Where are we going? Part 2

Don't want to see Ads? Register for your free dotSUB account here!

Duration: 1 hour, 17 minutes and 12 seconds

Country: United States

Language: English

License: CC - Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives

Genre: None

Views: 3,790 (2,417 embedded)

Posted by: admin on Jan 5, 2010

Where are we going? Part 2

Report this video as offensive

Translate and Transcribe

Embed Video
Embed normal player
Embed a smaller player
Advanced Embedding Options
Embedding Options

Size:

Language:

Embed Code
Embed transcript
Embed transcript in:
Invite a user to dotSUB

Your invitation to join dotSUB was successful

There was an error inviting that user to dotSUB

Video Transcription

Show in new window

Part 2: Project earth
there is a concept in an electrical Engineering call the signal to noise radio
which has to do with the ratio of the signal power to a noise power which corrupts the signal.
It's like listening the music on the radio on a car, which is receiving a great interferences,
and the music is becoming clouded and distorted
i thinks this is a great metaphore for our current social practices,
the signal been the fundacional aspects and importants and relevants to a given field
whith the noise been the outdated, traditionals, inefficiency methods
which cloud, confuse, delay and distorted our intense inabilities
So, I want everyone to forget pretty much everything I've just talked about...
...and take a massive step back and consider a very simple thought exercise that I want to walk through...
...in regard to how we conduct our operations on this planet.
Let's assume for a moment that we are interstellar travelers...
...originating from Earth, as it is known today;
and in our journey we stumble upon, amazingly enough, an exact replica of our planet.
The only difference between the current state of this new planet versus our own...
...is that there are no human beings, human evolution has not occurred.
Hence, there is no establishment orders, no social arrogance, no money of course,
nothing to limit our possibility.
Given the advanced scientific knowledge we have today,
how would we go about redesigning our social infrastructure from the ground up?
With the goal to create, nothing less, than the most efficient, conscientious and sustainable society as possible.
So, what is the first step?
A full survey of Earth's natural resources would make sense, correct?
I think it would be illogical to begin any other way.
We must first understand the full range and capacity of the earthly components...
...in order to derive inference as to our capabilities.
Natural resources come in many classifications:
just biotic, meaning those obtained from the biosphere, such as forests, maritime organisms, mineral fuels,
and then there is abiotic, such as arable land, water, gold, iron ore, and other such raw materials.
There are many natural resources to be considered, of course,
but for the sake of simplicity we're going to consider just one area...
...and this will serve as the prototype for all the others;
and this area is energy.
Energy is the fuel of society, I think most people would agree.
Energy appears to be the lowest common denominator of modern civilization,
and it has been the basic facilitator of progress and the expansions of our standards of living.
So I think it's a good place to begin.
Ok, so what do we do?
We simply scan the Earth and analyze it,
listing all relevant energy locations and potentials.
Of course, the potentials, to clarify a little bit,
is always going to be based on the current state of technology for harnessing.
For example, solar energy today has a dramatic potential,
but it is still greatly underutilized as the technology has been inefficient so far;
but with the advent of nanotechnology,
we are seeing a possible exponential increase in this potential.
So it's contingent upon the quality of our methods is my point.
Also, I don't want to spend much time on the issue of nanotechnology,
but if you research these trends as applied to solar radiation harnessing,
it becomes clear that solar energy alone, in time,
could power the entire world a thousand times over.
Unfortunately, you are not going to see this anytime soon.
Why? Because it is too efficient for the market system.
And the absorption process would take many, many years...
...if seriously pursued.
So, back to our original thought exercise.
Once we have this raw data of energy sources,
we need to rate each source...
...based on its renewability, pollution output, and everything that factors in,
to decide the degree of sustainability.
Those sources that have the most negative retroactions...
...are given the least priority of utilization, of course;
and by the way this is an arbitrary chart,
don't take it too seriously, obviously.
For example, fossil fuels are mostly non-renewable and can pollute the environment.
Given the tremendous power of geothermal, wave, wind, and solar combined,
I would say that there is absolutely no reason to even bother with fossil fuels at all.
And to clarify this very quickly I would like to run down these renewable mediums.
According to a 2005 Stanford University study,
if 20% of the known potential of wind energy was harnessed...
...it would power all the world's needs.
We already mentioned solar energy;
the radiation hitting the Earth's surface is about 10,000 times the planet's usage in fact.
This issue comes down to technology, nanotechnology, as we denoted,
Lesser known is tidal power.
As a regional example, in a recent study, it has been found...
...that 34% of all of the United Kingdom`s energy...
...could come from tidal power alone.
But, more effectively, as far as the ocean, is wave power,
which has been found to have a global potential...
...of 80,000 terawatt hours a year,
meaning 50% of the entire planet's energy usage...
...could come from tidal power alone.
However, most effectively, is geothermal energy,
which, according to a recent MIT analysis,
contains enough energy to meet the world's needs...
...for the next 4,000 years.
In other words, energy is nothing but abundant on this planet,
and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
So, back to our exercise.
Once this data is established,
we compare the potentials to consumption, and adjust accordingly.
Fortunately, as we've just analyzed,
we do have more than enough energy to meet our needs.
So, we can eliminate the least efficient sources,
such as oil and everything else.
And there we have it, we have our pool of supportive energy resources to utilise.
Ok. Step 3: distribution and monitoring.
Energy distribution would be logically formulated...
...based on technological possibility...
...and proximity to sources.
In other words, if we had wind energy utilized in Asia,
we're not going to deliver that energy to Latin America.
So, distribution parameters will be self evident...
...based on the current state of distribution technology...
...and proximity practicality.
Likewise, active resource monitoring,
done through earth sensors and computers,
would allow for a constant awareness of the rate of use,
the rate of depletion, the rate of renewal,
and any other parameter relevant to know;
in order to maintain, of course, a balanced load.
If the scarcity of any resource is going to occur,
we can forecast this in advance...
...through trend analysis and proper action to be taken to adjust accordingly.
This idea is nothing new, it's used every day in our lives...
...in detached ways...
...such as the ink level notification on your personal printer...
...connected to your home computer.
Ok, let's review.
What do we have so far?
We have the locations of our energy resources,
we have the output potentials and distribution qualifiers, which are based on...
...strategic use, technological harnessing and proximity.
And finally, we have a system of active resource monitoring,
which reports the state of energy supply, rates of usage and any other relevant trends.
In other words, we've created a system...
...a 'systems' approach to energy management on the planet.
The system is comprised of real time data and statistics.
The process of unfolding is based, not on a person or group's opinion,
not on the whims of a corporation or government,
but on natural law and reason.
In other words, once we establish the interest and goal that...
...survival, and hence sustainability, is our goal as a species.
Which I hope everybody in this room agrees!
Then, each parameter to consider in regard to resource management...
...becomes completely self evident.
It is called arriving at decisions as opposed to making them,
which is a subjective act based on incomplete information and...
...very often cultural biases.
The planet is a holistic system, with resources all over it.
Therefore the efficiency of human society can only come...
...from an integrated systems approach...
...to the management of those resources and hence social processes.
The planet demands it, if you will.
If the only the only government that exists is planetary operations, is natural law...
