Resource Based Economy & The Venus Project (From Zeitgeist Addendum)

[S.O.I]

a non political view of a profit based economy and capitalism, and what it can be replaced with, and it draws important lines to leftist ideologies like anarchism (or left-libertarianism) and communism/socialism:

YtfOAIfsLt8
link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtfOAIfsLt8

it is kind of a post right-left leftism, or modernized libertarian-socialism if you will. it explains how the most important factor for achieveing this 'state' is technology, and a turning in human consciousness wich has been ever evolving for as long as we have existed. or something. id like to hear your thoughts.
link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtfOAIfsLt8

[SocialRealist]

The Venus Project is an example of Technocracy. Technocracy is a form of government where the technical members of society, run and control society, this would result in a massive sense of bureaucracy in every thought of the word.

[S.O.I]

The Venus Project is an example of Technocracy. technology will inevidably become more and more important and advanced, but even it includes every aspect of government it is not a form of government. it is simply a tool. i have read about this "technocracy", and i find the thought rather anti-progressive to state that techology will control humanity, when humanity will always control technology. there will be no arnold terminators running for president. except for maybe arnold himself. (wich is propably atleast over 50% percent human. i think. :P )



this would result in a massive sense of bureaucracy in every thought of the word.

this you will need to explain, cause in my mind it would be the rather the complete opposite. beurocracy comes from a lack of "intelligent-systemization" if you will and technology, and the notion that this and that person deserves this and that, and that not everyone should just have every opportunity out there along with everyone else.

[SocialRealist]

technology will inevadably become more and more important, but it is not a form of government it is simply a tool. i have read about this "technocracy", and i find the thought rather anti-progressive...




this you will need to explain, cause in my mind it would be the rather the complete opposite. beurocracy comes from a lack of "intelligent-systemization" if you will and technology, and the notion that this and that person deserves this and that, and that not everyone should just have every opportunity out there along with everyone else.
Bureaucracy is the structure and set of regulations in place to control activity, usually in large organizations and government.
Obviously under technocracy there would be several limits when it comes to how it would work, being that the society would be function around technology and technicians.

It is shown that technology and technicians can only do as much as science shall let them, at many times, science can take time, this would be an example of a limit.

[ckaihatsu]

a non political view of a profit based economy and capitalism


This is a contradiction, just in this short clause.

If someone is going to *claim* to be "non-political" -- a dubious claim anyway -- then they would have to *limit* themselves to discussing *only* the technology at hand, like a geek (specialized knowledge). And even this circumscribed role is still problematic, because technology has to be produced by some sort of socialized process, which itself is inherently political.



it is kind of a post right-left leftism


So, after claiming to be "a non political view" the statement immediately takes up a political tone, speaking of "profit-based", "economy", "capitalism", and "post right-left leftism".

This is simply a giveaway. Those who claim to be "non-political" are either the most naive, or are the slimiest of all -- and it's safe to bet blindly on the latter. Since we know that we live in societies, all production (of technology, etc.) is socialized, and therefore politicized. So to talk about politics -- even to call it "non-political" -- is to *be* political. All that remains is to identify what *kind* of politics are being expressed, whether consciously or naively.



this you will need to explain, cause in my mind it would be the rather the complete opposite. beurocracy comes from a lack of "intelligent-systemization" if you will and technology, and the notion that this and that person deserves this and that, and that not everyone should just have every opportunity out there along with everyone else.


So, to re-state, you're saying that the term 'bureaucracy' is usually associated with a lack of efficient systemization of resources / technology -- and that allows a bureaucracy to take power and make arbitrary judgments over which people will be allowed to use what kinds of technology, for what purposes.

This is certainly a valid definition for what a bureaucracy is -- historically it *has* meant an elitist ruling-class control over the best outputs of societal production, with everything inferior left to the rest of the population.

'Bureaucracy' can also have a *good* meaning, in that it can *possibly* be a very flat organization of standardized, efficient administration over a far-reaching area.

A bureaucracy, however corrupt, may actually be *preferable* to a political situation where "everyone should just have every opportunity out there along with everyone else." This is because an absence of bureaucracy tends to lead to the formation of private groups over the control of technology, like armaments, and therefore to warfare, like World War I and World War II.

