The premise behind constructing new cities is that you save time and resources by creating 1/8th of the city's larger structures and just duplicate it.
But as I already stated, those cities are Fresco's templates.
The actual cities will probably look different - besides, he himself stated that these city designs he made would probably feel like a 'straight jacket' to those living in a resource based economy of the future.
Then he really should make that VERY CLEAR in his videos.
He should also have new CG renders of what his city would really look like given human desires for individuality.
I don't have all the answers.
I would surmise that most of the residential buildings/areas will be removed, with some other structures following suit sometime in the future.
As civilization evolves, Humanity progressively removes outdated structures (even those of 'historical' value) as time goes on.
In that regard, I don't see why new cities wouldn't feature re-built older structures from superior synthetic materials in a museum section of the city.
But at some point down the line, people will likely 'let go' and decide to remove it completely.
I can see that happening, it'll take a while but eventually alot of old buildings will go.
Don't forget lining the buildings/houses with phase-changing materials that regulate internal temperatures on their own and keep it in line with what is perceived as comfortable (regardless of external weather conditions).
This would be done for existing older cities during the transition for example, and construction of newer cities would be done simultaneously (all done by machines) which would have ALL of that designed into it.
Sounds like good tech to add on top of my ideas. The greener, the more sustainable, the better IMO.
Flywheel batteries are not a bad idea, but they need to be made from superior synthetic materials such as carbon-nanotubes, synthetic diamonds and graphene that could increase their efficiency, durability, storage, and everything else by orders of magnitude (to say the least).
I agree, 20 year life expectancy isn't good enough IMO.
I want at least a century or longer.
When you look at how old cities are structured, they are sorely lacking in terms of transportation and sustainability.
Transportation can certainly be improved in existing cities, but if you want proper/fast/efficient connection to EVERYWHERE in the city, its faster and more efficient to do it from the ground up.
Existing cities will be very limited in how much can be 'improved' due to how they were built (buildings and structures were merely popped in on a whim, nothing was planned).
Agreed, there was no planning in most cities. Everything was improv and to the whim of whomever had money at the time.
They were never designed (hence the biggest issue).
By designing new cities from the ground up with efficiency, sustainability, modular designs (so the city can constantly accommodate upgrades/change), you get FAR better results.
But also, existing cities can be made that much more self-sufficient as well - in the long run however, society will likely do away with them because they won't be able to compare to new cities in terms of efficiency and quite likely life-standard which will ever change because the cities themselves will be designed to change constantly and not be 'static'.
I agree that planned cities from the ground up are superior. But also finding ways of making everything modular is a key goal. Including making Roads / Sewer systems / stuff you normally think of as fixed.
Ah, but you have to keep in mind that some Humans find logical grid pattern to be familiar only because they were living in such an environment.
There ARE old cities that follow a circular pattern.
So its more down to how you DESIGN things.
As mentioned above, existing cities were never designed.
What is perceived as easy to understand will vary from people to people.
I can understand both systems fine, but I know others who find that the Grid system is easier to understand when you're stuck in the middle of it.
I know that to be true for me since it was easier for me to figure out how to navigate downtown Seattle since everything was grid based.
Understandable. But in such a case, one would probably read the material when they DO have some free time to spare. I hadn't said you must read it all at once.
But please try to read all of it as time allows, because otherwise, you get a limited perception of what is said (and without detailed explanations, assumptions that stem from the present way of thinking could easily get in the way).
I read it all yesterday, took the better part of a day in between doing errands.
Lol... one can understand how you would feel like that, but you have to take into account that Fresco made a base template to give people idea of what efficient planning of a city could be.
Other than that, for house construction, people will be able to make it to their specifications.
But you have to understand that after the global population is exposed to notions such as 'sustainability' and most importantly relevant general education, it is quite likely their perceptions of what a home looks like will also change to reflect those notions in an increasing manner (as opposed to the image they might have today) - it will still be individual choice.
So, I wouldn't worry if I were you.
I'm all for green renewable technology mind you. So his concepts of what a house should be and what mines are is not to different.
The big problem is him not explaining it in his videos clearly and demonstrating it via CG cities / neighborhoods.
Nothing intricately 'wrong' with being a car enthusiast.
If people want to do that, then no one will stop them.
But... I don't think there is a point to 'owning' a car or cars, when they would be accessible for you to tinker with, drive, and do whatever you want on demand.
Not everybody wants to own a car, and for them, on demand access is a better solution.
However, I figure there will always be a % of the population that likes to own stuff.
As long as you let them do what they want, and from what I can tell you will, then everybody is happy.
The notion that you like having 'your own stuff' stems from existing socio-economic system of ownership.
