The Venus Project

King Felix · 31-08-2010 09:59AM

Zanmato wrote: »

1. An OP who doesn't know what he's talking about
- The Venus Project is the project itself.
- The Zeitgeist Movement is the activist arm of which support the ideals this movement advocates, which chapters worldwide.

2. People read two lines on Wikipedia about the Zeitgeist Movement and cry ''DIRTY COMMUNIST''.

The movement is in no way affiliated with any form of religion or political party. The movement is based on pure LOGIC, free from the biases of the aforementioned.

If you could please take the time to Youtube ''Zeitgeist Addendum'' and ''Jacque Fresco'', you would be able to better substantiate an argument as to whether this is legitimate or not.

This 'futuristic' technology he speaks of is, for the most part, available today. Why don't we have it. Short answer: Money. Greed.

And it is quite possible for all this to happen. Yes, you would not have to work a day in your life if you did not want to. If you enjoy doing something, the resources are fully accessible.

I implore everyone to take a look at the video when you have two hours free.
Then fling around opinions.

What are the steps from watching the video to the realisation of the Venus Project in Ireland?

Sticky_Fingers · 31-08-2010 10:03AM

This 'futuristic' technology he speaks of is, for the most part, available today. Why don't we have it. Short answer: Money. Greed.

Very much like the capitalist society we live in today the Venus Project has at it's heart a fatal catastrophic flaw that means that any system based on it is bound to fail much as our current on is doomed to. That flaw is the assumption that there is an inexhaustible supply of cheap readily available energy that can be tapped. Unfortunately this is not the case. If humanity had acted sooner instead of sitting on our hands smothered in fossil fuels and prioritised work on renewable energy sources decades ago perhaps there would be a chance but as it stands now we've pretty much screwed the pooch.

We have squandered our chance for the short term gain of easy living and only in the West mind, things have always been pretty sh"t in most parts of the world. As it stands we're on the precipice of a massive fall, when people finally wake up to the fact that the era of oil is over the world is going to go ape**** and things are going to get very hard for most of us. Forget the Venus project, it's a pipe dream, we got to start working on realistic and workable solutions instead of wasting resources on could've beens and Utopian fantasies.

clived2 · 31-08-2010 10:16AM

Zanmato wrote: »

1. An OP who doesn't know what he's talking about
- The Venus Project is the project itself.
- The Zeitgeist Movement is the activist arm of which support the ideals this movement advocates, which chapters worldwide.

2. People read two lines on Wikipedia about the Zeitgeist Movement and cry ''DIRTY COMMUNIST''.

The movement is in no way affiliated with any form of religion or political party. The movement is based on pure LOGIC, free from the biases of the aforementioned.

If you could please take the time to Youtube ''Zeitgeist Addendum'' and ''Jacque Fresco'', you would be able to better substantiate an argument as to whether this is legitimate or not.

This 'futuristic' technology he speaks of is, for the most part, available today. Why don't we have it. Short answer: Money. Greed.

And it is quite possible for all this to happen. Yes, you would not have to work a day in your life if you did not want to. If you enjoy doing something, the resources are fully accessible.

I implore everyone to take a look at the video when you have two hours free.
Then fling around opinions.

I have wached all the videos,

Now I implore you to read this accurate breakdown on why the zeitgeist etc is a load of shi*e. Its is very detailed and breaks it all down very nicely.

Sorry to ruin your logic

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

Wibbs · 31-08-2010 10:17AM

Zanmato wrote: »

I implore everyone to take a look at the video when you have two hours free.
Then fling around opinions.

I've watched the Zeitgeist movie(s). It is so full of holes it could be used as a fishing net. The first part is beyond risible. It actually becomes hilarious. It could only be taken as something even approaching truth by someone with little or no knowledge. The second part is on slightly(and I do mean slightly) firmer ground, but the parts original to it are not very believable and the believable parts are not very original. The third part is the usual tinfoil hattism of 911 conspiracy.

Then we get to the Addendum. Again very little original and very very little of substance. It also has many many errors and misdirections.

TBH the whole Zeitgeist lark to me sounds like something someone cooked up for a bet to see how many would fall for such levels of bullshít. In that they have won that bet and it sadly shows up how many otherwise intelligent people out there buy into this for the want of a little more knowledge of the subjects involved.

