Thougths on The Venus Project?
It's incredibly naive. You suppose that everyone is going to get along in perpetual harmony, that the world is going to support you by providing you resources free of charge, that growth, scarcity or anti-intellectualism aren't existent.
Venus Project is a shit.
>Thougths on The Venus Project?
19th Century Marxism 2: Magic Robots Bugaloo
it's a scam.
wants to sell you the future before it is there. knows the fears and hopes of people and incorporates them in seminars.
If you look at the facts their "future" is incomplete and mostly does not exist. For instance they talk a lot about high tech that maintains everything, yet they have less of that than usual corporations. What they do have is "futuristic" design, again which has only art value or tries to convince people, not driven by practical design.
I could see the 21st century communism encapsulated by the venus project as being a possible end state if what people say about automation comes to full fruition.
For what it's worth, I don't think it's likely within 100 years, but I'll know within 10 if I'm wrong because surely by another decade if automation is going to take over the world we'll have mostly automated cars/trucks on the roads.
Kinda like Oceania but with better artwork to sell their scam.
Why not? Automated tasks are developing on a rapid scale. Everything that has a pattern can be automated, even today.
I myself think Venus Project has a way of thinking we should adapt, i do not however tvink we can have a one world anarchy/communism as peoples have free will and diffrent opinions. But the technological parts of Venus Project is in my opinion plausible, ideology maybe not so much.
>Everything that has a pattern can be automated
Yes. And a high share of such tasks already is.
Service industry will most likely not die very soon, since people are social.
Most tasks that can't be done by a retard or is the same pattern in a controlled environment is also highly superior when done by humans.
>You can't just make shit because it looks good, if there is no advantage there is no point.
It makes the people living there happier which is actually really important. As long as making it look good doesn't jeopardize the structual integrity then it's fine imo.
>It makes the people living there happier
are you sure?
They usually don't see the S-shape when they live within that construction.
It would be more important to optimize the view on these streets, if they really cared about the everyday life of their residents.
Can't answer for the S-shape right now because i don't have the explenation in my head. But i will give you another example.
Some of their buildings are Dome shaped, and made of concrete. Why?:
The dome requires the least amount of material to enclose a given area. It offers ease of fabrication and prefabrication. It is the shape of maximum strength and stability. When properly engineered, the dome can withstand extremely high wind loads and is resistant to earthquakes, termites, rodents, and fire. Most of all, being constructed of concrete, it preserves our forests.
Honestly.. how can you look at this shit and take it seriously?
>To transcend these limitations, The Venus Project proposes we work toward a worldwide, resource-based economy, a holistic social and economic system in which the planetary resources are held as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants. The current practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant, counter-productive, and falls far short of meeting humanity's needs.....
>To better understand a resource-based economy, consider this. If all the money in the world disappeared overnight, as long as topsoil, factories, personnel and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we needed to fulfill most human needs. It is not money that people require, but rather free access to most of their needs without worrying about financial security or having to appeal to a government bureaucracy. In a resource-based economy of abundance, money will become irrelevant.
And who will be deciding how we divvy up these resources? SO HOLISTIC!
>are you sure?
Pretty sure yes.
>They usually don't see the S-shape when they live within that construction.
Not unless they visit one of the tower. but still they would know what it looks like and i think that would still have some positive effect on their minds knowing that they're living in nice looking building. I mean would you rather live in a building that looks like in OP's picture or live in a building shaped like a dog turd even though you would never really see the shape for most of your day?
He's entirely right, the current system is highly ineffective.
However, in practise, this system will have a hard time working since humans have their free will. And I for one are not in favour of controlling peoples lives, also you can't.
But he's still right.
Leaving aside that its impossible, it relies on everyone agreeing to give up everything they own to a syndicate, which is a completely ridiculous assumption, which means if they ever seriously try, it will require mass forced "education" at the very least and more likely mass murder and violence.
Yes things would be far more 'effective' if we allowed some random body to decide how we should divide all the resources!
If we have magical abundance of everything we could possibly ever want then sure, it could happen... but there aren't enough earths for this to happen all over the world.
