As with the reviewed Zeitgeist movies, we welcome The Venus Project production. When so many of us seeking social reform get entrapped by the occasion of simply replicating information about government improprieties, missteps, missed opportunities and disregard; we can not but welcome the efforts of those who strive to promote an offered alternative for correcting so many faults and misfortunes. No doubt there may be many others who have ideas for improving our human circumstances but for one reason or another have not had an opportunity to provide some form of illustration thereof; let us none-the-less extend our approval for sharing a similar interest.
Whereas we agree with many of the assessed political, economic, social and behavioral interpretations made in the film, there are a few points that need to be made in this initial review after watching the documentary on-line. A further review will be forthcoming.
The secondary introduction of the film referring to the Earth, is highly reminiscent of an Earth-centered philosophy of well-being similar to the old Geo-centric Cosmology of ancient European religion. Both are found to be faulty because neither look past the Earth, past the solar system, and past the galaxy. The Venus Project presents us with a philosophy that the Earth is a sustainable living system with resources that are somewhat renewable, but are nonetheless finite; and must be better utilized to enhance the well-being of humanity. However, this presents us with an incomplete premise of logic.
As noted in the Zeitgeist movie review, the cosmological events involving the Earth are headed along the path of decay. Because of this, The Venus Project can be little more than a temporary measure for slowing down the consumption of resource materials on this planet as it continues on a coarse of ultimate destruction. Depletion of resources over time will require a reduction in the number and kind of people doing the consumption... but it does nothing to address the situation involving sustainability of the species beyond the life of the planet, the solar system or the galaxy. We should not pursue a philosophical practice of sociology which starts out as a temporary measure... like a person who has no hope of long-term employment, regardless of their dedication to a job and an excellent work ethic.
The initial premise of The Venus Project philosophy provides for the establishment of a faulty conclusion. It is another variation of a geo-centric orientation, despite its usage of excellent examples referring to culturally-imposed behavioral adaptations leading to adopted interpretations of belief. Clearly, the different notions of beauty, truth, love and myriad other labels that may be lumped under the ideas that beauty is only skin deep or that it is in the eye of the beholder; are readily understood as products of behavior modified according to environmental influences. The behaviorist B.F. Skinner, in his book "Beyond Freedom and Dignity", illustrates the point as a philosophical discussion. And yet, this is not applied to the rationale for adopting the usage of an A.I. (artificial intelligence) system as the most desirable form of government.
Those who are subject to a decaying system will adopt the perspective of that system which best befits what they think are the most valuable measures for a sustained equilibrium of life. In other words, those who will be set to develop the initial A.I. governing system will do so from the perspective of their own reality within an environment headed for decay. Like the imposition of a cultural belief system given to the young, the young A.I. program will be subject to the imposition of those whose mentality has and is subjected to the constraints of an environment headed for decay, even if they are not cognizant of the decay effects, or they choose to believe in the reality of such.
Even in a social environment where believed-in standards of nutrition are practiced to their ultimate expression, the genetics of the overall group originated in circumstances where nutrition was considerably less than optimal. No doubt this lack of nutrition has left its imprint on the overall species. When we couple this situation to the circumstances of nutritional deprivation in effect today, though many who live in modern cultures lack proper nutrition as well; we have a circumstance where there are numerous people have a mentality that has been generated from a malnourished brain. If we thus develop a society which is to include them, we must be cognizant of the deleterious effects this will have on the adopted design... as a type of dilution to a possible enhanced variety. The sharing of limited resources to too large a population will have a diluting effect on the overall ability of the species to increase its own potentials... in those cases where abundance makes a difference, such as when consuming complex carbohydrates in order to sustain extended cognitive efforts.
Populations which have suffered long-enduring conditions of malnourishment have had their genetics affected. The amount of time and effort to assist such populations in achieving an equanimity with those populations that have not likewise suffered, may take too many generations of closely watched and controlled breeding, without the possibility of making any contribution on the scale of application needed for a futuristic species already in the making amongst other groups. Whether you think such a view is racist or discriminatory or not, such a realization must be considered and discussed. The choice is left up to us whether to provide resources to those who might provide some benefit to others and those whose probability for doing so is slight, or is only to be measured by the sentimentality of an environmentally learned notion of compassion for fellow human beings.
Developing a global society with a shared belief system that might look very strange to us living in this time period, must not be developed if it results in producing a species too ignorant to take into account the reality of a decaying galactic, solar and planetary system. Regardless of how the idea of a "resource-based economy" may appeal to those watching the film, its alignment to a "saving the planet" ideology is misleading... because the planet can not be saved.
So is the idea for creating an underground conveyor system to get rid of waste materials... when one takes into consideration that such a futuristic society with a dominant "resource management" frame of mind would not need such a system because waste would be at a minimum... since packaging wrought by money-making companies would be non-existent. Also, below-ground conveyor systems necessarily require a means to keep ground water at bay, unless we would opt for a society on stilts. Also, for some, living in a society run by machines is problematic since if something occurs which disables all machines, all computer systems, nobody would know how to fix them because people have been brought up believing in a machine-run society that doesn't need human intervention for anything. In fact, we wouldn't need to have children since we could make machines that would do a better job... without all the human behavior problems. Humans could very well be eventually eliminated in such a society because all human definitions of right and wrong, rich/poor, weak/strong, truth/lie (and other dichotomies) would be interpreted as negligible creations of environmental conditioning.
