What can we learn from the Internet?

Internet pioneer Danny Hills has a TED talk about the early days of the Internet. On that talk we see that the Internet, on its early days, was essentially an obscure network based on trust.

Today, the Internet is much bigger, and much more important. Despite its massive importance, governments and corporations are constantly on the lookout for opportunities to mess with it, reducing its usefulness for their own profit and power gain. They get away with this because it is technically feasible to do so, and it is in the reach of their power.

The technical reasons behind this vulnerability are not particularly interesting for this post. The interesting part are the responses the Internet community is deploying to this perceived threat of control. These responses seem to fall into the following three categories:

The first kind of response is to fight in the political space to keep the Internet open. This essentially means that, as members of our societies, we get together and complain to those in power and to each other until they change their minds. This has stopped the progress of bad laws such as “SOPA” and “PIPA” in the U.S. We will call this approach “begging.”

The second kind of response is to start designing an alternative to the Internet that would not be controllable. Designing theoretical alternatives, or prototyping these designs, is not really too difficult. The harder part is seeing how these alternatives would grow beyond isolated localities adopting them and into a global mesh that would, eventually, be easily accessible by anyone, like the current Internet. We will call this approach “forking.” Not really “forking,” as these networks would probably end up talking to each other, but it has to be conceived as to stand on its own, as if it were a fork.

The third kind of response is to build a network that’s better than the Internet in some sense, but on “top” of the Internet, that is, an application using the Internet, as opposed to beside it, as a “physical network” like the Internet. That’s what the “peer-to-peer networks” do. They are not “networks” in the same sense that the Internet is a “network.” In academia, you would say that these peer-to-peer systems, such as BitTorrent, FreeNet, Napster, Bitcoin or GNUNet, are “logical networks” or “overlay networks.” They are networks “overlaid” (built on top of) an existing “physical” network such as the Internet. We will call this approach the “overlay” approach (sounds simpler than “if you can’t beat them, add a layer on top of them that makes it do what you want.”)

So, in the case of transforming the system known as the Internet, what is the correct approach? The answer is, of course, all of them. When a system is as important as the Internet, then it is not a matter of “which is the right way,” but which is the right way for you. All of them are valid, and we’re going with whatever works.

I have a hunch that these paths can be translated to the paths we have available to transforming “The Economy” into a “Resource-Based Economy” or “Love Economy” or “Gift Economy” or whatever it is that we would call it. That problem is, similarly, very important and worthy of all kinds of response we can come up with.

We have many people enacting the first response, of “begging” the current governments and corporations to do things differently.

The second response, of “forking” the current systems, is similarly receiving lots of attention. Simple and small-scale designs, such as designs for specific villages or communities, have been working for decades. Some communities even cut economic ties with the rest of the human world, essentially creating a private “world” where they can claim to exercise a “world-wide” and pure resource-based economy — but you still have to at least negotiate land ownership with some existing country, last time I checked. Larger-scale designs, on the other hand, if not deployed, at least are the focus of much discussion and study.

The third path, I think, is where we would start making some interesting progress.

Consider the following: given any criteria for allocation of the existing money tokens in circulation, which one of the following two entities would be more likely to be capable of capturing more of it?

The first entity is a group of people who each live on their own apartment, and drives each day, on their own car, to the same job site where they work. When these people meet, they pay each other for things, and every transaction is taxed by the local government.

The second entity is the same group of people, but now using a gift economy of some sort between them. They not only share things, being more physically efficient, but they also avoid having their internal economy be implemented using taxed government tokens. Whatever government money they hold in total, it disappears slower from each individual’s bank account simply because they are not taxed for circulating it internally.

Yes, money is a fiction, a convention. But so is any economic game. Even if you have a global network of computer processes monitoring all world’s resources, the representation of these resources is still a model, still a game, still a fiction. An error in modelling of the world’s resources would produce sub-optimal allocation, much like the current government money systems produce sub-optimal allocation. A much better model is still a model.

What this means is, instead of abolishing the fiction of money, why not just satisfy it? Get together with some people, and agree to collectively play the game better than those who won’t build their own gift economies and who will live physically inefficiently. Then just watch the cash pile grow. The government will have no rule it can design to not reward the people who actually want to build something different. And the more “money” you have… well, let’s just say that, in the current system, having money is not exactly a bad thing. Want to build Jacque Fresco’s futuristic town? Amassing a few hundred billion dollars couldn’t hurt. It is all fiction anyway. Gather the fiction, then give it to people who still want it. These people will give you access to the land you need to build a town, as well as deliver all the resources, material and mental, that you need to build it for the first time. Since it is a sustainable town, once it is built, you have one place that doesn’t need money.