So long as you avoid the whole zeitgeist thing, it's fine. However the idea that people only do things because it's money driven is insane. People just have this drive to want to kill eachother for some insane reason. Right now it will not work. Maybe in a few hundred or thousand years when the human race has calmed down and stopped being so agressive then yeah this will work. For now, this guy was like nikola tesla: His ideas just aren't for our lifetime and won't work because of people. Money isn't the problem, people are.
As someone that's been programming machines and designing automated systems (robotic and otherwise) since I was a kid (several decades): our technology is NOWHERE near where it needs to be for even basic automation like "automatically synthesizing any chemical used to build all the shit we need" let alone "automatically assemble a full house, car, CNC machine or, may God have mercy on your soul and sanity for even making the attempt, a robot that builds the robots that facilitate such things". All the computing power in the world wouldn't amount to a single borderline-retarded pleb in terms of versatility. Yes, you can make very specialized systems, but they are literally one-program-one-solution systems - to do even a moderate amount of a single task you need a Human-versatile robot or a whole fucking horde of specialized robots that would be literally be cheaper to start a slave labor trade and bribe officials to let it slide while running a massive PR campaign to make the public cool with it in a first world country (even something as simple as license plates).
right now it could only work by setting up a new state, where would everyone who understands the concept and know what not to do as a person to ruin it move. And thats like 0.5% of the population,
Fiat money is a social construct, it's not real per se. But i still agree and stated that the ideology may not be the way to go. But the system is a way of thinking, an Ad-hoc guideline on how we design products and societies.
I don't beleive either that it would have anywhere near working effect today, but the more we develop the more we will eventually end in that direction wether we like it or not. Because it's how it works.
>It makes the people living there happier which is actually really important
No, it's not. If you reduce the people to nothing but hippies artist faggots with little more than political drives with nothing whatsoever riding on their productivity and happiness or remote value you can keep them in giant hampster cages - person-sized wheels for exercise and all.
By the time we have computerized systems intelligent enough to do any job a human could do + provide us all with 'abundance' I sincerely doubt humans will even exist in the form we currently do.
We might not even be biological anymore - our descendants might well decide to give up biological bodies entirely.
To speculate on what sort of social structure will be best once we have such technologies... I think it's looking too far into the future.
Jesus Christ, can no one design anything that doesn't look like complete babby's first shit architecture anymore?
>Just put a lot of floors and windows, no the overall design doesn't matter
>How about an "s" shape with towers at the ends
>Yeah, fuck it, who cares?
If they managed to only import rational and intelligent white atheists, then this would be a success. And miraculously get billions to spend on this project. But of course this whole project is a piece of shit that would never work.
You seem experienced. As for i know, building houses with automation is on it's way. With the 3D printer were on a good way.
But i'll take your word that many things might not be "there" yet. As for Computing power, were on our way to surpass the power of a human brain.
Everything really depends on raw materials, computing power and programming. How far from there we are I don't know.
some fucking kike made a few models in [spoiler]SketchUp[/spoiler]
and that's supposed to prove something and give him a political platform
what a joke
Yes, but to do most jobs. Not at all. By the time you can replace a Scientist, or Philisofer we will be were you are describing.
By the time we replace Walmart workers, or Burger flippers. It's more or less today.
>With the 3D printer
3D printing is a gimmick and sucks. It's only useful for prototypes.
Also we can already have plastic in all forms we want, no printing is necessary for that.
computers have been much faster in making calculations as long as the calculator exists.
However the programs are so primitive that even modern computers have no chance against the dumbest idiot.
>Everything really depends on raw materials, computing power and programming
Neither of them comes for free. In fact they all require lots of effort to get them in higher quantity.
Using the regular system "trade for what you have earned" is better than some sort of communism. When we do good with the development, prices will be so low that it's a quasi abundance all by itself.
3D printed housing is currently very much in the R&D phase. So far they can make "printed" concrete structures with no electrical or plumbing (unless you want the plumbing made of concrete and doomed to rot away/leech through the walls/ceilings/floors) that would fall apart in the first even mild earthquake.
>Everything really depends on raw materials,
We will never have an abundance of materials with foreseeable technology. If we find a way to directly convert matter and energy in the form of StarTrek style replicators then MAYBE (assuming people don't fritter away all the matter available to them in communications or some kind of power-intensive holographic display [hint: they will]).
