLPCs served well the kids who got them and it brought tears to my eyes to see it happen, however, in the bigger picture, where we need to serve billions of children, it was nothing but an irrelevant blip. OLPC engineers might have contributed more to humanity by working at "greedy" Apple, Google or Amazon.

          Dealing with "technological obsolescence through modular design methods that embrace change"... ? ARE YOU KIDDING US?

          How do you "modularize" your way from a MacBookPro to an iPhone or an iPad?
          From oil-extraction based economy to a bio-solar?

          Exponential growth of technology is necessarily destructive in that it ruthlessly obsoletes older technologies and products. Now, planning for closed-loop recycling is an entirely different issue - again solved by profit motivated industries hungry for raw materials.

          Best advice - watch the entire TED archive (as I did, more than once) and then try to compare, contrast and learn. Exactly the exercise in critical thinking previously suggested. :)
        • Dec 8 2011: yes profit is what makes technology evolve, but its not the monetary profit, its the profit of having better and easier life..
          humans probably had to use money in the past, but its not the case anymore, there is nothing anyone can say to convince me otherwise, as someone who got burned waaaaaay too much from capitalism i can see a much better world without money, and its not a dream, its a choice that people have to make..
          money is false, money is a lie, money is just a paper or a number that means debt to someone..
          money is the way to take resource from the poor and give it to the rich, it is a weapon for mass slavery and for controlling people's life, nothing more than that..
          it doesnt make our world spin, its not the material needed to make houses, roads, cars and food, the opposite is true, it is the material that makes most of the people in the world to not be able to get these things.
          and if you ask me its a crime to make a system that there are people who cant get the things they need for living, like the monetary system is.

          in a fully sustainable city there is no need for money or purchasing power in any form..
          there is only the need to educate everyone so they can live with the system in peace.

          people wont need to own cars, or other stuff (like homes), they will be able get it where they need it and when they need it, they will be able to be reasonable with other people cause they wont have a monetary incentive to F#$K each other.
          people will care for other people, cause they dont have to take money from them by doing something the other guy wont like, no more robberies, no more murders, no more stealing, no more crime..

          this is city 2.
          anything else that use the current system (capitalism and democracy(lie)) is city 1.001
      • thumb
        Dec 7 2011: Looks and sounds like you have a vested interest in dissing the venus project Michael. You are part of the Integrity Capitalism Network?? I don't know too much about it to be honest, but it sounds like you are a capitalist, do you honestly think capitalism works?? It Certainly does for a lot of rich people, but the needy in society [1billiion+] deserve a better system than capitalism. It has failed as a social experiment and we need a new updated system that has no vested interests.

        The Venus Project is against the monetary system which creates endless amounts of suffering. Our values need to come up to par with our technology, at the moment we have the tail wagging the dog...
        • thumb
          Dec 7 2011: EVERY LIVING BEING HAS A VESTED INTEREST - including you.

          I an not "dissing the Venus Project" but actually encouraging people to learn and think more about it -- both its noble goals and its hopelessly childish solutions. The value of the Venus Project is the conversation it has started.

          Capitalism and the monetary system have already succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its inventors, and are the key reasons we actually have 7 billion living on this planet. Despite the many shortcomings of its present implementation, capitalism works and is resilient. in fact, TED is built on, and is sponsored 100% by the fruits of capitalism.

          However, at present capitalism works like MS-DOS in the world that deserves an iOS -- it must and will evolve. WIthout breakthroughs in IT it was impossible to institute pervasive transparency that would keep individuals from violating integrity - as they do under any other system. To make capitalism work better and overcome its shortcomings (periodic cycles of boom and bust driven by fraud and speculation) we must embrace complexity. Integrity Capitalism Network is one possible systemic solution to address the key shortcomings of capitalism as we experience it today.

          Talk of "values" is noting but hot air - human nature will not change until much further in the future when we start tinkering with our own DNA. However, today we can change human behavior by making sure that every time businessmen promise one thing and then deliberately do another to rip off consumers or damage the environment, they wind up paying a price orders of magnitude greater than what they stood to gain through their transgressions.

