Poll: The Venus Project

[Wintermoot]

I,m going to quote Appleseed here (1988 OVA) "If you have everything you could possibly want then what is the point of living?"
it,s set in a utopia where everybody is satisfied (little crime,no unemployment, free health care etc.) but people are just existing and not living.
I,m not saying it,s a bad thing but just not for me.

 

[gigastrike]

I would vote against it.

To me, humankind advances and grows through conflict and competition.

That's why I've always had issue with the idealised "utopia" worlds that people want so much.

If people do not compete for what little there is, and if everything is provided, what is there to strive for?

How will people improve themselves if there is literally no reason to improve yourself from your needs being met?

There is no need to improve yourself now. It's not like we live in the distant past where mankind had to compete with each other just to survive. You can live the exact same life for as long as you live and still be able to buy food as long as you have income. And tell me, why have so many things even been invented? Do we need TVs to live? Do we need a space program? Would mankind die off if we had never harnessed electricity? Heck no. People invent stuff because they want to, not necessarily because they have to.

The inventors will dicover new technologies because of their own inherent curiosity. They will have a desire to make something out of their life and will create new technology to satiate it.

 

[pirate64]

In a perfect world, yeah this would work. pity about human nature though. With no work People would get bored very quickly. Humans, psychologicly need to have goals and challenges, jobs are a good why of creating these. without them people would look for new goals and tasks,now these could simply be hobby's like collecting or maybe sport or education (though this may be unlikely as primarily people take education in order to increase knowledge in a subject that is related to some form of job e.g. I'm studying psychology in order to obtain a job in that field,so if there is no need to work then why the hell would I bother?)

A good example of this is when you get fired or stop working for whatever reason. at first it's ok but pretty soon you start getting bored and feel you need to actively do something, a task of some sorts.

so basicly nice idea but I couldn't see it happening. not unless they found some way of decreasing or eradicating our need to full fill goals, and I don't think that plan would go over very well with the masses at all.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

It's an idea that sounds good in theory, but in practice would probably turn into Brave New World. (Because of, you know, humans sucking?) So I'm going to mark it as "unattainable utopia."

 

[AngryMongoose]

Yeah, I'd look forward to this. Not exactly "Completely New" though. Problem is in how you'd transition to it. You'd have a huge period of mass unemployment, which under rather a lot of popular economic systems would cause problems. Also, a lot of humans are dicks and'd fuck it up. We could have complete freedom (and, tbh, all those other things you mentioned) now if it weren't for that.

At the very least you could have robots do all the manual labour.

 

[sumanoskae]

Two major problems

1) A lack of responsibility will not prevent conflict, as no resource is infinite, and there will always be things that people want that they simply can't have(Love, power, intelligence, admiration, etc). Further more, this will not prevent selfishness or greed. People have a need for conquest, if they think they have everything(By some divine miracle), they will not be satisfied, they'll just be bored. This theory will not eliminate the biggest resource contributer to human sadism, the social resource. It isn't poverty that creates anger, it's abuse, alienation and injustice. Equality cannot exist because not all humans are born with equal opportunity, thus there will always be injustice, that is the way of the world.

2) As with all decadent systems, a lack of conflict will rob future generations of understanding of their own system. If a perfect human creates a perfect place, then there will be no need for their offspring to live up to them in order to face the hardships they did. Thus, when they die, there will be nobody alive capable of understanding and upholding this utopia they've created.

It's hardship that makes people who they are, without it, they become compulsive and inept, trying constantly to find a source for their natural anger and angst, because without an enemy, they feel powerless and bored, with no chance to apply themselves. They become weak, subject to the eventual malfunctions of the machines on which they rely, easy prey for foreign rulers(If something is perfect, it is desired by all, and thus a struggle for power is created) and natural disasters. If utopia were possible, then it would have been achieved already. Perfection is unnatural, as it is imperfection and pain that creates desire, and desire which gives the will to live.

 

[feauxx]

this project is explained very well in the movie 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward', go check it out it is free to watch and very interesting!

http://www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com/

i believe it is also discussed in the second Zeitgeist movie. i think it is a great idea but it would take at least half of the population to stand up and fight for this ideal to even have a chance of one day changing the world for the better. the riots in egypt have shown that change is possible if people work together, i'm things like the Zeitgeist movement exist, though i don't actively participate.

 

[SilentCom]

This sounds good on paper but probably won't work. The last attempt was communism and we all know how that went. There will be plenty of unforseen complications, it is real life after all.

 

[Veylon]

There's nothing new about this. Isaac Asimov imagined a world called Solaria where robots do all work whilst the humans lounged around and picked at hobbies. He imagined this all the way back in 1957.

What's interesting about this is that it isn't particularly Communist or Capitalist, because ultimately hinge on how to distribute scarce wealth amongst the various workers of society. A world where nobody works and wealth isn't scarce would regard such economic theories as meaningless and indistinguishable as the difference between Monophysitism and Dyophysitism.

It would, without a doubt, be unbelievably decadent by our standards, just our society is unbelievably decadent by Medieval standards. It wouldn't be unworkable, assuming that the underclass of machine servants are properly programmed and that the resources that they eat up on our behalf don't overstrain the environment.