While we agree the choice (at least for now) is ours, it may not be in the future... though even today an Actual Democracy does not exist, and we do not have as much choice as some think we do, in how we live. Additionally, if we are going to be permitted to choose, we need to be provided with the available information and not have it presented in a fashion similar to the "lesser of two evil" choices as was described in the documentary. How we are living now and how we could live according to the Venus Project perspective, are both incompleted assessments of the overall circumstances we are subjected to. The Venus Project presents us with another evolutionary dead end approach... though it is the lesser of two evils. Technology will not solve the problems of a species whose very DNA may contain the genetic code for extinction... which appears to be the case if we believe we have it in our power to perpetuate the existence of the Earth, its solar system, and the present configuration of the Milky Way galaxy. Existence, like the Sun, does not revolve around us... no matter how logical an Earth-centered philosophy may appeal to some.
If we follow the tenure of thought with respect to changes in value judgments brought about by being subjected to a "Venus Project Landscape", because it was described how differences in value judgments are being wrought by the differences in subjective cultural influences found throughout the world; it is of need to consider that the overall value judgments portrayed by the project's leadership are part of yet another subjective orientation. While this is easily understood by some readers, what is not being explained is how we can get to the point of an agreed upon subjectivity.
For example, those who protested in the "Occupy Movement" gave the impression of sharing a singular value for purposive social change, but in actuality, different people had different reasons for protesting. They had their own personal agendas and not necessarily incorporated any real plan for improving conditions other than to strike down one or another law. Some were not particularly insightful about altering the entire governing structure. They were protesting to address their individual concerns... that they assumed were being shared by everyone in the same manner. The conditions which created the impetus for the movement... and then sustained it awhile... followed by a dissolution with no effective social remedy for their plight(s) having been achieved; all because they couldn't get a momentum for change to take hold in the public. Indeed, at its very outset, their were public assessments that a central orientation was non-existent because none were clearly seen in the banners, manners, nor so-called event planners. There was no consistent environment to assist in the persistence of the movement.
The Venus Project, just like present business, government and religious ideas, all represent short-term approaches for the survival of the species. The belief in the ability for humanity to create a paradise on Earth by way of technology, is similar to the belief in one's ability to reach a place called "Heaven". Both are behaviorally manipulated value judgments. Whereas the Venus Project clearly deals with an applied reality of resources within the parameters of a centrally focused application; believing one can reach a place called Heaven by performing certain activities and holding onto particular ideas, is part of an overall structure of fantasy created through behavioral modification that is ongoing. People are forced, are manipulated and presented with options where the lesser of two evils is the choice which ensures those institutions of business, government and religion stay in control. Many of us understand this is taking place. What many people do not know is how to change it. How do we throw an effective wrench, so-to-speak, in the socially established systems of behavioral modification so that the assumed "choice" is a better one, and is not simply a variation of those being practiced... such as creating a society as the Venus Project which forces us to remain tethered to a decaying planetary system?
Making a social structure look wonderfully modern in architecture that is sustained by reprogrammed values thought to be better for humanity (brought about by a globally practiced behavioral modification system); is little more than a readjustment of social standards to a decay of the overall planetary system. In other words, the Venus Project is itself a behavior modification plan... as an adjustment to the forces of modification brought about by decay.
Those of us wanting to make purposive social changes, must taken into account the larger forces of behavioral modification bearing down on us. This includes the ongoing degradation of the galaxy, solar system, and planet. If we want change to come about, we will have to fight against those systems of modification which affect social behavior. The government uses force and the threat thereof, including incarceration, because it modifies behavior. Because the Justice System favors the government and its business supporters, the Occupiers would have had to use some other measure of force. For example, if the Occupiers had held a gun to the heads of those in Congress, the Supreme Court Justices, lobbyists and business executives... change would have taken place. While the government and businesses might have altered only their rules of security, putting a bullet in the heads of all of them would have changed the rules of the social game on behalf of the public. But such an event must take place simultaneously. You can not kill one leader and expect fruitful change on behalf of the public. You also can not expect fruitful change if the public does not accept your methodology and prefers to attack the those attempting to use a method of force for corrective behavior modification of a leadership that is calloused and self-centered. Using lethal force by those who want to create a better society by altering the Banners (advertisement/propaganda), Manners (laws, Standard Operating Procedures), and Planners (business, government, religious leadership and followers); must be understood by the public as the result of a context of being forced to do so since no other viable avenue to do so is left.
Businesses, governments and religions use different models of force and the threat thereof, because such are behavior modifiers. But so is criminality, when a particular interest is not being achieve. The government comes out with the slogan that "Crime Doesn't Pay" as a banner used to modify behavior, yet it engages in and permits others to engage in criminality because crime does pay. And it pays quite well, that is why the government practices it by way of establishing legislation which supports the criminality of businesses, such as the ridiculous "Corporate Personhood" law which many Occupiers were protesting against. Clearly, because the public's avenue for social change is thwarted by legalities which are meant to obstruct and defeat efforts to do so, the public must resort to different tactics for modifying the behavior of businesses, governments and religions. Similarly, those advocating a Venus Project ideology must go on the offensive against those value systems which are against its need for a much larger social discussion.
