Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Yanlin]

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

A friend linked to this. This is basically what I've been dreaming about.

What does the Liberal Crime Squad think of this?

We need a slogan! Is that slogan "Venus!"?

[Cthulhu]

I'm not going to say when I'm coming back, but I can assure you it'll be before this is implemented.  In a utopia, I will have nothing to hate, and without things to hate, I am nothing.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

The LCS would probably think it's brilliant. I have too much Wisdom and Business skill to fall into that trap.

In the introduction to the "Resaurce-Based Economy", it's written:

A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

This premise is false. Resources on Earth are scarce. I don't even have to make an argument against it, as the argument is provided in the conclusion:

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Any time that not paying for something by stealing it results in the person you stole from having less of it -- say, you rob a store, and take a Backstreet Boys CD, and now it has one fewer copy of that CD -- you are dealing with a scarcity issue. If, on the other hand, you are downloading the Backstreet Boys CD from the internet, it isn't a scarcity issue; the market there is artificially imposed by law. He could present a "resource-based economy" argument for internet data and intellectual property, but he attempts to apply it to physical resources that are not effectively infinite. Because his entire utopian vision is based on this premise, it is pointless.

When there are unlimited needs and wants, and limited resources, there exists scarcity. Scarcity forces choices -- what to produce, how to produce, and for whom to produce.

That's from Holt Economics, by Robert L. Pennington -- an excellent read, and one of the few textbooks I've read cover-to-cover.

[Servant Corps]

A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Green ideology states that resources are scarce, and since Elite Liberalism would sympathize with Green ideology (due to environment laws), it too believe that resources are scarce.

(EDIT: Well, maybe. Green ideology hates Liberalism since Liberals believe in technological development that can lower pollution and increase carrying capacity while Green ideology believes it cannot. Liberals believe in research to cure the world's problem, while Green ideologists believe in reducing the amount of economic growth from its unsustainable levels, so as to avoid depleting all of the Earth's resources. But this is Elite Liberalism, so, hm.

Johnatan S. Fox, when environment laws are at L+, how does the government's ban on pollution works? That may help to see if the LCS would agree with Venus.)

To me, my first thought when reading this quote is that this is just a front for Libertaranism. The LCS would burn it with fire.

EDIT: And on second thought, it doesn't seem to be Libertaranism either. Libertaranism wants property. And abolishing money seems to be something the LCS might be interested in.

[Guy Montag]

Yeah, that Zeitgeist movie likes to think we live in a world where everything can be free "Becuz techologialy will b advanced" and everyone can own a 200 story tall skyscraper made out of gold and never work "because robots", ect. You can tell they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about is pretty evident with thier premise that science can overcome any obstacle, like with thier 3000 mph international maglev trains and shit.

The Venus project is basically such a naive take on "communism in outer spaaaaaace!" that it discredits and portrays the American Liberal movement as a bunch of 12 year old pheusdo intellectuals that have absolutely no grasp on the laws of physics, let alone the idea of scarcity of resources.

If anything the LCS would shoot up their HQ and deface their Conservative website because it hurts their cause.

[Servant Corps]

I knew I seen this before. Post scarcity is a staple of sci-fi stories. I think you can pigeon-hole Venus as part of Techno-Utopianism.

Even if the LCS would agree with this sort of thing, they would need to brainwash sleeper scientists in order to research technologies, not commit terrorist activites to get Liberals into political office.

[mainiac]

I dunno.  The Venus folks don't seem strictly post scarcity from the admittedly small investigation I made.  There doesn't need to be an infinite amount of resources to achieve their utopia.  There needs to be enough.  And it seem they want to lower what that "enough" is.  This doesn't have to mean a low standard of living, many of the greatest pleasures in life aren't resource intensive.  I doubt there is any reasonable path towards the utopia they envision, but I don't think that utopia is an impossible state to exist in.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

One of the explicit objectives of the Venus Project is to overcome and eliminate scarcity, so it's definitely a post-scarcity vision. The site is extremely short on examples of individuals actually making acquisitions in the new economy, but this example is illustrative:

Q. How would one choose a home?

A. An example of the wide range of choice available in a resource-based economy is the way one selects a house. For instance, a man and woman may visit an architectural design center and sit in front of a clear hemisphere approximately six feet in diameter. The woman describes the type of house she would prefer and her areas of interest. The house appears as a 3-dimensional image in the center of the hemisphere. It rotates slowly to present a view of the interior and exterior. Then the man describes his major interests and preferences and suggests a larger balcony. The 3-dimensional image is adjusted. When they have finished requesting changes, the computer presents various alternatives to consider. They will also enter a sensorium to experience a walk-through of their preferred design and continue to make changes.

