1) I try to confront you with provocative viewpoints, to trigger discussions. It makes all of us to think and search for new arguments.

2) Post hoc propter hoc. CO2 is caused by temperatures, not vice versa. See the ice cores lag.

3) That CO2 has a strong feedback effect is just a hypothesis. Not proven yet. I cannot believe, that it can fuel warming even 20 000 years after the trigger event stopped. It would be Perpetum Mobile.

4) Anyway, I will be persuaded in 2030 when temperatures have been rising for decades amidst lowering solar activity. The 2080-2000 warming may have been caused by the thermal inertia of oceans, which is quite normal.

I try to confront you with provocative viewpoints, to trigger discussions. It makes all of us to think and search for new arguments.
Sorry, but I could not see your answers on Adela’s post, and on all of my posts I still have the last word. You pose questions, but you don’t seem to answer to specific points. You keep getting into someone’s post with the same old story, but once the discussion gets going you drop off and move to the next discussion, so that we have to start all over again.

Could you please answer to Adela’s remarks?

Frederico,

1) You must understand, that I am a bit overworked. Ufff. Being almost (not entirely) the only sceptic here I can hardly manage to comment on everything. Yet the stats show, that I am the most active of the bloggers here. So please, do not tell me I am not active enough.

2)  I have read Adela’s post, but I do not see her statements as a problem. Life did not end in high CO2 periods. Life still exists. Species used to low-carbon go away. They are ousted by species, which love higher carbon. Mankind is able to invent high-CO2-loving organisms (read Freeman Dyson) due to genetic engineering. So I still see no reason to panic.

3) Maybe the reason why I am repeating myself is that you do not listen. I cannot invent new arguments except those that exist, sorry.

Vitezslav,
I think you misunderstood me. I don’t propose you answer every single post. I’m merely suggesting that once you do it, you stick till the end.

And what about you being the only sceptic commenting here? Are GJ, Alexey, and Mike sockpuppets, or are you forgetting them?

Federico,
I am saying I am the only one. I am almost the only one. Then also Eamon is making some climate-skeptical points… (sorry if I forget someone)

Mike is not a Participant of the competition. Are Alexey, Christian or GJ?

Since there is so few of us, we have to compensate the workload of those dozens, who were not allowed in. Which is not my fault.

Since there is so few of us, we have to compensate the workload of those dozens, who were not allowed in.

That is a strong accusation you are making.

Mike is not a Participant of the competition. Are Alexey, Christian or GJ?
If you read carefully, I was referring to the comments, not the posts.

In any case, you are avoiding the matter:  I’m merely suggesting that once you do it, you stick till the end.

Federico,
I fail to understand what this ping-pong of ours is about? If I do not respond to your last post up here, will you accuse me of chickening out of discussion?

But what else can I add? I have already said everything I can.  I do not know, what else I can say, honestly.

You wrote your own blog post article about my “5000ppm” instead of discussing tt under my blog post. And yet I am not accusing you of chickening out of debate.

I’m referring to Tom Shaffer article’s discussion Taking sides with the truth: Journalism and climate change, my article’s discussion [url=“http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/climate_change_scepticism_science_and_reason”]
Climate Change scepticism, science and reason
[/url], and [url=“http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/global_warming_just_stopped_lets_all_take_a_vacation”]
Global warming just stopped: let’s all take a vacation![/url], just to name a few.

You never addressed the issues I proposed: the limited resources of the earth (resources, not just energy), the concept of carrying capacity, individual responsibility on the ecological footprint (not just carbon, everything in nature), the obvious failures of the monetary system (including capitalism, socialism, fascism, all forms of monetary system) and the idea of a resource-based economy for solving our problems.

As for the 5000ppm article, I think it just makes sense to write a dedicated article instead of posting a huge comment.

Federico, I understand you impatience. Just wait a bit:

1) The issue of allegedy limited resources (Limits to Growth) will be addressed tomorrow in my blog post. Precisely, as you say, large issues deserve separate posting, not just a tiny remark in the discussion.

2) The alleged “failure” of the market system was solved today in my article about solar energy. I showed, that free market solves (or perhaps “has solved”) our problems. Through inventions.

The issue of allegedy limited resources (Limits to Growth) will be addressed tomorrow in my blog post. Precisely, as you say, large issues deserve separate posting, not just a tiny remark in the discussion.

I’m looking forward to it.

The alleged “failure” of the market system was solved today in my article about solar energy. I showed, that free market solves (or perhaps “has solved”) our problems. Through inventions.

No, it was not. I was aware of this technology a long time ago (I blogged about this back on December 17, 2007 http://www.federicopistono.org/content/nanosolar_-_finally_clean_and_cheap_solar_energy), but I don’t see how this solves anything.

It is important to point out that regardless of the social system - whether fascist, socialist, capitalist, or communist - the underlying mechanism is still money, labor, and competition. Communist China is no less capitalistic than the United States. The only difference is the degree by which the state intervenes in enterprise. The reality is that “Monetary-ism”, so to speak, is the true mechanism that guides the interest of *all* the countries on the planet.

Rationing resources through monetary control is dysfunctional and counter-productive to survival. Today, we have highly advanced technologies but our social and economic development has not kept up. We could easily create a world of abundance without servitude and debt through the creation of a global, resource-based civilization.

Today’s machines handle trillions of bits of information per second, far more than is manageable by any number of industrial or political decision-makers. They can also assemble and assign constantly updated information. The other side of this trend is that so many people will be replaced; we will no longer have the purchasing power needed to sustain a monetary-based system that burdens the entire population and government with insurmountable debt.

As the old monetary system begins to displace more and more people by its reliance on automation, these people will cease to respect the authority of industry. The time-honored pattern of living in all industrial countries, the balancing of work and family interest, would become impossible to maintain for the majority of people displaced by automation.

(from http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Itemid=66)

The roles of people in a monetary system are basically broken into three distinctions:

    1. The Employee
    2. The Consumer
    3. The Employer (or Owner/Producer)

There is also the Investor who gives fiscal support to an Employer/Owner/Producer, or trades in the Financial markets for gain. This isn’t relevant to the context for an investor is not required to exist in order for the market system to operate.

