A country without Money how it's work?

[Deks]

I've seen people power grab even if they were raised in the best of environments.
Power Grab will always be an issue, no matter the environment.

Hm... I think I realize what you are getting at... however, let's try to examine that:

Being raised in an environment that DOESN'T prompt you to pursue power grabbing is only 1 step.
Those who did grow up like that but eventually decided to 'grab power' probably did so because they were eventually encouraged to change enough so that they would 'seize power' due to the system they lived in (the present socio-economic system).

See... having 'noble' people is not enough.
You need to design a system that actively removes the possibility of ANYONE 'grabbing power' and discourages such behavior (via education - no force or 'indoctrination' necessary).

If you don't, well, like I said, Human behavior can change, and in the present setting it changes to accommodate the existing socio-economic system if an opportunity presents itself (because that's the kind of thinking society at large promotes).
This is why a TRANSITIONAL period is required. A temporary setting that would allow Humanity to adjust which would do away with the old system automatically at the end of the 10 years time-frame (providing there's a global push to initiate this change - however, Humanity is already in a transition period of sorts).

Lack of relevant general education is a big factor here as well that cannot be disregarded.
Most 'noble' people who change for the worse later on were never exposed to that and in combination with the present socio-economic system, its a rather 'easy' recipe for disaster because they allowed themselves to be used by others and the system they live in.

The notion that there would be 'too many cooks' as it seems is a bit of an assumption.
Seeing how most of the construction will be delegated to machines and most everything would be automated... ideas proposed by Humans would be taken and compared with existing models. The less viable ones are discarded or simply put on the side to see if they can be combined with the more viable ones to create a better solution.
A computerized system would have to do it seeing how the process would be WAY too complex for Humans (computers have already surpassed Humans a long time ago in the department of specialized tasks) - in the end, whether we allow final construction to be made is up to us - which is why any given community or self-sustaining city would arrive at such decisions. Putting the entire globe into whether or not to construct it in a local area is not necessary (apart from how to possibly improve upon the ideas).

As for technology 'eventually breaking down' - as I said, self-maintaining machines and machines that make other machines already exist - all of which would render this issue mostly moot.

We can make technology materials that are practically next to indestructible, that will last for 'absurd amounts of time' and can be made in abundance.
We can DESIGN technology to eliminate most, if not all stress related factors that contribute to degradation in the first place, and automated processes would simply recycle older machines by harvesting their materials and created superior machines (software/hardware that improves on itself).

Perhaps there's a possibility that it won't last until the end of time itself (if such a thing even exists), but it can certainly be designed to last absurdly long.
Add enough safe-guards to take care of most of these issues and most of the 'problems' are rendered moot.
We ARE talking about 'sustainability' after all.

In the end... I do agree with most of your ideas KamenRiderBlade and way of thinking.

 

[Brainsucker]

thank you for your commenting all. But now I realized that "this kind of Perfect Government" and "less human behavior is actually possible in the world of Trek. But don't think that I will give the credit to human. No, humanity changed not because they realized their mistake after WWIII. The reason is too naive.

I think, the most logical reason is that because they are being exposed to many Alien cultures. Look at us, we love to copy other people behavior. So, what prevent us to mimicking Vulcan?

Come on, who can resist Vulcan? Look at them. Even with nerd hair cut and naive eyes, Vulcan is actually a bad ass. They can kick their enemy around with only touch their shoulder. And they clever like hell. No human children could win a science competition against Vulcan. That's why Vulcan can become the role model of some people.

And because they interact closely for more than three centuries, it is possible that some human has become more "Vulcan" than their ancestor. I think, it is the most possible answer for this problem.

Why human is so weak and easily to exposed by more advanced cultural entity? We have some examples in real life. Look at Japanese. They are more American than their ancestor now. And not only them, there are a lot of cultural transfer and change of behaviors in our world. Some because of culture, other because of religion. That's why the human in 24th century is also exposed and maybe influenced by the foreign culture, like Vulcan, or Klingon, or Romulan, or the others. It is a natural way of life in our universe.

Just curious is English your primary language?

I wouldn't give Vulcan's that much credit, sure they open our eyes, but even in ST:ENT, they clearly stated humanity changed itself after "First Contact" happened.
Vulcan's were a inspiration as to what is capable for a civiliation / species potential.
However, the change happened because humanity was determined to improve so they can move on past all the old problems and deal with new issues regarding space exploration and the possibility of spreading human kind into the stars.
All Human's on Earth would have learned that it needed to not place it's species all on 1 planet after WW3, ergo fixing basic problems and readying themselves for colonization would be a huge priority for the human race.

I said that I'm Asian, isn't it? so English is basically not my primary language.

I doubt that the reason is like that. It's too idealistic. Almost impossible to be realized. Exposed or influenced by the outside worlds is more "logical" and do-able. If you are Asian, then you should know that some of Asian countries are influenced by other culture. You can see at some of Islamic Countries like Indonesia. They are more Arabian than Indonesian, just because they are influenced by the religion. It is also happen to Japan. Look at them before the Meiji Restoration and then look the different after they take western culture.

 

[Deks]

Religion was invented by Humanity.
So... species-wise, that particular influence was/is internal.

As such, there is nothing 'idealistic' about a non-monetary society that implements cybernation and automation as much as possible coupled with relevant general education of the entire global population.
It's merely a different way of thinking that could result in a world that is FAR better than what we have now (but it wouldn't be 'perfect' or a 'utopia' because such concepts are delusions).

Star Trek merely decided to go the 'culturally accepted' route and tell you that nothing short of violence and exposure to alien life (or fear of it) could change our way of thinking (again... a byproduct of a system that creates film-makers who know next to nothing about Human behavior or how technology works) - a similar thing happened in the movie 4th of July (which was a joke in itself).

Denying the premise that we can create this change on our own simply because the present socio-economic system creates a perception that anything else 'won't work' (even though various implementations of holistic methodology on a smaller scale demonstrate its possible and needs proper scaling to accommodate the globe coupled with other factors) is quite frankly, a cop-out... an easy way to 'give up'.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I said that I'm Asian, isn't it? so English is basically not my primary language.

I doubt that the reason is like that. It's too idealistic. Almost impossible to be realized. Exposed or influenced by the outside worlds is more "logical" and do-able. If you are Asian, then you should know that some of Asian countries are influenced by other culture. You can see at some of Islamic Countries like Indonesia. They are more Arabian than Indonesian, just because they are influenced by the religion. It is also happen to Japan. Look at them before the Meiji Restoration and then look the different after they take western culture.