The “overlay” path is not without its own difficult challenges, however. When you design an overlay, be it for the Internet or for the human environment sharing problem, you have to keep two worlds in your head instead of one, and constantly remember which kind of thinking goes where. If you are not careful while designing your peer-to-peer system, you may end up recreating its supporting layer without intending to. Having money may cause us to exclusively “buy” our way into simply surviving on the fruits of the global unsustainable production machine, instead of taking whatever first step, even if small and feeble, towards freeing ourselves from depending on these unsustainable (destructive and violent, really) systems. I can “have” a million “dollars,” but that shouldn’t stop me from personally spending part of my day trying to grow some tomatoes.

Final note. Becoming a billionaire solving practical problems and then donating it to charities that also solve practical problems, or funding start-ups that want to “innovate,” is not what I’m talking about here. That’s simply trying to do good within the current economic and financial system, and validating and reinforcing it in the short term. This would be simply using the existing network as it is presented, not using it in a way that makes it emulate what a competing network would be. It is certainly possible that this alone — a “correct” application of business as usual — may bring about sufficient “real” transformation that problems disappear on their own through sheer business, technological and scientific ingenuity. That is, the beautiful communities based on trust and gifting that we envision are actually just around the corner — if only we would let the great Capitalist dance finish its performance on this planet, then we would see how wonderful things could and will be. Then again, it is also possible that trying to grow a new system as a mere “product” of the diligent application of the current system will continue to not work.

Original Post : thinking.nfshost.com/wiki/index.php?n=Main.OnResourceBasedEconomies


Some New Videos On The Zeitgeist Movement, The Venus Project and From Peter Joseph On Democracy

The Venus Project, The Zeitgeist Movement and a Resource Based Economy is constantly gaining more and more momentum, resulting in a constant flow of new creations of cultural expressions like these videos.

The two guys from the London based website and YouTube channel ‘London Real’ contacted me (or rather, their ‘Public Relations Coordinator’ did) with a new video interview they had done with Jacque Fresco, asking me if I wanted to post it on the blog. I found the interview not really bringing up anything new but the old anecdotes Mr. Fresco is always using, but I found an interview with Ben McLeish of The Zeitgeist Movement UK that was slightly more interesting. I post this here for you:

YouTube Preview Image

And for those of you who haven’t heard all of Mr. Frescos anecdotes, I do recommend listening through this interview. He is definitely quite funny and has a lot of good points:

YouTube Preview Image

And if you want some more in depth dope, take a look at Peter Joseph’s latest venture, Culture in Decline, this time on our so-called Democracy:

YouTube Preview Image

Peter Joseph turns out to be a first class entertainer!


A Conversation About The Venus Project with Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows

YouTube Preview Image

In this interview, Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows of The Venus Project answers some inquisitive questions about everything from design to decision making, with the interviewer playing ‘devils advocate’. The interview aims to get answers to questions not answered before by The Venus Project.

All images and designs in the video is attributed to The Venus Project and Jacque Fresco.

“The Venus Project advocates an alternative vision for a sustainable new world civilization unlike any socio-economic system that has gone before. It calls for a straightforward redesign of a culture, in which the age-old inadequacies of war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but totally unacceptable.” – The Venus Project

You might also want to see this recording from their lecture in Stockholm 2010: http://www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com/2011/03/the-venus-project-stockholm-lecture-july-2010/

Experience more on their website: www.thevenusproject.com


The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement splitting up

The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement is ‘splitting up’.

Personally, I think this is a good thing. Ever since I heard about The Venus Project (TVP), The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) and a Resource Based Economy (RBE), I thought that TZM should not be “the activist arm” of TVP. Rather, TZM  should be “the activist arm” of a Resource Based Economy.

A resource based economy can be many things, and The Venus Project holds but one of these solutions. The notion of RBE can not be defined by a single organization alone, like TVP or TZM. RBE has to be an ‘open system’, where all the people of this planet has to contribute. And as far as I am concerned, RBE is still a concept that has to be developed and take root deep in the mind of Humanity. Just like the notion of money and ownership is rooted in the mind of humanity now, the notion of a money- and propertyless society has to replace the old notion and become even deeper rooted. And this has to happen through the spreading of information through all possible channels.

TVP has a lot of good drawings and suggestions for new design and technology, but I feel they are lacking somewhat in understanding humans. I agree with many things that Mr. Jacque Fresco says, but I also disagree with a few.