The Employee performs tasks for the Employer in exchange for a “Wage” or monetary payment, while the employer sells a good or service to the Consumer for a “Profit”- another classification of monetary payment. In turn, both the Employer and Employee function as Consumers, for the monetary payments (“wages” and “profits”) they obtain are used to purchase goods and services relevant to their survival.

The act of purchasing goods and services, which is the role of the Consumer, is what allows the Employer to make its “Profit”, while also enabling the payment of the Employee’s “Wage”.

In other words, it is the requirement of perpetual ‘Consumption’ that keeps the Employer in business and maintains the Employee’s job.

Now, it is important to understand that this payment-consumption cycle (or ‘cyclical consumption’) cannot stop, or the entire economic structure would collapse, for money would not come to the Employer, the Employer would not be able to afford to pay his Employee, and both the Employer and Employee would not be able to perpetuate the cycle by being a Consumer.

Consequence:

    1.Nothing physically produced can ever maintain an operational lifespan longer than what can be endured in order to maintain economic integrity through ‘cyclical consumption’.

      In other words, every ‘good’ produced must breakdown in a respective amount of time in order to continue financial circulation to support the players (consumer/employee/employer) in the game. This characteristic could be defined as: “Planned Obsolescence”.

      Planned Obsolescence can generally take two positions: a) Intentional: Deliberate withholding of efficiency so the product in question breaks down. b) Consequential: Profit based shortcuts taken in production, usually in the form of cheap materials/poor design, in an effort to save money and create repeat customers. This translates into an inferior product immediately.

      [i.e. = The use of plastics for electronic enclosures is cheaper for the company and the consumer, but the durability of this material is poor in comparison to say, titanium metal, which is much more expensive.] 
   
    2.The introduction of new products and services must be constant to offset any increased efficiency of the prior generations of production, regardless of functional utility, generating endless

In other words, waste is a deliberate byproduct of industry’s need to keep ‘cyclical consumption’ going. This means that the replaced/obsolete product is expelled, often to landfills, polluting the environment. The constant multiplicity accelerates the pollution.

‘The Need for Cyclical Consumption’, which could be considered the ‘engine’ that powers the entire economic system, is inherently dangerous and corrupt, for the nature of the necessity does not allow for environmentally sustainable practices to be maximized.

The constant re-creation of inferior products wastes available resources and pollutes the environment.

To express this from a different angle, imagine the economic ramifications of production methods that strategically maximized the efficiency and sustainability of every creation, using the best-known materials and techniques available at that time. Imagine a car that was so well designed, it didn’t need maintenance for 100 years.

Imagine a house that was built from fireproof materials where all appliances, electrical operations, plumbing and the like were made from the most impermeable, highest integrity resources available on earth.

In such a saner world, where we actually created things to last, inherently minimizing pollution/waste due to the lack of multiplicity and maximization of efficiency, a monetary system would be impossible, for ‘consumption cyclically’ would slow tremendously, forever weakening so called “economic growth”.

From the “Activist Orientation Guide”.

You see, sadly enough, inequality, poverty, hunger, environmental pollution is not a side effect of a few bad apples, it’s inherent in any profit-based structures.

Interesting point, Federico.

1) Zeitgeistmovement seems to have communist ideals: “we must work toward a future in which all resources are accepted as the common heritage of all people.”

2) Hate towards money is naive. Money is the greatest liberator. Read Simmel’s 1896 essay “Money in modern culture.” The only alternatives are barter trade, no trade at all or army-rations-system (food allocated like when you are in an army).

2) If automation leads to poverty how do you explain that after 250 years of growing automation, we have more population with higher per capita income everywhere? Why isn’t England the poorest country in the world?

3) What is wrong with my statement, that inventions (like better solar plants) will solve all our energy problems?

Motivation?

You hope for quality lasting products, that are not sabotaged on purpose by the producers.

So the producers don’t get their profit (based on selling mode and more self-destructing crap). They will work free of charge. Hm.

People will not work free of charge, Federico. If they are not motivated (ambition, greed, fear of unemployment), they just sit down and play cards during office hours.

All utopias must fail not because of monetary systems. But because of the human nature of us primates.

1) Zeitgeistmovement seems to have communist ideals: “we must work toward a future in which all resources are accepted as the common heritage of all people.”
Communism being similar to a resource-based economy or The Venus Project is an erroneous concept. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders. The Venus Project’s aim is to surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons and the military would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people. The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities are managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments.

Communism is a political system managed by a form of ideology, which does not necessarily relate to human or environmental needs. Communism uses money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders and uses indoctrination. The Venus Project’s aim is to surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons, banking, advertising, stockbrokers, military, and government would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people. The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities would as quickly as possible be managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments. One of Communism’s concerns is the condition of labor and the working class. The Venus Project’s major concerns are producing products with limited labor and eventually eliminating labor and at the same time giving people all the amenities of a prosperous, high energy society. It is not our aim to produce a society that does nothing but enjoy leisure time. Instead people will be introduced to limitless opportunities to explore, create, participate, and learn.

While communism is a much more humane social system than what we have today, we feel it does differ considerably from the direction we advocate. While Marx offered a bold new direction in his time, it falls far short of what can be accomplished with today’s technology applied with human and environmental concern.

The Venus Project offers science and technology in the service of humankind on a global scale and eventually helps to eliminate all the artificial boundaries that separate people. The system uses no money and makes goods and services available without a price tag, debt, barter, or servitude of any kind. If we use our technology intelligently, we can create an abundance of goods and services for the entire planet. We use machines and automation to produce and distribute all manufactured products, which will be available at distribution centers to everyone. The purpose of this high technology is to free people so they can pursue their own interests and fulfillments.

We would surpass the need for human participation in the production of goods and services. There is no taxation or obligation of any kind. We advocate no government by human systems. They have always proved inadequate. Computerized systems and cybernetics would be applied to the social system and must comply with the carrying capacity of our global resources. The machines’ main purpose is for the manufacturing and distribution of goods and services while maintaining a clean environment with service to all and profits to none. When people have access to resources, most crimes will disappear. The need for police, military, and prisons will eventually vanish with it. Of course this will coincide with the necessary changes in education. I hope this helps to clarify some points. We realize this is a simplified description of how it differs from communism.

2) Hate towards money is naive. Money is the greatest liberator. Read Simmel’s 1896 essay “Money in modern culture.” The only alternatives are barter trade, no trade at all or army-rations-system (food allocated like when you are in an army).