I'm Asian, and English is my primary language, that's why I asked.
As far as religion goes, I think people will be less affected by religion as more general and relevant education gets spread around.
IMO, as long as better education and critical thinking goes, people will eventually end up like a Star Trek future where religion is a foot note in human history.
Most people who I've met that are highly intelligent and critical thinking tend to sway away from religion and influence others to think past most typical religious borders.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Religion was invented by Humanity.
So... species-wise, that particular influence was/is internal.

As such, there is nothing 'idealistic' about a non-monetary society that implements cybernation and automation as much as possible coupled with relevant general education of the entire global population.
It's merely a different way of thinking that could result in a world that is FAR better than what we have now (but it wouldn't be 'perfect' or a 'utopia' because such concepts are delusions).

Star Trek merely decided to go the 'culturally accepted' route and tell you that nothing short of violence and exposure to alien life (or fear of it) could change our way of thinking (again... a byproduct of a system that creates film-makers who know next to nothing about Human behavior or how technology works) - a similar thing happened in the movie 4th of July (which was a joke in itself).

Denying the premise that we can create this change on our own simply because the present socio-economic system creates a perception that anything else 'won't work' (even though various implementations of holistic methodology on a smaller scale demonstrate its possible and needs proper scaling to accommodate the globe coupled with other factors) is quite frankly, a cop-out... an easy way to 'give up'.

The main problem I see with your system from the Venus Project is that it takes away alot of free will.
A pre determined city has no room for people to build homes / businesses as they desire.
People won't be allowed to buy cars since there will be no cars.
People will have to use public transportation or walk.
Not everybody will be inclined to want to do things this way.
Your Venus Project would work if everybody willingly or by gun point goes along with it, but it feels like it's far from a perfect system.

What you have to give up to attain such a system is saddening IMO and most humans would never give such things up.
The option to have an automobile of my choice.
The option to have a house of my design.
The free will to create a store at a location of my choice and in a building of my choice.

Most people don't like being told what to do.
I'm one of those people.

I agree, having green technology is the way to go.

But destroying existing cities to do it is not the way to go.

Places like Las Vegas "The Strip"
Places like Hollywood Blvd.
All unique places in each city that make it interesting.
The venus project proposes to make domed nearly identical or very similar cities.
People would get bored of their city very fast.
The psychological factors from everything being the same would be very bad on humanity.
There is a reason why some people like moving to different cities, it's because it is a different environment / atmosphere that they can feel happy in.
To take away that aspect would harm a significant population of humanity in the name of progress.

True progress has to co-exist with certain existing aspects of humanity.
People do not take kindly when their vested rights as people get trampled.
I agree that if every house on Earth had solar / wind / other renewable features along with advance concrete construction, the sheer amount of energy consumption would drop.
One green way of storing energy is to use flywheel batteries.
Flywheel batteries have been around for a while and they don't leave toxic by products and have ~20+ year life times with newer designs getting better and better.

 

[Deks]

The main problem I see with your system from the Venus Project is that it takes away alot of free will.
A pre determined city has no room for people to build homes / businesses as they desire.
People won't be allowed to buy cars since there will be no cars.
People will have to use public transportation or walk.
Not everybody will be inclined to want to do things this way.
Your Venus Project would work if everybody willingly or by gun point goes along with it, but it feels like it's far from a perfect system.

What you have to give up to attain such a system is saddening IMO and most humans would never give such things up.
The option to have an automobile of my choice.
The option to have a house of my design.
The free will to create a store at a location of my choice and in a building of my choice.

No one is suggesting forcing anyone to do anything or taking away free will (how did you manage to arrive at such a conclusion?).
A pre-determined city would be designed with highest efficiency and self-sustainability in mind so it would provide for Human needs and most wants - but it would also be designed to accommodate growth and change (as opposed to current cities that aren't exactly what I would call 'modular').
While the VP advocates that most existing cities are leveled and harvested for their resources, some would be preserved as museums, or most of the structures in any given city would be removed, leaving only structures that contribute to the history.
Its extremely inefficient and more intensive on resource usage along with energy to restore existing cities.
But anyway... with new circular cities popping up, new designs would take shape (Fresco's designs are nothing more than a base template - a possible direction if you will).

You could do a bit more reading of the FAQ in the Venus Project since it addresses individual house building (don't do it half-way).
As it was explained there, those who want to design their own house will be able to choose from a vast database of templates and mix-mash them together, or put in their own design elements into the design, and will be able to display a holographic image and walk through the areas to see how it would look like, along with making changes before they decide upon on a final design.

As for automobiles...
Why would you want to 'own' them?
You need access to a car for the purpose of driving to a specific destination on-demand (80% of the time, most cars are sitting on a parking lot, taking up space, and is the primary reason as to why we over-produce them today).
You think that the majority of the population exposed to relevant general education in an environment that doesn't pay attention to these things would actually 'care' about social status' or what type of car you drive? That kind of nonsense is one of the reasons why we have problems in the first place and they only care 'now' because they are indoctrinated to think like that in the first place.
But either way... no one would take anything away from you or anyone else.
You are forgetting that you don't need to 'own' things, but require on-demand access to them. What's the purpose of owning a car if you can have it on-demand to transport you where you need?

If you want to pile stuff up in your home, that's your right - but you can only use one or two things at the same time anyway, so what's the point in cars sitting in 1 place doing nothing and taking up space?
Either way, this is why a transitional period is required.

And most old cities would be phased out slowly until most of the population (or newer generation) moved out to the new cities.
And I can tell you I would personally prefer moving to a highly advanced self-sustaining city in a heart-beat (as would probably a lot of the younger people, and those who are currently homeless).
If some people wanted to remain living in the older cities, no one would stop them.
You cannot force people out of their homes after all.
That is why a transitional period is required. So, some older cities could easily remain where they are right now, but with a lot of the population living in newer cities, it will probably be just a matter of time before others decide to move.

Public transport would be connected to a high degree with mag-lev trains.
Cars and VTOL (vertical take-off crafts) would be used for destinations that aren't reachable by mag-levs (which would be very few areas in the first place).
If people would 'have' to walk, distances for such walks in cities would be minimal -or they would be designed into the environment to prompt physical activity in children who are in schools.
Can you please do a bit more reading on the subject before you jump to assumptions of 'taking away free will' and similar notions?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

No one is suggesting forcing anyone to do anything or taking away free will (how did you manage to arrive at such a conclusion?).

By watching the videos on the Venus Project website that you linked me.
Everything looked identical, including the residential housing.
There was no freewill in the people changing the houses that they plan on living into what they wanted.
It felt like a Sci-Fi story city instead of a real city.

A pre-determined city would be designed with highest efficiency and self-sustainability in mind so it would provide for Human needs and most wants - but it would also be designed to accommodate growth and change (as opposed to current cities that aren't exactly what I would call 'modular').

I agree, city planning should be done with true foresight for optimal traffic, resource usage, etc, not like today where it's haphazard and based on the whims of businessmen.