Passive tactics of assertiveness and aggression can be used by established institutions because their wide-spread (large) presence acts as a factor of intimidation, but they can not be effectively used by fledgling perspectives that must adopt a means of showing itself as a multi-faceted tool applicable to different perspectives under current conditions of behavior modification. Whereas the Venus Project documentary is an act of assertiveness, its advocates can not expect it to remain unmodified by different viewers who will assess it according to their current orientations. In short, as noted previously, we can agree with much of the examples of socially propagated corruptions the people are being subjected to, and are greatly enticed by the desires of others who want to create a better global society; but we must assert that the approach does not take in enough information for sustaining human survival in the long run. The Venus Project represents a temporary fix requiring a massive change in human values that can only be accomplished in a short period of time by way of force.
However, it is necessary to say that the word "force" does not necessarily imply human force. Vast behavior modification can take place by environmental influences such as tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, etc... But while human behavior may be modified, their value systems may well retain the old notions and definitions. Behavior modification does not always means value judgment modification. Similarly, while the people can alter leadership behavior, this does not mean their value system has been changed. They will simply seek to apply their value judgments in other ways and means such as creating some social upheaval such as economic distress or war, in an attempt to return social circumstances which will be more agreeable to the application of their value judgments.
As detailed in the film, many leaders choose to conduct methodologies of stealth such as breaking a law. Because the government is often in cahoots with businesses, it permits companies to break the law under the unspoken agreement that if it gets caught, it will pay a fine... but no one (except for perhaps a scapegoat) will have to go to jail and the company does not have to bear any social burden of guilt. And yes, as was outlined in the film, businesses set aside funds for fines accessed by a government whose interest is money, and doesn't care if the public gets hurt by a business whose efforts assist the government in acquiring a greater revenue through fines. Yet, if a person in the public conducts such behavior, because they can not provide the government with hefty sums of capital, they are punished to ludicrously "set an example" for the public not to engage in criminal activity... but let corporations do so because they can provide the government with more money. It is an hypocrisy well understood... but no one is making any headway in altering both the behavior and value judgments.
Force and criminality are used as methods of behavior modification because they work. The practice of an Actual Democracy would put behavior modification into the hands of the public... neither business, the government nor religions want this. They want to remain in control and do whatever is necessary to retain their ability. The people must collectively adopt the same value system if it ever hopes to achieve massive corrective social change in a short period of time. While many people are not interested in "getting involved" and will go along with whatever social environment there is... if they are forced to, some may never be happy with any social formula because they consider any society to be a set or series of behaviorally modifying entrapments, regardless of a "lesser of two evils" choice. They too, however, will begrudgingly go along with whatever circumstance they are subjected to and convince themselves they can not change... and perhaps a few will resort to acts of self-destruction (incarceration, body disfigurement, alcoholism, drugs, etc...), including suicide that could be more useful if the death was directed against those who perpetuate the currently bad conditions... which are not the general public, but those in charge of large businesses, governments, and religions.
For example, a suicide bomber would be more effective if they were to target the actual leadership (and not simply figure-heads), instead of the general public. Arbitrarily killing the general public is an act of cowardice. But killing those in the actual top positions of leadership... whose efforts amount to more of the same nonsense the people are subjected to, may look like an act of insanity or desperation, if it is not know that all other efforts to make changes have been obstructed. Killing a figure-head will do little good if the system remains from which another figure-head will be retrieved to play out the same social role. In such a case, the death of the leader would not do as much good as altering the underlying political system. Unfortunately, the acts of most suicide bombers shows that they and those encouraging them, are not taking enough time to think through their options. They are acting impulsively. More sophisticated tactics and a governing rationale must be adopted and seen by the public as a greater value of right than that which is being practiced by those presently in charge of social circumstances clearly at odds with greater values of right to be chosen and used. Then again, the "choice" we are making is due to social circumstances modifying our behavior accordingly. We must wonder how much of the choice being made is not actually being forced upon us by the social conditions we are able to perceive as an injustice? Just because many can not intellectually apprehend, does not mean that those who are able to, are wrong if their view does not coincide with the perspective of the majority. Independent ideas can produce valuable revolutions.
There are many issues which need to be addressed as we begin a defiant New Government (Cenocracy) approach against prevailing social circumstances which do not have to prevail. The Venus Project is one approach. It does try to provide answers of resolution to recurringly stubborn issues which are no doubt reflexively governed by the current social structure.
Take for example wages and taxes. Warren Buffet thinks that it is better for the economy if people were to be given an Earned Income Credit instead of a higher wage. In other words, the higher wage would be provided by tax payers instead of companies. He obviously doesn't want to give up his profits... he wants the public to pay for any socially productive overhead. When presented with the example of the low wages received by Dairy Queen workers, he is dismissive by referring to Dairy Queens as franchises, thereby negating any responsibility for employee wages. However, the high costs he charges to a person for having a franchise directly relates to how much an employee can be paid in order for a business owner to make a profit.
