Talk:The Venus Project/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 12 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Topic

From what I can tell its usualy best to paste this sort of thing to the talk page. So the stuff recently added is here. 23:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll just delete it since its pretty pointless now. 17:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Counterpoint for criticism based on altruism

I think there is no counterpoint for the criticism section and there should be:

Critics will also cite the commonly-held belief that just because one does a day's work, that somehow gives them the right to get paid,[25] and that people will always demand compensation when contributing labor or investing any of themselves into the progress of society. The conclusion is that without some form of monetary compensation, people will have no motivation to participate or contribute in society.

I understand that these are the words of critics but since we are evaluating if the idea of venus project is viable or not(theoretically speaking). I believe that two things should be added to counter the above cited. One is Mazlow's hierarchy which is lacking the need for any monetary system, and the other of course is the altruism that can be found all over the world and especially modern internet. I remember a book from Wallace P. (Psychology of the internet) had a chapter about altrusim that maybe could stand as a counterpoint. Micdhack (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Those sound like very poor counter-statements to me; Mazlow's hierarchy was based on a very small sample size and has been heavily criticized, while communities on the Internet are a very poor parallel to real-world communities. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as i know there aren't any other hierarchies out there that tried to describe needs. All theories are criticized. The reality is that there some universal needs [1], and probably mazlow's hierarchy especially the first tool levels (food, shelter and security) are more than valid. The need for money is given only in relation to cover those needs(and the rest of them in whatever hierarchy they might be). The hierarchy may vary from location to location and between cultures but i think we can easily say based on evidence and common logic that food, shelter and security will probably be at the top. People have a need for money to cover those needs, if money didn't exist or exchanged for these needs then people would gladly accept the new conditions. I am not saying that this is a proof or an explanation of everything, but i am saying that based on this and actions of altruism that can be found even in real life, that a money-free society would not die out of boredom. Besides the criticism written at that section is based on a "commonly-held belief" which is way less concrete than scientific published work.Micdhack (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Woo

For a moment I did not see how this was classified as woo. If anyone was introduced to the Venus Project by looking at the city planning talks by Jacque Fresco, I urge them to take a proper look at the site. There you will see that they do not make a clear division between their asserted, unsubstantiated claims about social planning and Fresco's structural designs. So, unfortunately, the Venus Project has to be classed as woo by virtue of the first aspect. A shame really. It would be very interesting to see if and how a circular city would function.

What unsubstantiated claims are you referring to?

Hansen128 (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

From forum thread

In your article about The Venus Project (TVP), it seems that you're trying to make it look like pseudo-science with specific questions like “Given that we have scarce resources, the central planning computer needs to have a way to prioritize between millions of competing desires. How important are cars relative to fridges? How big should these fridges be? How often do they need to be replaced? Should we make more fridges or more fridge factories so we can make even more in the future?”

Well, the answer is rather simple: Of course there would be a limited amount of resources for every individual in the RBE , but after assessing the total number of resources available, the central computer would just have to divide equally those given resources of energy, transportation and appliance design & manufacturing made by robots among the inhabitants in that society, for example on a monthly bases in the form of resource credits similarly to what Marshall Brain was talking about in the Australian Project part of his Manna story. Just to give you an idea, Brain was saying that everybody gets 4000 credits a month (don't know the number exactly), and it's up to individuals to use those resource credits as they wish with a catalog to choose from the available food, clothes, shelter, appliances, and vacations together with their corresponding resource expenditure; a simple fridge would be worth 50 credits (again, I don't know the exact amount but I'm just throwing numbers around), and a super duper fridge would cost 250 credits. ^{— Unsigned, by: JLMfoto / talk / contribs} 00:27, 18 August 2014‎ (UTC)

When Fresco talks about the elimination of scarcity, he’s talking about making products available for people. He’s talking about ensuring everyone has access to nutritious food, clean water, warmth, and all of the other necessities of life. But he also talks about scarcity when referring to planetary resources and yes the planet has finite resources. Although everyone could be given a toilet, everyone could not be given a gold toilet. Whoever wrote that section of the article is clearly getting those two contexts mixed up.

TVP proposes analyzing the planet to determine which resources are available and where they exist. Those results can be fed into a computer to determine how many products of various types can be turned out. If we foresee a future shortage of a particular resource, plans can be adjusted or alternate materials can be substituted to continue production. In the current system (the way we do things now) all mineral deposits and resources are exposed to exploitation and recycling protocols are avoided in the name of profit. TVP proposes analyzing the viability of recycling a given product before producing the product. The aim being to maximize product reusability and reduce waste.

Hansen128 (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Objection

The text was originally inserted into the article.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that the venus project resembles marxism, this criticism can be easily refuted. Just as marxism is based on historical determinism, the venus project is generally based on determinism and science. The documentary stresses that all decisions are made based on scientific analysis of people's necessities. Although humans would certainly be involved in the process, it is not humans that make those decisions. For example, scientists makes many conclusions, but none of them is despotic, since scientific truths are independent from human minds. One might argue that human desires are subjective and a judgement on desires is also subjective. This is, however, only true for 'desires', but not for 'needs'. Judging whether soda is delicious enough to produce is subjective, but it is scientific truth that human body needs a certain amount of water to survive. The production in the described society is not about satisfying desires, but necessities. Once all necessities are guaranteed, Fresco argues, old incentives like wealth and power disappear and new incentives like desires for scientific and philosophical truths arise. This is not a new idea; Plato argues in Republic that only philosophers achieve supreme happiness. Also, it is simple misunderstanding that resources are scarce; they are abundant but the monetary system resists efficiency and promotes irrationally rapid spending.