While the VP advocates that most existing cities are leveled and harvested for their resources, some would be preserved as museums, or most of the structures in any given city would be removed, leaving only structures that contribute to the history.

What about places like New York where many Skyscrapers have historic meaning.
A place like Las Vegas where every casino / hotel on the strip has meaning.
Who gets to determine what is of historic value, different people are bound to disagree on what should be preserved, what should be torn down.

Its extremely inefficient and more intensive on resource usage along with energy to restore existing cities.

I agree, but the reason most cities need restoration is because alot of smaller buildings are made out of wood which has lots of vulnerabilities instead of using good materials like ICF (Insulated Concrete Form).
If every house used
1) ICF as their base construction point along with proper concrete foundation.
2) Removed ANY wood in it's construction along with any weak materials
3) Added Solar or other appropriate green renewable energy sources
4) Used Flywheel Batteries to store excess power generation
5) Used grey water reclamation
6) Used LINE-X Truck bed liner to coat the house on the interior / exterior.
7) Used the best insulated windows / doors.
You'd have a C-4 resistant, chemical resistant, fire resistant home that would probably last several centuries without maintainence barring terrorist attack, impact by vehicles or other big objects, and mega natural disasters.

But anyway... with new circular cities popping up, new designs would take shape (Fresco's designs are nothing more than a base template - a possible direction if you will).

I think a logical grid pattern is easier for humans to use, especially to subdivide land for various purposes.

You could do a bit more reading of the FAQ in the Venus Project since it addresses individual house building (don't do it half-way).

The VP FAQ is 108 points long with at least a sizeable paragraph in each point.
I only have so much free time in the day.

As it was explained there, those who want to design their own house will be able to choose from a vast database of templates and mix-mash them together, or put in their own design elements into the design, and will be able to display a holographic image and walk through the areas to see how it would look like, along with making changes before they decide upon on a final design.

As long as people get to make the house / work office they want, where they want, that's what matters.
Being forced into a design they don't like is what causes issues.
The video that the VP showed for it's conceptual city looked way too homogenized.
It felt like a city of automatons instead of a real city where everybody is individualistic, unqiue, have culture, diversity.

As for automobiles...
Why would you want to 'own' them?
You need access to a car for the purpose of driving to a specific destination on-demand (80% of the time, most cars are sitting on a parking lot, taking up space, and is the primary reason as to why we over-produce them today).

I like cars, I'm sort of a car enthusiast.
There are many others who are car enthusiasts.
Sometimes I like to just go on a drive and explore.
Is it a crime to waste energy on exploring for the sake of exploring?
Not everybody is going to see cars as a "A to B" tool.
Yes I have friends who treat cars like that, I also have friends who are like me who really enjoy automobiles for uses beyond a tool.
I have friends who like to race, some like off roading.
Or will racing / off roading be unacceptable in the VP project since it is not a practical use of resources and is technically a waste of energy?
Because I like cars, I like having my own car.
I don't want to share my car with others.
I don't want people to be mucking with my seat settings, mirrors, radio, etc.
I like having my own stuff, is there something wrong with that mentality?

You think that the majority of the population exposed to relevant general education in an environment that doesn't pay attention to these things would actually 'care' about social status' or what type of car you drive?

I don't care about what car a person drives or what type they drive.
I just care that I have my own car and that my car meets the requirements I set for it.
I care that people become decent polite drivers who think about others when sharing the road.

That kind of nonsense is one of the reasons why we have problems in the first place and they only care 'now' because they are indoctrinated to think like that in the first place.

A lot of people care about how expensive a car is because it's a social status image.
I care about cars based on if I like the looks of it, does it meet my requirements, is it fun to drive, how safe it is, etc.
I can care less about how much it's worth or if it's a expensive brand like BMW / Mercedes / etc.

But either way... no one would take anything away from you or anyone else.

Good, cause I'm not inclined to share my stuff unless I want to and I can trust the person I'm lending it to.

You are forgetting that you don't need to 'own' things, but require on-demand access to them. What's the purpose of owning a car if you can have it on-demand to transport you where you need?

I don't need to 'own' something, I WANT to own stuff.
I'm not a fan of being at somebody else's whim.
I don't want to have to wait for a resource to be free so I can use it.
I want my resource now, when I want it, so I can use it whenever I want, however I want, with no interference from anybody.
I don't want anything to waste my time unless I choose to waste it.

If you want to pile stuff up in your home, that's your right - but you can only use one or two things at the same time anyway, so what's the point in cars sitting in 1 place doing nothing and taking up space?

Because it's my car, and I can do with it however I wish.
I want it to be ready to go, whenever I want, with all the exact settings I like.
I don't want to have to deal with random smuck leaving a mess or a smell in a public use vehicle.
Some random jerk didn't fill up the energy tank in a public use vehicle.
If it's my car, I take full responsibility for the maintainence, servicing, etc.

Either way, this is why a transitional period is required.

Agreed.

And most old cities would be phased out slowly until most of the population (or newer generation) moved out to the new cities.
And I can tell you I would personally prefer moving to a highly advanced self-sustaining city in a heart-beat (as would probably a lot of the younger people, and those who are currently homeless).

There will always be those who want to move, not everybody will want to because they have friends / family in their area and a vested interest to stay where they are.

If some people wanted to remain living in the older cities, no one would stop them.
You cannot force people out of their homes after all.
That is why a transitional period is required. So, some older cities could easily remain where they are right now, but with a lot of the population living in newer cities, it will probably be just a matter of time before others decide to move.

Give people incentives to have a better life and they will move.

Public transport would be connected to a high degree with mag-lev trains.
Cars and VTOL (vertical take-off crafts) would be used for destinations that aren't reachable by mag-levs (which would be very few areas in the first place).

Some people would like to drive / fly for the sake of it.
I know I'm one of those people who would like to fly / drive just for the sake of such things, or is it illegal in the VP world?

If people would 'have' to walk, distances for such walks in cities would be minimal -or they would be designed into the environment to prompt physical activity in children who are in schools.

That's good in concept, but unless you plan ahead of time, getting mass transit to work that way is difficult.

Can you please do a bit more reading on the subject before you jump to assumptions of 'taking away free will' and similar notions?

Try to make the subject matter shorter to read, then you'll have more people finish reading it.
Make the video feel more like a real city instead of some homogenous Sci-Fi city.

 

[Brainsucker]

Religion was invented by Humanity.
So... species-wise, that particular influence was/is internal.

As such, there is nothing 'idealistic' about a non-monetary society that implements cybernation and automation as much as possible coupled with relevant general education of the entire global population.
It's merely a different way of thinking that could result in a world that is FAR better than what we have now (but it wouldn't be 'perfect' or a 'utopia' because such concepts are delusions).