It is inherently negligent, illogical and irresponsible...
...to function in a detached manner, as we require a holistic system.
Ok, using this energy model as our procedural example,
this systems approach could be applied to every other earthly resource and quantifier.
We survey, find potential, qualify for negative retroactions,
...and apply modern technology to harness, distribute and monitor...
...in the most logically advanced holistic way possible.
Naturally, a computer database management program...
...would be the logical method to navigate these issues.
Where all the attributes we have discussed are fed in with strategic computation applied.
And since the goal is holistic maximum efficiency,
the automation of adjustments also becomes very simple.
For example, let's say we have two geothermal power plants in the same region,
each outputting in tandem the required amount of energy for that region.
One day there is a problem, and the output of one plant drops by 30%.
This would be seen by the monitoring system,
and the other power plants' output would be automatically adjusted by 30%.
It is reactive, just like the nervous system in your body, automatic.
No reason to vote for it, no reason to debate it in congress...
...it's automatic because it's self evident.
So, to summarise this approach:
All planetary resources, from energy to minerals to maritime life, etc...
...are managed by strategically active, statistical processes, in a single global system...
...which is programmed to adjust automatically to the changing environment.
That's it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm afraid there is no other way...
...to achieve peak efficiency of our resource usage.
It is a technical process.
It's also very, very simple when you think about it,
even though these specifics of implementation would seem complex...
...for most of us, who are untrained in systems engineering.
Ok, so we have a global resource management monitoring system now,
utilising programming and feedback to maintain what we call dynamic equilibrium, and peak efficiency.
So, how does the same logical system's approach to management apply...
...in regard to seemingly more complex mediums of social operation?
Such as the production of tangible goods for everyday human consumption.
Well, we have a clear picture of our pool of useful resources,
so the question then becomes: "What do people need?"
This is actually quite an elusive question...
On one side of the spectrum you have the immutable necessities of life,
such us food, clean air, water and the like.
While at the other extreme, we broach issues of vanity, material tools, leisure goods, and...
...other issues, which basically vary from region to region, culture to culture and generation to generation.
This latter part, regarding value based needs will be addressed somewhat later.
But for now, we're going to focus on the former, the basic necessities of life for all of us.
Food and water...
...Naturally consumable water supplies or fresh water...
...would be sourced as part of our initial global survey,
and regulated and monitored as we discussed.
When it comes to food, the first to consider is agriculture,
and then hence, arable land.
So we survey and locate all available arable land on the planet.
Then we establish consumption statistics, based on the population's usage.
Now, obviously analysis would become much more complex than what I am denoting here...
...because there are many things to consider.
Such as the growth propensity for certain crops, the methods used for cultivation,
the need to counter negative retroactions and many other fine points.
However, once again each one of these issues can be isolated, recognised and quantified...
...to one degree or another systematically.
I want to continue to address the process, that's the most important point.
Now, to extend this point, the conventions used for cultivation and preservation...
...of food and water right now, only takes us so far.
This is an area where technology becomes critical in light of our growing population.
In society today, food and water scarcity is massive in developing nations.
Here is a projection done by the IRRC, regarding water scarcity by 2025.
In turn, as of now one billion people are starving on this planet according to the United Nations.
It's probably a lot more than that, considering how the United Nations tends to whitewash...
...such issues, if you pay attention.
But nevertheless, it's still insane.
And anyone who is paying attention knows that the problems of food scarcity and water scarcity...
...is 100% economic.
The technical resolution of the problem can happen...
...with the mere application of existing methods.
Namely, desalinization and hydroponic agriculture.
Technological advancements such as desalinization processes...
...can make fresh water both from sea water and even brackish water sources.
Using reverse osmosis along with other developing methods.
This is yet another example of how technology is just as much a part of resource management...
...as resources themselves.
The idea that usable water is scarce is only true in relationship to the limited methods we are currently using.
Compounded, of course, by the economic nonsense we have already mentioned.
The same goes for hydroponics,
which is a method of growing plants using mineral nutrient solutions in water, without soil.
In fact, we could theoretically grow food in the middle of the Sahara desert...
...with proper irrigation, by simply tapping down to the water table...
...I believe it's about half a mile to a mile down...
...it might sound like a long way but again many things that seem extreme to us today...
...become common placed through time.
And, you know, by the way I hate to sound negative,
but if the United Nations was truly concerned about the well being of the third world...
...you know, if they really cared at all frankly...
...they would be facilitating the building of desalinization plants...
...along the coasts of every suffering nation.
To convert ocean water to consumable usable water,
and then they would filter organic nutrients from the ocean itself...
...into hydroponic greenhouses.
That would solve the problem.
[applause]
The bottom line is that food, air and water are only as scarce as we decide they are,
If we choose to become intelligent and strategic with our production and preservation methods,
while taking advantage, full advantage of technology,
there is no reason why we can't provide for the Earth's people many, many times over.
The starving children of the world today are not so because of a lack of available food and water,
It is their lack of purchasing power...
...the failure of their economies...
...not true scarcity, which causes the needless deaths of millions a year.
In the world today one person dies of hunger every second,
because of poverty.
Ok, back to our original exercise.
This technological advances I've just spoken of, along with many others,
would be coupled in with traditional methods,
and thus, monitored and regulated in our systems approach as we have already expressed.
The point is that new efficiency increasing technologies...
...would be quickly incorporated into the system based on qualifiers.
Now, you will notice once again that choice becomes self evident.
As long as the integrity of our methods of evaluation,
which is the scientific method, is strictly followed.
Coupled with the goal of maximum efficiency and sustainability.
The process of societal construction and organisation becomes almost entirely self evident.
We are arriving at decisions based on this simple goal...
...of maximising efficiency in whatever way we can.
And this pattern of thought,
this commitment...
...to the objective observation of natural processes,
and loyalty to the scientific methodology...
...utilising hypotheses and testing, etc...
Leads us to part 3.
With the introduction of an organisation called The Venus Project.
[applause]
Everything that we've just talked about are the basic attributes of a social design called...
...a Resource Based Economy.
This term was coined by industrial designer and social engineer...
...Jacque Fresco, who is...
the director of The Venus project, which he runs with his associate Roxanne Meadows,
out of Venus, Florida.
Mr. Fresco has been focusing on the concept of sustainability in culture for the past 70 years.
He is 93 years old now, this is all he's ever done.
And the majority of the things you're seeing in this presentation come from his world view.
The Venus Project recognises that the Earth is, indeed, abundant with resources...
and that our outdated methods of rationing resources through monetary control are
no longer relevant, and, in fact,
very counter-productive to the efficiency of society and hence our survival.
The monetary system was created thousands of years ago,
during periods of great scarcity, and has no legitimate relationship to our true capacity...
...to produce goods and services on this planet, in this day and age.
We know now that with a unified systems approach to global management,
as we've just described,