Lastly, I want to stress that any argument concerning future, such as marxism and the venus project, should not be examined solely based on historical evidences; it is extrapolation and thus does not guarantee accuracy. Rather, one should focus on the argument's criticism on history and assumptions. For example, if one finds the following false, the venus project loses its credibility: that the venus project's criticism on the monetary system is not accurate or that its assumption that humans would not be greedy when all necessities is false.^{— Unsigned, by: Rnjsanwjd / talk / contribs 17:33, 8 March 2015‎ (UTC)}

The Plan

The new section on the plan may be a bit silly. I was wondering what made them an actual "project" so I looked at their site to see what they were really doing. Then I discovered that their plan involves building a theme park after building a city and thought this information should be on the page.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My $0.02 is that I wouldn’t include the theme park in the page simply because it’s distracting to the reader. Just like including Jacque’s background as an aviation designer would be a distraction. If the article grows in length and depth then one could consider adding details like those in.

Hansen128 (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Venus Project is possibly misportrayed

I'll grab two random parts of the article as a case in point, but most parts share the same issue:

The Venus Project doesn't have an answer to any of these questions. Or even designs for robots to accomplish every mundane task... How important are cars relative to fridges? How big should these fridges be? How often do they need to be replaced? Should we make more fridges or more fridge factories so we can make even more in the future? —

Consider this: It is perfectly OK to criticize someone who claims to have invented faster than light travel, but it is NOT OK to mock someone who came up with the theoretical idea of wormholes onlybecause he has no working machine. He never claimed he has one in the first place. He's just a visionary. He did not mislead. Jaque is the latter type.

If you listen to Jacque Fresco's original interviews (and not the Zeitgest series, which Jacque disliked and stopped cooperating with), you'll see that he acknowledges that the project is incomplete, that the precise details are not known yet, and that the entire project may turn out to be impractical eventually.

I think he is in fact a clever man promoting further research into an idea which he believes in, but he never sells the Venus Project as a "working product" and so it should not be treated as such. It is silly and not really rational to argue things like "Where are the robots?". It's the spreading of the idea that was his point.

Disclaimer: I've researched this project a decade ago, and we are all subject false memories. If I am incorrect about this, I am willing to stand corrected. -- 217.132.47.112 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the domes, the 3d animations, the theme park, were all parts of the plan to *educate*, not to build an actual city. The 3d models are not even prototypes. ^{— Unsigned, by: 217.132.47.112 / talk}

I agree with you. Electrical grids weigh thousands of competing variables every second and can make transmission flow decisions millions of times faster than the smartest human. And with fewer errors. Supermarkets anticipate surges in demand and stock the shelves accordingly leveraging just-in-time production. TVP’s strategies are similar to these. Just think of it like a giant balanced load economy for the whole world. That is, as nations opt in. There’s no coercion.

Hansen128 (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"Carrying capacity of the earth" does not equal scarcity

Scarcity is when resources are too low. One can allocate resources based on how much resources one has so as to efficiently utilize them, even when the resources are not scarce, and/or to prevent future scarcity caused by using resources faster than the replenishment rate. -- 217.132.47.112 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Scarcity means finite resource. Shortage would be when resources are too low. At least according to Economics 101. I don't know what context "scarce" is referring to, but maybe it's that? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not accept that scarce=finite. Please provide a citation. If that were true, then a resource is not scarce so long as it's not infinite, meaning e.g. solar power is scarce. That's clearly not the definition people typically use and not the definition in most dictionaries, no matter what the formal definition at eco 101 says. With a quick search, I couldn't find finite = scarce, but I found these:

* wiktionary: Uncommon, rare; difficult to find; insufficient to meet a demand. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scarce

* dictionary.com: not easy to find or get: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scarce

* oxford: Insufficient for the demand. Occurring in small numbers or quantities; rare. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scarce ^{— Unsigned, by: 217.132.47.112 / talk / contribs}

Inappropriately opinionated section about the disagreement between The Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement

The last part of this section, beginning with "In short:" is very problematic, in that an encyclopedia is not supposed to present its own sharp judgements on matters like this, at least not without backing them up with references to named people who have argued in a similar way. What we get here is a definitive judgement on those movements and their leaders from some anonymous (to casual viewers) author. I am not affiliated with any of those movements, but I think this is highly questionable content to appear in an encyclopedia. The one reference in this section is a dead link by the way.

I would suggest deleting this whole section, or completely rewriting it to reference named persons who have made similar judgements, in such a way that it is clear that those are judgements of theirs and not of some anonymous contributor. ^{— Unsigned, by: 87.49.147.0 / talk}

Two points.

1. RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia.
2. RationalWiki allows editers to draw conclusions based on the evidence presented. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thought experiment is incorrect. (No money paragraph).

Adding virtual money contradicts main goals of The Venus Project, such as: 1) elimination of property (" Realizing the declaration of the world's resources as being a common heritage of all people ") 2) replacing money-based economy with resource-based economy. 3) reduction of the primary incentive for criminal behavior, such as hacking accounts with virtual money and other ways to get them. The paragraph #3( "No money") should be changed/removed. ^{— Unsigned, by: Owner of my account / talk / contribs}

I agree

Hansen128 (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)