Star Trek merely decided to go the 'culturally accepted' route and tell you that nothing short of violence and exposure to alien life (or fear of it) could change our way of thinking (again... a byproduct of a system that creates film-makers who know next to nothing about Human behavior or how technology works) - a similar thing happened in the movie 4th of July (which was a joke in itself).

Denying the premise that we can create this change on our own simply because the present socio-economic system creates a perception that anything else 'won't work' (even though various implementations of holistic methodology on a smaller scale demonstrate its possible and needs proper scaling to accommodate the globe coupled with other factors) is quite frankly, a cop-out... an easy way to 'give up'.

The main problem I see with your system from the Venus Project is that it takes away alot of free will.
A pre determined city has no room for people to build homes / businesses as they desire.
People won't be allowed to buy cars since there will be no cars.
People will have to use public transportation or walk.
Not everybody will be inclined to want to do things this way.
Your Venus Project would work if everybody willingly or by gun point goes along with it, but it feels like it's far from a perfect system.

What you have to give up to attain such a system is saddening IMO and most humans would never give such things up.
The option to have an automobile of my choice.
The option to have a house of my design.
The free will to create a store at a location of my choice and in a building of my choice.

Most people don't like being told what to do.
I'm one of those people.

I agree, having green technology is the way to go.

But destroying existing cities to do it is not the way to go.

Places like Las Vegas "The Strip"
Places like Hollywood Blvd.
All unique places in each city that make it interesting.
The venus project proposes to make domed nearly identical or very similar cities.
People would get bored of their city very fast.
The psychological factors from everything being the same would be very bad on humanity.
There is a reason why some people like moving to different cities, it's because it is a different environment / atmosphere that they can feel happy in.
To take away that aspect would harm a significant population of humanity in the name of progress.

True progress has to co-exist with certain existing aspects of humanity.
People do not take kindly when their vested rights as people get trampled.
I agree that if every house on Earth had solar / wind / other renewable features along with advance concrete construction, the sheer amount of energy consumption would drop.
One green way of storing energy is to use flywheel batteries.
Flywheel batteries have been around for a while and they don't leave toxic by products and have ~20+ year life times with newer designs getting better and better.

I like your post

And about religion and education, don't forget that there are different type of education in this world. One of them are religion based education. And what prevent people to grabs this type of education?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I like your post

And about religion and education, don't forget that there are different type of education in this world. One of them are religion based education. And what prevent people to grabs this type of education?

Thanks.

I believe people should have a factual based education. Along with lots of teaching about critical thinking, problem solving, and detailed multi-point analysis.
Modern education is about regurgitation and memorization with very little critical thinking and no room for criticism or analysis against the system.

Religion should be saved for after a person has grown passed their teenage years and have the mental maturity / capacity to make a solid decision for themselves to believe in a religion.

Most modern religion like to indoctrinate children when they're young and have the parents help re-enforce those belief systems.

I'm against that type of system. I find that most religions that practice that is tantamount to brain washing and not giving the person the chance to mature on their own and make a informed decision as a adult as to whether they want to be a part of said religion or not.

 

[The Castellan]

Religion was invented by Humanity.
So... species-wise, that particular influence was/is internal.

As such, there is nothing 'idealistic' about a non-monetary society that implements cybernation and automation as much as possible coupled with relevant general education of the entire global population.
It's merely a different way of thinking that could result in a world that is FAR better than what we have now (but it wouldn't be 'perfect' or a 'utopia' because such concepts are delusions).

Star Trek merely decided to go the 'culturally accepted' route and tell you that nothing short of violence and exposure to alien life (or fear of it) could change our way of thinking (again... a byproduct of a system that creates film-makers who know next to nothing about Human behavior or how technology works) - a similar thing happened in the movie 4th of July (which was a joke in itself).

Denying the premise that we can create this change on our own simply because the present socio-economic system creates a perception that anything else 'won't work' (even though various implementations of holistic methodology on a smaller scale demonstrate its possible and needs proper scaling to accommodate the globe coupled with other factors) is quite frankly, a cop-out... an easy way to 'give up'.

The main problem I see with your system from the Venus Project is that it takes away alot of free will.
A pre determined city has no room for people to build homes / businesses as they desire.
People won't be allowed to buy cars since there will be no cars.
People will have to use public transportation or walk.
Not everybody will be inclined to want to do things this way.
Your Venus Project would work if everybody willingly or by gun point goes along with it, but it feels like it's far from a perfect system.

What you have to give up to attain such a system is saddening IMO and most humans would never give such things up.
The option to have an automobile of my choice.
The option to have a house of my design.
The free will to create a store at a location of my choice and in a building of my choice.

Most people don't like being told what to do.
I'm one of those people.

I agree, having green technology is the way to go.

But destroying existing cities to do it is not the way to go.

Places like Las Vegas "The Strip"
Places like Hollywood Blvd.
All unique places in each city that make it interesting.
The venus project proposes to make domed nearly identical or very similar cities.
People would get bored of their city very fast.
The psychological factors from everything being the same would be very bad on humanity.
There is a reason why some people like moving to different cities, it's because it is a different environment / atmosphere that they can feel happy in.
To take away that aspect would harm a significant population of humanity in the name of progress.

True progress has to co-exist with certain existing aspects of humanity.
People do not take kindly when their vested rights as people get trampled.
I agree that if every house on Earth had solar / wind / other renewable features along with advance concrete construction, the sheer amount of energy consumption would drop.
One green way of storing energy is to use flywheel batteries.
Flywheel batteries have been around for a while and they don't leave toxic by products and have ~20+ year life times with newer designs getting better and better.

We got those in Mt. Clemons, Michigan, but Detroit Edison was able to get them all shut down, and they are nothing but giant paper weights, now. This right here shows how money actually keeps progress from happening.

As for domed cities, they'd be great on other worlds with nasty atmospheres, or none at all, but on Earth, would feel probably more like a prison. In fact, in my own Trek fictions, one of the early colony ships, that had many of the Earth's power mongers escaping justice by posing at fellow pilgrims, landed on an Earth like world, and the power mongers then made their move and the colony is a domed city, made specifically for keeping the psychotropic drugs in the air, and keeping the colonists docile and lame....like the Pluto colony in the Doctor Who episode, "The Sun Makers".

 

[Deks]

By watching the videos on the Venus Project website that you linked me.
Everything looked identical, including the residential housing.
There was no freewill in the people changing the houses that they plan on living into what they wanted.
It felt like a Sci-Fi story city instead of a real city.

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.

What about places like New York where many Skyscrapers have historic meaning.
A place like Las Vegas where every casino / hotel on the strip has meaning.
Who gets to determine what is of historic value, different people are bound to disagree on what should be preserved, what should be torn down.