          To bring this conversation back to the intended themes - City 2.0 -- radical transparency made possible through IT and legislative solutions, in my opinion, will be the key enabling component for the growth of sustainable, equitable and prosperous cities of the future that we have an opportunity to invent and evolve today.
        • Dec 7 2011: Hi there Michael. Please don't feel attacked but what you say about the venus project shows perfectly that you don't know much about it and that you didn't loose any time trying to. Try to understand what they wish to achieve, how and their goals and proposals in general. please,at least before speaking and not agreeing with it learn about it, then if you still don't agree, fine. at least then you can be sure you don't agree even after you understood it and you can even send them your sugestions and let them know why you think it won't work and why. Maybe they find your ideas logical and interesting and might help them get ideas to change something either in technical parts or their goals... They are open to sugestions and feedback I can assure you but without being well informed about it maybe better to just say you don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it. Cheers.
        • thumb
          Dec 8 2011: I was actually absolutely captivated by TVP when I first discovered it in 2008 and spent over 40 hours learning about since then, downloading and reading all of their published literature, watching presentations and videos of meeting, etc. The more I learned the more disappointing it became - none of TVP's core concepts could stand up to rigorous evaluation. However, I have not looked at it in almost a year and should take a fresh look....
        • thumb
          Dec 8 2011: Ed, I don't have a particularly strong opinion of the Venus project one way or another, but one remark I feel deserves some clarification. Desire is the cause of suffering....not money. Even if the monetary system were removed, I'm afraid it would simply be replaced by another troublesome factor that would perpetuate this problem for humanity.
      • Dec 7 2011: Unfortunately your derogatory labels seem to serve no purpose to support your arguments.
        It's ironic that you suggest to watch the archives of TED talks.
        Have you watched Clay Shirky's talks? Daniel Pink's talk?
        Have you researched on the work of Alfie Kohn?
        They talk about the exact opposite things that you talk about.
        Have a look at Linux, Wikipedia and open source software and hardware and then come and talk about the profit motive.

        In terms of modularization check the software industry for some good examples and the Open Source Ecology for a hardware one:

        You are confusing the deliberate obsolescence from industry (intrinsic, planned and perceived) and and the obsolescence due to technological advancements. These are two entirely different things.
        The ignorant person that writes this post, suggests you to spend 50 minutes of your time and watch this documentary devoted to planned obsolescence:

        I'm really sorry my friend that you are locked into the market doctrine box and deny to see the evidence that supports something other than your closely held beliefs.
        • thumb
          Dec 7 2011: This is drifting way off the subject of the question, so I'll try to bring it back.

          1) Don't watch TEDTalks to agree with everything being presented, but to educate yourself about a broad spectrum of perspectives on very complex issues - an important feature for City 2.0 might be educating its citizens to embrace complexity. (Yes, I spent quite some time on all the luminaries you mentioned.)

          2) Linux and Wikipedia are driven 100% by the profit motive of individuals who contribute to these endeavors. Where did you get the idea that profit is only defined by cash? For example, when I choose to invest time in debating you on the TED site I PROFIT by expanding my own understanding of complex subjects by motivating the expression of diverse opinions. Embracing a broader definition and inventing new ways of quantifying PROFIT might be a great feature for the City 2.0 initiative.

          3) Planned obsolescence is either hidden product fraud , or the product of ignorance of consumers who purchase it. Both will be solved by radical transparency and collaborative consumption, and have nothing to do with capitalism. These will be essential for City 2.0
          Thank you for the link to the documentary - downloading it now.

          4) You got me backwards from reality - I educated myself over many years and abandoned many closely held beliefs, instead looking at complex and often contradictory evidence.
          Unfortunately, the more you learn the fewer "friends" you keep: I often find myself hated by the socialists and the Ayn Rand libertarians alike because I expose both of their naive oversimplifications of capitalism's shortcomings and strengths.
      • Dec 7 2011: Michael Vlastone, I am a Venus Project fan and I must notice that you have few misunderstandings regarding The Venus Project.

        1. TVP would not impose it's 'Grand design', leaving no place for competitive involvement of people interested in contributing to human society. One can say that if established, TVP would offer just the opposite of inert 'Grand design', i.e. it would open possibilities which are held back today by monetary system - which does not encourage advancement of human society (nor human condition in any sense) at all - which is inadmissible, considering our state of technology and science.
        ‘Competitive, creative environment’ which you advocate is, unfortunately, mostly a form of uncivilized struggle for survival in our monetary system.
        2. Venus Project is not ‘blind to development of technology’, it is an absurd statement from any point of view. ‘Removal of obsolescence’ that you mentioned is true regarding planned obsolescence which is consequence of monetary system and significant source of pollution.
        3. Statements about ‘human nature’ are very bold and, fortunately, utterly unfounded. Such statements can not be put in same sentence with ‘scientific’. Since ‘human nature’ talk is pretty much in domain of philosophy, we could argue that evolution teaches us that every living organism is adapting to surrounding condition, and sociocultural evolution is continuous process, which can, and should, be constructively altered by responsible individuals, unlike it is being done to this day. Presently, sociocultural evolution is being altered in favor of monetary system, i.e. it’s champion - free enterprise system.