When they arrive at a final design, construction procedures are set in motion. The computer selects materials for efficiency and durability. None of the architecture is permanent and can be modified and updated at the request of the occupants.

This is real individual choice. In a monetary system, most live near their work with a house, car, and lifestyle they can afford (or all too often cannot afford), rather than one they prefer. Today we are only as free as our purchasing power permits. Lacking a true sense of self worth, many buy houses as status symbols just to impress others.

A resource-based economy changes the nature of our dwellings from that of status symbol, or just basic shelter, to a reflection of individuality and personal interests.

Aside from the technology babble, this is exactly how building a custom home works today, if you can afford to purchase the service of an architect and wait for the construction of the home. The difference Jaques Fresco proposes is that everything is free, and thus people would no longer need to "live near their work with a house, car, and lifestyle they can afford", and instead can have what they want, without purchasing power limitations. This is not a demand reduction; it is a fantasy of being able to fulfill infinite demand.

[mainiac]

Well then, clearly post scarcity.

[Lord Trogg]

incoming rant!
Their idea of no monetary unit would work in a post scarcity world but since we don't live in one already we can only try to reduce scarcity of resources by moving them to where they are needed; however, there isn't any motivation to give away your resources other than the concept of a utopia which isn't suitable to human nature. Money on the other hand is essentially a technology for ensuring that everyone gets benefits to suit the self-centered human psyche while making resources flow. So money flows one way and resources would flow back and everyone is ensured of benefit because money is redeemable for practically anything, hopes and dreams are not. So their system is trying to achieve the exact same thing but without giving people appealing reasons to go with the system.
I feel much better now

[Neonivek]

I find it kinda funny that they list Overpopulation somewhere.

When... well... any sort of Teraforming or Colonisation would actually have a higher and more realistic risk of overpopulation because construction would have to be faster then the population increase which would cost a lot of money.

Earth's Overpopulation is more of a problem with a improper/wasteful use of resources and properly allocated the Earth can support a population many times greater then we currently have.

In terms of Colonisation of other planets I don't really see how it is supposed to fix much. Though I assume they are refering to hundreds upon hundreds of years into the future with multitrillion dollar projects.

[Yanlin]

My personal opinion on this is that some of the stuff they want are impossible. But this can be modified. For example, if we keep money and abolish profit, we don't have to tear down the system. The more money you have, the more you pay in taxes.

Basically what the liberal crime squad wants. But it has to work both ways. The less money you have, the less you pay in taxes. Of course, police has to be cranked up. If somebody is extremely rich in items but has little money, hes obviously committing tax fraud. Offshore banks and such.

But the other stuff in this project? It is possible. To automate most work is possible. If the government provides all the necessities for free and only luxuries cost money, problem solved. What has to be raised is the definition of luxury and necessity. It has to be raised. Electricity. Entertainment. Running water. Heating. Insurance. Healthcare. Food. Clean water. Repairs. Etc.

While things such as vacations, big screen TVs, fancy furniture, expensive clothing, etc, will still cost money.

Public transport should be free too. But it has to be efficient. Personal travel by car is a luxury. It is inefficient. It is possible to criss cross a city with express lanes. Between express lanes, local bus service. For example, you ride from express tram station A to express tram station B. You need to get a destination a few kilometers away. You take the local express buses. Those will have a station every 1.5 square kilometers. Each station will be a small central-like station with multiple buses going in multiple directions. Most of this system can even be automated.

The incentive that always works is taxes. You'll notice that only the rich oppose to this form of taxation.

[Ampersand]

The problem isn't that resources are scares, it's that people are plentiful. If the world's population could be reduced to a small fraction of the current population, then it's resources would be sustainable.

It's also a problem that the vast majority of the world's resources are wasted in producing Useless Crap that people buy in vast quantities. How many barrels of oil could be saved if small children didn't demand a constant stream of useless plastic crap?

[mainiac]

Useless plastic crap gave me many fond memories as a child.  Please stop displaying such a conservative judgementalism.

[Servant Corps]

The problem isn't that resources are scares, it's that people are plentiful. If the world's population could be reduced to a small fraction of the current population, then it's resources would be sustainable.

What gave you that idea? As long as there are still humans, nay, as long as there are still life, the resources of the Earth will constanly be depleted. It's not "sustainable" at all, the depletion of resources just slow down, but it will not stop.