that the human species will be able to express its full potential.
In fact, I will say explicitly that that is the ONLY way...
you could ever maximise the efficiency of the planet...
and hence our usage of it,
is a global systems approach.
Modern developments in science and technology, as we've just discussed,
can now allow for this approach to become a reality.
To summarise a resource based economy,
first it utilises existing resources rather than commerce.
All goods and services are available without the use of currency,
credit, no barter, no debt, no servitude.
The aim of this new social design is to not only free humanity from the repetitive,
mundane and arbitrary occupational roles which...
many of which hold no true relevance for social development,
but also encourage a new incentive system that is focused on self-fulfillment,
symbiotic awareness, education, social awareness and creativity.
As oposed to the contrived, shallow, self-centered, corruption generating goals...
...of wealth, property and power, which are not only dominant today,
but abhorrently, actually praised by the population.
The great realization of this concept is that through the intelligent management of the Earth's resources,
along with the liberal application of modern technology and science,
we have the ability to create a near global abundance on this planet,
and thus escape the detrimental consequences, both physical and psychological,
generated by the real and artificial scarcity and waste, which is prevalent today.
The end goal isn't just about physical sustainability in and of itself, in fact.
It's also about the larger goal of cultural change.
The values of humanity are created by the social system.
And we feel this approach would not only bring us in line with natural law,
enabling a high stardard of living, but will ease social stress dramatically
and allow for people to flourish without the aberrated consequences we see over and over today.
We're being poisoned by our social system.
War, poverty, and 95% of all crime are essentially monetary related if you look carefully.
The Venus Project recognizes this,
and if we can adapt to this new approach,
I think we can completely eliminate these issues.
[applause]
So, to further understand this resource based economy,
we need to consider a new approach to our core social institutions.
Namely, industry and government.
...
Industry, in our use of the word, has to do with the methods of production and distribution of goods and services in a society.
This includes, of course, labour.
The first step, as we've already alluded to, is an objective survey...
and strategic resource allocation based on location and potential and demand.
We've already discussed how such parameters make the process self-evident,
as you go along and gain new information.
The only variable is the value based social needs,
which range from bare necessities such as food, water and shelter,
to utility based production items such as tools, automation machines, technological development, etc;
to items used for non-utility based purposes...
such as televisions, radios and entertainment leisurely oriented issues.
And, by the way, we will address how products are invented in a moment.
The second step is then the optimization of production itself,
with the focus on maximum efficiency.
The only way to achieve maximum efficiency in all sectors...
...is by removing human involvement...
and, bear with me, removing human involvement in as many areas as possible.
We want to focus on labour automation.
As most of you know, automation or mechanization...
...has been replacing labour in all sectors continually, since the industrial revolution.
While there is a constant debate about what this means for labour in the future,
and the very real possibility that technological displacement,
known as technological unemployment, will slowly overcome the integrity of the employment market itself.
One thing we do know for sure,
and that is the reality that the more we mechanize the more productive things become.
Here is a chart of the G7 advanced industrialised countries,
showing how employment in manufacturing has been dropping,
while manufacturing output has risen substantially.
Productivity is now inverse to employment, in most sectors.
The most advanced form of mechanisation is called cybernation.
which combines robotics and computerization.
Essentially, the computer is the brain of the machine and instructs the machine what to do.
Cybernated machines today are probably the most powerful and influential invention humanity has ever created.
The possibilities of these tools are on pace to changing the society in profound ways,
including the freeing of the human labour force,
and exponentially increasing production efficiency.
The fact is, there is very little in the way of basic labour that cannot be automated.
It is really a simple matter of our social intent.
These machines do not need breaks, vacations, insurance,...
and they are not subject to the emotional inconsistency that we humans tend to fall into.
...that makes us, you know, less consistent in our performance.
Here are some examples of this technology:
Dynamic catching and holding.
My favourite, dribbling.
...
Optical tracking, of course.
Throwing.
Tweezer manipulation.
...
I like this one, the dynamic catching of a cell phone.
...
Here is an automated kitchen in Japan.
...
Here is a fully automated wait staff, if you will, in Germany.
...
The possibilities are truly profound.
Even as unintuitive as it may seem, I think complex surgery is on pace to full automation,
and based on the pattern, will likely become much more reliable than the human hand.
The bottom line is that it is socially irresponsible...
...for us not to recognise this pattern and maximize the potential.
We must disregard the traditionalized emotional whims we might have.
For example, I was reading in a book about technological development in the early 20th Century,
and there was a story of a woman...
...who refused to buy a new refrigerator because she liked the ice man.
She liked the ice man who came and brought ice to put in the ice box.
Which is a wonderful, quaint notion,
but it isn't progress; that's romanticism.
And I'm not putting down romanticism, I'm a romantic in many ways.
But I also recognise that progress means we have to change our values.
Life is about adapting.
If our scientific ingenuity can create mechanisms that can increase...
...the efficiency of production and overcome scarcity,
and in turn, give us more free time to pursue larger interests,
then we have no choice but to fall in line...
...and change our values accordingly.
Machines are extensions of human attributes, they are tools;
and not only can they allow for greater productivity,
they can also relieve us, as we've seen, of trivial, monotonous labor;
enabling, possibly, a cultural paradigm shift that we can't even imagine.
Now it's usually about this time that someone says,
"Hey, wait a minute, what...what will I do?
...what will I do with myself, if machines are doing things?"
This is, of course, an amazing question if you think about it and...
...it goes to show how conditioned we have really become.
I will express what people will do as far as production is concerned.
Humans will basically be supervisors and researchers.
We would oversee these systems.
The end result is a fully integrated, autonomous, cybernated industrial complex,
which is patched into the resource management system we have already...
...described, enabling observation and adaption.
In turn, it is simply a matter of updating this system and making sure the system is in order.
People will function as supervisors, researchers, and innovators,
while again, allowing for a world of personal freedom and intellectual pursuits that...
...are reminiscent of the ideals of early greek society.
Furthermore, without the monetary system to impede with it's childish,
immature basis in competition;
the entire structure of production can be streamlined.
For example, no longer will there be perpetual duplication of goods,
with resources being wasted for the sake of preserving market share.
We all know that more minds are better then one when it comes to design. Imagine...
...the progress if the technical teams of the top 10 competing cell phone companies...
...decided to work together, to build the best product they could, together.
Imagine.
Likewise, planned obsolescence and inferior products will become a thing of the past.
When companies compete, as they do today, they must cut their initial cost basis...
...as strategically as possible; in turn, of course, cutting quality.
This is how they stay competitive and keep their prices affordable.
This hindrance is gone, therefore the best and most efficient, sustainable, long-lasting...
...products technically possible can finally be created.
This is an attribute of our current system that no one talks about.
The perpetual creation of inferior products in order to maintain differential advantage.
[Audience Member] But you're suggesting a monopoly; and earlier you were against a monopoly."