There is no hate whatsoever, just a recognition of the facts.

If all the money in the world were destroyed, as long as we have sufficient arable land, the factories, the necessary resources, and technical personnel, we could build anything and even supply an abundance. During the Depression, there were vacuum cleaners in store windows and automobiles in car lots. The Earth was still the same place. There was just no money in people’s wallets and very little purchasing power. At the beginning of World War II, the U.S. had about 600 first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short-supply by turning out over 90,000 planes per year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money or gold, but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources and technical personnel that enabled the U.S. to achieve the production and efficiency required to win the war.

It appears that the real wealth of any nation is in its natural resources and its people who are working toward a more humane life-style through the elimination of scarcity. All social systems, regardless of the political philosophy, religious beliefs, or social mores, ultimately depend upon natural resources—i.e. clean air and water and arable land area—and the industrial equipment and technical personnel for a high standard of living. The money- based system was designed hundreds of years ago and was hardly appropriate for that time. We still utilize this same outmoded system, which is probably responsible for most of today’s problems. I have no doubt that even the wealthiest person today would be far better off in the high-energy society that The Venus Project proposes.

Distribution of goods and services without the use of money or tokens would be accomplished through the establishment of distribution centers. These distribution centers would be similar to expositions, where the advantages of new products could be explained and demonstrated. For example, if you visited Yellowstone National Park you could check out a camera or camcorder from a distribution center, use it and then, if you choose to, return it to another distribution center or drop-off, eliminating storing and maintenance.

Besides the computerized centers throughout the various communities where products would eventually be displayed, there will be 3-D, flat-screen imaging capabilities in each home. If you desire an item, an order can be placed and the item automatically delivered directly to your place of residence.

All raw materials for the manufacture of these products can be transported directly to the manufacturing facilities by automated transportation “sequences” such as boats, monorails, mag-lev trains, pipelines, and pneumatic tubes. An automated inventory system would be connected to both the distribution centers and the manufacturing facilities, thus coordinating production to meet demand and providing a constant evaluation of preferences and consumption. In this way a balanced-load economy can be maintained. Shortages, over-runs, and waste could be eliminated.

3) If automation leads to poverty how do you explain that after 250 years of growing automation, we have more population with higher per capita income everywhere? Why isn’t England the poorest country in the world?

You are misquoting. Automation does not lead to poverty, but to technological unemployment. But since people need to “work” in order to get the money to buy food, provide a shelter to their family and so on, technology is forcefully limited by the profit based structure.

There is sufficient evidence to show that technology is evolving in this direction. As computers and artificial intelligence continue to evolve through environmental feedback, computers can arrive at more appropriate decisions in the operation of our social system. Today, automated systems can launch and guide the flight path of spaceships to distant planets. In a cybernated society with sophisticated technology, we will ultimately surpass the need for human participation in government, manufacturing, and distribution of goods and services. Through cybernated systems, a balanced-load economy can easily be maintained. This will free human beings from the boring and monotonous tasks of the work-day world. Yes, most jobs will eventually be phased out.

4) What is wrong with my statement, that inventions (like better solar plants) will solve all our energy problems?

First, they would solve only part of the problems. There have been inventions around for decades that could save our planet, it’s the political will and the education that’s missing.

Second, the idea of inventions not being capped by the profit motive is absurd. There is plently of evidence that development of new and more efficient technologies is limited by the planned obsolescence of products (iPods, computers, bad industrial design, no easy repairable parts and components, things that break just about a few weeks after the warranty expires…) that it’s simply too overwhelming.

Today there is more than 75% waste in the production of material goods. In a resource-based economy, all waste would be recycled. A priority would be designing things of the highest quality so that products would last longer and require little or no service. Many electronic parts will use plug-in components for convenient repair. There would be no planned obsolescence just to sell the latest designs or fashions. This would eliminate considerable waste.

You hope for quality lasting products, that are not sabotaged on purpose by the producers.

Exactly, you hope, it isn’t what happens in reality.

So the producers don’t get their profit (based on selling mode and more self-destructing crap). They will work free of charge. Hm.

You are not taking into account the cybernation and automation mechanisms. You are thinking like in the 18th century, today’s technology gives you completely different possibilities.

People will not work free of charge, Federico. If they are not motivated (ambition, greed, fear of unemployment), they just sit down and play cards during office hours.

Oh yes, right.

You have been brought up to believe people are inspired by rewards or money.

The free-enterprise system does create incentive to achieve, however it also breeds the incentive for corruption, theft, and greed. Our aim is to encourage a new incentive system, one no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. Today, financial barriers place enormous limitations on innovation, individual creativity, and personal incentive. In The Venus Project, money would not be required to help one achieve or create, as facilities would be made available to serve everyone’s needs.

I worry about people whose main motivation is money. For instance, if this is the motivation of a doctor instead of the desire to solve problems in the field of medicine and health and enhance people’s lives, to many others, and me the services are not very trustworthy. It is a tremendous myth perpetrated on people in a monetary system that people are mostly motivated by money to achieve and produce. I could give you endless examples of people who fought, studied, created, and excelled without the allure of money as a reward, there are much more meaningful rewards than that. It depends on the value system that one is given and the culture that one is raised in that reinforces what is meant by a reward.

In essence all of the people we have admired in the past, Michael Angelo, da Vinci, Bell, the Wright Brothers, Darwin, and many others worked because they were interested in problem solving, not financial gain. This in some cases was a by-product. Usually money-oriented people become business men, or stock brokers; they are rarely creative. I have always felt threatened by people whose sole motivation is financial gain. On islands in the South Pacific, people had more than enough resources. Although banana, coconuts, fish and breadfruit were abundant, the natives worked continuously building navigation equipment, canoes, huts, and weaved cloth. Although no money was used, their incentive improved their standard of living.

In the early days in America a man and wife could build a log cabin in several months. Today it takes 30 years or so to pay off a house with the additional funds to bankers and others that actually have nothing to do with the building of the house.

If you examine your statements carefully of people who have access to all the necessities of life you will find that many wealthy people do not eat 25 meals a day even though they have access to it and they do not stuff their environment with hundreds of musical instruments and accumulate hundreds of cars. It is not the availability of resources that is disturbing to people, it is the lack of resources that is responsible for most crimes, embezzlement, deception of all kinds, etc.