In an atmosphere of wages, it is incredulous that there is not a minimum and maximum wage standard... though, a society such as the Venus Project contends that such a formula of social organization is detrimental to a greater productivity of human realization. An idea that we too would towards in agreement, though it is recognized that a different type of earnings and provision (pay out) would nonetheless exist in a different form.
Another example of the hypocritical (self-centered) thinking model is seen in Europe... and is part of a Euro-centric model. For those who have traveled to Europe, they may have encountered having to pay for the usage of a toilet... particularly on transported tour guides. However, viewed realistically and not from a Capitalistic orientation which permits greed to take the reins, rationality defines using the toilet as a necessary part of a total health care requirement. Unfortunately, such a view is devalued by those asserting the need to have a National health care system which "must" cost tax payers large percentages of their income (and protected by government rationalizations)... by way of an enormous tax rate that provides monies the people are not privy to an exact accountability of redistributions; just like the American lottery system and the many unrecorded law enforcement gains through Civil Asset Forfeitures.
Whereas it was previously mentioned that the Venus Project documentary illustrates a geo-centric orientation, it is similar to all propositions which arise at a species-centric orientation. In other words, it presents us with an Earth and human-centered perspective. It is of need to bring this point to bear in a discussion that is attempting to promote a social alternative based an prescribed altruistic holistics. In other words, we think in terms of our humanity as a central primacy of life, because we do not have any other similarly focused sentient being to compare ourselves with. Hence, it is an overlooked equation taking place in a mindset that we view as natural, rational and of primary importance. Yet, the Venus Project is not applying this centrality to its placement in a decaying environment which effects the decay rate of the Earth... and hence, our adaptations which adopt rationalizations of approach as the Venus Project is... even though it is favorable to the nonsense we are being subjected to by current standards of governance.
Though the Geo-centric model of the cosmos was supplanted by the Helio-centric model, it too needs to be supplanted by the galactic-centered model... and then some... yet they all refer to a Human Perceived Universe Centricism. This centricism will be incorporated into whatever Artificial Intelligence system coded by humanity, even if the A.I. unit is programmed to replace humanity. It will retain a humanisic origin, unless human genetics has an incorporated other-than-human script which is unfolding... and humanity is a type of larval stage of development that will not define what is to come afterwards.
In an analysis of the Venus Project as a contender for the adoption of a new form of social structure, there are additional philosophical issues that need to be a part of the discussion... and must be for those whose considerations apprehend that a shift in values directly relates to the social system of influence. Yet, if everyone acts in a "working cooperatively to improve everyone's standard of living" type of way, then what do we do about those individuals that... for one reason or another, resort to the usage of ideas in effect today, which we may call primordial types of behavior. If robots are to play the role of police officers and military personnel, as well as social behavior interventionists; how are such robots to identify the unknowns of genetic and intellectual advancement which may take place by punctuated evolutionary expressions? How do we program for the unknown and the unexpected? If we program robots and our heirs to think in given ways, we then set ourselves up for dispensing a particular allowance system but exclude others. How will robots recognize genius when we have a difficult time identifying it, much less providing the funding for fledgling expressions thereof?
While the Venus Project speaks in relative terms of promoting a society practicing an advancement in social functioning aimed at human improvement, it is actually portraying the need for establishing a criteria so that mediocrity is defined by globally shared values that are adopted because of prevailing environmental influences. In providing music as some sort of exemplary product to enjoy, or any other similarly directed intellectual example, this constitutes a beginning list of accepted indulgences which may be counter-productive to the future development of the species... because it assumes the present form of humanity is some sort of exemplary representation of sentience. This is pretty naive when we note that the present state of humanity arrived on the scene as a by-product of divergent primate variations. For all we know, the Venus Project may act as a means of isolation for a give species' model... like a jungle-isolated group of humans that retain the perspective that they represent a "higher" presence of being to whatever supreme deity they imagine, though civilizations advance apart from and unbeknownst to them, in the same era of time.
We can not allow any social formula— such as those practiced today and the proposed Venus Project, to act as a sanitized petri dish if it promotes a type of philosophy akin to a flat-Earth perspective which denies exploration beyond its territorial value system... just as religions, politics, business, science and language have done from time to time. A monkey sitting at computer, with an encyclopedia in hand, surrounded by a billion dollars worth of architecture; is still a monkey. If we give the monkey enough time, some say, they would write the words of Shakespeare. But we must ask whether the re-creation of Shakespearian views are of lasting value, or is this merely a value judgment promoted by a British nation which continues to claim itself as being Great?