        The Venus Project should not be looked at as a pass time, as you suggest. It is rather a proposal of global use of reason. In contemporary state of human society, such a serious attempt to introduce plain healthy human reason to our affairs should be looked upon with gratitude and genuine curiosity.
        • thumb
          Dec 7 2011: Milos, I started out as a fan too....

          Let me offer you a different perspective. I used to be really frustrated by video games - what a waste of time and computing resources. Then I understood that the obsession with all these stupid games drives the evolution of CPUs, GPUs, etc. THose who spend too much time playing Warcraft, would have wasted their time anyway by sitting at the bar and drinking 20 years ago. Instead, their consumption drives an industry essential to all human progress.

          If everyone was born smart, kind and beautiful life would be fair - but it is not, at least not right now. Think about that one in the context of Venus Project.
      • Dec 7 2011: It seems while the followers of the Venus Project do well in repeating the phrases and promises of the Venus Project, they don't understand its doctrine in its entirety. Neither does Vlastone.

        There is a very important conclusion upon which much of VP's doctrine is built. The conclusion is that a sociocybernated scenario is INEVITABLE for society. Why? Because it is the most efficient economic arrangement conceivable at this time. As the market tends to inevitably push for greater efficiency, it places society on an inexorable path toward a particular organization. This organization will be more controlled than the organization we have today. This process of reorganization is not only caused ultimately by economic forces but forces of social evolution as well. This is THE MARCH OF EVENTS that is made inevitable by the deep structure of technological and sociological co-evolution. This reorganization will be a reaction to the civil unrest generated by a growing world population running short on resources, overloading the carrying capacity of the earth. At this point you can expect top-down control programs descending upon the populations from desperate governments.

        Free markets can't operate in a world that has become too desperate to permit the exercise of past freedoms. Governments will have to install a planned and controlled sociocybernated system by necessity. They will call upon scientists/technicians to engineer this program. There would be no other way of managing societies under such desperate conditions. Solutions for the crisis from the market would be too slow.

        In sum, such an inevitable organization manifests in two ways: 1. something like a technocratic fascist tyranny or a technocratic state controlled military dictatorship, or 2. if forward thinking people work together with large investors (on the scale of Dubai), then we can shortcut to the new organization before governments are forced to take coercive action. Fresco tries for the latter.
        • thumb
          Dec 7 2011: Just to add to the 'planned obsolescence' aspect of this discussion.

          Isn't planned obsolescence a consequence of 'economies of scale' - In the current paradigm products have to be mass produced in order to achieve economic viability. With the burgeoning 3D printing technologies this will be turned on it's head where bespoke production with minimal waste will be possible.

          This type of 'access abundance' is something I would like to see implemented in City 2.0 especially where food is concerned which is certainly an area covered by the Venus Project by hydroponic farming methods.

          Check out Cybernated Farming Systems, a new venture by ex-shuttle engineer (and TVP supporter) Douglas Malette who aims to get this technology off the ground commercially.

          I guess what all this is pointing to is the goal of 'Self sustaining' which surely no-one is arguing against.
        • thumb
          Dec 7 2011: The thing about the future is that very few things are inevitable. Religious cults all have their beliefs in their particular "march of events that is made inevitable." Lenin, Hitler, Mao and Bin Laden all believed in their inevitable march of events. All were wrong, of course, but that hasn't weakened the confidence of the many who still maintain their own vision of an "inevitable" future. The past is inevitable. The future is flexible and uncertain. Inevitably uncertain.
      • thumb
        Dec 7 2011: Appreciate the voice of reason, hard to hear in a sea of frothy dreams.
        • Dec 8 2011: Regarding your response above. Indeed, extrapolating the future is difficult. Some have succeeded in that past. Some haven't. The key is recognizing basic axioms and patterns and understanding how they affect each other.
          -We recognize that humans have a set of absolute needs
          -If you recognize that humans have certain needs, you can delineate a range of reactions when these needs go unfulfilled.
          -We can see one reaction in the world today, that citizens will uprise when their needs go unfulfilled
          -Likewise, you can recognize that self-preservation is virtually a law of life, and that this holds true for institutions as well, beings individual self-preservation is dependent upon the institution. Self-preservation is a primary cause for uprisings.
          -You can recognize that in the past, uprising people were eventually pacified when economic conditions returned to a comfort zone. But can such a return continue?
          -You can recognize that the population growth rate cannot be sustained.
          -You can recognize that the earth has finite resources
          -You can recognize, that automation is a relentless trend in human evolution. B/c it is more efficient, humans will automate wherever possible, as soon as possible