Consider this when few nations control most of the worlds resources and exploit other nations with their positions of differential advantage.

All of the technical staff and everyone else will have access to a very high standard of living; the incentive, which will propel people, is the end of war, territorial disputes, economic hardship, debt, and the basis for most crimes as they will all be eliminated. In this new society as proposed by The Venus Project, the environment in which people are raised and educated will be based upon the fundamental principles of science and the comprehensive knowledge of the interrelationship between people and the environment, which sustains all life.

All utopias must fail not because of monetary systems.

The Venus Project is not a Utopian concept. They do not believe in the erroneous notion of a utopian society. There is no such thing. Societies are always in a state of transition. We propose an alternative direction, which addresses the causes of many of our problems. There are no final frontiers for human and technological achievement - it will always undergo change. Even if we can design a society having all of the modifications to improve the lives of people and protect the environment we will still be at the beginning of the next phase. We are always in transition and learning new things.

The survival of any social system ultimately depends upon its ability to allow for appropriate change to improve society as a whole. The patterns we choose determine whether or not there is intelligent life on earth. In closing, to achieve this new social design, it will require much voluntary, unselfish participation for its realization. The future does not depend solely on The Venus Project. We only propose a direction. Our future depends on the decisions we make today.

But because of the human nature of us primates.

From H. G. Wells, “The anti-progressives of the early twentieth century loved to assert that “Human Nature” never altered; to imagine that the men of the Stone Age felt and thought like bank clerks picnicking in a cave, and the ideas of Confucius and Buddha were easily interchangeable with the ideas of Rousseau, Karl Marx or De Windt. They were not simply ignorant, but misinformed about almost every essential fact in the past experiences and present situation of the race.”

The New Utopians by Robert Boguslaw: “As Norman R. F. Maier (and others) point out years ago, the term “Human Nature” is characteristically used as a screen to hide our ignorance about man in general. And one of the more elementary oversights made in discussions of human behavior consists of ignoring the fact that the actions of men are set in motion by external as well as internal forces.”

As Arthur C. Clark and many other forward writers have pointed out, anyone who brings up the human nature question is naïve.
From the book Looking Forward, by Jacque Fresco:

“When little was known about cultural anthropology, sociology, and psychology, it seemed quite valid to resist proposed reforms by saying, “it won’t work. It is against human nature.” It is difficult for many people to appreciate the fact that what they call “human nature” just doesn’t exit. People are like mirrors they largely reflect their surroundings. If people were to come into the world with a fixed “nature” consisting of automatic responses, civilization would be impossible. Like the ants, we would live out our lives in patterns that are modified but little with the passing of time. The wonderful thing about us is that we come into this world with maximum flexibility.”
From The Best That Money Can’t Buy, Page 89, by Jacque Fresco

Bigotry, racism, nationalism, jealousy, superstition, greed, and self-centered behavior are all learned patterns of behavior, which are strengthened or reinforced by our upbringing. These patterns of behavior are not inherited human traits or “human nature” as most people have been taught to believe. If the environment remains unaltered, similar behavior will reoccur. When we come into the world we arrive with a clean slate as far as our relationships with others are concerned.

In the final analysis, any judgment regarding undesirable human behavior serves no purpose without an attempt to alter the environment that creates it. In a society that provides for most human needs, constructive behavior would be reinforced, and people who have difficulty interacting in the community would be helped rather than imprisoned.

Aspiring to a particular ethical behavior has to do with human aspirations and ideals. Functional morality is the ability to provide a process level to achieve a sustainable environment for all people. By this, we mean providing clean air and water, goods and services, and a healthy and innovative environment that is emotionally and intellectually fulfilling. It is difficult to conceive of any solutions that would serve the interest of the majority in a monetary-based system. None of this can be accomplished without a comprehensive redesign of our social system and eventual replacement of the monetary-based system by a resource-based economy.

Federico, you want to redesign human society and even human bodies and character. This is what all religions try to do. When Islam came, it redesigned the whole society in the Mediterranean. Communists did the same.

It never created Utopia. To reshape a whole society, one person must use violence to force the opposition to comply with his Programme.

And when the Programme is complete… Anyone who suggests change must be killed. To maintain status quo (the Programme planned by the Prophet, the Architect).

You always end up with a Distopia. Sorry.

I will write a blog post about Punctuated Equilibria.

You are just an anti-Darwinist like the catholic church. To you biology is racism.

Nice debate! Just so simply ..

Federico, you want to redesign human society and even human bodies and character.
Well, not personally, I would not have the presumption to do so. But I can support a movement which is going into what I think is the right direction.

This is what all religions try to do.

Wrong. Religions try to maintain the status quo.

When Islam came, it redesigned the whole society in the Mediterranean. Communists did the same.

No, actually nothing really changed. Communism, authoritarianisms, fascism socialism, capitalism, republics… they are all based on the same profit motive. They are all inherently, corrupt.

It never created Utopia.
Just read what I wrote about utopia please.

To reshape a whole society, one person must use violence to force the opposition to comply with his Programme.

Wrong. First of all, there is “programme”, not final draft that we need to achieve. I’m starting to think you didn’t really read through. As I said before, there is no end to achieve, only a direction to follow.

We propose an alternative direction, which addresses the causes of many of our problems. There are no final frontiers for human and technological achievement - it will always undergo change. Even if we can design a society having all of the modifications to improve the lives of people and protect the environment we will still be at the beginning of the next phase. We are always in transition and learning new things.

And when the Programme is complete… Anyone who suggests change must be killed. To maintain status quo (the Programme planned by the Prophet, the Architect).

Wrong again. There is no complete programme, no repression, therefore nobody will be killed, imprisoned, tortured, or anything along that line. That’s capitalism, communism, et cetera, nothing to do with the Venus Project.

You are still thinking with the old mindset, and I can see how difficult it can be to rethink your whole life in a few hours.

May I suggest you watch “Peter Joseph’s July 25th 2009 Zeitgeist Movement Lecture: London , UK” http://vimeo.com/6346955

You always end up with a Distopia. Sorry.
Goven you premises, yes. Luckily, your premises were wrong, misquotes, or just supposition I never made.