Denoting different cultural values as products of one's upbringing in a given social environment subjected to a given planetary environment; necessarily describes ethno-centric values about values and value judgments. In developing a Venus Project, we must ask whose values should we adopt according to what value system, if all values, including such a determination, are the products of given influences in a given setting? Are we to assume the adoption of a Universal standard and then expect the majority to thereby agree with the project's initial managers? Where are we to start, and most importantly, how does change come about if a governing and guardian Artificial Intelligence system is years, decades, or centuries away? And what if a Legislative body agrees to fund the Venus Project but the people are against it? Will its designers simply give up on their efforts, or go ahead with the project and by sheer presence of being; force people to accept its rules-of-thumb, just as Salt Lake City residents were forced to accept the development of a Trax railway passenger system though the people voted against it? The people very often are force to take a bitter pill or castor oil just because those in authority decide it is the right thing to do... according to their perceptions... even though they may not have to do any personal swallowing
While the Venus Project obviously provides greater merits for human well-being, should we adopt the construction thereof against the Will of the majority, even if it is better... though a majority is fearful of something new and may not be fully appreciated as a type of step forward? But, again, such statements are value judgments— just as life itself is. So is patriotism, morality and the overall schematic of the Venus Project... just like all forms of government, religion and business. And even if the Project were to be funded in an experimental way in the middle of a functioning city, who would be able to occupy it? How would its citizenry be chosen? Undoubtedly, those who would refuse to accept the presence of the project in their city may well attempt to undermine construction and instigate problems... in order to create circumstances more favorable to those who have learned to live in the conditions of current social cess-pools. And what do we do with a group of similarly minded individuals if their is no robotic police force? Will current standards of law provide protection? Or what if the project is attacked by a thousand who are against it? Will the military protect it? It is naive to think that such a project would be welcomed with opened arms by those whose upbringing stresses suspicion, apprehension and hyper-vigilance.
And let us not forget about current law offenders who have committed acts of violence. Do we keep them locked up or kill them all and strive for a "clean slate" in operational standards not yet practiced nor embraced as a shared value system? And what do we do with those who live for a "warrior's ethic" to fight the good fight, to die in battle, or seek some glorification to be remembered in a military who's who? And what of those who desire the Nobel prize, or will do anything to be given some applause? Whereas constructing futuristic technology is one thing, how do we "construct" a futuristic species to go along with it... and not simply put monkeys into technology-driven gilded cages? Architecture is one thing, but fighting against different values as products of prevailing social systems that are stubbornly obstinate to progressive change is quite another.
Setting aside the problems with the Venus Project ideology which appear because of an obvious geo-centric orientation, let us turn our attention towards three points brought out in the documentary. These are the Resource-Based Economy, Cooperation to improve everyone's standard of living, and the resulting "Extentionality" denoted as a definition which references an observed "intentionality" towards a deliberate desire to enhance everyone's life; assumedly arising from an applied global behavior modification program principally declared as an "emergent" principal directed towards an increased participatory practice of cerebral activities (though many of which become established in childhood and may involve some measure of expressed "control" over one or more others, such as in a hierarchically-based command structure found abundantly everywhere).
Switching from a Capitalistic economy to a Resource-Based one requires the acceptance that the Earth can be "saved" from human exploitation and destruction... and that it has some inherent mechanisms of restoration and replenishment... to a certain degree. Again, as noted in the Zeitgeist movie review as well as above, the Earth and solar system are on a course of dissolution. Humanity has no technology that will prevent the incrementally occurring demise of the human-centered cosmos. A Resource-Based Economy is a temporary fix to problems of survival of the species whose efforts and resources would be better applied towards the structural development of a society whose efforts are directed towards getting humanity off of the planet, away from the solar system, and beyond the Milky Way galaxy. The Venus Project, as outlined, is too terrestrially focused. The umbilical cord of "Mother" Earth must be severed. "Mother" Earth, "Mother" Russia, and the "Fatherland" expressions, are examples of terrestrial-based orientations that must be divested from all social philosophies.
Getting the "Venus Project" to become a topic of wide-spread conversation, much less getting people to cooperate, is an extremely difficult task. For example, let's say a million people agree to begin the development of a Venus Project infrastructure. So they write to and meet with their Congressional Representatives who must then sell the idea to other members of Congress whose constituency have not heard of it and when they do, they provisionally give knee-jerk remarks of negativity. On top of this, upon hearing about the proposition, some leading citizens do not want the idea to move forward so they set up situations to thwart discussions of the topic, or create incidents which distract the public towards some other issue... which helps retain the status-quo social environment of the presently practiced non-democratic governing process. And then let us magnify the problem(s) of getting cooperation by introducing the problematics involving the entire population of humanity. For example, do we force people to discuss the topic? Do we force ourselves to remain passive, or engage in "assertive" methods for introducing the topic for discussion? In short, cooperation needs some incentive. Such incentives often-times involve destruction, death, or resource exchange. In other words, cooperation frequently comes with price tags. Arguing against such behavior does not remove the reality of such a presence. Would those advocating a Venus Project mentality use destruction and death, or bribery and manipulation to achieve their goals? Would they sell their souls to the devil in order that future peoples would live in an assumed heavenly paradise, though the word "Utopia" has received an unnecessary disparagement? How far are the advocates willing to go to achieve their goals?