King Felix · 31-08-2010 10:22AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I've watched the Zeitgeist movie(s). It is so full of holes it could be used as a fishing net. The first part is beyond risible. It actually becomes hilarious. It could only be taken as something even approaching truth by someone with little or no knowledge. The second part is on slightly(and I do mean slightly) firmer ground, but the parts original to it are not very believable and the believable parts are not very original. The third part is the usual tinfoil hattism of 911 conspiracy.

Then we get to the Addendum. Again very little original and very very little of substance. It also has many many errors and misdirections.

TBH the whole Zeitgeist lark to me sounds like something someone cooked up for a bet to see how many would fall for such levels of bullshít. In that they have won that bet and it sadly shows up how many otherwise intelligent people out there buy into this for the want of a little more knowledge of the subjects involved.

What's your solution to world peace and equality, if you believe one can exist, that is.

Sticky_Fingers · 31-08-2010 10:41AM

King Felix wrote: »

What's your solution to world peace and equality, if you believe one can exist, that is.

You are labouring under the assumption that there is a solution. There will never be world peace, humans when you get right down to it are a savage territorial bunch who will fight and squabble over land and resources and this is only going to get much worst in the future. Sure we love our family and friends but if we're talking about some poor sod on the other side of the world we couldn't give a flying f$ck if "our boys" rained fire down on him as long as we felt it was in some way justified. The best that we can hope for is that when war breaks out it's a "just" one and that nations only responded to acts of military aggression.

As for equality, that I am afraid is never going to happen. The only way there is true equality in the world is if you again have an inexhaustible supply of energy and resources. Without this there will always be the haves and the have-nots.

I'm not saying that I like the situation or advocate the "grab all you can for yourself and screw everyone else" mentality that such a view may imply but it's the reality of the world in which we live. The human race, like everything else in this world is bound by the laws of nature and unfortunately there is no way of getting something for nothing. The best we can hope for is that people at least get what they need, though not all they want.

Wibbs · 31-08-2010 10:42AM

I don't think there is one. Or at least not the utopia some seek. We can make a more equitable and more peaceful world than it is though. A better spread of access to clean resources would be a start. Not easy to do though. Look at the growth of China. They're doing very well at the minute. But they're using the same model of energy creation and resource (mis)management that was the cause of much of our current woes. Quite understandably they will say "well you did it, so why can't we?". That's unsustainable though. For all their economic might, China is still for the most part playing consumerism catchup. Imagine just on one point, if the car ownership levels of China were the same as Ireland? All that oil and energy required would be crazy. Solving that will take brains way more than I have on board on my best day.

King Felix · 31-08-2010 10:49AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't think there is one. Or at least not the utopia some seek. We can make a more equitable and more peaceful world than it is though. A better spread of access to clean resources would be a start. Not easy to do though. Look at the growth of China. They're doing very well at the minute. But they're using the same model of energy creation and resource (mis)management that was the cause of much of our current woes. Quite understandably they will say "well you did it, so why can't we?". That's unsustainable though. For all their economic might, China is still for the most part playing consumerism catchup. Imagine just on one point, if the car ownership levels of China were the same as Ireland? All that oil and energy required would be crazy. Solving that will take brains way more than I have on board on my best day.

I think it was the American scientist Buckminster Fuller who proposed the Global Energy Grid ie. the linking up of all the worlds electricity grids, to make better use of the available resources. It could be co-opted to use the best available green energy resources, it would improve co-operation between nations and might prevent future conflicts, since it would be against peoples interests to disrupt the grid.

I think a lot of countries agreed to it in princple and there was a big summit organised in 1990 to look into it. Unfortunately the conference was due to take place in Kuwait and Saddam invaded.

Earthhorse · 31-08-2010 10:52AM

The_Minister wrote: »

Who's going to take out the bins in that kind of society?

I dunno, coastguard?

Miguel_Sanchez · 31-08-2010 11:02AM

Zeitgeist.

What a complete load of horse manure. Anyone who watches and believes that film needs to be sat down with a strong cup of coffee and given a good talking to.

My name is URL · 31-08-2010 11:31AM

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Zeitgeist.