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 agree, but the reason most cities need restoration is because alot of smaller buildings are made out of wood which has lots of vulnerabilities instead of using good materials like ICF (Insulated Concrete Form).
If every house used
1) ICF as their base construction point along with proper concrete foundation.
2) Removed ANY wood in it's construction along with any weak materials
3) Added Solar or other appropriate green renewable energy sources
4) Used Flywheel Batteries to store excess power generation
5) Used grey water reclamation
6) Used LINE-X Truck bed liner to coat the house on the interior / exterior.
7) Used the best insulated windows / doors.
You'd have a C-4 resistant, chemical resistant, fire resistant home that would probably last several centuries without maintainence barring terrorist attack, impact by vehicles or other big objects, and mega natural disasters.

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.
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).

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).
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 think a logical grid pattern is easier for humans to use, especially to subdivide land for various purposes.

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.

The VP FAQ is 108 points long with at least a sizeable paragraph in each point.
I only have so much free time in the day.

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).

As long as people get to make the house / work office they want, where they want, that's what matters.
Being forced into a design they don't like is what causes issues.
The video that the VP showed for it's conceptual city looked way too homogenized.
It felt like a city of automatons instead of a real city where everybody is individualistic, unqiue, have culture, diversity.

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 like cars, I'm sort of a car enthusiast.
There are many others who are car enthusiasts.
Sometimes I like to just go on a drive and explore.
Is it a crime to waste energy on exploring for the sake of exploring?
Not everybody is going to see cars as a "A to B" tool.
Yes I have friends who treat cars like that, I also have friends who are like me who really enjoy automobiles for uses beyond a tool.
I have friends who like to race, some like off roading.
Or will racing / off roading be unacceptable in the VP project since it is not a practical use of resources and is technically a waste of energy?
Because I like cars, I like having my own car.
I don't want to share my car with others.
I don't want people to be mucking with my seat settings, mirrors, radio, etc.
I like having my own stuff, is there something wrong with that mentality?

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.

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 don't care about what car a person drives or what type they drive.
I just care that I have my own car and that my car meets the requirements I set for it.
I care that people become decent polite drivers who think about others when sharing the road.

Agreed.
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.
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.

A lot of people care about how expensive a car is because it's a social status image.
I care about cars based on if I like the looks of it, does it meet my requirements, is it fun to drive, how safe it is, etc.
I can care less about how much it's worth or if it's a expensive brand like BMW / Mercedes / etc.

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.
Caring about how your car looks like, how safe its is to drive or how fun is it to drive is something else.

Good, cause I'm not inclined to share my stuff unless I want to and I can trust the person I'm lending it to.

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).

I don't need to 'own' something, I WANT to own stuff.
I'm not a fan of being at somebody else's whim.
I don't want to have to wait for a resource to be free so I can use it.
I want my resource now, when I want it, so I can use it whenever I want, however I want, with no interference from anybody.
I don't want anything to waste my time unless I choose to waste it.

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.).

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.

Because it's my car, and I can do with it however I wish.
I want it to be ready to go, whenever I want, with all the exact settings I like.
I don't want to have to deal with random smuck leaving a mess or a smell in a public use vehicle.
Some random jerk didn't fill up the energy tank in a public use vehicle.
If it's my car, I take full responsibility for the maintainence, servicing, etc.

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.

There will always be those who want to move, not everybody will want to because they have friends / family in their area and a vested interest to stay where they are.

And as I said, no one will be forced to move unless they want to.

Give people incentives to have a better life and they will move.

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).

Some people would like to drive / fly for the sake of it.
I know I'm one of those people who would like to fly / drive just for the sake of such things, or is it illegal in the VP world?

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.

That's good in concept, but unless you plan ahead of time, getting mass transit to work that way is difficult.

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?

Try to make the subject matter shorter to read, then you'll have more people finish reading it.
Make the video feel more like a real city instead of some homogenous Sci-Fi city.

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.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

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.

Agreed.
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.

 

[Deks]

I'll provide you with a detailed reply to those questions sometime tomorrow.
I'm rather tired now as its almost half past 10pm, and want to do some meditation later on before going to sleep.
Night.

 

[Brainsucker]

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.

I agree with this. It is basically impossible.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I agree with this. It is basically impossible.

I wouldn't say it's impossible, just improbable until obvious problems get solved and more awareness along with quite a few key events to play out for TVP to happen.

Honestly I think Jacques Fresco will die before he even sees the first real steps of TVP.

The way I see it, TVP & Jacques Fresco is one of the best ideas for the future of humanity. There's no denying it. What he says is mostly true. A method to get us to fix our problems before everything goes wrong and we screw ourselves. The closest thing to taking us in the direction of a Star Trek future.

There are a few key points I don't agree with in how his society would function compared to how reality will happen.

1) People around the world are not all of a sudden going to give up their vested interests in life, especially when they're on the top of the pecking order with money, power, influence, materials.
Even if the people know that it is a problem, they wouldn't be able to oust their government.
Most governments would use their army's to subdue the populace and enforce martial law before they let the government change.
Anything short of a bloody revolution with lots of near simultaneous assassinations of those in power / wealth, will TVP happen IMO.

2) Even with TVP, there will need to be a form of government managing society.
That's the short end of it.
Having machines as support for information and analytics is what will keep the society running by making decisions based on practical fact instead of whim / desire.
Having the machines take over all the decision making is too dangerous IMO.
I'm not worried about machines taking over, I'm worried about people hacking the system and skewing the information for 1 hackers personal gain / enjoyment.
We've all seen the rampant hacking in this world, it only takes 1 malcontent to screw everything up, especially in a more digital world.

There's a old saying, don't put all your eggs in 1 basket.
The same is with governance, you leave that much decision making in the hands of the machines, something is bound to screw it up for everybody.

Having people make all the important decisions and double / triple checking facts / calculations / forecasts / predictions is what will keep society running.
It may run a little slower, but people won't run into decision making based on stupid rehtoric, inflamed emotions, etc.

Just the other day, Discovery canceled "American Guns" because of the recent shootings in Conneticut (sp?).
There is not direct relation other than it's a show about guns and people are angry.

3) There might be a threat of lost knowledge if people do not properly pass on the skills, knowledge, history of certain trade craft in a TVP world if certain industries / crafts become unpopular.

Somebody will need to preserve some of this valuable knowledge.

4) People will not just magically behave the way you expect them to, even in a generalist educated society.
The world won't be full of saints, it'll be better, but it won't be perfect.

5) There will need to be laws and restrictions on technology due to how dangerous somethings are.
With proper training, people can learn anything under proper supervision, even the dangerous stuff.
I remember there was the kid trying to build a nuclear fission reactor in his garage.
He managed to lightly irradiate his neighborhood, nothing life threatening, but noticeably higher than average.
He was doing this to study about nuclear reactors and how to make it better.
He meant no harm and will probably end up being a nuclear physicist at this rate.