          What lays ahead is quite obvious. It is a threat that no good reason or good prudence could deny. (To think that the market can solve it requires as much faith as you may accuse me of having). We are barreling forward toward a crisis: technological unemployment for an exponentially growing population. That is the end of capitalism and the beginning of something new. How will institutions deal with this? The answer: Sociocyberneering in a global resource-based economy. It will be the most efficient way to administer human needs. Society is a mechanism and someday it will be managed like a mechanism.
        • Dec 8 2011: The point is that a sociocybernated resource-based economy is as inevitable to our era as automation was inevitable to the medieval era. It is as inevitable as the human body merging with technology. It will evolve as naturally as a bee hive. Economic forces, human need, and planetary constrictions will force it into place.

          Natural law is responsible for this evolution. The bee hive was forced into existence by natural law; so too will it force new infrastructures in cities and social arrangements.

          However, there is a point of no return, and there are factors that may interfere with this evolution (natural disaster or nuclear war).

          Of course technology is the most radical variable and is rendering the future of material objects and their function ever more unpredictable. In contrast, the relationship between humans and technology has evolved in a relatively stable and predictable way. Our technology has changed, and its change is difficult to predict, but our relationship to it has not changed. Fresco's extrapolations are concerned with this relationship and operate on its basis. Fresco is concerned with the larger issue of human evolution of which technology is a part. Such extrapolations require a focus on certain factors that many forcasters severely neglect. Some say it is inevitable that humans will merge with machines, but that is as far as they go. They don't concern themselves with what is inevitable for society.
      • thumb
        Dec 8 2011: Not really, The designs in "flat land" are just an example of how the best technology applied could work. It's more a way of building cities than a unique design, you can learn more about it in the website. However if we keep efficiency and sustaniability as our goal. We need to move forward and forget our current market based structure. That will make a real City 2.0
      • Dec 8 2011: If not a full scale TVP style RBE, what say you about what I consider the transitional and ongoing alternative of self managed communities?

        In any case, I think a lot of people look to find flaws in order to say, "Look, it can never be that great.. just won't happen in reality." Well, finding flaws is a good thing because it allows for improvement- the attitude that this is "Utopian"- when in fact there will always be problems of some sort- and therefore must never even be attempted, is not as helpful. I also agree with Sharon who is saying that suggesting the Venus Project doesn't mean that one agrees with every proposal by Jacque, but rather, the overall picture of what it allows for.
      • thumb
        Dec 8 2011: We are working on a platform that could essentially handle what you are saying as well as keep things local. I am drafting a more complete response and would appreciate your thoughts.


    • thumb
      Dec 6 2011: If one embraces the idea or a vision, it does not mean you have to agree 100%. Take the best things and change some stuff... for now. If great ideas are rejected because it is new, innovative and astounding, we push ourselves backwards. We need to have an open mind because there is a lot of good things in the venus project.
      • thumb
        Dec 8 2011: Sharon, urban history is littered with wonderful ideas of utopianists. The Venus Project shares so many similarities with these it is not funny. Whilst many goals are noble, creative, innovative, we need to recognise the reality of our villages, towns and cities, and that the way forward is thousands of small projects to change the way cities and towns work.80% of the future is already here. We are better off supporting ways to improve the existing, than to chase one perfect city, in one cultural context that may not translate across cultures and climate zones.
        • thumb
          Dec 8 2011: @ Peter. Points well taken. There are so many ways to interpreted TVP. I did not say that we copy TVP exactly but taking some great ideas from it and apply to what we have missed here in the US. As I said before there life is a balance. At present, we have moved too far towards greed and mis-management or what ever the reasons may be that contributed to where we stand today. Why are there so many homeless here? I can name you countries like Singapore that there are no homeless people walking the streets. Everyone is taken care of by the family or the Gov. When companies are rich, they give to the poor and actually help create homes for the homeless and sickly and managed the community. No one tells them what to do. They just do it. I think Singapore has kind of adopted the TVP a little. People actually do not need cars. Public transportation is really easy to get to. As the country get richer, I hope the act of civic conscience is still maintained.

          Back to us, maybe a selected, more contained, well-run community could be a solution for us. Because a closer well designed cell community can bring more advantage than a spread out community where no one cares about each other. TVP project seems like a possible solution.
      • thumb
        Dec 8 2011: Sharon,

        Singapore and TVP share urban/social ideas, which are universal. Singapore has not adopted TVP at all. They are learning from European best practice sustainability. Having worked in Singapore, and with Singaporean urbanists, I am aware of what they are doing, how they are going about it, and who is the inspiration. In many projects, ideas bubble out of local people and are adopted.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.