If we use the word "Extentionality" as a standardized rubric outlining the philosophical predisposition to define generalized (individualized) behavioral qualities— such as love and emotion which are to be viewed as different forms of energy that become sublimated into assumed purposive intentionalities more beneficial to the whole of society; we must acknowledge that a Masolowian Hierarchy of individual needs has been relabeled into a Hierarchy of collective needs as defined by those who have assumed the position of determining what is best for society, instead of utilizing a democratic process... Unless we are to also assume that the adoption of a Venus Project Ideology automatically promotes an as yet poorly defined better governing process that must be initiated prior to the usage of an Artificial Intelligence Governance whose programming will be "tainted" by the predispostions of human code and policy writers. Nonetheless, as part of the analysis, we might want to interview the idea that the expressed philosophy came by way of personal disappointments involving occasions of behavioral situations denoted as love, compassion, kindness, etc., which can lead one to question such poorly described behavioral entities, and view them as behavioral superficialities belonging to a social repertoire of displaced social energy that can be better utilized... and therefore becomes part of a social resource to be used to best fit within the defined criteria of those who are in charge of a provision of economics... whether or not present standards of a monetary-based bartering economy are used.
Architecture, like interior decoration, does indeed play a part in providing some specification for expected behavior... or an allowance to trespass observed mores, manners and morality. However, limitations in one form or another are routinely observed and enforced. Be it in a restaurant, bar, nightclub, library, office building, doctor's office, school room, gym, street-side cafe, one's home or else-wise. Very often, a person assumes a tighter reign on their behavior in situations that are unfamiliar with or uncertain about. In the case for promoting a Venus Project ideology, it is providing us with some propositional ideas for creating architectural forms which are used as an externalized attendant adjunct to a desire for creating what is believed to be a representative model of social enhancement which requires the adoption of a different perspective of desirable human proclivities as a supportive role for enhancing the well-being of the collective society.
While it is obvious there is an expressed affection for technology-driven individuals to take hold of the social steering wheel in order to develop a better society, the problem remains is that technology-driven individuals... even those with an eclectic interest in other subject areas... do not necessarily make the best philosophers. The philosophy of those advocating the Zeitgeist and/or Venus Project orientations is not comprehensive enough... because of the points being brought up by detractors. Though many agree with this or that point presented by the proponents, there is no actual governing structure being pointed out. Describing a governing system involving an Artificial Intelligence (A.I>) is a statement like a person saying the word "apple" to describe a certain fruit. If a person doesn't know what an apple is, just like we don't know the specifics of what an A.I. governing system is except that it will initially be programmed by humans who may well put one or another bias into a coded sub-routine; we need to have specifics outlined. We can alter them as we need to... but we need an actual draft. Engineers and Architects work with the reality of creating drafts all the time. We need one for a governing structure... no matter if it displays a "stick figure" type of drawing at the initial offering. We need to move beyond speaking in terms reminiscent of seeing fanciful images in clouds.
Because the Earth is deteriorating along the path of a total demise, and with it the solar system as well, our social philosophy of design must take this into account. All those advocating and detracting from a "Zeitgeist" and "Venus Project" orientation because of their sincere interest in creating a better world, must be involved in creating an amalgamated representation which fits the mold of reality better than either of the films are showing us. Let us correct the faults we see and truly move forward with efforts towards demanding global changes. If necessary, because of opposition from business and/or government and/or religion, we will have to cooperate into an organized form of assertiveness. But we must have the backing of the public. This entails redesigning both movies to fit in the reality of a collective consciousness where points of departure with detractors are fully addressed with alternative examples. In short, we need better social development movies. Whereas many of us see and agree with the social problems pointed out in the films, the solutions being advocated are very superficial. Dreaming about this or that change is fine, but let us strive to work together to bring such changes about. For example, how many legislators in different governments throughout the world have seen the films? How many Sociologists and Political Scientists? The films are not explicit enough to be shown to those with an above average I.Q. The two films are cartoon versions of a greater philosophical discussion that must take place and put into practice.
Using architecture as a means of directing human behavior towards some hoped-for "emergent" enhancement is not sufficient enough to sustain it if the leadership role models exhibit the same nonsense we see in leaders today. Nor can we hope to inculcate the many variations of human perception into the initial stages of a desired social structure if those perceptions are aligned with words (such as "consciousness"), that becomes abruptly dismissed as an irrelevancy. Though some may consider that a cooperative beehive-like society represents a like-minded orientation where a "collective consciousness" is more like a singularly exchanged electrical current and individual thought is of little importance; then there is no need of having a human society of individuals if individuality is looked negatively upon. It is hypocritical to advocate a society where a person can pursue individual interests and yet deny a personal consciousness because it is a word representing vagueness to someone. Just because a person has a personal problem with the word "consciousness" does not make it an invaluable metaphor for someone else. When mental activity can alternate between different forms of functional enterprising (musical, poetic, mathematical, etc.), it is rather silly to expect everyone to arrive at a moment in time where they "think as one" because individuality is removed from their behavioral repertoire because it is viewed as a useless commodity since variety disagrees with an observers sense of security, rationality and personal feelings of necessity.
The Zeitgeist and Venus Projects need to be redone... but the so-called visions can not be the primary targets of advocation. They are kindergarten variations of the kind of documentaries we need. Every single person having a sincere interest in creating a better society must get past the embraced pacifism.