RBE is a concept that has to take root in the mind of humanity, and the main aspect of it is not TVP and its drawings, it is the notion of a money- and propertyless society where we share and give instead of trade, buy and sell. This is the core of RBE. Sharing and giving. No matter how much we automate things or how many machines we have, this has to be and is the core of a resource based economy. Actually, it has nothing to do with technology, but everything to do with our mindset and values, and how we see the world. Any technological development and how we use technology will come as a result of this mindset. Actually, I do think that TVP have the same view. It is only that it tends to get a focus on machines and technology instead of humans and values.

The Venus Project has undoubtedly added valuable designs and thoughts to the pool of the knowledge of Mankind. Knowledge that shall and will be utilized in all ways possible. There is no doubt about that. But Jacque Fresco says outright that ‘we can’t create this new world without TVP’, which is a huge mistake. To rely on one person’s thoughts and designs for the whole planet is not only foolish, but impossible. There are too many creative and intelligent beings on this planet for this to happen. Not to speak of too many different preferences and cultures.

I think it is good that The Zeitgeist Movement is now on it’s own, and realizes that it is a ‘resource based economy’ that is the ‘umbrella term’, not ‘The Venus Project’. RBE can come in many different shapes and forms, not only TVP’s form. We can even have RBE without any new technology, with old wooden houses and horses and carts, which is what we actually had. In old times, there were many societies based on sharing and giving in stead of trading with each other. And the land was not owned by anyone. As said, RBE is not really about technology, but our mindset. Yes, technology will evolve, and we will use it, but technology is not the main point. Sharing, giving and collaborating freely is the point. A money- and propertyless economy is the point. A caring and compassionate society is the point.

TVP think that ‘everything has a technical solution’, and many things do, but then they tend to forget that Humans are not ‘technical solutions’. Well, our bodies are somewhat ‘technical’, but Humans also have feelings, thoughts and aspirations of their own. Humans has to realize for themselves this new world. Humans can not be told ‘this is the way things are, no go and do it!’. No, humans has to get their own experiences, and the mindset they are in has to change gradually. Unless the total mindset of Humanity changes away from trading, ownership and individual power towards sharing, collaboration and common strength, we will not get a resource based economy or anything like it on this planet. No matter how technologically developed we are.

One thing that seem totally absent in TVP is the understanding of consciousness.  How everything is connected, where the Life Force comes from, what thoughts really are, what mind is, what the soul is, why we are here and what our purpose really is. They seem to believe that absolutely everything we do is based on ‘conditioning by society’. Of course we get conditioned by society, but that doesn’t explain everything. One can ask ‘what conditions society’? Where does it all start?

Why does Mr. Fresco do what he does? Is it only conditioning? Then why didn’t his brother, or someone with similar ‘conditioning’ do what Fresco does? He clearly tells us that he went against the current in his young days. He didn’t want to stand up and sing the american national anthem because he believed in the whole world as our common land, not only USA. Now, if everyone around him was conditioned to one thing, why did he go the other way?

So, where did it come from, if not his conditioning? His DNA? It is now shown that also the DNA is not constant, but does change in regards to, yes, conditioning. But still, conditioning doesn’t explain all behavior. Personally, I believe that this ‘third element’, the element that is is not heritage (DNA), and not conditioning, is the element that comes with us when we are born. It is a personality and aspirations we bring with our consciousness from life to life.

Personally, I believe that we are consciousness, that everything is consciousness, that this world is created out of our thoughts, that the fear and the EGO is the basic things that are stopping us from reaching our goals, and that Love, Joy, Bliss and positive feelings will create positive results in this world. And that the search for Fulfillment is what is driving us to do the things we do. And this fulfillment is based on something invisible. Something that is inherent in us when we are born.

To me these questions are CRUCIAL to a Resource Based Economy. Because if we don’t have money or trade or barter, we would have to think totally different in terms of motivation. TVP’s motivation seems to be to eradicate war, pollution, natural disasters, etc. etc., which is all good, of course. But then what? What would be the meaning of life when we have eradicated all of that? TVP doesn’t seem to have an answer for this other than that ‘there will always be new problems to solve’. This might be well and good for TVP, but not all the world’s people, and certainly not me. I need deeper answers and reasons to live.