A long long ways away. All the computing power in the world literally does not add up to the potential of one borderline retarded pleb.
That one really depends. We can program just about anything now - but if you want versatility you need major improvements in hardware to get more computing power to use (specialized tasks are relatively straightforward but if the aim is versatility you're going to pretty much go at it like a brain - meaning lots of seemingly wasted hardware to facilitate learning, training, memory, etc).
Today yes, i think however that 3D printing could be developed more and be far more useful, but I may be wrong.
More or less, but repetive tasks have a pattern, patterns can be calculated. No?
> Using the regular system "trade for what you have earned" is better than some sort of communism. When we do good with the development, prices will be so low that it's a quasi abundance all by itself.
I completely agree.
That would be a pretty major achievement (assuming it's able to cover all aspects and installations, not just a single type of plumbing) - though I seriously doubt (or at least hope) scientists will never get replaced. Science is about the only thing that seems like it's an infinite puzzle - there would be little to do if robots were able to do everything else and that except debate nihilism before mass suiciding.
Is this that Joe Rogan endorsed libertarian Galt-on-the-Sea shit again? Last time it was posted on /pol/ the kid who posted it was likely in tears from the beat down he got. These things are fun on paper but completely non-viable for dozens of reasons, half of which should be obvious to anyone with common sense.
By the time we are replacing scientists etc humanity will have a choice: Either augment ourselves or become nothing but babies being minded by our own creations.
It's so far away though... honestly. The absolute BIGGEST thing I can see happening in my lifetime is automated transportation, because the technology is pretty close to done ( I believe there are still some problems with rain?).
Immortality is a real possibility - first treatments to prolong life then actual biological immortality or uploading our minds into machines. Of course the chances of anyone to get their hands on it it (even the people researching it) are so fucking low given our geopolitical dynamics that it's probably not actually going to happen. Most likely we'll end up with one or a few asshole(s) that attain(s) immortality then kills all the research and required tech before watching everyone slaughter themselves.
Far too idealistic. I bet you would have been saying back in the 60's that after the moon we'll surely be at mars by the 70's!!
I agree that immortality is a real possibility but I believe the first example of it will be something more like a digital copy of someone's brain.
How are they going to dole out resources again? Literally every single economist agrees that markets are superior to command economies. Who's to say "abundance" will last forever? If people are allowed to endlessly procreate and gobble up all they can eat from a common pool, you'll have scarcity again, fast. Tragedy of the commons. Say hello to the breadlines!
You're a fag. I'm Poseidon, motherfucking God of the Ocean. No matter what protection your feeble human mind comes up with, I'll fuck that shit up. I've got creatures down in the deep you've never even heard of. The kraken? A mere baby. Those creatures from Pacific Rim? Nothing more than Teletubbies. I'll enjoy ripping your shit apart and storing it all down in Davy Jones' locker.
The thing about "abundance" is that if it ever came about in a capitalist system then those resources would be pretty close to free for everyone anyway.
If it was possible for me, for close to free, to produce Iphones for people then I would do so and sell them... I'd face competition from others capable of doing it for close to free and that's where the price would end up.
Any political system works fairly well once you have ABUNDANCE.
Any society like that would be ruined by niggers. Just take a look at how they treat public transportation that isn't even free.
Can you imagine what they would do to a place like that when they've had all responsibilities and expectations lifted off of them?
Only problem today is that money many times do not match resources. Something that is cheap in money can be very expensive in resources and waste. If we skewed todays system to make money better match resources, I think todays system would work very well developing into a far better society.
Not sure if we're ready for that kind of system to be honest. As a species, we are still far too embedded in primal urges and emotion to live in that kind of society.
Who knows, maybe we're not ever destined for it, we'll probably wipe ourselves out.
>You suppose that everyone is going to get along in perpetual harmony
The only ones that can afford to live on Elysium are the rich. The rich are generally pretty OK people to other rich. They aren't going to go around shitting up their own neighborhoods with petty crimes.
Life is pretty swell at the yacht club, which is all this is.