6) I don't know what TVP plan is fore jet engine aircraft, but anything short of coming up with a clean burning synthetic liquid solution, we'll need jet fuel (petroleum) in the foreseeable future when it comes to powering aircraft.

7) Even with a initial startup in TVP, there will be potential external threats from malcontents who want to terrorize with actual violence like 9/11.
We'll still need a standing military to defend TVP if it ever takes off.
There will be people very upset that there vested interests are being trampled on by the new system.

8) Even in Star Trek, Earth only got better after World War 3 and "First Contact" when man realized there is so much more potential for the human race thanks to aliens + FTL space travel.
It's probably going to take something monumental to get the human race to think differently and for TVP to become reality.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Honestly, the only way I can see TVP really take off is if there was a collusion between TVP & the US military along with a few other major militaries around the world.

TVP would need to promise the military industrial complex that they would effectively have a far bigger resource budget then current system would provide with the primary resource being man power to run the military industrial complex.

There would be a Coup d'etat between the militaries and all major powerful governments that would install a new unified government and the new system.

There would be alot of panic, probably alot of deaths, but in the end, it would be a better system as people would realize how good life would become.

Then there will be negotiations between this new government and other governments on converting.

There will be some resistance, and a few more wars.

Conquering would happen, and eventually a 1 world government.

Then TVP would truly happen.

 

[T'Girl]

No one is suggesting forcing anyone to do anything or taking away free will (how did you manage to arrive at such a conclusion?).

You have to admit Deks, your repeated use of the phrase "relevant general education" is kind of ominous.

You have posted that the current system indoctrinates people to a certain way of thinking, but you yourself are advocating the same thing, in favor of a different system.

 

[Deks]

You have to admit Deks, your repeated use of the phrase "relevant general education" is kind of ominous.
You have posted that the current system indoctrinates people to a certain way of thinking, but you yourself are advocating the same thing, in favor of a different system.

Ominous?
So, by suggesting to expand the awareness of the global population to include the latest scientific knowledge (among other things) and relevant information that would expand people's horizons is ominous?

By 'relevant general education', it means exposure to all subjects relating to man, encouragement of critical thought and to become problem solvers.
'Indoctrination' is a terminology that can be seen as 'limiting' Human perception of what is happening in the world.
The present education system is outdated, inefficient, and it doesn't expose children (or adults) to relevant information in a variety of subjects.
Its based on repetition, competition, very little critical thinking or problem solving involved, and the information in question is almost never delivered in a capacity that could be seen as 'engaging' (coupled with the overall negative perception present society is generating towards certain subjects).

I agree with this. It is basically impossible.

As it was already said, its not 'impossible'. The present socio-economic system did a terrific job in creating limited awareness of how Human behavior and technology works.
A lot of Humans jump to conclusions and attempt to justify it with the (relatively limited) knowledge at their disposal - which was rarely, if ever introduced to alternative options/solutions (as opposed to a singular perception and a way of doing things - which happen to work great for the present socio-economic system).
By this I'm not stating my perception or way of thinking are 'superior' in any capacity. It is merely different, and I also acknowledge the premise that there's A LOT of things I don't know about (in that regard, my knowledge is also limited).

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 if said person frequently commits same crimes / incidents?

Crimes of passion that you describe stem from the notion of 'possession' and that something 'belongs to you' (which humans in the present environment transpose to other humans they form emotional connections to) - a byproduct of a system based on 'ownership' (just because you have emotional ties to someone doesn't mean you 'own' them in any way - besides, monogamy is a byproduct of culture, and while it probably wouldn't be eradicated, crimes of passion you describe form not just because of the present system, but also because very few people are ever encouraged to approach life/situations in a 'calm' capacity, to control their emotions in a manner that would allow them to see things in a more objective capacity (this way of thinking is increasing however).

This kind of change won't happen over-night... but people would have to be re-educated during the transition and exposed to these ways of doing things if you want them to function in a resource based economy.
You simply cannot thrust people from a present system into a new one without tuning their minds to how the new system works or broadening their perceptions.

Police and governments would still exist during the transitional period, but once its done, they would be likely phased out because eventually, the need for them would no longer be present.

To simply incarcerate people for what we currently see as 'crimes' but not helping them is ineffective (neither would 'shaming' them for what they've done and then sending them on their way - your inferred 'solution' is a bit [forgive me for saying this] offensive).
Most crimes committed today are related to the system the people doing them grew up in (tied to finances) - but even in cases of those who could be considered 'true pshychopats' (for a lack of better term), their behavior is down to the environment as well.
Increasing number of psychiatrists is barely starting to acknowledge that trying to search for the underlying cause of the person's behavior is the way to helping them.
In a resource based economy, their behavior would have to be examined in fullest detail to see if they can be helped and discouraged from creating future incidents (you have to make sure to look at the bigger picture from the start, because if you don't, then problems could easily arise down the line).
Imprisoning people and putting them into a depraving environment full (like we do today) will only serve to propagate aberrant forms of behavior - and in most cases, they often come out of prison even more dangerous than what they were.
This is NOT a solution.
Also... what is the point of 'eye for an eye'? If people adhered to that philosophy, everyone would go blind.

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?

Why would people take someone's stuff away from them when they would have the ability to requisition exactly the same for themselves on demand and use it how/when they see fit?
People steal today mostly because of money, or because they want to have that particular item.
A resource based economy would make this moot because everything would be accessible to everyone - so there would be no point to stealing.
The main point here is educating people to understand that if they need or want something, they merely have to make a request to the distribution center and that's it.
Also... should an incident of 'stealing' even happen, what makes you think a violent conflict would arise?
Exposing people to various forms of mental techniques such as meditation for the purpose of calming ones emotions, violent outbursts as you see them today would be minimized if not completely eradicated - if that is the purpose of what the individual is trying to achieve.
It is possible.

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?

You realize this particular example borders slightly on the absurd for a few relatively 'obvious' reasons... still, I shall attempt to explain (but I repeat, I do NOT have all the answers, nor do I presume that what I say is necessarily accurate - though it should fit into the concept of TVP):
First off, we'd have to ascertain what caused the nuke to go off.
The entire situation would have to be examined using the scientific method.
Also, why would you want to create a nuclear device that has the potential to go off and endanger an entire city without taking proper security measures, shielding, etc.?
Why would you want to even make it in an area that is ill-equipped to take care of possible problems?
Have we learned nothing from past mistakes?