[Peter] There's no money, there's no power control; it's not a monopoly.
It's a systems approach.
Money is equated with monopoly, and I can answer more questions later.
This has nothing to do with that approach. This is an integrated system.
It has nothing to do with monopoly. Monopoly is an invention...
...of propensities, excuse me, it's a propensity of the market system...
...for groups to seek dominance; and as I will relay later in this presentation,
I will talk about how the management of this system works.
...
And this brings us to step three: Distribution.
Distribution has a wide range of logical options,
the most practical being automated distribution centers,
along with pneumatic tube transport systems for your home.
No more mailmen, no more delivery services; again, society is design.
The distribution center might look similar to the stores as you know them today...
...except you go in, and you simply get what you need and leave.
There's no reason to hoard anything, for nothing has monetary value,
therefore it can't be sold or used for personal gain.
As far as stock and inventory, consumption patterns are constantly monitored to gauge...
...demand levels just as they are today.
Resource and raw material acquisition and the production of goods...
...are then adjusted in order to maintain a balanced-load economy.
Here, shortages and overruns will become a thing of the past.
This again can be done from our central database program and,
you know, by the way,
I hate to use lingo like central database program, it sounds so cold; but it's really just...
...a form of management.
It's a unified form of management; it's very simplistic, just so we can adjust things.
To obtain a product a person could also just go online,
search for an item's function, select it and request it.
It would be available for pickup at a distribution centre, or automatic delivery soon after.
No money, no trade, just access.
...and by the way, we'll talk about the concept of 'property' in a moment.
Step Four:
Optimised recycling of products that become outdated or inoperable.
This step actually begins at the production stage,
for each product design has had incorporated into it the consideration of recycling.
Nothing ever used in production would be unrecyclable or unsustainable in any way,
unless there was simply no other option and the product was absolutely dire.
This is strategically considered to make sure all older products are re-used,
...to the maximum amount enabled by known methods, reducing waste.
The negative retroactions of all production processes are taken into account,
and adjusted accordingly at the production level initially.
No more landfills, no more dumps, waste. We re-use as much as possible, deliberately.
OK, so now we're going to take...
all the concepts we've just mentioned, and put them into the larger context of so-called 'government'.
I think Dr. Ralph Linton put it best:
The tremendous and still accelerating development of science and technology
has not been accompanied by an equal development
in social, economic and political patterns.
It is safe to predict that such social inventions,
such as modern-type capitalism, fascism and communism,
will be regarded as primitive experiments directed towards
the adjustment of modern society to modern methods.
So first, we need to take a step back and ask ourselves the question;
What is the point of governments?
What is truly relevant to the integrity and fluidity of society?
If you break the chain of conditioning regarding everything you have been taught,
about the concepts of government, which includes...
power, laws, money, budgets, politicians, defense, and so-called 'democratic elections',
you realise that social organisation is much more simple.
It could be so much more simplistic, and with substantially less stress and concern.
Government should be simply a process, if you will, centred
around what matters to maintain society and the wellbeing of the human population
Very simply this would be: resource and environmental management,
the production and distribution of goods,
along with a system of decision-making, research and invention.
That is really it.
Society is, as I've said before, a technological convention.
And thus our orientation towards so-called 'governments' should be purely scientific.
As far as the first two components, we have already accomplished this,
with our central database program.
It is again, an Earth-wide, autonomic sensor system,
with envionmental sensors in all relevant areas of the planet,
monitoring and generating industrial electronic feedback,
regarding resources and production-distribution operations.
I know it sounds sounds massive and science-fiction oriented, but it can be done.
It's done every day in detached ways. It's just not applied on a larger scale.
So then, with the first two issues covered,
we're then left with the issue of research, contributions and decisions.
When we finally understand that everything in regard to social operation
is a technical process, we then see there is little reason for political subjectivity
in the solving of any problem.
For our technical insight can now arrive at most conclusions, using the scientific method.
It is based, of course, on information.
If a person reads one page of a book and closes it,
he or she can easily have an opinion on that book as a whole.
If another person reads the whole book, they also have an opinion.
Whose opinion would you value more?
The person who read the full book, or the person who read only one page?
In other words, the more data taken into account in the process of decision making,
the more accurate that decision will be.
As we have previously explored, computers now can access
trillions of bits of information per second, across vast informational databases.
Because of the limitations of our sensory and cortical equipment in our body and mind,
no person or group can know everything there is to know in this world.
Our senses are limited in range, our eyes can only see a fraction of the electromagnetic field,
therefore again, it is only logical to begin delegation of decisionmaking processes,
specifical technical processes, to computers, for evaluation and efficient outcomes.
They do not have the restrictions that we have. These are tools that we have created.
Again we have already shown that this is possible with resource management...
...production and distribution.
So now we're going to explore what we can call 'information processes'.
This is a rather complex point, and falls in the realm of what can be called 'artificial intelligence'...
...or machines programmed to run processes that kind-of mimic...
the procedural processes of human thought.
Artificial intelligence is of course subject to some tremendously silly assumptions today.
The most common being portrayed in movies, where the intelligent machines...
...invariably decide to take over humanity or some other biased notion of contempt.
[Clips from finale of film 'I, Robot']
In fact I would say that science-fiction seems to get off exclusively on showing the world...
...being overcome by machines, and the human beings enslaved.
In the words of Arthur C. Clarke,
"The popular idea fostered by comic strips and the cheaper forms of science-fiction,
that intelligent machines must be malevolent entities hostile to man,
is so absurd that it is hardly worth wasting energy to refute it.
I am almost tempted to argue that only un-intelligent machines can be malevolent.
Those who picture machines as active enemies, are merely projecting...
their own aggressiveness.
The higher the intelligence, the greater the degree of cooperativeness.
If there is ever a war between men and machines, it's easy to guess who will start it."
The interest is to create an active informational database,
containing literally all known technical knowledge,
ranging from the properties, combinations and applications of...
...every element of the periodic table...
...to even the complete history of technological invention.
A system of associations, of course, needs to be created and codified to enable such a thing,
but there are plenty of projects that are working on this right now.
Thought is indeed a technical process, and once the associations emerge,
that can combine multiple disciplines, we will have at our grasp,
an amazing database program that we can interact with and gain feedback from.
It could likely come in the form of a simple website.
You would pose a problem or question to the database,
and it would give the best possible feedback,
based on the current state of knowledge at that point in time.
No different than interfacing with a calculator, but this new calculator...
...has a powerful associative system and an extensive database of knowledge,
that can not only understand and compute math, it can integrate physics, biology,
and other aspects into a unified, concentrated awareness.
Say I had an idea for aeronautics, I would enter in my schematics,
in language codified that the machine would understand.
The machine would say "Bleep! You know what, this has already been done..."