The struggle we have on this planet today, is not technological or scientific, it is a struggle of the EGO. We have to leave our egos behind to get this new world, RBE or whatever you want to call the ‘system’. In any case, a new ‘system’ alone can not save us, we have to bring with us the realization that ‘we are all one’. I am not saying that we can get rid of our egos completely. No, we only have to be aware of them, understand them and not let our words and actions be guided by them. Being guided by the ego is being guided by fear. Instead we have to look to Love and Peace in our guidance. Sounds like cliche’s, and they are. But there’s a reason why things become cliche’s, and that’s because cliches tend to be true.

I’ve criticized TVP more than TZM here for a reason. TZM was rightly enough initiated by Peter Joseph, but now TZM consists of a conglomerate of chapters and groups all over the planet, with many working diligently to spread awareness about RBE. This is not only the way it should be, but the only way it can be if this information is to reach any significant proportion of the population of this globe. Remember that not many people had heard about TVP before PJ made his films and TZM was started.

TVP, it seems to me, still consists basically of two persons holding the reins tight, not to let anyone interpret any of their information in their own way. They obviously also want the information to be spread across the globe, but seem to be so protective about their work that they won’t let anyone one else touch it without their approval. I understand that when someone has spent their life on designing so much houses, buildings, transportation, cities and more, credit is wanted, and a say in the building as well. But they need to let go of some control if they want their creations to see the light of day. The blueprints can be licensed out to contractors and countries around the world right now, and I am sure many would be interested in TVPs designs if they only let them out. There are many ways to do things, not only one.

I believe that the people of TVP are most sympathetic, intelligent and creative people, and that what they have done is nothing but incredible. And I believe they mean only well. I owe TVP all credit for putting me on the track of a resource based economy. I would like nothing better than to see this world become reality, but I hope and believe that all of us will create it together. That there will be room for many people’s designs and plans, and that we can and will have an open and fruitful communication and collaboration in creating this new society, where The Zeitgeist Movement still works to raise awareness about RBE, get people to think, inform and educate, while The Venus Project does the same, each in their own way, but towards our common goal.

Here are some links about what I think TVP is lacking in their thoughts about this new world:

The Moneyless Manifesto

Peerconomy

The Wealth of Networks

The Commoner

 

 


The Venus Project – Stockholm Lecture July 2010

I was so fortunate as to meet Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows in Stockholm and was able to film their lecture. So, here is the recording of their lecture in Stockholm July 24. 2010. In this lecture they explain The Venus Project and a resource based economy.

Total time: About 2 hours.

First hour is lecture. Second hour is Q & A.

The lecture is about how our mind set and the monetary system is the source of the problems in the world today, and how a resource based economy, a society without money or trade, an updating of our values and mind set, and relevant use of technology and knowledge can develop our civilization to become a truly sustainable society with abundance for everyone.

Filmed by Harald Sandø and Vesa Rahkola.
Edited by Harald Sandø

The lecture was arranged by The European Organisation for Sustainability (EOS) and The Zeitgeist Movement Sweden.

 
thevenusproject.com
thezeitgeistmovement.com
eoslife.eu
thezeitgeistmovement.se
haraldsando.com

 

 


Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph on TED

As a response to TED’s FaceBook discussion ‘who would YOU like to see on TED?‘ I replied with the following:

“At least ONE person has already mentioned Jacque Fresco, the founder of The Venus Project. Not that I should speak about him, but HE should speak on TED. If not him, then Peter Joseph, the founder of the Zeitgeist Movement.

There is ONE big problem in the world today that everyone seems to miss. Like the elephant in the room. The problem is MONEY.

Everyone just takes for granted that we need money, that the money system we have is the only possibility for humanity and that if only everyone had enough money, everything would be ok.

Please wake up, sunshine.

There is no lack of money in the world. Banks create it everyday in the millions and billions. Yes, the worlds money system is based on a ‘fractional reserve banking system’ where banks can create money out of nothing. Google it. It’s not just something I make up. It has been shrouded for years though, in fancy financial terms. This ‘air money’ is lent out to private persons, corporations, other banks and even countries, and is demanded paid back with interest (which, by the way, is NOT created by the system. Thus MORE money have to constantly be created to pay the interest, and defaults are a part of the system). Even countries are going bankrupt in this insane world of money and debt.

The Monetary System we have today plays a big, if not the biggest, part in all the problems we have in the world today: Corruption, crime, wars, diseases, prostitution, pollution, poverty, and not to speak of the ‘financial crisis’, which is no crisis to the ones who create the money. Money, who largely is digital. 97% of all of the worlds money today only exists as ones and zeros in computers.

A world without money is difficult for many to imagine. No wonder, since we’re all brainwashed into believing that money is as necessary as air. But there is no money in nature. Nothing. Zip. Still, it runs like clockwork.

So, my suggestions are:

JACQUE FRESCO for suggesting a resource based economy replacing the monetary system, and founding The Venus Project.

PETER JOSEPH for starting The Zeitgeist Movement, spreading the idea of a resource based economy.

One of these persons should be SELF EVIDENT on TED. Why they haven’t been on TED already, I don’t know. I can only speculate that it has something to do with TEDs sponsors, not wanting info about something that threatens the monetary system and their operations out there.”

If you want to help spread more awareness about TZM, TVP and a moneyless society in general, you can suggest to TED as well. Follow the link on the top in this article.


Peter Joseph Documentary

Charles Robinson has interviewed Peter Joseph in a rare documetary.

Peter Joseph, the founder of the Zeitgeist movement, gives in this interview a look seldom given into his own life. How he started studying music and dropping out, partly due to too much accumulation of debt, to having a performance-like show with him playing his percussion instruments (marimba, xylophone), and projectors showing his society critical films on screens beside him, to putting his film out on the web and getting surprising amounts of traffic. And then from there to get a book from Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows, the founders of The Venus Project and a resource based economy, to starting The Zeitgeist Movement, knowing his life would change drastically.

It turns out that Peter Joseph is not his real name, but his first name. He is not revealing his last name, as he wants to protect himself and those around him, understandably enough, as he is comparing what he is doing with Gandi and Marin Luther King. Not directly, though. In any case, what he is doing is in my opinion comparable to those people, as long as he keeps it up. It would also be better if he tries to have a more common appeal in his speeches, and try to bypass all his academic intellectualism. Apart from that, what he does is historical, and hopefully changes in the world will come out of is.


Money and property in a resource based economy

It seems like Peter Joseph (the founder of the Zeitgeist Movement) thinks that machines will do all the work for all people and that no one will own anything in a resource based society. I think he is wrong about this. For one, people like to work and share their work, secondly, everyone like to have something they can call ‘their own’. I know that in RBE everyone will have access to everything, and that machines and technology will be so developed that we really don’t have to do anything. But this is not the point. The point is that people want to do stuff, and they want to be proud over their creation. Just look at Jacque Fresco. He, along with his partner, Roxanne Meadows, is trademarking the term “Resource Based Economy”. Why? Because it’s something (according to them) they have worked on their whole life, and that they have ‘the right to’, since it’s “their creation”. Why on earth doesn’t Fresco and Meadows, of ALL people, not give their creation out freely?  Of course, because they feel they deserve something back for all their work.

So will people in RBE. But this is where my analogy stops looking like the world we have today. I’m not saying that we need money in RBE, or property, like we have today. No. But if someone creates a painting, a unique painting, this is one persons creation and it’s up to that person what should be done with it. And this goes for all creations made by us humans. So, what would be the reward?

Answer: The reward in creating anything is: 1. The joy of creating it. 2. The joy of sharing it.

But, it is still the creators choice whether he/she want’s to share it or not. Of course, it can’t be sold, like it is today, and there will be no other reward than the mentioned joy, but still, it is and will always be the property of the creator until she/he chooses to give it away.

So, I don’t think people will be happy letting machines do absolutely everything for them. Being of service to other people will always be something that will bring joy and meaning to our lives. Be it being an artist creating art, a composer creating music, a dancer dancing, a chef cooking, a massager massaging, a doctor healing, a nurse nursing, a designer designing or a photographer photographing.

When it comes to property, it will be nothing like today. Yes, accessibility will be there for everything needed. Still, if one want’s a plot of land to grow one’s own fruit and vegetables, that should be able to be called ones own.


Trademarking Common Heritage

Trademarking Common Heritage

Open Letter Response to Venus Project “Why The Venus Project has the term RBE trademarked”

To all vested interests,

The first and foremost claim in Venus Projects official statement regarding Trademarking is that the Resource Based Economy idea is something Fresco has been working on his entire life. Well quite frankly we beg to differ since firstly its commonly known that Jacque Fresco started off as a Technocrat and before that he took part in several participatory studies of human behavior regarding specifically social divisiveness. Further it should be obvious that Fresco did not simply invent Resource Based Economy out of thin air. What he did is simply re coin idea’s that were already in development under the name Natural Resource Economics. Jacque Fresco simply coined a term and re branded several economic theories under the term Resource Based Economy. This isn’t even the creation of a new ideology since ideologies are made up of more then one single component.