A bureaucracy monopolizes control over the use of force, including weaponry, thereby disallowing small-scale warfare from breaking out -- to varying degrees of success, of course. Bureaucracy, however corrupt, also controls the means of mass production and establishes an official, baseline standard for *everyone*'s relationship to it, on a far more level ground than otherwise.

This is the reason why the former U.S.S.R., from the '30s onward, is such a tricky political issue. Its political control over the means of mass production remained collectivized to the ruling, Stalinist bureaucracy, though increasingly elitist, corrupt, and murderous. This centralized control was much more efficient at industrialization and mass production, though, than the Western capitalist model of state-favored companies within industries of limited competition.

We can *never* side-step the political issue attached to technology, because there is always the future to consider, and therefore there has to be a political decision on *which* technology(-ies) to consider and support.

[Yazman]

The Venus Project is an example of Technocracy. Technocracy is a form of government where the technical members of society, run and control society, this would result in a massive sense of bureaucracy in every thought of the word.

Socialrealist, this is the worst representation I have ever heard of technocracy. You are confusing two entirely different systems. You seem to equate the "technicians run everything" term with the actual political movement of Technocracy which is a movement that advocates a politically decentralised, post-scarcity, non-monetary economy established with a heavy focus on expanding the uses of and mass producing and implementing existing technology in order to establish something that resembles the sort of anarcho-communist society that we here at RL advocate.

The very genesis of these ideas comes from a very old organisation called Technocracy Inc, which was a movement advocating the building of a technate in north america - a society that would operate along the above-mentioned lines, not unlike what the Venus Project advocates. There are various movements today, there is one in Europe called NET. Technocracy Inc continues today as well although it is a bit smaller, and it is from those guys that the term "technocracy" as it is used to describe the political movement or stream of thought comes from. There are also many marxist trends of thought that were influenced by this.

There is an entire community group of us here at RL that advocate this - we are called the "Human Progress Group" and while we all have slight variations on the theme depending on our region and influences, we all pretty much advocate this.

Socialrealist, I suggest you do some research before coming out with slanderous statements like this because it doesn't do much for your credibility.

[bailey_187]

This Venus project crap is as a pipe dream, just like anarchism

[Yazman]

This Venus project crap is as a pipe dream, just like anarchism

On the contrary; marxist/anarchist technocracy is our best hope for establishing a post-scarcity, stateless, classless society. It has a firm grounding in existing technology and does not require a "transitional" state for implementation.

[Kassad]

First off, I can't seem to find any reason to support Fresco and The Venus Project. First of all, Fresco works with a minute number of people. In fact, I think he only works with one person and her name is Roxanne Meadows, if I recall correctly. If Fresco had a team of engineers and a decent list of people saying that his engineering, structures and architecture were feasible, then we could talk. Unfortunately, after observing the website, it just seems like technology that comes out of a sci-fi movie. There is no plausible source that provides any plausibility to these structures.

In all honesty, this is just utopian socialism. Let's create an ideal society where no one has to work and everything is perfect. We can all live together in super-cities and all of life's ails will disappear. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The Venus Project has no consideration of the class struggle. It doesn't properly observe bourgeoisie exploitation, as it merely blames eveything on money, when in truth, it is those who own the money that cause the problems we face.

Fresco consistently says things like "the system has to fail." Well, of course it does, but what do we do until then? He would tell us to sit back, relax and wait for the monetary system to collapse. How deluded must you be? We should spend our time working towards education and organization so that we can achieve technological and social development after the bourgeoisie system of exploitation is destroyed. We shouldn't be dreaming of utopias.

[Cult of Reason]

The guy who heads the Venus Project was actually a member of Technocracy Inc. a few decades ago, which would explain why Technocracy and the Venus Project are so similar. TVP is a lot more speculative, though, with all those pretty pictures, which is not surprising since he is, what, a graphic designer by trade? TVP also has the notion, probably misguided, that post-scarcity is feasible across the whole world, while my own research (see sig -- full report) suggests that it is much more probable for certain regions of the world.

Also, if you want a more realistic idea of the potential of various energy sources, I would suggest visiting the following site for a book by a professor of physics addressing the issue:

http://www.withouthotair.com

[Diagoras]

...a pipe dream, just like anarchism.

Yeah, those crazy advocates of freedom, people being involved in the decisions that affect them, and coming together as equals when making wider decisions. What crazy crap will they think up next?:rolleyes: