VTV - Why are you wasting your time with this? ;0 I commend your fortitude but c'mon you know you are talking to brick walls. These kids will use the same ignorant refusals to relate over and over again. They have no interest in understanding - The entire game is to win - and their rhetoric proves it.

First insulting paragraph in this thread.

Which I stand by completely for everything you just pointed out is another regurgitation of assumptions which are intrinsically self-evident to the total system's application and those variables - regardless of the outcome - change nothing with regard to the approach itself. I'm sorry you don't follow that. I think you choose not to, frankly, given your history. Until we have the carrying capacity of the earth noted and a direct account of proven component technical methods for whatever purposes deemed possible by that stage of scientific evolution (the level of that stage means nothing as well)- quantified and interrelated through various matrices (computer algorithms) - no absolute variables/ratios can be put in place. But that changes nothing. The entire system could be mathematically represented with arbitrary variable quantities and it would still be viable as an approach.


Again- I'm not going to repeat everything I have for the past 2 years- which is exactly what is required given the ignorance on this thread.

I try my best in general but some have no interest or no intent or no ability to understand. Good luck.

I'm sorry, but how can you willingly support a system that holds no concern for its inherent destructiveness* over the environment and to society** in direct design as encouraged profitability?

* - This includes consumption of finite resources, such as coal, oil, etc. I'd like to note that I saw a news article indicating China are aiming to restrict its export of rare earth materials to feed the consumerist engine. Google it.

** - increased income inequality, higher unemployment rates, decreased consumer spending, increased poverty rate, etc.

CyborgJesus wrote:


It has been shown in numerous studies that money-free societies tend to break down, when they increase in size to a level where people no longer have emotional connections to everybody in the group - I believe that occurs somewhere between 150 and 200 people, but don't quote me on that.

Cool. Can you link these numerous studies?

CyborgJesus wrote:
It has been shown in numerous studies that money-free societies tend to break down, when they increase in size to a level where people no longer have emotional connections to everybody in the group - I believe that occurs somewhere between 150 and 200 people, but don't quote me on that.

I think the problem with those you mentioned is that the monetary system still exists, and dominates the resources of the planet, so normally those societies will run short of resources. There are a few communities which do exist in a self-sufficient capacity. Those i've seen were situated in Asia. They grow their own foods, use solar panels for energy, etc. Forgot the name, I'll try and find it again.

ConceptDestiny wrote:
CyborgJesus wrote:
It has been shown in numerous studies that money-free societies tend to break down, when they increase in size to a level where people no longer have emotional connections to everybody in the group - I believe that occurs somewhere between 150 and 200 people, but don't quote me on that.

I think the problem with those you mentioned is that the monetary system still exists, and dominates the resources of the planet, so normally those societies will run short of resources. There are a few communities which do exist in a self-sufficient capacity. Those i've seen were situated in Asia. They grow their own foods, use solar panels for energy, etc. Forgot the name, I'll try and find it again.

Try Marinaleda.A spanish village with over 1,000 people.

A Resource Based Economy idea is that it is a way where the resources of the earth are intelligently managed to ensure the sustainability of the ecosystems of earth. We can live a great life in a RBE, but it takes into account the carrying capacity of the earth and thus we as people intelligently conform to it. This can be seen as the box we must live within, which is OK because conforming to mother nature is our best bet for survival for now. But then if we add technology that was applied humanely, we can provide so much more abundance which then can possibly double the carrying capacity of the earth without polluting or hurting any other parts of the ecosystem, which is the reason why the RBE method is a systems theory approach.*

The tested parts of the cybernated or technological-whatever you want to call it- RBE are for example, the hydroponic farms, desalinization of water, renewable energy sources (wind farms and all), Automation of manufacturing and many other similar creations and inventions. This is part of the systems approach where us humans accounts for the other parts of the system to check if we are sustainable and in balance with our technology. We can use a systems engineering approach** to that area in a RBE, which would make a lot of sense. For example, we can make hydroponic farms but if for some reason it harms another part of the earth's ecosystem, we would need to reorient our approach to make it sustainable.

I believe the only part that needs to be tested out is the combination of people, resources and technology. This is where we stand right now, we need to have an experimental city that would test all of these so that we can come out with a method of living that can be replicated all over the world. Of course, since we now know that we are emergent, society in a RBE will continuously change for the better.

I would like community feedback on my basic premise of what TZM and TVP is advocating and also if you want to you can also critic it negatively, whatever you want.

*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_engineering

I think this debate is useful for two reasons:

1. It allows advocates of the movement to refine their arguments and data and,

2. Economists like Aegis represent the very system in which we will be expected to prove unsustainable. Why is it our burden? Because capitalism is the current system; when we are saying that it doesn't work, and that we have a better system, we are the ones that have to prove ourselves.

They will define and articulate EVERY SINGLY POINT and argument in which each member of this movement must be prepared to debate and discuss.

I have read all of the material; I have watched all of the lectures; I've even gone out on my own and tried to immerse myself in economic theory - and yet, I am still unprepared for debates with serious, high-level economists - with which the ENTIRE WORLD LISTENS TO, and TRUSTS - they have DATA, research, T-data etc...
We need to exceed them in logic, in every respect.

This thread allows me the opportunity to learn the SPECIFIC POINTS and ARGUMENTS that economists have for supposedly proving that an RBE cannot work (which I cannot find in any economics text-book that I've been reading so far.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that threads like this are not for members who already "get-it," but for members who don't.

It's a learning source; that's all; a point of reference.

But if it detracts from the movement in any way, when I think that it doesn't - it's ABOUT every aspect of the movement - then the debate should stop. I hope it doesn't; I get to see each side lay-it down, directly in front of me - instead of reading indirect responses and critiques that have no value to each other, and no value for this movement.

I ask each side to stay patient - keep on topic - and keep providing their insight, at least until this thread stops being productive or turns into a shit-fight.

bounitsos wrote:
ConceptDestiny wrote:
CyborgJesus wrote:
It has been shown in numerous studies that money-free societies tend to break down, when they increase in size to a level where people no longer have emotional connections to everybody in the group - I believe that occurs somewhere between 150 and 200 people, but don't quote me on that.

I think the problem with those you mentioned is that the monetary system still exists, and dominates the resources of the planet, so normally those societies will run short of resources. There are a few communities which do exist in a self-sufficient capacity. Those i've seen were situated in Asia. They grow their own foods, use solar panels for energy, etc. Forgot the name, I'll try and find it again.

Try Marinaleda.A spanish village with over 1,000 people.

yea, I saw their website, they still use money. If I may compare it to a known system, I would have to say it is similar to socialism.

I think the most important message that I'm getting from this is that there are so many people with so many different ideas on living systems. It is just that we are advocating the only one that is based on the scientific method, technology and a true participatory democracy - Where our only authority is nature. That is probably our main big difference.

Edit: I want to say that I have learned a bit about semantics and rhetoric. If I have said something wrong than please correct me and I will see if you got what I intended. I chose the best words I could use in my vocabulary.

I'd just like to note the following radio lecture is excellent in describing examples of the disturbing, inherent flaws that exists in our existing economic design today.

Resource Based Economy - The Economic Model
www.blogtalkradio.com/peter-joseph/2010/...-2-a-resource-based-

Highly recommend.

aegis wrote:
I have reviewed the material. I was required to review the material extensively before I was allowed to post, including videos and 80+ page PDF documents, which were supposed to encompass everything in this movement. I am asking you for the science.

Who told you that encompasses everything in the movement? Have you read "The best that money can't buy" by Jacque Fresco?

I am also aware of "off the grid" living, and the communities who do so. They do not base their living off of the Venus Project.

That's a nice attempt to deflect my sound point here, but it doesn't get you off the hook. I never said that people who lived "off the grid" did so because of the Venus Project. And even if I had said that it still would not be relevant to the point. The point being that self-sustaining communities create their own Resource Based Economies even if it is just an individual. You didn't even try to refute that. (Big surprise, because you can't.) And instead tried to say "So what, those people are not doing that because of the Venus Project". Not that your point even holds water as again you cannot account for every single person who lives off the grid and determine whether or not the Venus Project had anything to do with their decision to do so.

I said:
TVP is suggesting a scientific approach to dealing the problems of mankind as opposed to waiting around for it to be profitable to solve them. That's all we have ever said it was.

So you said:
No it isn't. It has claimed from the very beginning to be a movement based 100% in scientific research. You have claimed that you have proven that removal of money from the system would produce certain benefits. Where is the science? Where is your research? What do you have to show that this isn't something you just made up off the top of your head?

The Venus Project proposes using the scientific method to solve mankind's problems. I am not sure how you read all the material and missed this. This is why I was trying to explain to you that it is an "approach". Don't pass welfare reforms, build systems to make food for people. Don't clean up oil, build power plants that don't use dirty materials in the first place. These are all examples of this.

Did you review the Awakening video series I linked you? I am interested to hear you refute the charts that Doug Mallette, a systems engineer for the Space Shuttle Program put together.

You have gone farther than just saying the current system is flawed. You have taken the additional step of proposing an alternative. If you are to propose an alternative based on science, it has to be based on science. Not untested hypothesis, not conjectures thrown out on a whim, hard scientific facts.

This is absurd. I am asking very simple, basic questions. I am being run around in circles, and nobody is willing to show a shred of actual research. What is going on here? Why is it so difficult to simply see the science that it is all supposed to be based off of? It took me a grand total of 3 posts to fully explain the reasoning behind the model that I follow.

Yes, in the three posts you explained the model you follow. And in those posts you stated somehow that it was perfectly fine that corporate lobbyists own the government. Insulted everyone's intellect by expecting us to believe that the government lobby system is working after all, all it is doing is allowing people to address the "problems". And went on to say the system that is leaving a great number of people starving is still "functioning".

I do not believe you when you say you have reviewed all of the material because if you had you wouldn't be asking most of these questions. I have also linked you to some research articles on various facets of this subject. I will compile them again here, and add a few.

(Go back and watch the four part "Awakening" series to see the hard data about why your system is in the process of failing for one.)

You asked for proof that linked the profit motive directly to war. This is General Smedley Butler's take:
www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

Statistics that prove your assessment of the poverty issue are incorrect, as the wealth gap is at an all time high and is increasing:
www.aolnews.com/nation/article/census-fi...ch-and-poor/19651337
www.dailyfinance.com/story/disturbing-st...ddle-class/19676292/

MIT studies that prove technological unemployment is a reality: (This is even more relevant as it proves that automation can account for the need for labor for jobs that people don't want to do).
gizmodo.com/5665523/robots-are-stealing-...ing-to-mit-economist

MIT studies into the actual motivations people have to work: (This proves that innovation can and will happen even better without a monetary incentive)


The Merva-Fowles study that proves the direct link to monetary problems to stress and crime. This is relevant because we state that if you eliminate the environment that creates this stress the behavior changes, eliminating those problems. Take money out of the question and these problems go away.
www.scribd.com/doc/23853758/Merva-Fowles-stydy-1992-bp-stress

This is elaborated on here:


Did you watch this?:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261#

And this?
vimeo.com/6346955

And this?
vimeo.com/7857584
vimeo.com/7938805

I will look for some more. But review what I have shown you for the moment.