Kill off a significant chunk of the overpopulation and those who are chosen to survive have their lives improved exponentially.
... or you can just improve your own life by suckering donations out of brain-dead college liberals.
But then how would you propose we price resources? I mean I think I understand what you're saying - We might be paying too little for water/helium/oil whatever and this is leading to waste.
But this really depends on how you see the future going. If we run out of oil in 10 years time then yeah, we'll feel really stupid for having sold it for so much... but at the same time maybe some technological change occurs and in 10 years time it turns out all the oil is worthless?
>>35855250 Haters gonna hate
It's an impulse into the right direction, mainly a dynamic supporting futuristic solutions for present day problems.
To everyone rejecting it completely, be a bit creative. There has been a time when people were hitting clubs over each others heads over petty shit. Now we live in societies that are extremely stable.
We actually have progressed extremely.
>the past romantisizing retards will close their ears and scream lalalalalalalalallala
>Now we live in societies that are extremely stable.
>We actually have progressed extremely.
Put someone in a position where their life is in danger, financially, through resources - whatever. They will revert back to the 'hitting over the head with a club' stage.
One way is taxes, with taxes we can simply regulate prices. However it needs pretty much every country in the world to apply the same model.
Another way is to design an entirely new monetary system where still profit motivates peoples, But where effective and economical is the very same thing and not as today where they might be two very diffrent things at times.
To use a system like this we will need to balance the age of the chickens in the silos...." Cannot read further...
From what I can see it is good.
Of course there is the problem of implementing such a system...
Recyclable and renewable resources/energy would be something to strive for. Products/services consuming less for same performance would also be something to strive for.
For example: Electric cars would be more efficient than petrol ones, since it's fuel are non fossile. If the technology in the battery and electric motor consumes less recources or not is not as important as long as it is recyclable.
As I wrote, Batteries are not consumed, like oil. Therefore they can be recycled. If batteries do consume the same way oil does, we need better batteries. Or another fuel system.
If we could fabricate renewable oil cheap and efficient without hurting the enviroment, suddenly petrol cars would be something to strive for.
If those things are viable alternatives then won't they happen as oil etc becomes more scarce anyway?
The problem with setting prices based on what we think is going to be the case in the future is that we can get things wrong / miss potential better opportunities.
>As I wrote, Batteries are not consumed, like oil
Yes they are. Do you know how a battery works?
>If batteries do consume the same way oil does, we need better batteries.
All batteries are conversions of electric grid energy into chemical potential energy. That's the definition of a battery. All batteries are consumable.
>Multiple government, central banks and large institutions with all the data and funding in the world can't even obtain some largely vague macro economic figures with any degree of accuracy, to the point where no of them have ever predicted economic trends correctly
>Yet somehow these people will be able to control the entire economy in a way better than now because of some magical yet-to-be-invented computer algorithm dreamt up by an ancient delusional commie who lives in a dome and draws autistic pictures of cities and robots
If it can be recycled, no it won't. That is the whole point of finding sustainable solutions.
Indeed it is a problem, but we can only use the knowledge we have, and experience we have to get more knowledge. We adjust pricing upon whats most efficient from what we currently know. If a potential better opertunity arise, we explore it and see if it's better. Without research, we won't learn.
Don't know much about the actual Venus Project, but I like ideas like building artificial islands and stuff. It's a good idea for effective use of space of the planet.
But then again we have plenty of fucking room on land, people just need to be free to figure out how to effectively use it instead of having governments and states saying "you can only put these buildings over here and this stuff over here and this whole huge area over here is set aside for this senators private beach AHEM I MEAN WILDLIFE REVERSE"
A computer can't test its own software (this is non-computable because it creates an infinite recursion loop), therefore a universal algorithm is impossible, therefore people will have to work, therefore its not just "Sit on your ass all day and never have to deal with scarcity"
Then we need recyclable chemicals. If it can be reused, it is wanted for.
I'm not saying i have a better battery or that it is done in one night. I'm saying what we should aim for.
I never mentioned advocating communism.
you're confusing economy with
>predicting the outcome of a game of make believe played with monopoly money on a board comprised of multiple levels of nonexistence in near infinite loops of fictional interdependence
>a potential better opertunity arise, we explore it and see if it's better. Without research, we won't learn.
Stalin tried that; million's died. There is no reason to believe that government bureaucrats know what things should be priced at more than the actual owners of those resources. There is no moral justification for these kinds of "experiments".
There are billionaires throwing a load of money into researching seasteading and the general consensus coming back from them (they have invested far more time, money and energy into this than the Venus Project has) is it's a very expensive way to build a cruise liner for the super rich. They can't sustain themselves, defend themselves or offer any practicality over building on land.
>board comprised of multiple levels of nonexistence in near infinite loops of fictional interdependence
That is the economy, unless you can tell me the socially optimal amount of steel to use on cars, washing machines, apartment complexes, etc; then repeat the process for every other good; then start all over again because the calculations are constantly changing.
You believe that when we take away headline figures like GDP, which are the type of things they can't even get right whilst being relatively simple, that economic calculation gets more or less complex?
You can't plan an economy, end of discussion.
>I'm saying what we should aim for.
Well I'm sure all the people desperately researching battery technologies will be glad to hear that.
>need to get from the tower at one end of the S to the other one
> I was talking about pricing or technologies for certain field of production of products.
What you are advocating is Stalinistic Communism to a lesser degree. While it may not lead to the unintentional (if we're giving him the benefit of the doubt) starvation or millions, it will have a damaging effect on the populace (for example, raising energy prices without any attempt at justification). You are advocating threatening property owners with fines or arrest if they refuse to go along with your unfounded social experiments.
Some of the concepts behind the Venus project are quite interesting. But there I'm mainly talking about the technology concepts.
The main problem is, that the Venus projects requires immense research, restructuring and resources in a very short ammount of time. It demands rapid artificially induced change, rather than slow natural occuring change in society. Basically they are planning an unbelievably big project that will not be self-sustainable for a far too long time.
In the end, the project would most likely only be possible to realize when social restructuring has already occured and its necessity or innovation is only a fraction of what it would be today.
>So you mean it is universally impossible to have reusable energy?
>You seem knowledgeable on batteries. So you might be right that batteries are not the solutions.
Batteries are required to eliminate the effects of "renewable" or "green" energies, as they're usually called because the energy harvested from the sun or wind or tides are intermittent. They aren't constant, and so in order to power the USA with them, you need harvesting and storage facilities far, far, far, far greater than the typical daily consumption of energy.
These facilities would be wildly expensive, not just in terms of labour, but in terms of raw resources, much of which are rare earth elements and wildly rare and expensive.
The closest thing to cheap energy that didn't require batteries would be one of two things.
Nuclear Fusion (50 years away technologically, produces radioactive steel)
Thorium Fission reactors (Feasible with today's technology, far less waste, waste stops being radioactive after 300 years, can use current nuclear waste stockpiles as fuel, not useful for making atomic weapons). As far as I know, there's not a better technology out there. It would also be relatively cost-effective to produce bio-oil from algae farms if you used this as your electricity source.
I'm fairly sure a government body didn't go up to the people and say "We're going to tax you to fund research into a horseless carriage". Automobiles did not arise out of the planned economy, they arose in a system where people were able to price things how they wished.
At which point you won't need a 'Project' as society and technology will have organically developed into (largely) the best way of structuring itself given whatever constraints are present in that time.
No, they fire a massive and intense lazer at a piece of deuterium so that it becomes as hot as the core of the sun in order to create nuclear fusion, which itself generates incredible heat in excess of the amount required to fire the lazer
Didn't the bioshock society deteriorate because of everyone's Adam addiction, and because Atlas was just a bad guy who used ideology to turn people to fight?
And if this is true, can't this pretty much happen to ANY society?
Never said anything about not quick enought. You seem to missunderstand me a fair bit.
I'm saying how I beleive we should think, it's pretty much common sense that we want to constantly improve with better technollogy. Those battery scientists will be the ones saying if batteries is the way or not, or else they would not be trying as you say they are doing now, right?
It has nothing to do with "too slow" or "not rnought" it has to do with "What is most economical, both monitarely and by resources?" Wether we will know it today or in 100 years is nothing we can affect.
I never said that they are to slow or what not, i made an example as in "how can we improve" wether or not Batteries are just that improvement or not is not something i can answer, neither can you.
I'm off to bed, but thanks for the discussion. It's great when it's constructive. I even learned a thing or two about battery chemicals, have a nice evening.
No, I am setting an example on how we CAN do. Not how we maybe must do. In your context every western country is a communism, since there are sales tax, income tax and what not. Also, you are very binary in your thinking to this. If raising prices on one product would anihilate that entire market and leave the population in despair, of course we would not raise those prices. That is common sence, really.
He's retarded, but it's not hypocritical to refuse to kill yourself if it will bring about no change. It's comparable to the free-rider problem, where everyone must kill themselves or the ones who remain alive will just exploit nature all the more.
If we include solar panels and such as renewable then? But i get your point, the energy itself might not be renewable, but energy sources might be "infinite" in our sense of time.
Thorium reactors would probably be the best, read some about them. They seem promising.
I really want this to go ahead.
Either if it's a success or an utter failure its a win-win situation for gathering data on psychology and sociology.
Let the games begin.
The game actually started as a cult-deprogrammer being hired to infiltrate a lesbian cult that abducted girls on behalf of a senetor that had his daughter taken in order to free her. The libshits caught on and flipped their shit at the fact it would make the LGBT community look bad by making it into a game about how libertarianism and self-sufficiency are doomed to failed.
Put you money where you mouth is then. Surely the worlds stoners can forgo a months worth of weed to build a poorly constructed concrete barge at sea where they all go to blaze it and try to grow crops that hate salty climates while discussing the merits of post-feminist progressive stacks and their impact on vegan soya production.
> In your context every western country is a communism, since there are sales tax, income tax and what not.
I used the Stalinistic qualifier because the USSR wasn't communist by definition (stateless, classless, moneyless), but you're essentially correct. All governments have planned economies to some extent or another (usually to a large extent, because it gives them more power).
> If raising prices on one product would anihilate that entire market and leave the population in despair, of course we would not raise those prices.
If raising prices would merely slightly discomfort the population, you still have no justification for doing it. To advocate the use of force for "the greater good" is equivalent to killing off a minority of the population because it would greatly please the remainder. Regardless, you don't even _know_ the extent your economic policies will harm people because the economy cannot be planned.
>That is common sence, really.
Something central planners seem to lack.
No sauce available - there was an infographic about it on /pol/ awhile back, if I recall correctly it was one of the original developers spilling the beans about the politics of the development.
You know that most of companies that are in the oil field, including car companies, bought most of the patents concerning electrical development and secured them in vaults to block the development of technology that could destabilize their economy.
You can also look at how GM killed the electric car in California.
"Dirty" conventional fission reactors are a very valid option as long as you stop being irrational around radiation. Radiation leaks are very manageable, they cannot go very far from the origin.
What is not manageable is a rampant climate change. Even the incredibly unlikely event of irradiating major parts of the world to an uninhabitable level is preferable to a climate change that makes the entire earth uninhabitable.
We Black Ops 2 now!
When you see it, you won't unsee it warning:
On that level, 8 out of 10 couples are all black men/white women or asian men/white women.
Now the level is ruined for you all. That's the agenda at work subliminally placing such things in a youthful mind.
>still falling for the venus project
>what I expected (insert pic of blue skies and beautiful modern city all living together in harmony with magical infinite resources)
>what would actually happen (EU, one world order, clashing ideologies, clashing cultures, clashing religions, clashing opinions, death, destruction and close the doors on them all, they're all in need of some 1984 new world order smack down).
>no bridge at the tip of the "S" on each side so you dont have to walk all the way around the whole complex to get to the other side if you are in one of the towers
Into the trash it goes.
Well that's a stupid kind of steel to use then, isn't it? Not Stainless, not even Galvanised. Forget Concrete-coating, nah these guys have got the real deal, just classic old-school rusty Steel
The ocean is an incredinly bad environment for any bulk metal. When the saltwater doesn't eat it the creatures do (or at the very least they sit on it flinging shit and piss and jizz right at it until it corrodes away).