What a complete load of horse manure. Anyone who watches and believes that film needs to be sat down with a strong cup of coffee and given a good talking to.

The first one is pretty much crap. The follow up isn't quite as bad or unbelievable to be fair

King Felix · 31-08-2010 11:41AM

clived2 wrote: »

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

This debunking link always comes up whenever Zeitgeist is mentioned.

Didn't an historian, Acharya S, who made a small contribution to the movie, rebut most of the Edward Winston's points, in her recent works, citing all the relevant sources etc

The author of the link 'debunking', Edward L. Winston is a software engineer, I believe.

Interesting debate.

I don't believe the points behind that part of the movie have been debunked yet, even if the movie makers did present some of them poorly.

Wibbs · 31-08-2010 12:02PM

King Felix wrote: »

This debunking link always comes up whenever Zeitgeist is mentioned.

Didn't an historian, Acharya S, who made a small contribution to the movie, rebut most of the Edward Winston's points, in her recent works, citing all the relevant sources etc

The author of the link 'debunking', Edward L. Winston is a software engineer, I believe.

Interesting debate.

I don't believe the points behind that part of the movie have been debunked yet, even if the movie makers did present some of them poorly.

The first part? The religion bit? That part is beyond daft. Seriously. It wouldnt survive one second of historical/theological peer review. I'd love to see a link where someone tried. It is so full of holes and historical inaccuracy it's more a work of fiction than any religion they care to namecheck. There's a part where a supposed list of other "gods" fly up the screen at high speed and its worth stopping the video to read some of them. It was at that point I thought this has to be a písstake.

King Felix · 31-08-2010 12:06PM

Wibbs wrote: »

The first part? The religion bit? That part is beyond daft. Seriously. It wouldnt survive one second of historical/theological peer review. I'd love to see a link where someone tried. It is so full of holes and historical inaccuracy it's more a work of fiction than any religion they care to namecheck. There's a part where a supposed list of other "gods" fly up the screen at high speed and its worth stopping the video to read some of them. It was at that point I thought this has to be a písstake.

I agree the video is daft in places.

I was talking about Acharya S' refutations of Edward Winston's debunking.

Wibbs · 31-08-2010 12:25PM

King Felix wrote: »

I was talking about Acharya S refutations of Edward Winston's debunking.

I thought I'd heard that name before and Google reminded me. She was the author of one of the books of the "Jesus never existed historically" kind. Very fashionable for a time in the 70's. Very very few historical scholars would agree with her. It ignited an interesting debate on the matter and certainly I would personally feel that actual facts about the subject are hard to come by, but the historicity of Jesus as a figure I would have no issue with(the God part I leave to the faithful). The problem with her and others linking of the story to other deity myths, is the simple lack of evidence. Oh sure you will read examples where other works are referenced, but they're other works of the same vein and invented. Another example of this in another area, that old saw about "women use more words in conversation than men" quoted all over the place in various books and believed by many. Problem? Well it was first referenced as a "fact" in an early men are from mars, women are from venus type book and has since been repeated from that source. It has no basis in peer reviewed science.

At times Zeitgeist becomes staggering in its stupidity. EG where the movie makes reference to and a connection with the "Sun" and the "Son". Yea great. Pity it only works in English. :rolleyes: Unsurprisingly it doesnt work in Greek, Latin or Aramaic. And they call that evidence?

The Horus myths bear little relation to the Christ myth either. His ma wasn't a virgin, there was no three kings(there weren't three kings in the gospels either, they make no mention of their numbers beyond the plural). he didnt have 12 apostles, he didnt die(he couldnt, he was a god), he wasn't crucified and didnt rise again. He also wasnt born at Christmas. Neither was Jesus BTW. The solstice isnt on Dec 25th either.

If Acharya S does "debunk the debunkers" and uses any of those above notions to do so, I would not call her much of a historian.

Terry · 31-08-2010 12:41PM

My name is URL wrote: »

It is a bit like communism, but it's only ideas.. What are the alternatives? It's about what happens well down the line from now, not today or tomorrow

Do you think the way we live now will be sustainable in the future? The ideas have to start somewhere =p

Human greed and lust for power/control will always prevail.

The only solution is...