I will write a blog post about Punctuated Equilibria.

I look forward to read it.

You are just an anti-Darwinist like the catholic church. To you biology is racism.

Come again? Before given unjustified names and labels, maybe you should investigate how your interlocutor feels about something.

Anti-Darwinist? Could not be further from the truth.

And, by the way, even the catholic church (which I profoundly dislike much of the time) recognised the theory of evolution as a scientific fact. You might want to check things out before saying something you might regret.

To you biology is racism.

What’s that even supposed to mean?

@Aija
Please, feel free to join in

I will try to track myself in

If you have any doubts about the information presented, or if you would like to give your take on the matter, please do

Federico, sorry If I was impolite when calling you anti-darwinist. Let me explain:

Google the case of Dr. Watson (who discovered DNA). It proves, that leftist political correctness now is against Darwinism. He made a darwinist remark and was accused of racism (he had to apologize).

You say: “Greed, nationalism, jealousy…These patterns of behavior are not inherited human traits or “human nature” as most people have been taught to believe.”

If you think that egoism or territorialism is not genetically hird-wired, you are not a Darwinist to me.

Explanation: Those who want to reshape the whole society always are deniers. They deny, that there are NATURAL CONSTRAINTS limiting this effort.

E.g. the influence of the Sun on climate. And the darwinist laws.

You are stricken with one point of question: CO2 is a cause or CO2 is not a cause.

I am not really good of being into all previous discussions, but so far my opinion is that it is not just about CO2 as a reason for global warming. It is about that something is causing it and we need to take some kind of action.

Looking over, for or about CO2 emissions gives us a lot of other benefits for planet, people, living, development.

There should be a point where to start. I assume that CO2 emissions and dealing with them is one bold where to start to move. So I would be satisfied to hear from both of you guys - what the hell is the way how to prevent dead end of earth?

If you think that egoism or territorialism is not genetically hird-wired, you are not a Darwinist to me.

How’s that working out? Did you even read “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”?

Google the case of Dr. Watson (who discovered DNA). It proves, that leftist political correctness now is against Darwinism. He made a darwinist remark and was accused of racism (he had to apologize).

... and I’m still waiting for that part that supposedly connects to me.

Explanation: Those who want to reshape the whole society always are deniers. They deny, that there are NATURAL CONSTRAINTS limiting this effort.

Such as?

Oh, yes, there natural constraints limiting the amount of “good” societies can be, but there are no limits on the resources we can use, right?

E.g. the influence of the Sun on climate. And the darwinist laws.

Oh dear. I am computer scientist who studied inferential logic, and sentences like these make my heart bleed.

Please study Aristotle’s [url=“http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/prior.1.i.html”]Prior Analytics
[/url] before doing false assumptions an wrong syllogisms. Actually, please, don’t do that again.

Federico, I am quitting this discussion. Instead putting it here, I will make a thorough separate blog post on this hot darwinist topic. We can continue there.

on this hot darwinist topic. We can continue there.
Fair enough, that is, as far as human nature is concerned.

But what about everything else? The resource based economy, the profit motive, corruption, pollution et cetera? That’s not a Darwinian topic, that’s a technical issue.

And, IMHO, anything that is not related to the so called “Darwinian issue”, should continue here.

No need to get rid of greed. Motivate people to go green instead. Motivate their self-interest. Explanation here:
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/recycling_needs_new_inventions

Giving motivations for people to go green is certainly helpful.

But I don’t see how this would solve the bigger problems we are experiencing.

No need to get rid of greed?
If you don’t, you’ll end up with another problem tomorrow, and then another again in the future. The reason we have problems now is mainly due to ignorance and greed, corruption… if you don’t address these issues, it seems to me that what you are doing is merely “patchwork”.

Damn, Federico, I’ll truly write something about greed, but… Maybe it is YOU who should write an article and explain to us HOW EXACTLY do you want to redesign human character.

I don’t intend to redesign human character, I merely suggest a direction by which humans can express their positive inclinations and creativity, rather than destruction.

You can find more information on this view by watching the video presentation I linked back, but I’ll give you a “sneak peak” if you don’t want to check that out.

The Venus Project presents a bold, new direction for humanity that entails nothing less than the total redesign of our culture. There are many people today who are concerned with the serious problems that face our modern society: unemployment, violent crime, replacement of humans by technology, over-population and a decline in the Earth’s ecosystems.

As you will see, The Venus Project is dedicated to confronting all of these problems by actively engaging in the research, development, and application of workable solutions. Through the use of innovative approaches to social awareness, educational incentives, and the consistent application of the best that science and technology can offer directly to the social system, The Venus Project offers a comprehensive plan for social reclamation in which human beings, technology, and nature will be able to coexist in a long-term, sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium.

More on this:
Aims and Proposals
Aims & Proposals

It is common in our mass-media to read and to hear commentators talk about the number of social problems that face us today, such as global warming, destruction of Earth’s environment, unemployment, crime, violence, poverty, hunger, and the population explosion. Yet, how often do we hear of workable plans for alleviating many of these social problems? It is relatively simple for people to criticize society, however it’s much more difficult to identify and implement plans to resolve the problems.

The Venus Project is a veritable blue-print for the genesis of a new world civilization, one that is based on human concern and environmental reclamation.

The plans for The Venus Project offer society a broader spectrum of choices based on the scientific possibilities directed toward a new era of peace and sustainability for all. Through the implementation of a resource-based economy, and a multitude of innovative and environmentally friendly technologies directly applied to the social system, The Venus Project proposals will dramatically reduce crime, poverty, hunger, homelessness, and many other pressing problems that are common throughout the world today.

One of the cornerstones of the organization’s findings is the fact that many of the dysfunctional behaviors of today’s society stem directly from the dehumanizing environment of a monetary system. In addition, automation has resulted in the technological replacement of human labor by machines and eventually most people will not have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services turned out.

The Venus Project proposes a social system in which automation and technology would be intelligently integrated into an overall social design where the primary function would be to maximize the quality of life rather than profits. This project also introduces a set of workable and practical values.

This is in perfect accord with the spiritual aspects and ideals found in most religions throughout the world. What sets The Venus Project apart, however, is that it proposes to translate these ideals into a working reality.