"We don't have the materials for this..." as it checks the central database,
"The efficiency of this is not applicable because of the wind resistance, this coefficient, etc."
You get the point.
And if this sounds like science fiction, rest assured, that the US militiary's Pentagon...
likely already has similar database reference and decision-making programs,
which it uses to create war strategies.
It is important to point out that in the world today, we consider participation in government,
a task of electing various personalities to a position of power.
This is now obsolete. In a resource-based global economy,
where industry and government are combined into a cybernated system,
that incorporates advanced problem-solving computer databases,
with vast planetary-wide observation sensors, again it's very simple,
the traditional concept of politics, election and the like, has no basis or relevance,
and while this notion scares a lot of traditionally-minded people,
it must be reiterated, that our problems in life are technical,
and are relative only to humanity as a whole.
We don't want to elect people, we want to elect ideas.
This would be a true democracy,
where technology enables each person to contribute in an organised way.
Of course, such participation in any society would entail understanding...
...how society technically worked, and then constructively proposing ideas,
or innovations to be implemented, created or altered.
As of now, this is long-lost. Very few people have any idea how anything operates.
As things are just going on around them, they have no idea what's going on;
people can't contribute to anything, unless they understand...
...what comprises what they want to contribute to.
This is something governments have known for a long time,
which is why you tend to find that there is a lot of dumbing-down going on in the world.
So, as far as interaction; first, one would interact with the informational database,
which is available to everyone, and could input their proposal.
Then, the database with its historical knowledge databases,
and data integration, would analyse the concept,
for its scientific and technical integrity, along with optimizing the materials required,
if applicable, based on current understandings and availabilities.
Again, it's unified.
If the proposal is initially accepted by the central database,
after cross-checking it to make sure the integrity is intact,
then it would either be immediately put into production,
as would be the case of the desired invention, or it would be turned over,
to a group of rotating interdisciplinary teams, that oversee the implementation,
of the new proposal, and orient it into the social system.
These are simply technicians who maintain the system,
no different than how people maintain anything today.
The person or group who submitted the proposal in question,
would then be invited to participate and become a part of the interdisciplinary team,
relevant to the idea if they choose to.
These interdisciplinary teams of technicians oversee the system, and
also help orient research projects to continue growth, efficiency and social evolution.
They would do research in scientific fields relevant to the functionality of society.
In an optimised version of this system, I think it is safe to predict that,
no more than 5% of the world's population would be needed to run the show.
The more optimised and powerful our technological capabilities,
and methods become, the more that number decreases.
And you know, I think it's important to mention, a lot of people,
they read too much science fiction, they take books
like 'Brave New World' and '1984' a little bit too seriously,
and they see something like this as a power consolidation in some amazing way,
but you have to understand that we're removing the mechanism.
Look, we have to remember that we trust our lives to science and technology,
every single day, and to the people that work with this technology.
When you have a problem with your car, you don't take a vote from your neighbours,
as to the solution, you go to somebody that works in that particular field,
who knows what they're doing, education.
This is the type of orientation we need to begin to have.
The fear of traditional corruption has very little basis,
for there is no reward for it.
The interdisciplinary teams do not get paid in any way.
Their reward is, in fact, the fruits of the society as a whole,
and they contribute because it is in their best interest to do so,
just as everyone can contribute.
Self-interest becomes integrated with social interest, they become one.
In order to help yourself, you must help society explicitly. Everything is for the greater good.
Frankly I believe our survival as a species is absolutely contingent upon this world view.
Moreover, these teams would not be fixed, but constantly revolving,
based on who wants to participate, who contributes in any given field.
Abstractly speaking, this would actually be a true democracy, wouldn't it?
Arbitrary voting for politicians is now replaced by the logical review,
of given concepts, based on social merit, with the creators brought in to help.
Not "I'm gonna reduce taxes" and "Here comes change!"
and, you know, all this nonsensical stuff we deal with today.
In a Resource-Based Economy, as I've said, participation is open to everyone.
Because again, all issues are fundamentally recognised as technical,
and I'm gonna keep drilling this in. The degree to which a person contributes,
is based on that person's education, and ability to create and problem-solve.
This is why expanded education is critical.
In society today, you will find the public is essentially kept distracted and uninformed.
I hate to say it, but this is the way governments maintain control.
If you review history, you will find that power is maintained by ignorance.
In a Resource-Based Economy, the goal of the educational system,
is to produce the most intelligent, aware human beings as possible.
Why? Because everyone then becomes a contributor,
greatly affecting our collective social evolution for the better,
and improving the lives of all. Intelligence will no longer be a threat to the establishment,
for there is no power establishment.
There would be no budget restrictions or unethical agendas to deter progress.
Also, people will have a high propensity to become 'generalists', not 'specialists'.
Specialization is a limitation. The monetary system promotes specialization,
as a form of labour distribution for income. It's kind of built-in, and it's a colossal hindrance.
I believe Buckminster Fuller put it quite well on this issue,
"Our failures are a consequence of many factors, but possibly one of the most important,
is the fact that society operates on the theory that specialization is the key to success,
not realising that specialisation procludes comprehensive thinking.
This means that the potentially integratable[sic] techno-economic advantages,
are not comprehended integratively, and therefore are not realized."
In other words, people need to be broadly educated, not refined and isolated,
this leads to detatched thinking.
So, to recap this section, who makes the decisions in a Resource-Based Economy?
In effect, no one does. Decisions are arrived at.
The very sentence to ask the question "who makes decisions?",
is devoid of all logic. It's not 'who makes decisions',
It's 'by what method are decisions arrived at?'
The question of who makes decisions is a biased attribute that we have concocted,
because of our irrationally-founded fear of each other in groups,
which continue to jockey for power based on monetary gain,
using the monetary system as their tool to continue to maintain control.
In a Resource-Based Economy, decisions are arrived at by the use of the Scientific Method,
utilizing computers that gain realtime feedback from the environment,
and our central database program, coupled in with the central information database,
of all technical knowledge, maintained by revolving interdisciplinary teams,
which assist in aspects of society that basically cannot yet be automated.
The goal is to increase objective decision-making as much as possible,
and when we understand that our problems in life are technical,
the merit of this approach is without parallel. People see this, and they say,
"Oh, this is far too idealistic" No. This is nothing but pure practicality.
...
In the end, the only real relevance to so-called 'government' is,
1: The production of goods and services that are equally available to all,
2: Research projects and educational systems to expand our knowledge,
understanding and applications, and
3: The constant monitoring of the Earth's resources and atmosphere for feedback,
and possible environmental problems.
Enabling us to restore and maintain a clean, pristine environment.
Also, not to mention, without the wasted energy and resources of going to war,
every 5 or 6 years, and other aspects of the monetary system,
we could actually look at true threats to humanity.
What are the true threats to humanity? Earthquakes and asteroids, diseases.
Environmental issues that we can't control yet, but, eventually through science and technology
I think we will. The only real problems in life are the problems
that are common to all human beings.
Cities and Lifestyle: In this section we are going to extend the tenets,
of a Resource-Based Economy into one of our most fundamental social inventions,
the city. Specifically the Venus Project's circular city.
We will also discuss how people's lifestyle in a Resource-Based Economy
might manifest, often with profoundly different values and goals than we see today.
A specific focus of the Venus Project and Jacque Fresco has been the optimization...
..of city systems themselves; of course which relates to everything that we've just described.
The following is a short video exploration of some of Jacque Fresco's ideas in this regard.
The Venus Project
A society without a vision of what the future can be...
...is bound to repeat past errors over and over again.
This brief video will outline a vision designed to avoid old mistakes.
This vision of efficiency, sustainability and intelligent planning...
...can lead us into a world of unlimited, human potential.
Designing The Future
This vision could be a showcase of what the world CAN be in our cybernated age.
Science and technology could be used for human betterment,
and the restoration and protection of the environment.
Serving as an example of the intelligent application of the systems approach.
While some people advocate the restoration of existing, worn-out cities,
these efforts fall short of the potentials of modern technology.
Modifying outmoded cities simply delays the inevitable problems.
It is actually much easier in the long run to build newer cities from the ground up,
then to restore and maintain the old ones.
A total city system approach requires overall planning...
...to attain a higher standard of living for the occupants.
The circular arrangement efficiently permits the most sophisticated use of...
...available resources and construction techniques,
within minimum expenditure of energy.
The outer perimeter will be part of the recreational area,
with golf courses, hiking and biking trails, and other outdoor activities.
Inside this area, a waterway surrounds the agricultural belt,
with indoor and outdoor agriculture.
Continuing towards the city center, eight green sectors...
...provide clean, renewable sources of energy,
using wind, solar and heat concentrators.
The residential district would include unique landscaping, lakes and winding streams.
A wide range of creative and innovative apartment buildings and individual homes...
...will provide many options for the occupants.
New and innovative methods of fast, mass construction...
...for housing and building systems will inject composite materials into the mold...
...and then extrude the form upward.
In some cases, multiple city apartments can be produced as continuous extrusions,
which are then separated into individual units.
The apartments are lightweight and high strength.
All of the dwellings are designed as self-contained residences.
The outer surface of these efficient structures serve as photovoltaic generators,
converting solar radiation directly into electricity...
...for heating, cooling and other needs.
The thermocouple effect will also be used for generating energy.
These individual homes are prefabricated and relatively...
...maintenance free, fire resistant and impervious to weather.
With this type of construction, there would be minimal damage from...
...floods, earthquakes and hurricanes.
There thin shell construction can be mass produced efficiently with little environmental restriction.
Adjacent to the residential district are the planning, science and research centers.
The eight domes surrounding the central dome house the...
..art, music, exhibition, entertainment and conference centers.
The central dome houses schools, health care, access centers, communications networking;
it is also the core for most transportation services,
which move people by transveyors horizontally, vertically and radially; anywhere in the city.
This minimizes the need for automobile transportation, except for emergency vehicles.
Transportation between cities would be by monorail or maglev.
Waste recycling and other services are beneath the city.
The plan will use the best of clean technology...
...in harmony with the surrounding environment.
The central dome also houses the cybernated complex,
which serves as the brain and the nervous system of the entire city.
It might project a 3d virtual image of earth using satellite communication systems,
which provide information on weather, agriculture,
transportation and overall functionality.
This cybernated system will use environmental sensors...
...to help maintain a balance load economy;
which avoids overruns and shortages.
For example, in the agricultural belt, electronic probes monitor and maintain...
...the water table, soil conditions, nutrients, and more.
This method of electronic feedback can be applied to the entire city system.
With computers now able to process trillions of bits of information per second,
they are vital for arriving at more appropriate decisions for the management of the cities.
...
Colonization of the oceans is one of the last frontiers remaining on Earth.
Prodigious ocean city communities will evolve as artificial islands,
floating structures, undersea observatories and more.
These large marine structures are designed to explore the relatively untapped riches...
... of the oceans, provide improved mariculture, freshwater production, energy and mining.
They could also provide almost unlimited riches in pharmaceuticals,
chemicals, fertilizers, minerals and other energies.
Ocean cities would be resistant to earthquakes,
and greatly relieve land based population pressures.
Unsinkable floating sea domes would provide for those who prefer...
...unique, offshore or island living.
In the event of inclimate weather, they can easily be towed ashore,
mounted and anchored to elevated support structures.
Mariculture and sea farming systems are used to cultivate and raise fish,
and other forms of marine life; to help meet nutritional needs.
These marine enclosures are designed as...
...non-contaminating integral parts of the ocean system.
A sustainable environment can be achieved through the infusion of technology...
...and cybernetics, applied with human and environmental concern...
...to secure, protect and encourage a more humane future.
In the final analysis, we are one people and we share one planet.
...
Ok, moving forward...
I would like to talk about lifestyles.
In regard to lifestyle it's important to point out that in our current system
the traditional family is broken.
With both parents having to work in order to survive.
Monetary economics undermines family cohesion and child care.
Stress is always very high due to medical bills, insurance, education costs,
employment insecurity and living costs in general.
In a resource-based economy the integrity of a family would be returned.
Concurrently, the cultural values of society as a whole would undergo a profound change.
With the monetary system outgrown and the world working together
to produce abundance and a sustainable practice
for all the citizens of Earth
activities we appreciate will greatly expend
for the amount of human freedom will be unlike anything we know today.
Not to mention our motivation will be radically altered
from taking to giving to society.
That is what's rewarded.
Now, one of the more in depth changes
in values and lifestyle
will be the way people think about property
and I know this is a sensitive point.
In most of the world today property is a powerful concept
with people often associating their social status to what they own.
- (cough) excuse me -
As stated before, the monetary system requires cyclical consumption to function
This naturally leads to the need for people
to be manipulated into thinking they want or need a particular good or service.
With the powerful tactics of modern advertising
most in the world support an artificial materialistic value-system,
that entails wanting more and more goods and services,
often regardless of necessity or utility.
This influence will no longer exist.
There is no reason for us to manipulate each other any more.
...
(audience: "communism, woo!")
Not to mention that in the resource-based economy there is no reason for property.
And, you know, you can throw out labels about this system in regards to social ideas that have existed in the past
but until you address the reasoning
that these ideas came from
until you look at the train of thought
the arrival of conclusions
based on tangible unfolding intellectual inference
then there's no point even consider that this has anything to do with anything else.
Moving on,
back to my point: there is no reason for property in a resource based economy.
Property is an outgrowth of scarcity.
People who had to work very hard to create or obtain a product or resource
in turn protected it because it had value relative to the labor entailed along with the scarcity associated.