King Felix wrote: »

What's your solution to world peace and equality, if you believe one can exist, that is.

Replicators.

King Felix · 31-08-2010 12:48PM

Wibbs wrote: »

The problem with her and others linking of the story to other deity myths, is the simple lack of evidence. Oh sure you will read examples where other works are referenced, but they're other works of the same vein and invented.

From a review of one of her books, which is endorsed by some other historians...

[FONT=Verdana, Sans-Serif]Destined to be a classic enjoyed by both the professional scholar and the layperson, this comparative religion book contains a startling perspective of the extraordinary history of the Egyptian religion and its profound influence upon the later Christian faith. Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection by D.M. Murdock, also known as "Acharya S," uses a massive amount of primary sources and the works of highly credentialed authorities in relevant fields to demonstrate that the popular gods Horus and Jesus possessed many characteristics and attributes in common.[/FONT]

It's hard to know which 'expert' to believe.

At times Zeitgeist becomes staggering in its stupidity. EG where the movie makes reference to and a connection with the "Sun" and the "Son". Yea great. Pity it only works in English. :rolleyes: Unsurprisingly it doesnt work in Greek, Latin or Aramaic. And they call that evidence?

I already agreed, the movie is daft in places.

The Horus myths bear little relation to the Christ myth either. His ma wasn't a virgin, there was no three kings(there weren't three kings in the gospels either, they make no mention of their numbers beyond the plural). he didnt have 12 apostles, he didnt die(he couldnt, he was a god), he wasn't crucified and didnt rise again. He also wasnt born at Christmas. Neither was Jesus BTW. The solstice isnt on Dec 25th either.

If Acharya S does "debunk the debunkers" and uses any of those above notions to do so, I would not call her much of a historian.

Wibbs · 31-08-2010 12:58PM

King Felix wrote: »

From a review of one of her books, which is endorsed by some other historians...

Links by any chance? That seems a bit selective in its review to say the least. You will find many many more scholars would be hard pressed to stifle a chuckle at most of her output on this subject.

It's hard to know which 'expert' to believe.

Yes and no. Im all for skeptical looks at such things, the problem is the "evidence" is so thin that Bob Geldof would organise a concert around it.

I already agreed, the movie is daft in places.

Oh no I saw that. The thing is stuff like that, the truly embarrassing obvious stuff is but part of it. There is barely a line in the first part that is historically, culturally or theologically backed up or correct. Like I said the Horus connection alone doesnt bear much scrutiny. Ask any egyptologist. If you did want to make a connection with Christian(and Jewish) monoatheism then the Armana period of Egyptian history would prove far more compelling.

King Felix · 31-08-2010 01:14PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Links by any chance? That seems a bit selective in its review to say the least. You will find many many more scholars would be hard pressed to stifle a chuckle at most of her output on this subject.

It says it in any of the reviews for the book, Amazon etc.

Of course not having read the book, I don't know which points her 'primary sources' refer to.

This book was only published in 2009 so I'm not getting much on google about the historical inaccuracies in it. I'll keep digging.

Yes and no. Im all for skeptical looks at such things, the problem is the "evidence" is so thin that Bob Geldof would organise a concert around it.

:pac:

I'm just taking my own skeptical look at the debate.I noticed that debunking link that's always rolled out was compiled by a software engineer, so I did start to wonder.

If you did want to make a connection with Christian(and Jewish) monoatheism then the Armana period of Egyptian history would prove far more compelling.

K.

ScumLord · 31-08-2010 01:56PM

I like the ideas of the Venus project and Zeitgeist I think we should seriously take some of them on board definitely move towards a more rational and scientific based society but over all I don't see it working.

The reason it won't work is because it's boring and it doesn't take into account that people are just common animals, we can't be treated like entries in a database. I'd like to see some sort of two tiered system where the state guarantees a minimum standard of life that we all contribute too and then a economical playground to push development.

While I'd like to see us move in the direction of the Venus project especially when it comes to getting people to take care of themselves and their surroundings, I don't like the centralised focus of modern society, it devalues people.

My name is URL · 21-02-2011 08:38PM

Has anyone seen the new Zeitgeist: Moving Forward movie? It's infinitely better than the first two, and makes some very good points very well, most of which are more applicable today than ever before. They spend a good bit of time talking about the Venus project and a resource based economy.