People would be provided with the necessary tools/technology/resources to ensure safety first and foremost, or you would work in an area that is properly equipped for that kind of device in the first place (if that happens to be your basement or whatnot, then hopefully you will be responsible enough to request necessary tools/technology/resources to ensure maximum safety for not just yourself but also the city before you even initiate the project).
If this was an accident, then there's no reason to think you would be prohibited from making another nuke... but uhm, would you happen to be so negligent to endanger entire populations AGAIN and therefore repeat the same mistakes?
Seriously, the entire Venus Project is based on the notion of exposing people to relevant general education, broadening their horizons and making them RESPONSIBLE for their own behavior in the process (very few people are today - in spite of so-called 'laws') that ensures safety (among other things) of others as much as themselves.

It almost seems as if you are actively seeking for a way to justify incarceration of an individual and that the general population is somehow 'unable' to 'govern themselves' without the rudimentary/outdated 'laws' currently in existence - or that you cannot possibly envision such a world to exist.
In a highly mechanized/technologically developed environment, you cannot rely on Humans alone to ensure safety precautions. Besides, making technology without planned obsolescence in mind and instilling as many fail-safes as needed would probably negate scenarios that you describe. Spectacular failures of technology today occur BECAUSE of planned obsolescence... and incidents where technology is designed not to break down and to INSURE safety has seen next to 0 problems arising - that said, risks are present either way, but in TVP, they would be even further minimized to levels where they simply wouldn't endanger population as we know it (like its doable now).
You are actively/intentionally projecting notions from the current system into a new one. This is exactly why a transitional period and re-education of the population is required - otherwise, it won't work as intended (and while I will agree that Humans have historically 'perverted' virtually every system to suit their own needs, that was mostly because the global population was NEVER exposed to the relevant general knowledge, nor were they encouraged to grow up in an environment to care for others that continuously promotes that behavior, or a ton of other factors that were never put in).

IMO, Constitutional Representative Democracy in itself is not a bad form of government, the founding fathers had the right idea.
However a lot 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 can see this working during the transitional period where it would create a 'bridge' so that people would grow accustomed to completely new ideas and ways of thinking over time, but not in the long run. Any system featuring Humans in positions of power over the majority for long periods of time is heavily subject to corruption at some point or another, and before long, you end up with the same problems we have now because you are creating the sense of separation between people (social stratification).
To get rid of most forms of inequality or eradicating it entirely, social stratification in the above mentioned form shouldn't be allowed to foster/linger for long periods of time - which is why I said it probably should be temporary.
As I said, what you are proposing is an adequate solution for the transitional period to create enough awareness and practical implementations for eventual TVP, but not for the long run if you expect to solve existing problems permanently.

I personally don't trust a lot 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.

No one said that computers aren't prone to being skewed/hacked... but we are talking about a system that fundamentally eradicates the incentive for harmful behavior in the first place using education mostly and creates a different way of thinking/doing things.

When you look at why hacking occurs today... for some its basically a way for people to 'rebel' against the present system in one way or another... or to try and remove the notion that they are being 'controlled' (in essence, by leveling the playing field through THEM being the ones who control the situation).
Some might do it for the mere fun of it, but ask yourself, what type of behavior is responsible for that?
Look at the amount of viruses, trojans, etc. flowing around the web.
First off, a lot of the anti-virus companies are the ones who actually make them so they could entice people into getting their security programs, etc. (ensuring long term profits).
Many people who steal personal information and credit cards, do so for financial reason (money).
Other types of hackers basically hack numerous websites to test their security measures.
Look at how many times governments and individual websites were hacked and then INFORMED by the said hackers to tell them they need to implement better security?
So... not all forms of hacking are inherently 'bad'.

Like it or not, Humanity is relying more and more on technology.
It is up to us to accept this reality (because going backward is quite frankly a ridiculous proposal that doesn't make any sense) and try to create a world where we can use technology to improve all our lives and remove artificially imposed limitations.
But as I said, technology alone is not enough.
Human behavior needs to change. We can do that by changing the environment we live in that is there to improve everyone's lives and repair the damage done to the planet through mis-use of technology for the sake of profits - and also, actively exposing the entire population to relevant general education (by limiting information to people, you limit their perceptions and ways of thinking and are making them prone to being manipulated and used) and bringing social awareness up to date with our latest scientific knowledge.

And now I have to go, seeing how I have some other work to do (composing these rather lengthy replies is time consuming - but I also like doing it).
I can try replying to other posts in more detail when I get the time.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Crimes of passion that you describe stem from the notion of 'possession' and that something 'belongs to you' (which humans in the present environment transpose to other humans they form emotional connections to) - a byproduct of a system based on 'ownership' (just because you have emotional ties to someone doesn't mean you 'own' them in any way - besides, monogamy is a byproduct of culture, and while it probably wouldn't be eradicated, crimes of passion you describe form not just because of the present system, but also because very few people are ever encouraged to approach life/situations in a 'calm' capacity, to control their emotions in a manner that would allow them to see things in a more objective capacity (this way of thinking is increasing however).

This kind of change won't happen over-night... but people would have to be re-educated during the transition and exposed to these ways of doing things if you want them to function in a resource based economy.
You simply cannot thrust people from a present system into a new one without tuning their minds to how the new system works or broadening their perceptions.

Police and governments would still exist during the transitional period, but once its done, they would be likely phased out because eventually, the need for them would no longer be present.

To simply incarcerate people for what we currently see as 'crimes' but not helping them is ineffective (neither would 'shaming' them for what they've done and then sending them on their way - your inferred 'solution' is a bit [forgive me for saying this] offensive).
Most crimes committed today are related to the system the people doing them grew up in (tied to finances) - but even in cases of those who could be considered 'true pshychopats' (for a lack of better term), their behavior is down to the environment as well.
Increasing number of psychiatrists is barely starting to acknowledge that trying to search for the underlying cause of the person's behavior is the way to helping them.
In a resource based economy, their behavior would have to be examined in fullest detail to see if they can be helped and discouraged from creating future incidents (you have to make sure to look at the bigger picture from the start, because if you don't, then problems could easily arise down the line).
Imprisoning people and putting them into a depraving environment full (like we do today) will only serve to propagate aberrant forms of behavior - and in most cases, they often come out of prison even more dangerous than what they were.
This is NOT a solution.
Also... what is the point of 'eye for an eye'? If people adhered to that philosophy, everyone would go blind.

I agree, examining root cause of behavior is very important.
But what about in the time after arrest and before finding the root cause of the problem, what will society do with the people, since you don't plan on incarcerating them in any fashion, what is the solution?

Police IMO, aren't there just to stop / prevent crimes.
They are a psychological / logical deterrant to most people.
It's what helps keep some people who are on the fence honest.
That's why I think their existence is necessary.

People are not always rational, that's why they may go for 'eye for an eye' + interest.
Enflamed emotions have a tendency to bring that out of people.