Property is not an American or capitalist idea.
It is a primitive mental perspective
generated from generations of scarcity.
People claim ownership
because it's simply a legal form of protection.
In fact, it's a form of controlled restriction.
In a systems approach desgined to produce efficiency and abundance
- without the need for money - the idea of ownership becomes absolutely irrelevant and
extremely impractical.
In this new system no one owns anything.
Instead, everyone has access to everything.
Ownership is a massive burden.
No longer you need to live in one place:
you could travel the world constantly, getting what you need as you go along.
Anything that's needed is obtained without restriction.
We hoard things in our current culture.
We have houses and apartments full of junk,
that we are afraid to get rid of because we know they have some kind of monetary value.
And again; there's no reason for abuse in such a system because there's nothing to gain.
You can't steal things that no one owns and you certainly couldn't sell them.
In this system - without the need for money - the idea of ownership becomes irrelevant.
It is a shared system.
In this model the city complex or, in fact, the entire world
is really your home.
If you require an automobile, for whatever reason, the car is made available to you.
When you get to your destination the satellite-based driving system
- which we do have today: we can drive cars with satellite -
the car will automatically be made available to you and then made available to others after you've finished.
As opposed to sitting in some parking lot
for likely 80% of the life of the automobile.
This is what we do: we waste so many resources
and so much space
with this primitive concept of personal ownership.
To put it into a phrase: the resources of the planet become common heritage to all the world's people.
[applause]
It's important to point out as we previously denoted
that in society today the need for property results in extreme product overlap
planned obsolescence, and redundant waste.
There are many people today that criticize what we talk about
without giving any reference to how sick the current establishment really is.
It is much more intelligent,
much more logical and utterly much more responsible
and practical to create a universal shared system,
for it would dramatically reduce waste, redundancy and increase efficiency and space
exponentially compared to what we are doing today.
And this leads us to our final section, part 4: the transition.
Unfotunately,
regardless of how well-reasoned,
clear and obvious an individual idea may be
the public today still maintains, on average,
a tremendous fear of any form of social change.
This is largely due to the propaganda and indoctrination which has been pushed upon them
by the various establishment powers, which of course prefer to maintain their power.
In fact, it really isn't the technical understandings and implementation of the physical attributes
that comprise a resource based economy
which is the problem.
What we are describing is nothing more than the practical application of known methods
and even if we couldn't do certain things right now
it's the reasoning that's important; it's the methodology that we should be using that
I hope everyone here thoroughly understands.
The problem, in fact, is the opposing cultural values of society.
That is what stands in the way: The ingrained patterns in uninformed nature of the conditioned culture.
This is the most difficult aspect to consider when we talk about moving from point A to point B.
And this is where The Zeitgeist Movement
- an organization I work with - comes in.
We are the activist communication arm of The Venus Project.
We are here to spread statistical information and socially positive value identification
in the hope of bringing people into an awareness
of the incredibly positive possibilities the future can hold.
Once these understandings are fully realized I
really believe that most people will never be able to look at the world today in the same way.
And the problems we find as commonplace today
will become simply unacceptable
motivating change.
I would like to quickly point out that the term "zeitgeist"
is defined as "the general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era".
The term "movement" very simply implies motion or change.
Therefore The Zeitgeist Movement is
thus an organization which urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time
- specifically the values and practices which would better serve the well-being of the whole of humanity
regardless of race, religion, creed or any other form of contrived social status.
We are again, in effect, the education and activist arm of Jacque Fresco's Venus Project,
working to unify the world in this common direction.
Today we have about 360,000 members operating in about a hundred regional chapters
over about 200 countries
which is pretty good considering the movement's only been around for about 9 or 10 months.
(audience cheering)
(audience: "You can put Iowa down!")
Our central role, gesturally speaking, is
engaging what I would call
social therapy.
The little discussed reality is that human beings are subject to social conditioning in a powerful way,
and if we had the type of society, we just described, tomorrow most people would be left confused and disillusioned.
It would be like taking a native from Amazong jungle and dropping them into New York City
without any education whatsoever.
Their behavior would be based on values which have no relevance
in this new environment.
In fact - and I know this might sound like a bold statement -
but ethics, morality and values are only as relevant
as the social environment's propensity to support them or not.
The Zeitgeist Movement has various projects in the works.
We are working to educate people and hopefully bring them into a new perspective.
We have teams and chapters, radio shows, films, PDFs and annual events to promote this direction.
We also do not take any general donations,
and provide all of our educational materials free to the public.
We are decentralized,
and work holographically through regional chapter teams and project teams.
We have no offices. We have no leaders.
I'm not a leader. I'm here as a communicator and I try to work equally with everyone else.
In fact, I would say that we are the initiators
of what we call the transition.
I believe Mohandas Gandhi had it correct: we must become the change we want to see in the world.
[applause]
Now, the transition itself from our current system into a resource based economy is a very complex thing to consider.
Of course, I get asked this all the time. Which is why I'm bringing this up, and
unfortunately, the variables are beyond our current foresight.
The central issue, however, is awareness.
If the public's consciousness can be expanded to understand and accept the incredible potential the future can hold
where poverty, war, 95% of all crime, along with the mundane, repetitive, meaningless jobs
can be eliminated.
then I feel that they will be much more likely to adjust their values accordingly.
And while there are many variations of outcomes and progressions that might occur
as we move from our current system to the next
I will now attempt to summarize the probable path as I see it.
The nature of industry to maximize profit by reducing input and labor costs
shows high propensity for the mechanization of labor.
Since The Great Depression this has been the case.
The only reason technological unemployment hasn't consistently
risen universally in a long term is because
technology has also facilitated the introduction of new employment sectors.
with an adjustment period in between for laborers.
In fact, The Great Depression, which was triggered by a lot of things,
was also an adjustment period to mechanization.
There were new skills that were learned by people that were unemployed...
..as they adapted to the rapid increase to mechanization during the period of time.
However, the rate of increase for technological development...
...seems to pair up with Moore's Law, if your familiar;
and that has to do with the exponential expansion of the capacity and size of technology.
We're gonna apply this in a broader sense.
In other words, new employment sector skill adjustments,
being the amount of time required to adapt to new emerging employment sectors,
would need to be on pace with applied technological advancement itself.
For example, today, 95% of America works in the service industry,
often now in front of computers;
people had to learn to do this, right?
Being computer literate is almost a prerequisite for everything we do now;
so there is a learning process and that takes time.
Loosely speaking, this adjustment period would need to increase...
...at the same rate as technological change.
There is no evidence this is happening.
Technological process is leaving the human labor market behind.
I believe that the reason new emerging sectors have consistently come about,
to save the human labor market as each sector gets replaced by machine,