In a resource based economy (and the Venus Project at large) the notion of 'owning' something is outdated, because, you would have the ability to use cars however and in whatever capacity you like when you want them.
Ownership mostly comes from the system in which there is protection of personal assets involved.
There is no point to such notions in a resource based economy because everyone would have access to those things.
Humanity won't be making one for every person on the planet though - it will be done on demand.
For that matter, personal wants differ, so not everyone will want to have 1 of everything (practically no one does that NOW).
I guess you don't understand that there will always be people who want X and want Y things.
As long as that desire gets met, there shouldn't be any real problems.
And while cars in the Venus Project will be automated, control of the vehicle won't be taken away from the driver.
If you want to drive a car, no one will stop you... but, instead of having stop signs, safe-guards will be installed into cars, such as speed will be automatically limited in a residential area by the car itself, and the car speed increase in that area will be locked until you cleared it.
The reason stop signs exist is so people / machines can watch out for pedestrian traffic crossing the road.
Anything short of having all cars tied into a giant road traffic management systems, the current systems of traffic signs / rules just need to be enhanced, not done away with IMO.
What if technology went down for any 1 reason, if a person rushed what would've been considered a stop sign area and hit a person, then they could've potentially ended a life where it could've been prevented by having stop signs.
You cannot rely on Humans alone to follow the road signs.
While plenty of people ARE responsible drivers, they can also be prone to emotional outbursts that can influence their driving and cause problems.
Certain speed restrictions will be built into the design to accommodate safety within the city or residential area... but nothing that would affect commuting.
In a similar sense, if a car detects a human in front of it, the car will automatically initiate breaks and stepping onto the pedal for more speed won't do anything.
I think it's a good security measure to implement in cities to avoid accidents, deaths and crashes.
I agree that auto braking, blind spot monitoring, Backout perpendicular traffic monitoring, Google's auto driving AI should all become standard features.
I also think there should be a driver psychological / physiological state monitoring where if anything is outside of good acceptable parameters, the auto driving system should take over to prevent a potential accident.
Social status image is exactly the thing that society will over time probably let go after being exposed to relevant general education and sustainability.
The only reason they care now is because they are indoctrinated into thinking its important and because present society makes it important.
I agree, this is something people really need to get over and hopefully will.
The artificial iPhone/iPad craze is silly.
People spend all that money for whatever version of the same product just to buy the latest and greatest when the next version comes out.
I try to make my electronics last as long as possible.
My old candy bar phone, I've used it non stop for 6 years.
My current computer is at least 6 years old.
I plan on using my smart phone for at least 6 years, if not longer.
Caring about how your car looks like, how safe its is to drive or how fun is it to drive is something else.
I think it's called personal preferance.
And this is where the notion of 'ownership' stems from.
The fear that it will be stolen by someone.
Its a way to 'protect' what you have.
In a system where people have unrestricted ACCESS to things on-demand, or things that other people are using, there would be no incentive to steal someone else's seeing how they will be able to get and use one for themselves for however long they want (and if they want it in the first place).
In the end, no matter what semantics you call it.
Ownership, Lifetime lease, indefinite use shared resource, it'll all boil down to the person can use object X for as long as they feel, then return it for recycling or have other people use it when the current holder releases control of it.
As long as nobody forceably takes away object X when the current holder doesn't want to release it, conflict will not arise.
This is the major problem that TVP will solve IMO.
You nor anyone else would be subject to someone else's whim in the Venus Project.
Actually, its funny you would say that because today, practically everyone (including yourself) ARE subject to someone else's whim (perhaps your boss, or people who can tell you what to do in your profession, by the banks, the government, etc.).
I agree, that's a good thing about TVP that I like.
People are not subject to another's whim.
On-demand access to material goods and services is exactly what the Venus Project is about.
Its not ownership, but user-ship. It is 'similar' to a library - except there would be no time limitations involved.
When you have no more use for an object, you basically return it to the automation center and someone else will be able to use it, or it will be harvested for its resources which will be used to create something else.
Right now, people have piles of stuff in their homes they cant simply get rid of because they either have nowhere to put it, or it would 'cost' them to do it.
In a resource based economy, such objects would be recycled.
If its technology, you can save your data elsewhere and simply transfer it to a new unit of your choosing.
I have a ton of CD's and DVD's at my disposal I'm not using anymore.
They have various movies and shows on them, and some games.
I have no more use for them, but I don't want to simply waste them as I find it pointless.
It would be better if I could put them up for recycling where I wouldn't have to pay anything or give them to someone who would use them.
I'm not going to retread my thoughts on the Usership / Ownership spiel, I've already covered that in the above reply.