“an integrated system to provide for humanity holistically”

We’ve always found it interesting how the specific wording of certain concepts tends to have broad appeal. Even when the basis of the ideas themselves are actually diametrically opposed to whatever groups they might be appealing to. For instance the word holistic is used here as a supporting phrase for The Venus Projects interpretation of a Resource Based Economy. Yet the wording is so broad that to depending on whose reading it the wording could imply several things to the sub-conscious. For one it could imply to any person who holds a non-materialist view of ultimate reality that what is being called for is society that balances mind, body, and spirit. Of course in examining Venus Projects ideas closely enough and especially closely examining Zeitgeist Movements so called “Understanding of Spirituality” (See Spirituality, Technology, and Sustainability: Open response to Zeitgeist Movement) we find this is not the case.

“He has been working toward a resource-based economy in order to do away with the major aberrations of war, poverty, hunger, etc.”

Which are noble endeavors indeed yet it seems that certain means are justified by their ends. Its obvious to anyone with a critical thought process that both Mass Psychology and clever wording take the place of actual intellectual debate and analysis. The very proof is the statement we are responding to in this open letter. On December 29th we filed our letter of protest against the Venus Projects Trademark attempt of Resource Based Economy. After we did we proceeded to organize people around this to call Venus Project and Jacque Fresco specifically to inquire about the Trademarking. The response we got however was not a direct response it was instead the letter we are responding to which further claims the reasons are some scam in California was being run to make money off these ideas. Where that letter came from we’ve got no idea but one thing that is public record with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is that in early September Jacque Fresco filed a Trademark request with The U.S. Patent Office he paid the sum of $375.00 USD to do so.

At this time he released no official statement or explanation of it. Further Fresco never went and asked the members of The Zeitgeist Movement whether it would be ok with them. Rather what happened is he just went ahead and did it without any prior notice to anyone. Whats more is even while Trademark was pending Roxanne Meadows proceeded to send out “Cease and Dissent Orders” to entities using the term Resource Based Economy. One such group The Resource Based Earth Collective (formally called “The Resource Based Economy Collective”) was given a Cease and Dissent Order by Roxanne Meadows telling them not to use the term as their name. In fact this act even though its the only one we’ve uncovered in our investigations thus far shows exactly what Venus Project would be doing on a mass scale the minute any group they don’t approve of use’s the term Resource Based Economy in their work to further develop the ideas.

“Throughout the years, people have taken The Venus Project’s pictures, designs, architecture, language, and the name Resource-based Economy, to raise funds claiming to build a Resource- based Economy without collaborating with us in any way. They usurp the name, some of the procedures, and models, but use their own interpretation of a Resource-based Economy.”

Besides the fact that the only supporting evidence offered is an e-mail that could have been fabricated. Also it implies that anyone who use’s the term Resource Based Economy outside of Venus Project and any entities it officially blesses is doing so for personal financial gain. Yet whats really going on here is that once again its The Venus Project using clever mass psychology which has become their true Trademark. For example the biggest example of mass psychological manipulation they’ve been using is found right on their website. Where it says “Research Center For Sale” and in fact when you click this link it gives an actual set monetary value. This implies that The Venus Project is short on cash which hardly seems the case since Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows have been able to jet-set around the world. Hardly the tell tale signs of an entity thats going broke by any stretch of the imagination. Whats more is that in monitoring several message boards we’ve seen the zealous followers of Jacque Fresco try and scramble to come up with the named monetary amount so they can buy the research center and gift it back to The Venus Project. Which shows what a Social Engineer really is all about, which is socially engineering situations and circumstances for the purposes of causing something to come about. Very interesting how even though he says he’s a Social Engineer in Zeitgeist Addendum most people haven’t bothered to actually look up what the term means. Jacque Fresco’s social engineering in practice is manipulation of mass psychology to quickly raise a large sum of money for personal monetary gain and then still have some to keep projects running.

“After examining their interpretations closely, we feel the procedures they suggest will not work.”

If this was the case why not explain why these procedures would not work? Whose interpretations and procedures have you examined? Name the groups and organizations this as this statement is rather vague and its not clear who this nameless and faceless external groups or entities which threaten the future of humanity are. Interestingly enough we’ve seen this type of mass psychology used somewhere else before now where was that again?

“Others use the name Resource-based Economy, but interpret it in their own way and then raise funds for a different direction.”