PHASE ONE

The first phase of The Venus Project’s long-term plans is already underway. Jacque Fresco, futurist, inventor, industrial designer and founder of The Venus Project and his associate Roxanne Meadows have completed the construction of a 25-acre research center in Venus, Florida to help present the proposals of The Venus Project. Videos, pamphlets, and a recently published book, The Best That Money Can’t Buy: Beyond Politics, Poverty, and War, have been created to help raise awareness about this project and its many proposals.

PHASE TWO

Phase Two includes the production of a full-length feature film that will depict how a world embracing the proposals advanced by The Venus Project would work. This film would provide a positive vision of a peaceful society in which all human beings form a global family on planet Earth. A civilization in which all people are engaged in the pursuit of a better understanding of the world they share. This film has been designed to be an entertaining and educational experience for both adults and children.

PHASE THREE

To test its designs and proposals The Venus Project is working towards putting its ideals into practice by the construction of an experimental research city. Blueprints for most of the initial technologies and buildings have begun. Fund-raising efforts are currently under way to help support the construction of this first experimental city. This new experimental research city would be devoted to working towards the aims and goals of The Venus Project, which are:

1. Realizing the declaration of the world’s resources as being the common heritage of all people.

2. Transcending the artificial boundaries that currently and arbitrarily separate people.

3. Replacing money-based nationalistic economies with a resource-based world economy.

4. Assisting in stabilizing the world’s population through education and voluntary birth control.

5. Reclaiming and restoring the natural environment to the best of our ability.

6. Redesigning cities, transportation systems, agricultural industries, and industrial plants so that they are energy efficient, clean, and able to conveniently serve the needs of all people.

7. Gradually outgrowing corporate entities and governments, (local, national, or supra- national) as means of social management.

8. Sharing and applying new technologies for the benefit of all nations.

9. Developing and using clean renewable energy sources.

10. Manufacturing the highest quality products for the benefit of the world’s people.

11. Requiring environmental impact studies prior to construction of any mega projects.

12. Encouraging the widest range of creativity and incentive toward constructive endeavour.

13. Outgrowing nationalism, bigotry, and prejudice through education.

14. Eliminating elitism, technical or otherwise.

15. Arriving at methodologies by careful research rather than random opinions.

16. Enhancing communication in schools so that our language is relevant to the physical conditions of the world.

17. Providing not only the necessities of life, but also offering challenges that stimulate the mind while emphasizing individuality rather than uniformity.

18. Finally, preparing people intellectually and emotionally for the changes and challenges that lie ahead.

PHASE FOUR

After the research experimental city is built, a theme park is also planned that will both entertain and inform visitors about the possibilities for humane and environmentally friendly life-styles planned by The Venus Project. It will feature intelligent houses; high-efficiency, non polluting transportation systems; advanced computer technology; and a number of other innovations that can add value to the lives of all people - in a very short period of time.

No one can actually predict the future. We can only extrapolate on present information and trends. Population growth, technological change, worldwide environmental conditions, and available resources are the primary criteria for future projections.

There is no single philosophy or point of view whether religious, political, scientific, or ideological, that someone would not take issue with. We feel certain, however, that the only aspects of The Venus Project that may appear threatening are those which others project onto it.

The Venus Project is neither Utopian nor Orwellian, nor does it reflect the dreams of impractical idealists. Instead, it presents attainable goals requiring only the intelligent application of what we already know. The only limitations are those which we impose upon ourselves.

Then, of course, the FAQ, made from 20 years of research and discussion:

http://www2.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/faq

Feel free to read them on.

Actuslly, before the FAQ, you might want to check out jacque Fresco’s essays “Beyond Utopia”, “New Frontiers of Social Change”, “The Obsolete Monetary system”, “Resource-Based Economy”, “Motivation”, “Incentive & Creativity”, “The Human Aspect”, “The Venus Project”

http://www2.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/essay

Then, of course, some introductory videos:
http://www2.thevenusproject.com/videos

they just sit down and play cards during office hours

Maybe that’s just a reflection of your wishes.

last time I checked Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Alexander Fleming, and many others did not achieve their results with money or fear of losing their job as their sole motivation.

Personally, in my space time, I dont play cards. I enjoy studying Quantum Physics, Biology, Image processing, Sociology… but that’s just me, alright.

Vitezslav, you lost your way here, so I will just stick to the point and forget about your meaningless provocations.

Where exactly did you pose your “criticism of the Venus Project?”. Seriously, I can’t find it. Please give me a link.

Because here I can see a long discussion where I answer every single one of your doubts, line by line, with no answer back. If you are living in one of your parallel universes, where everything is just the opposite, you haven’t responded to anything yet.

Sorry,

Errata:
If
Corrige:
Unless

Federico, please be sensible. I can see you have a great passion for Venus Project. Your comments are plenty and verbose.

You can reply to my comments, because mine are concise and brief. Yours are too lengthy to dissect.

If your comments are too lengthy, one gets bored and loses interest.

Remember: “Brevity is the soul of wit”.

Concerning provocations, it is you who started the provocations accusing me stranglely of not being active enough. Please stop it, it is futile.

I do not need ten pages to refute your Venus Project:

1) Aggression and social inequality are not caused by money or capitalism. As I wrote elsewhere: Even in chimpanzees the Alpha male bullies the Omega male. Such is the law of nature.

2)Hate towards money and consumerism is as old as mankind. There have been many attempts to live without that. In the 15th century the Czech Hussite Movement had a branch of “proto-communists” who shared all property. The hermites and monks also share property (Ora et Labora) with no money involved…. It never became more than a small experiemnt. It faileed so many times, that I am skeptical that this time it will work.

3) Communists did not abolish money, but they granted people social securities. A certainty of having a job and housing… We all know the impact on the economy and technical lagging.

I understand. Basically you say I don’t have a strong enough argument, then you avoid reading my answers because they are too long.

I do not need ten pages to refute your Venus Project:
Judging from your points, you are right. You would need more like 1,000.

In chimpanzees the Alpha male bullies the Omega male, sure. But you fail to realise that we are not chimpanzees, and that the studies of human behaviour and consciousness have just started.

You make examples based on old history, but ff the environment remains unaltered, similar behaviours will always reoccur. When we come into the world we arrive with a clean slate as far as our relationships with others are concerned. Change the conditions, change the behaviour.