The would-be/wanna-be movement for purposive social change must grow up. We must confront those who will not even listen to proposals for social change, as adults and not as unruly crowds made-up of those advocating individualized political agendas formulated from conspiratorial accusations known as a fringe social element. Every single one of us must get involved. Every single person must be cognizant of the fact we may well be confronted by lethal force by those who will refuse to listen to our demands to create a better global world. But we need the public to be behind us. The messages being presented in the present documentaries are not good enough. Even if ten million people in America agree with the idea for creating a better society, most of those ten million may never take part in a protest march or do anything other than say they agree with us, if they are asked. But such agreement is enough if we have to resort to intensive aggression against those who do not want society to change because they have learned how to "work the system" for their personal advantages. Our presentation must be so viable that those in the police and armed forces will stand down if called upon to resist us. The Zeitgeist and Venus Project are being perceived as little more than opinions... ideas which the average person is finding some fault with. These documentaries for social change are not done well enough to be used as declarations promoted as a manifesto which demands a New Government (a Cenocracy).
If our desire for corrective social change depends solely on promoting the development of an architecturally-driven infrastructure, then change may not come about because there are no funding efforts to this end. But it is foolish to build new structures if people will be forced to endure financial privations. Sincere desires are not enough. Calling people names and disparaging their beliefs does little to bring about hoped for improvements. Though we know we have got to start somewhere, the reality exists that there isn't a single, globally known web-page that is bringing all of us together. While the Zeitgeist and Venus Project movies do provide some measure of a "forum" for venting advocation or detraction, where is the project formulating resolutions? And while some may think of themselves as having the mindset of a United Nations diplomat with a greater appreciation of multiple issues to contend with, there is no real or virtual conference room taking place. We need to get serious. We need to list the many issues and then prioritize them so as to focus are energies in that direction.
Yet, because similar social issues are taking world-wide, and (at present) our resources and (undefined) membership are not readily known (also because some members will choose to remain in the shadows... "off the grid"), in which global location should we direct our efforts? This is particularly troublesome when we actually have nothing to show. The Zeitgeist and Venus Project documentaries are comic book science fictions when compared to that which we need. If we want a global movement, how do we globally organize if present efforts are stuck in forums discussing echoed statements that do nothing else but help the status quo to be perpetuated?
We must decide whether it is better to advocate pursuing the development of an architectural infrastructure, or an economic infrastructure. When so many people not only know of no other structure than using money, and we are not providing a better one; attacking the monetary system is like forcing someone into a corner with no objective way out. And if someone contends that a better way of life will emerge from creating a different architectural infrastructure, putting a primitive person in an advanced culture does not automatically translate into a developed advanced person. Even if one speaks in terms of generational changes, we must also think in terms of generational decay of the architecture... and the decay of the planet as well as the solar system. Human biology will necessarily seek to develop an equilibrium of function in accord with the type and level of decay it is subjected to... and develop philosophies which help to rationalize one's circumstances... like many of us who will simply make the best of a bad situation, but do noting to change the situation because we convince ourselves the circumstances overwhelm our abilities.
Again, the Zeitgeist and Venus Project documentaries are not good enough to present as a social manifesto with which to convince the many different populations in different cultures, that we have a better solution to prevailing and future social problems. Because so many countries have created economic systems that are inter-dependent; developing better economic policies are the more difficult, so long as a country's viability rests primarily on a relationship with one or more other nations. If such dependencies are abruptly interrupted, this can have devastating effects on the citizenry. Do we want to retain a global system of inter-dependency, or should be advocate self-sufficiency like so many government social service programs? Which brings to the fore the hypocrisy of governments that strive for creating external dependencies and yet want the citizenry to practice independent self-sufficiency, without realizing that the one policy affects the other. In other words, it is a "do as I say and not as I do" policy. Whether you call it hypocrisy, bipolarism or socialized schizophrenia does not change the degree of application in governing affairs... but neither does disparagement bring us to a point of making corrective changes.
In making one or more new films for advocating specific changes to government structures, simply listing the many different types of problems is not in itself functionally productive. It is not like instructing someone to keep their hand out of a fire. Simply stopping some behaviors does not resolve problems that very often become entangled with one or more other events. While efforts can be compounded by those that want to interfere with efforts for making corrective changes, intentions for creating purposive change must have in place a means and method for dealing with such individuals. Though such people may exhibit the emotions of children or adolescents, simply slapping their hands or putting them into some form of "time out" is not always effective. Likewise, we must deal with those whose only purpose appears to be in keeping discussions and efforts towards developing into a manifested reality.