Why don't you donate your tons of CD's / DVD's to your local library then if you don't want to store it and find recycling a waste of effort.
At least with the local library, they can share the resource that you supplied them with.
Which part of ON-DEMAND ACCESS are you unclear with?
We can make cars to be self-cleaning btw... but I would surmise that people would be encouraged to behave in a more responsible capacity because all resources would be declared common heritage of all Humans.
I understand it clearly, and as far as I'm concerned, it's just a concept.
In reality I think people will just take stuff for personal use as long as they feel like and then return it for redistribution / recycling when they're tired of it.
That is the more realistic approach I think people will have when it comes to TVP if it ever becomes reality.
And as I said, no one will be forced to move unless they want to.
That's a good thing.
That will be more or less self-apparent when people see what kind of life people living in highly advanced self-sustaining cities is.
Automation, transport and overall efficiency would be FAR higher than what can be done with existing cities (which were never designed).
I would hope so since that is the point of designing the cities.
Nothing is 'illegal' in the VP.
To make something illegal would merely prompt people to do it behind closed doors or in secrecy.
No one would be prohibited from driving somewhere, to fly or take the train.
The purpose of the project is to liberate Humanity from the artificially imposed limitations currently done by the socio-economic system, and more.
BTW, did I mention I liked to collect stuff.
Generally I'm a pacifist, I'm not into killing people and I find it saddening that this world is filled with senseless violence.
However, I'm also a military technology fan and would like to collect such technology.
Would it be ok if I ask for a Ford Class Carrier
along with all the F-35's I can ask for?
I'd also like a few ICBM's filled with the best Fusion warheads.
I'd also like all the my favorite gun's, missiles, rockets, helicoptors too.
Of course all military gear would be working and capable for action at any time so I can do practice runs / war games in giant empty deserted areas.
Under TVP, this should be ok, right?
Everybody can have everything with no limits.
As long as we're peaceful about things, there should be no issues.
Not really. By designing new cities and implementing maximum efficiency, trains (for example) won't have to actually 'stop' anywhere, they would only have to adjust their speed somewhat.
The compartments can be detached from a moving train in a safe capacity and moved vertically.
Whoever said that horizontal is the only way trains could move?
In the videos, the trains did stop temporarily to let the compartments go vertical.
Nothing wrong with that IMO, makes it safer IMO.
Details are important - necessary even.
If you want a clear picture of what the VP is about, you NEED to be exposed to detailed information.
Otherwise, you will probably get an incomplete picture, and your brain could easily jump to conclusions by filling the gaps using what you DO know from the present system (along with the projections).
As I said earlier, one cannot find solutions to existing problems by using the same way of thinking that created the said problems.
I think Einstein was the one who said something like that.
I agree details are very important, but even then he could've reduced the FAQ to be much shorter since he regurgitates alot of the same info across multiple questions.
So here are the questions I have for you.
What do you do about people who kill for crimes of passion such as a lover cheating on them?
Will there still be police?
Will he be educated on the wickedness of his ways and released?
Will there be no punishment for murder?
What's to stop people from taking somebody else's stuff when they clearly have not relinquished current usage of said item and this creates conflict which may resort to violence.
Will there be just re-education and releasing of said person?
What if said person frequently commits same crimes / incidents?
What's to stop people from having weapons for self protection but could potentially lead to accidental discharge / fatality when a child playing with said weapon after defeating the security vaults holding the weapon.
What if in a fit of rage / anger, they use said weapon wrongly and kill people?
What if the personal nuke I have accidentally goes off while I'm on vacation far and away and the entire city dies?
Will people ride it off as a oopsy daisy and I be on my way after promising to take better care of my nukes?
Will I be allowed to have another nuke?
I've watched some videos that Jacque Fresco posted.
I do agree that the current forms of government are a joke.
All current forms of government including democracies talk alot, but there are way too many restrictions that serve 1 party or another.
IMO, Constitutional Representative Democracy in itself is not a bad form of government, the founding fathers had the right idea.
However alot of rules need to be re written IMO and lots of rules to prevent corruption need to be implemented at the start of the Constitution / Bill of Rights.
I personally don't trust alot of machines to do the analysis of EVERYTHING and make the decisions.
I'm not speaking out of ignorance, as a computer programmer I know the limitations of machines / software / AI.
The fact that it's relatively easy to skew results / hack / twist a machine to get what you want is why I don't trust having machines make all decisions for us.
The best form of governance is machines being a tool to give factual evidence that can be independently corroborated and verified.
Using scientific methodology, variable scale experimentation, and refining of rules / laws along with more generalist education is what I think will help things out.