There is no scientific evidence supporting the claim that human behaviour is immutable, and there is plenty of scientific studies proving just the opposite. There is no basis to say that such thing as human nature controls our actions.

We have a propensity, which is then amplified by the conditions of the outside world.

Federico, you wrote: “When we come into the world we arrive with a clean slate as far as our relationships with others are concerned.”

Your “tabula rasa” theory is outdated. You probably missed, that in 1953 Crick and Watson discovered DNA. We come to the world pre-programmed.

There is certain range, in which we can change during our lifetime (we all change due to our life experience), but the range is limited.

Of course, you can re-programme humans with genetic engineering. Is that what you propose?

Note: Europeans now live absolutely different lives than in Middle Ages. But they have not changed in their heart. Only the social/political/religious traditions have changed.

I didn’t miss the discovered DNA, you just got your fact wrong.

The DNA contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of you organism, but we don’t come to the world pre-programmed. Only our body does.

Europeans now live absolutely different lives than in Middle Ages. But they have not changed in their heart.

Really? What does that even mean, “their heart”? You mean the ethical values of the society? Ethics is an ever-changing concept, which is subject to the time and place of which you are referring.

There is no such thing as people programmed to be killers, prophets or whatever you are thinking. People become who they want, as a result of the environment they live in, and that is a scientifically observed fact.

Hi, Federico. Finally, there is my post about greed and money-based economy. Is greed bad or not? Should we really get rid of it?

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/homo_ecologicus_end_of_greed/#comments

BTW: If you doubt that we are born pre-programmed, please read about the studies of identical twins raised in different environments. The scope, how environment can affect you, is limited.

Laws and beliefs change, but people don’t. We are still primates. Our mind is controlled by our body.

Even your temperament, Federico,is caused by the levels of chemicals in your brain. And by the legth of your neurone synapses.

I cannot believe I have to persuade somebody about this.

Vitezslav,
I did research on studies on identical twins.

Most psychologists and behavioural geneticists today try to address this subjectivity by narrowing down supposed “criminal tendencies” to termed anti-social, impulsive and aggressive behaviours…as broad and interpretive as these characterizations might also be. They also catalogue and examine so- called “personality disorders”, such as borderline, schizophrenic or obsessive. Now, the idea of genetics being the reason for so-called criminal behaviour became popular in the early 19th century. Even Eugenics operations in the form of sterilization took place in order to “rid society of criminals, idiots, imbeciles and rapists.”63 However, behavioural geneticists today will admit that no one has ever found a ‘criminal gene’. Rather, their work now tends to focus on the interaction of Neurochemicals in the brain, along with observational studies involving family, twins, and adoption. Beginning with the observational studies, it is now well demonstrated that the family and ‘reared- together’ Twin Studies (twins that grow up together) are poor methods of genetic behavioural research. These methods are confounded by environmental factors, since family members share a common environment. 63 Joseph, Jay, A critical review of twin and adoption studies of criminality and antisocial behaviours, The Journal of Mind and Behaviour.

However, research of ‘Reared-Apart’ Twins are seemingly better methods, for the environments are at least respectfully different from the original family environments. Today, the most heavily cited studies in support of a genetic basis for personality disorders and behavioural tendencies come from Reared-Apart Twin Studies. While the study of Twins Reared-Apart seems to eliminate the problem of mutual environmental influence in regard to family patterns, this method is plagued by the problem of the twins growing up in very similar social, economic and cultural environments.

For instance, one of the most famous studies on Reared-Apart Twins was one that is often called the “Minnesota Study”.64 Three hundred and forty eight pairs of twins were studied at the University of Minnesota, with the most noted case from this study, often cited to defend the genetic basis of behaviour, known as the “Jim Twins” case. Jim Lewis and Jim Springer were separated four weeks after birth in 1940, they grew up 45 miles apart in Ohio, and were reunited in 1979. The study of these two reunited, identical twins produced the following concordances: -Both twins are married to women named Betty and divorced from women named Linda. -One has named his first son James Alan while the other named his first son James Allan. -Both twins have an adopted brother whose name is Larry. -Both named their pet dog “Toy.” -Both had some law-enforcement training and had been a part time Deputy Sheriff’s in Ohio. -Each did poorly in spelling and well in Maths.

Each did carpentry, mechanical drawing, and block lettering.65 First of all, let it be firmly established that both “Jims” grew up only 45 miles from each other in Ohio. Considering the close proximity of the twins and the general cultural disposition of the region, it is safe to assume that the two men each were subjected to very similar values and traditions. Culturally, Ohio as a whole has little diversity when compared to other states. 86% of the state is white66 while 82% are Christian.67 This is important because the less diversity a region has, the more uniform the environmental influences. Another important element that this author cannot express due to the lack of available information is the cultural dispositions and values of the parents involved. If the parents of both “Jims” were also native to the Ohio region they were brought into, it further compounds the propensity of cultural similarity and hence behavioural similarity. As far as each being married to women named Betty and divorced from women named Linda, of the top one thousand most common female names in America, Linda is #3 and Betty is #1468.

This is statistically staggering in view of the number of names in existence, showing a high probability of coincidence. As far as the names ‘James Alan’ and ‘James Allan’, the most common male name in America… is James!69 As far as Allen/Alan, more research would need to be done on the cultural reasoning behind those middle names in the region of Ohio that they both lived. In regard to “Both twins have an adopted brother whose name is Larry”, this is a rather odd thing for the Minnesota researchers to report, for the tradition of naming children typically comes from the parents, not children. What this actually reveals has nothing to do with the ‘Jim Twins’, but rather shows a powerful cultural similarity of the parents. If each set of parents both had a propensity to name a son Larry, then it suggests that the parents were possibly very culturally similar, hence revealing that the environmental influence on both ‘Jims’ were also very similar. Then there are the dogs named “Toy”. Well, while ‘Toy’ is not a common dog name, we need to know where the name came from initially. Someone had to suggest the name to the ‘Jims’ in order for them to be aware of the name to begin with. The reasoning for this name could be multifaceted and logically derived from the environment. For example, nearly all domesticated dogs traditionally have toys that their owners provide. The advent of the name ‘Toy’ could have come from an association made by a young Jim hearing his parent reference the toy when playing with the dog. For example, there have been historical instances where a mother would say to a young child who is just learning to speak something common like “Daddy’s home” when announcing the arrival of the father to the child. The child would eventually hear these words and associate them with the father walking into the house. In this common scenario, some children have confused the father figure with the word “home” rather than “daddy”. They would thus later ask “when is home coming home?”. In other words, the word toy could be a reference name that has been contextually redefined. In the case of the Jim twins, we don’t have enough information to know if the name “Toy” is genetic or environmental, but reasoning would naturally lean towards environmental. Now, it isn’t the point of this document to develop a full argumentative treatise on the lack of validity of the Twin Studies. The point here is to express that cultural factors oriented within the society are just as powerful as familial factors. The ‘Jim Twins’ grew up in the same areas and had similar values and environmental influences. This point must be factored in and an in-depth analysis needs to be done regarding the cultural causes involved in such a study. Overall, the Twins Studies, while highly praised, show extreme weakness is understanding the true causality of a particular concordance.
http://mctfr.psych.umn.edu/research/UM research.html
http://mctfr.psych.umn.edu/research/UM research.html
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/tables/SC-EST2005-03-39.csv http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/ohio/demographics.html
http://names.mongabay.com/female_names.htm
http://names.mongabay.com/male_names.htm