RichieC · 21-02-2011 09:21PM

It is an absolute crime against the planet that we squander resources into knock off crap just to maintain cyclical consumption.

The libertardians around here will balk at all this calling it utopian or communist or whatever other words they just pick up on their grotty little blogs, but seriously, think about the fking waste for a minute.

we need to end the infinite growth paradigm, it's against nature, impossible and causes misery and destroys the planet and all in the name of making a lucky percentage a short term profit while everyone else gets the scraps.

you think Venus project is full of sh*t, well open your fking eyes and look at the bollocks we're saddled with at the moment.

ScumLord · 21-02-2011 09:34PM

I fell asleep about two or three hours in I'll have to go back and watch the end again.

It didn't focus as much on the anti-capitalism thing time around but when they had a title like moving forward I expected to see evidence of them putting Zeitgeist into action and proving it works.

I do agree with the underlying sentiment of the movement, I think capitalism has fared us well and changed the world completely but the fact is human society changed completely and we need to reassess how we manage our society and our needs.

I had a spliff and wandered off to sleep towards the end, has there marching columns of soldiers towards the end? If so it's finally taking a turn for the better.

Jeboa Safari · 21-02-2011 09:43PM

RichieC wrote: »

you think Venus project is full of sh*t, well open your fking eyes and look at the bollocks we're saddled with at the moment.

Still seems to be the best situation we have. You'd replace it with an even more unworkable situation if you tried to implement the ideas in the Venus project.

RichieC · 21-02-2011 09:56PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Still seems to be the best situation we have. You'd replace it with an even more unworkable situation if you tried to implement the ideas in the Venus project.

yes it's wonderful.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm

My name is URL · 21-02-2011 09:58PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Still seems to be the best situation we have. You'd replace it with an even more unworkable situation if you tried to implement the ideas in the Venus project.

Why do you believe it would be more unworkable? If you tried to change things overnight then of course it would be impossible, but over a longer timeframe many of the ideas could be incorporated. People say it's a utopianist fantasy to believe that such changes could happen, well, yeah it is, but it's still better than rejecting the notion outright.

The system in place atm is insane.. in fact it's the definition of insanity.. doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

One of the things that stood out for me in the movie was the correlation between perceived inequality within society and the incidence of things like violent crime, mental illness and drug abuse, amongst other things. The data used was taken from here

And although correlation does not imply causation, you'd be hard pressed to come up with an alternative causative factor.

Jeboa Safari · 21-02-2011 10:05PM

RichieC wrote: »

yes it's wonderful.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm

I didn't say it was perfect, infact I think there are many flaws. Although, I assume the numbers are improving

My name is URL wrote: »

Why do you believe it would be more unworkable? If you tried to change things overnight then of course it would be impossible, but over a longer timeframe many of the ideas could be incorporated. People say it's a utopianist fantasy to believe that such changes could happen, well, yeah it is, but it's still better than rejecting the notion outright.

The system in place atm is insane.. in fact it's the definition of insanity.. doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

One of the things that stood out for me in the movie was the correlation between perceived inequality within society and the incidence of things like violent crime, mental illness and drug abuse, amongst other things. The data used was taken from here

And although correlation does not imply causation, you'd be hard pressed to come up with an alternative causative factor.

Human greed for a start. The current system can be improved upon in some areas, but I still think its the best we have.

RichieC · 21-02-2011 10:07PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I didn't say it was perfect, infact I think there are many flaws. Although, I assume the numbers are improving

In fact they are getting worse.

Jeboa Safari · 21-02-2011 10:23PM

RichieC wrote: »

In fact they are getting worse.

Well world poverty is decreasing, so they should be

ScumLord · 21-02-2011 10:26PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Human greed for a start. The current system can be improved upon in some areas, but I still think its the best we have.

It's not the best we have, it's just not good at all. The entire basis of it is flawed in my mind. Infinite growth or even prolonged growth is practically impossible. It's the only system we really know but it's not that different in real terms from empires, monarchies and basically any elite ruling class system controlling the majority.

The internet is allowing us to do things different and it's conflicting with capitalism.

The Venus Project

Comments