Why would people take someone's stuff away from them when they would have the ability to requisition exactly the same for themselves on demand and use it how/when they see fit?
People steal today mostly because of money, or because they want to have that particular item.
A resource based economy would make this moot because everything would be accessible to everyone - so there would be no point to stealing.
The main point here is educating people to understand that if they need or want something, they merely have to make a request to the distribution center and that's it.
Also... should an incident of 'stealing' even happen, what makes you think a violent conflict would arise?
Exposing people to various forms of mental techniques such as meditation for the purpose of calming ones emotions, violent outbursts as you see them today would be minimized if not completely eradicated - if that is the purpose of what the individual is trying to achieve.
It is possible.

Because people have been known to do irrational things, even when there is a obvious solution in front of them.
What if a person doesn't want to meditate or calm down.
Not everybody is going to do what is rational or what's good for them.
It only takes one person's violence to incite retaliation in violence from another person / party.

You realize this particular example borders slightly on the absurd for a few relatively 'obvious' reasons... still, I shall attempt to explain (but I repeat, I do NOT have all the answers, nor do I presume that what I say is necessarily accurate - though it should fit into the concept of TVP):
First off, we'd have to ascertain what caused the nuke to go off.
The entire situation would have to be examined using the scientific method.
Also, why would you want to create a nuclear device that has the potential to go off and endanger an entire city without taking proper security measures, shielding, etc.?
Why would you want to even make it in an area that is ill-equipped to take care of possible problems?
Have we learned nothing from past mistakes?

People would be provided with the necessary tools/technology/resources to ensure safety first and foremost, or you would work in an area that is properly equipped for that kind of device in the first place (if that happens to be your basement or whatnot, then hopefully you will be responsible enough to request necessary tools/technology/resources to ensure maximum safety for not just yourself but also the city before you even initiate the project).
If this was an accident, then there's no reason to think you would be prohibited from making another nuke... but uhm, would you happen to be so negligent to endanger entire populations AGAIN and therefore repeat the same mistakes?
Seriously, the entire Venus Project is based on the notion of exposing people to relevant general education, broadening their horizons and making them RESPONSIBLE for their own behavior in the process (very few people are today - in spite of so-called 'laws') that ensures safety (among other things) of others as much as themselves.

I'm saying worse case scenario.

Even with the best intentioned people / most well thought out plans / preparations, bad stuff might happen.

It almost seems as if you are actively seeking for a way to justify incarceration of an individual and that the general population is somehow 'unable' to 'govern themselves' without the rudimentary/outdated 'laws' currently in existence - or that you cannot possibly envision such a world to exist.
In a highly mechanized/technologically developed environment, you cannot rely on Humans alone to ensure safety precautions. Besides, making technology without planned obsolescence in mind and instilling as many fail-safes as needed would probably negate scenarios that you describe. Spectacular failures of technology today occur BECAUSE of planned obsolescence... and incidents where technology is designed not to break down and to INSURE safety has seen next to 0 problems arising - that said, risks are present either way, but in TVP, they would be even further minimized to levels where they simply wouldn't endanger population as we know it (like its doable now).
You are actively/intentionally projecting notions from the current system into a new one. This is exactly why a transitional period and re-education of the population is required - otherwise, it won't work as intended (and while I will agree that Humans have historically 'perverted' virtually every system to suit their own needs, that was mostly because the global population was NEVER exposed to the relevant general knowledge, nor were they encouraged to grow up in an environment to care for others that continuously promotes that behavior, or a ton of other factors that were never put in).

It only takes 1 person trying to do things for self gain / satisfaction to break from the logical / general educational ideals.
My question is how do you deal with said person when they do something tremendously bad that affects alot of other people.

I can see this working during the transitional period where it would create a 'bridge' so that people would grow accustomed to completely new ideas and ways of thinking over time, but not in the long run. Any system featuring Humans in positions of power over the majority for long periods of time is heavily subject to corruption at some point or another, and before long, you end up with the same problems we have now because you are creating the sense of separation between people (social stratification).
To get rid of most forms of inequality or eradicating it entirely, social stratification in the above mentioned form shouldn't be allowed to foster/linger for long periods of time - which is why I said it probably should be temporary.
As I said, what you are proposing is an adequate solution for the transitional period to create enough awareness and practical implementations for eventual TVP, but not for the long run if you expect to solve existing problems permanently.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

No one said that computers aren't prone to being skewed/hacked... but we are talking about a system that fundamentally eradicates the incentive for harmful behavior in the first place using education mostly and creates a different way of thinking/doing things.

When you look at why hacking occurs today... for some its basically a way for people to 'rebel' against the present system in one way or another... or to try and remove the notion that they are being 'controlled' (in essence, by leveling the playing field through THEM being the ones who control the situation).
Some might do it for the mere fun of it, but ask yourself, what type of behavior is responsible for that?
Look at the amount of viruses, trojans, etc. flowing around the web.
First off, a lot of the anti-virus companies are the ones who actually make them so they could entice people into getting their security programs, etc. (ensuring long term profits).
Many people who steal personal information and credit cards, do so for financial reason (money).
Other types of hackers basically hack numerous websites to test their security measures.
Look at how many times governments and individual websites were hacked and then INFORMED by the said hackers to tell them they need to implement better security?
So... not all forms of hacking are inherently 'bad'.

I'm not saying all forms of hacking are inherently 'bad'.
However, there are those who do it just for the "Lulz".
They just enjoy screwing with other people.
What's your solution to dealing with them if they're not doing it for malevolent purposes.
They won't stop no matter what either.

Like it or not, Humanity is relying more and more on technology.
It is up to us to accept this reality (because going backward is quite frankly a ridiculous proposal that doesn't make any sense) and try to create a world where we can use technology to improve all our lives and remove artificially imposed limitations.
But as I said, technology alone is not enough.
Human behavior needs to change. We can do that by changing the environment we live in that is there to improve everyone's lives and repair the damage done to the planet through mis-use of technology for the sake of profits - and also, actively exposing the entire population to relevant general education (by limiting information to people, you limit their perceptions and ways of thinking and are making them prone to being manipulated and used) and bringing social awareness up to date with our latest scientific knowledge.

And now I have to go, seeing how I have some other work to do (composing these rather lengthy replies is time consuming - but I also like doing it).
I can try replying to other posts in more detail when I get the time.

I'm a technologist myself, I agree we have to move forward.
However the way we want to use technology is where we disagree.
I agree that human behavior needs to change.
TVP Generalist education is a good start.

But even with that, I don't think there are enough safe guards in the current TVP system.

Anyways I better get going to, I've spent way too much time replying on this thread as is.

It's been fun, TTYL.

 

[Unicron]

Since this topic has veered more towards discussion of society and general economics, I've decided to move it to General Trek Discussion. It's interesting to read, though.