You see, things are not that easy, and cannot be summarised in one line, as you try to do all the time.

Either you find the time to read some actual research or you just admit you don’t know what you are talking about.

Federico
1) From you, who scolded me for not replying to your replys… I would expect you react to my article about the usefulness of greed, selfishness and capitalism.

2) If genes do not affect our behaviour, how do you explain, that brothers reared in the same family (environment) have different character? How do you explain that some newborns cry all night and others sleep quietly and do not cry at all?

3) What the hell did you want to say by quoting the above case??? Of course, that every research must study many cases, not just one, to filter out random coincidences. You didn’t know that?

1. Your post basically goes against everything I stated, without considering what I said. It’s kind of hard to repeat almost the same things in different words, just for the sake of responding, but I’m working on it.

2-3. This doesn’t mean genetics don’t have a strong influence on our lives. It is very important to consider the true genetic traits and the effects they have when intermixed with culture. While most agree that physical attributes such as eye colour, height, and some allergies are genetic, many do not
consider the ramifications these attributes have in shaping the environment of that person.

For example, suppose you have two identical twins separated at birth and each has the genetic predisposition to grow to over 6 feet, each has a high metabolism that keeps him or her thin, and a neurological wiring that supports acute eye-hand coordination.  Let’s say they are both adopted by middle class families in suburban environments and grow up in what would be considered a traditional American childhood culture, including sports activities. Since each brother has outstanding height and increased coordination genetically, they will have an advantage in sports.

Since basketball and football are the two main sports in America, they will likely play one or the other at some point. Given their slender build and tall height, they might gravitate towards basketball. If they obtain moral support from their friends and family, perhaps they will each grow up
to play professional basketball.

Is this activity of playing basketball genetic? Not in the sense that some behavioural geneticists would suggest. The fact is the propensity for playing basketball is derived from physiological advantages that
are genetic, along with environment based cultural traditions. There is no evidence to suggest that genes somehow make the basketball player. This is similar to genetic studies which claim they are looking for the gene which causes smoking or a makes a person become a Republican… it’s rather absurd. The true genetic basis relevant here is physiological, not behavioural.

Neurochemicals are further examples of Physiological influences on behaviour. Serotonin, for example, has been shown to be related to so-called “antisocial” behaviour. Low Serotonin levels can apparently
lead to impulsivity and aggression. Be that as it may, Neurochemicals do not instruct a person’s behaviour in specific ways. Just like other physiological attributes, they set certain propensities.

While there is certainly a genetic basis to these chemicals, which could relate to familial heredity and generate so-called ‘personality disorders’ that result from chemical imbalances, the Neurochemical
behaviour assumption does not give any specifics as to how those chemical propensities will manifest.

In other words, the behaviour that might result from the interaction of these chemicals can only be extremely generalized. One could say that a person with a certain imbalance has a propensity to get
“angry” more easily than the standard population. While this is informative, it tells us nothing about how that behaviour will manifest. It is the environment that determines the actual behaviour or lack
thereof it.

There is no scientific evidence that really supports the notion that any of our behaviours are strictly the result of our genes. Those behaviors that people often attribute to ‘instinct’ or ‘human nature’ can
almost always be tracked to environmental influences. The notion of ‘human nature’ is largely mythological. It stems from primitive religious notions that the human being is either ‘good or evil’ inherently. The pursuit of people who seek to find the “gene” or the like which causes a particular behaviour is essentially a form of superstition. It is like a person being “possessed by demons” which control their behaviour.

The fact is, while Neurochemicals and physiological traits set propensities for a person’s reactions and social gravitation, it is the environment that really creates our values and behaviour. There is no fixed,
predetermined ‘human nature’. Our values, methods and actions are developed and derived from our experiences.

Your dreams to create unselfish humans are futile.

Read and comment here:
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/homo_ecologicus_end_of_greed/

and here
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/social_ecology_social-engineering/

I wrote just for you.

I wrote just for you.
Wow, I feel honoured.

You wrote here: http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/social_ecology_social-engineering/
Venus Project also aims to abolish money.
No, it doesn’t. To abolish something is to make it even more appealing, it never worked.

The Venus Project’s aim is to surpass the need for the use of money.
Which is much different.

And, again, it’s no utopia, but you don’t seem to take my point.

Again, the Venus Project is not a Utopian concept. They do not believe in the erroneous notion of a utopian society. There is no such thing. Societies are always in a state of transition. We propose an alternative direction, which addresses the causes of many of our problems. There are no final frontiers for human and technological achievement - it will always undergo change. Even if we can design a society having all of the modifications to improve the lives of people and protect the environment we will still be at the beginning of the next phase. We are always in transition and learning new things.

Really, Vitezslav, you begin to make me sound like a broken record.

I don’t know if I should reply every time you seem to ignore hat I write, if I should keep transcribing verbatim my older comments, or if I should try new ways of saying to same thing.

Either way, I don’t seem to get my point across, I probably have the wrong approach. :(

As I can see you just moved the discussion to another post, without addressing the questions I posed, but rather you asked again the same questions over and over (utopia, communism, bla bla bla), ignoring the answers I gave you here.