If your referring to the fact that our movement would like to move in a direction that is not based on dogmatic “Scientific Materialist” doctrine then you’d be correct. You’ve made it clear your not in anyway open nor will you ever be open to any ideas that don’t conform to your strict dogmatic “Scientific Materialist” gospel. Your activist arm Zeitgeist Movement has ignored and avoided any discussion with us on what merits the absoluteness of the modern scientific method over all else. We’ve put forward two documents in an attempt to open those discussions. Yet you’ve ignored both so you’ve made it quite obvious your not open to any sort of discussion. On the other hand some of your not so zealous followers are open to a discussion on these matters and are quite frankly more open minded then you seem to be.
“Riding on the coat tails of Fresco’s work. This is detrimental to our efforts to raise funds for building a new city or making a major motion picture about our aims.”

So who decided building a city was the best way to start implementation of a Resource Based Economy? When was a vote taken on the matter? How many people where brought together? Was a conference/ meeting of the minds ever called at any point to consult with people and ask them what they thought the best way to implement a Resource Based Economy might be?

“We would not mind people using the term Resource-based Economy and our photos if they consulted and worked with us, and if their efforts promoted the true direction of a Resource-based Economy as proposed by The Venus Project.”

Who needs your photos quite honestly? Perhaps some groups like ours would like to come up with our own designs and ideas on the subject. Further why are you re-inventing the wheel? Have you gone and looked at or investigated self sustaining communities which already currently exist? Why not use those communities as a spring board and build up from there? To us it seems it would be better to go and investigate those already existing communities and develop technical methods for how those could be better and more efficient. It would sure beat having to start from scratch which is not really where anyone needs to start and quite frankly the Venus Project didn’t start its work from scratch either. In fact you simply took the work of others in the field of Natural Resource Economics and put together their ideas in a nice package and then called it “Resource Based Economy”. Of course this economic model is far from a complete new socio-political theory and quite frankly if you ever took a political science class you might actually know that. Of course you’d probably argue the semantics of the point rather then the merits of the argument itself. Probably something along the lines of “Its a social theory not a political one blah blah”. Quite frankly that’s the sort of response were expecting from you mixed with any number of additional claims as to why your interpretation is the only true interpretation. Interestingly enough where have we heard this idea of our interpretation is the only true one before? Sounds very hauntingly familiar don’t you think so?

Well to clarify for everyone else what exactly makes up a Social Theory and how one is developed. It firstly is made up of three developmental components which are; a) a view and or interpretation of history and social problems throughout history b) a social factor or analysis of contemporary social problems c) a device used for analysis and proposing alternatives and solutions.

Ok so on component b) it looks like this has been clearly defined, developmental component c) is your Scientific Materialism which we do note is a different type of Materialism then Marx’s Dialectical Materialism to that end we’ve gone ahead and called it Scientific Materialism for you since you choose to be so vague. Now on developmental component a) this one seems a little unclear as you haven’t bothered to really define it. It does seem you’ve borrowed The Technocrats view of Low Output and High Output Societies and expanded on that view. Curiously enough we’d like to see if they’d call you out on that point.

OK so we’ve established the developmental basis of your social theory for people now lets move on to the theory itself. A social theory has three components to it: 1)A method of administration whether centralized or decentralized. 2)A method of management and distribution whether centralized or decentralized. 3)A set of guiding social philosophy’s.

OK so on Component 2 you’ve made it clear Resource Based Economy is what it shall be. On Component 3 you haven’t been as clear but so far it looks like the guiding social philosophy your proposing is Scientific Secular Humanism. On Component 1 you’ve also made it clear you desire Cybernation as the method of social administration. Which to be clear is a form of mechanized centralization and since in this case that centralization cannot be thought of in terms of traditional notions. Its a virtual centralization or cybernated bureaucracy that your proposing for social administration. Why not just admit it already rather then hiding behind the term Resource Based Economy? To review the three components of your social theory are quite simply; 1)Cybernated Centralization 2)Resource Based Economy 3)Scientific-Secular-Humanism. The resulting ideology in our opinion should be coined Mechnocracy don’t you believe so as well? Or are you going to keep hiding behind component 2 of your social theory, as an attempt to avoid any sort of scholarly discussion or debate?