Of course, we are a long, long, long way from putting this kind of thing in place. Things like global starvation, war, and political discord would have to be done away with first.

 

[Para199x]

Their will always be work. Their will always be monotony. I would love to see a world united under one flag. It will never happen. Human emotion and mentality are too potent to ever control. Where religion, politics, class systems, will prevent this for thousands of years. If we make it that far.

A world united under one flag is a world forced to have one culture, to be ruled by one governing class.

The only way Earth can be united is by some form of oppression, in one way or another.

Never heard of multiculturalism? Also if you look back across human history (if you ignore people gaining independence from imperial powers) nations only ever (maybe there's a case of the opposite in which case in the overwhelming majority of cases) eventually unite.

 

[Para199x]

oops double post

 

[DungeonMonkey]

Of course, we are a long, long, long way from putting this kind of thing in place. Things like global starvation, war, and political discord would have to be done away with first.

Not necessarily. The primary obstacle for projects like this is coordinating ourselves. We hate each other so much, that we can't find it in our hearts to work toward a common goal.

I'm not going to pull the punch here, this is mostly because of the western world's right wing-ers. Their leaders serve the corporations, who own everything in the western world. If we can topple the corporations (and replace them with small businesses) not only would the economy not collapse, it would work better. Frankly, it's way more black-and-white than you might think in that respect.

If you don't think so, think long and hard about the biggest (and one might say only) benefit of Capitalism: No rules, and a Darwinian market, so if something collapses, something else will take it's place.

Luckily, the corporations are old and weak, and will topple like dominoes once we stop holding them up.

Viva la revolution.

 

[Veylon]

Of course, we are a long, long, long way from putting this kind of thing in place. Things like global starvation, war, and political discord would have to be done away with first.

Not necessarily. The primary obstacle for projects like this is coordinating ourselves. We hate each other so much, that we can't find it in our hearts to work toward a common goal.

Yes. But those things would still need to be done away as a matter of course. Almost by definition, the Venus project would lack starvation, war, and (extreme) political discord.

And I'm not, by any stretch, a big fan of Capitalism. I'm only for it in a everything-else-works-worse sort of way. Ultimately, it's Capitalism that has underwritten and will underwrite the costs for developing the technology necessary for Venus.

 

[Lilani]

Well, limitless resources produced completely by machines sounds just lovely. But you still need SOME physical workers to watch over things, troubleshoot and fix things with necessary. And if everyone gets everything they want by default, what reason does anyone have to give up their time and do that? I know I wouldn't want to sit around watching over machinery while everyone else is out tending to their hobbies.

It's a nice idea, but not feasible. Unless they can come up with robots with near sentient intelligence that can find raw materials, fix things, upgrade, and expand as necessary--so that even if absolutely everything goes wrong we still won't need to intervene--it's just not possible.

Hell, even if they came up with robots like that, who would preside over them? Who would keep tabs to make sure everything is going as planned? You'd still need dedicated people to do that. And you'd need people around at all times that already know how everything runs, in case of a catastrophic meltdown.

Something like that can never exist. Human nature just won't allow it.

 

[sexbutler]

At what point do miserable burly gentlemen start patrolling the streets wearing diving suits and carrying the latest Black & Decker?

I think you entirely missed the point of Bioshock...

 

[Kachiporra]

But what if the robots turn against us?

 

[DesertMummy]

Not for me. If everyone had everything, none would have to work, now it sounds good on paper, but you know how summer vacation eventually gets boring (I'm 15, please bear with the analogy)? Thats what I think this would be like. No one would have to work, and it actually reminds me of Wall-e where everyone got fat. I don't know, I mean I can't stand people who have everything they want and didn't have to work for it so they are spoiled and think they are entitled to everything. Everyone would be like that in this future. I would probably snap within a matter of months. So the concept sounds good, kind of, but it is all payoff with no work, and so I think that that is how people would turn out, all entitled and snobby.

 

[Lucane]

Does anyone else think this sounds and looks like pre-war Brink?

 

[DungeonMonkey]

Of course, we are a long, long, long way from putting this kind of thing in place. Things like global starvation, war, and political discord would have to be done away with first.

Not necessarily. The primary obstacle for projects like this is coordinating ourselves. We hate each other so much, that we can't find it in our hearts to work toward a common goal.

Yes. But those things would still need to be done away as a matter of course. Almost by definition, the Venus project would lack starvation, war, and (extreme) political discord.

And I'm not, by any stretch, a big fan of Capitalism. I'm only for it in a everything-else-works-worse sort of way. Ultimately, it's Capitalism that has underwritten and will underwrite the costs for developing the technology necessary for Venus.

Right there with ya pal*. But my point was more that "true" Capitalism is the perfect system to get us out of this mess, and hey, we've already suffered the bad of it, why can't we get the good part?**



*My view on this is that Capitalism did a bang up job of getting us to this point (though there was probably a better way). The fact is, however, that it is no longer useful. It has sadly caused a lot of problems, though, and like I said above, I think we should turn it loose one more time before we shelf it.

**The answer lies in a quote by good old Einstein: Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

EDIT: Ack, I failed to discern the point of your post before replying. My bad for posting while tired.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

Sounds really boring.