Imaginging a future where people do not have to involve themselves in anything but leisurely pursuits because machines have been permitted to rule and run everything, degradation may well set in producing a social order of like-minded fruit eaters depicted in the old version of the Time Machine movie... because some future governing Artificial Intelligence has created conditions were people are bred into those possessing the I.Q. of a docile child that is easily manageable and will not spend leisurely moments investigating perceived phenomena that they think is curious... but meddlesome to the "programmed interests" of the governing body. In the movie, such a population was referred to as the Eloi. In contrast, there existed a subterranean group of night dwellers called the Morlocks who ran machines and (assumedly) provided the fruit and clothes for the child-like Eloi. While one may consider different scenarios, one example is to think that if we permit present forms of dog eat dog leadership to prevail, those in charge may literally turn their interests towards using the population as domesticated animals (for sustenance)... a condition which exists in a different format today, than the old slavery or indentured servant models where a master could do whatever they wanted to with their slaves. Realistically, neither the Eloi or Morlock option is very welcomed.
In this image of the Morlocks, they are fighting with the Time Traveler who is anything but passive in his attempts to secure the release and safety of those who fell victim to the mesmerizing effects of the "dinner bell" call. It is the same effect seen in the eyes of those responding to some patriotic or religious din, or at the direction of someone in a leadership position whose only purported "vision" is to distract everyone from recognizing they have no vision.
With respect to the Venus Project and Zeigeist movies, it is rather astonishing to come across someone who has seen the films and is overwhelmed by verbalized expressions of their own images (someone who candidly says what they themeselves have thought or tried to consciously form into words); which come to act as a type of mesmerising call which galvanizes a hypnotic-like agreement amongst like-minded adherents who feel offended if someone brings a point to bear on a statement or illustration that is not supportive. In other words, they don't like being slapped in the face and awaken from their narcotic-like stuporous state being shared with others. They don't realize that those of us truly seeking a positive progression of social improvement will hold any advocated idea to a level of scrutinization that we apply to the government as well. We will point out perceived imperfections, short-comings and flaws in order that they may be addressed so that we may arrive at a truly presentable formula that will only be denied by those who refuse to remove society from its present course of status-quo degradation.
We truly are not interested in creating those conditions for accepting a different idea of social ordering if its primary result will be that of leaving an architectural legacy for someone... whose attendant social improvement ideas are neither permitted to be openly scrutinized nor allowed to be improved on. We already have numerous governments which permit public scrutinization and open discussion, but they do not permit any actions to take place beyond intellectual argumentation. For example, the American government permits itself to be publicly scrutinized and alternatives suggested, but efforts to bring about corrective changes are fraught with obstacles centered on and committed to retaining things as they are... because there are many who have a vested interest in keeping all of human society as disgustingly filthy as it is.
This is why we need a better movie... one whose proposed information has been scrutinized and deliberated from different social/cultural perspectives, experiences and education... after-which a national (or global) introduction will be made manifest to articulate the steps to be taken, and are taken, to bring about changes. We will need to outline the legal steps and then the steps which are needed if those in leadership positions obfuscate, obstruct or dismiss the legal moves. The Venus Project, and its counter-part associated Zeitgeist relative, are representative fantasies and fairytales to what is actually needed. Again, despite all the sincere intentions, and articulation of ideas that many of us recognize and agree with having been portrayed in the films, we need film productions representing a vastly larger experiential and educational acumen. We need to be perceived as a serious ideological threat to those who advocate a retention of the status quo. But we can not expect an assumed aggressive pacifism— expressed by a self-absorbed anti-establishment attitude to promote purposive change for the better. We must go on the offensive with a more decisive plan of action. The two films are neither bold nor courageous enough to be used as a sword and banner flag.
On pages 255 and 256 of L.S. Stavrianos' "The Wrold to 1500" (large paperback ISBN 0-13-962937-8), we come across comments which some readers may find applicable in the case of the Venus Project's ideology of freeing people to pursue personal interests, while technology takes care of laborious tasks in the form of robotics, as well as governance in terms of an advanced type of Artificial Intelligence:
...During this period the Fujiwara family perfected the
In cultural matters there was the same adaptation of chinese models. The Japanese borrowed Chinese ideographs but developed their own system of writing. They borrowed Confuciansim but modified its ethics and changed its political doctrines to suit their social structure. They accepted Buddhism but adapted it to satisfy their own spiritual needs, whild keeping their native Shintoism. They built new imperial capitals, firts at Nara and then at Kyoto, that were modeled agter the T'ang capital, Ch'angan. but there was no mistaking the Japanese quality of the temples, pavilions, shrines, and gardens. The imperial court became the center of highly developed intellectual and artistic activity. Court life is delightfully described in Lady Muraskai's famous eleventh-century noverl, The tale of Genji. But this novel also reflects a society grown effeminate and devoted almost exclusively to aesthetic and sensual pleasures. This degeneration, which worsened in the next century, contributed to the coming of the new age of feudalism, when political power shifted from the imperial courts to virile rural warriors.
For some the parallel to the practices of ancient Japan in letting some pursue a leisurely way of life while others performed actual day to day functions, suggests that the adoption of an attitude focused on infrastructure whose inhabitants are removed from the burdensome tasks of growing (food,), manufacture and governance, will become soft and vulnerable to any and all who might seek to over-run them by force. And if the whole of the world were thus made similarly weakened, one might want to suggest an adaptive ability to disease, environmental disasters or even an extra-terrerestrial invasion would be all the more that much easier... even if in reflection we might want to build in safeguards against such.