As for us we prefer not to simply hide behind the label for a method of management and distribution. We call our ideology Directivism which to break down into its three developmental components is:

a)Historical Nuit – a Neutralist view of history that accounts for both the reactive (situationist) forces that have driven forward human history and additionally the non reactive or subtle forces which have driven forward human history.

b)Universal Thoth – An understanding that change and social problems are directly derived from any social factor that limits an individuals pursuit of knowledge and personal enrichment.

c)The Einstein Method – A non materialist scientific method for both analyzing and offering solutions. Which we’ve thoroughly explained in “A Science of Intuition by Sidney Martinez”. Summarized here its quite simply a marriage of The Intuitive Method with The Observed/ Observable Method. These three developmental components of our philosophy have led to the formation of the three components which make up our social theory and they are;

1)Cooperative Distribution – Would have elected technical experts who create, and develop the methods of social sustainability. Further those technical experts would work with technology rather then having 100% Cybernation and full automation of resource management, production, and distribution. Only those aspects of labor that free up humanity from needless menial jobs should be automated. To go beyond that and place the entire process on autopilot and give machines full control is to create a new machine based bureaucracy. Further the consumer shall directly control production through Direct- Proportional-Democracy which is a system already in use at many small scale consumer cooperatives, that currently exist under the monetary system. In those models members of the coop vote on what is carried at the coop store which if no money was needed to run could easily be the way distribution centers would work under a Resource Based Economy. The other major difference is those distribution centers would have automated vehicles dispatched to deliver directly to the consumer what they want. No money would of course ever need to be exchanged and eventually such commodities could simply be teleported to an individuals residence. Eventually at some point machines could simply manipulate particles and molecular structures to simply replicate the desired commodity right in a persons home. Or even at a public location such as a community dining center. Of course not everyone will want to or need to do things in this manner there will still be those communities who still want to be naturalistic and agrarian. Those communities would have no problem existing right alongside technologically developed communities. In essence both would be using similar types of distribution methods and neither one would undermine the other. In fact they could compliment each other quite nicely since the more agrarian and naturalistic communities can be tasked by society with the care taking, cultivation, and nurturing of humanities natural preserves, old growth wilderness and other natural splendors of the earth. Public Service Consumer Cooperatives would be utilized in terms of creating holistic social services. In terms of Medical Care quite simply Naturalpathy Medicine and Modern Medicine would be joined together as one unified holistic medical system. Technology can easily be joined with naturalistic processes and natural methods of healing and the utilization of both would lead to a more advanced approach to medicine. Not too mention it would completely phase out altogether the need for behavioral medicine which is for the most part outdated pseudo-scientific quackery (Jungian Psychology being the exception) since its never been able to cure any of the so called mental disorders its ever diagnosed. In terms of education what we need is to implement and create a more Socratic System of Education especially in our schools, colleges, and universities. One working model of what education would look like under a Resource Based Economy is already in operation today. Soka University in Aliso Viejo, California and its sister campus in Tokyo, Japan are a perfect example of what an education system would look like under a Resource Based Economy. Quite frankly even the architecture of the university itself looks like it would fit in well in such a society. Of course this is just an example of how certain aspects of the ideal society already exist and that rather then reinventing the wheel why not look at examples that exist today and try to expand on those?

2)Resource Based Economy – A resource based economy itself is quite simply an economy that phases out our understanding of economics completely. In all simplicity it has three components to it: Resource Management, Production, and Distribution. The one commonality we do share in our social theories is that there needs to be Resource Management Centers, Production Centers, and Distribution Centers. Now what those should look like is where we differ but i will say that when you start drawing up what the inside of these three centers look like according to your social theory and when we do the same I’d imagine we’d both come up with two very differing visions, In terms of how they are operated and what levels of automation would be taking place.

3)Secular Metaphysics – Basically a society that is free from all dogma and doctrines in any form. Quite frankly a Secular Metaphysical view is neutral to all views and yet allows for every single one of them to exist. Secular Metaphysics is just a guiding principle for society that simply admits we really don’t know everything but were willing to investigate intuitively and observably to find out about everything that is beyond our current understanding. Secular Metaphysics is a non absolutist view point that doesn’t claim anyone or anything has all the answers. Secular Metaphysics is open to all view points and studies all archetypes in human history to understand what are the deep underlying principles present in our collective consciousness. As it stands now Secular Humanist views are quite absolutist in their viewpoint and approach to things. For they presuppose an absolute view about ultimate reality and argue for its absoluteness over all else. Its a dogmatic doctrine of scientific-materialism with zealous fanatics galvanized by its coying embrace.

With that said we have summarized many of our points here so as to open to door to scholarly debate and discussion. For more information about our views all our welcome to visit our website and join our growing grassroots movement: www.TheResourceBasedEconomy.ORG
With that we say

NAMASTE!

Promethean Workers Association (PWA)
Empowering For a New Age!
Whilst Changing The World One Person at a Time!