is because the rate of change in technology was not that dramatic at that point in time.
It hadn't sped up as fast as it is now.
The human mind and body, which hasn't really evolved that much in thousands of years,
now has to compete with it's own creation.
Mechanization is leaving us behind,
in other words, we cannot adapt to the speed of applied mechanization.
However, that's only one side of the coin.
The costs of computer technology, which is the backbone of mechanization,
is now becoming exponentially cheaper as well.
The first mass produced calculators were about $100 in 1949,
that's $736 adjusted for inflation today.
A new digital pocket calculator can now be obtained for a $1 or less if not free.
Here is a chart done by Ray Kurzweil,
who does brilliant research in technological trend analysis,
regarding the evolution of computer power...
... and cost based on millions of instructions per second.
In 1990, we had one million instructions per second for a thousand dollars.
Ten years later, it was a thousand million for a thousand dollars.
Ten years later, it was a million million, and by 2020,
it will be a billion million for the cost of a thousand dollars.
If we apply this pattern to technology as a whole, and, by the way, again,
this is speculative, but we do see most everything...
...reducing in cost based on the efficiency of production;
and if we apply this pattern to the whole of applied invention,
this means it is simply a matter of time before the corporations...
...can no longer rationalize their moral obligation to maintain their employees,
for the sake of the system.
The cost differential between giving a human being a living wage..
versus automation will be far to dramatic, it will be far to cheap to mechanize.
Of course, economists will argue this and they'll say, "Oh, there's a trickle down effect...
...and since the cost of production is consistently becoming cheaper,
the cost of goods will become cheaper and therefore purchasing power requirements...
...of the individual becomes less." Sure, this might be historically true.
I guess you could call it an efficiency based evaluation,
however, that competitive decision is entirely contingent upon...
...the whims of the manufacturer, therefore, there is a contradiction of motives.
Remember, they get the machines so they can cut costs...
...so they can make more profit from their current price structure.
Once this occurs we're going to see more unemployment and more instability;
and sadly, instability is often the prerequisite for social change.
The problems constitute what we call Bio Social Pressures.
The more destabilized things become,
the more motivation there will be to seek an alternative.
Of course, this is a delicate balance.
I personally do not want to see anymore suffering on this planet,
but my feelings have no relevance to the patterns of social evolution.
The Zeitgeist Movement hopes to ease this issue...
...by not only providing people with an alternative,
in an intellectual and statistically valid manner, but also a strategy to push forward;
to essentially push the establishment to release their reigns of...
arrogance, power and inefficiency and join the rest of the world...
...in a common goal of uninhabited sustainability.
Hence, it is a mass awareness campaign...
...by promoting essentially a collective consciousness shift, if you will.
We do this through a relentless, global public awareness campaign,
which will, in time, hopefully become so large in each country that..
...the establishment will have no choice but to pay attention.
It is based on the model of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
If the establishment orders and government do not recognize this direction,
then the public has a very unique position.
We don't have to participate in the games that have been set up.
Nonviolent, peaceful, nonparticipation is a possible path.
Frankly, I hope it won't be needed.
However, I think we should be realistic.
If the people of the world can see this alternative,
learn about it, understand it and support it,
then no government, army or bureaucracy in existence...
...can stand in the way of a critical mass of global proportions.
But again, I hope it doesn't come to that.
I hope that the powers that be can come to terms with the fluid transition,
and see the merit of what were talking about;
but, as we have shown, the established orders do not have that propensity.
It's going to take influence, that's for sure.
Given that, one of the more specific tactics we want to utilize to engage the public...
...is to build a model city;
utilizing the methods and understandings we have set forth thus far.
This city system could be used as a hub for research and exposure.
The public, along with world leaders, will be invited to visit and experience...
the basis of this approach in a real life setting.
Then, in time, the hope is that a country, seeing the efficiency of this small aspect,
will pick up the city model and apply it, within its own system.
The city system, of course, isn't a resource based economy,
but it has some very notable attributes in a systems approach.
Then, in time, we hope these city systems will begin to spread to other regions;
slowly wearing down the market system by their extreme efficiency.
Hopefully, the logic will spread to greater forms of central planning and resource management;
and hopefully the people of the world will awaken to a new paradigm.
Again, there are many angles of interaction,
there could be an independent council that consistently invites...
...all world leaders to come to an independent meeting about this project,
in hope that maybe they would come together and talk about it.
There are many other things I could say on this complex issue of the transition...
...and due to the allotment of time, I really don't want to spend that much more on it.
What I will say though, for those who continue to harp on it, wanting details and details,
you know, we can't do anything until there is a mass awareness,
so lets focus on that as the first step.
In conclusion, the most common negative reaction people have who consider the tenets...
...of a resource based economy tend to come up with something called Human Nature.
The argument is that humans are inherently competitive, greedy, blindly self serving;
implying that no matter how technically good things are in society, there will always...
...be corrupt people who want to compete and abuse others, and seek dominance, etc.
...
Is it against human nature to cooperate? That's the central question.
It certainly seems that way doesn't it.
If you look at the historical record you'll find that there's an endless series of wars,
genocide, conquests, competitive tendencies, and power abuses;
and given that is the pattern we recognize historically, I guess it's safe to assume...
...that it must be a set, human nature to behave in ways that are historically reoccurring.
However, we also see that human beings do cooperate,
and we cooperate quite well, in certain environments.
For example, in the military, cooperation is immense, it is a collective,
the core interest is culminated; they work together and do so very well.
Granted, they are competing against a common enemy which is another army usually,
but it's still cooperation nevertheless, even if it's isolated.
Therefore, the environment plays a critical role on whether we decide to compete or cooperate.
It's based on values, as groomed by the environment, not genetics.
Remember, humans have been living in scarcity for thousands of years,
battling each other for resources.
While this cultural pattern is still very much in existence today,
you have to remember that our current model of society...
...is based on the assumption of the persistence of scarcity.
If we were to eliminate the basic environmental cause,
we will likely eliminate most competitive effects.
And as far as genetics and behavior, please understand,
the functionality of gene expressions are very much contingent upon environmental stimulus;
especially in regard to behavior.
Genes are not autonomous initiators of commands.
They, in effect, produce proteins, they don't cause behavior in any sense of the idea.
In the words of professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University,
Dr. Robert Sapolsky, "Genes are rarely about inevitability,
especially when it comes to humans, the brain or behavior.
They're about vulnerability, propensities and tendencies."
Now, of course, neurochemicals and physiological traits do set propensities...
...for a person's reactions and social gravitation.
It is the environment which is most responsible for our values and behavior.
I have found no concrete evidence to support the idea...
...that there is a predetermined human nature in this sense.
Our values, methods and actions are developed and derived from experiences.
The central point is that it requires a transition of culture...
...to assist in this new world view being realized and identified with.
Given that, I have one final point I would like to leave you with.
Anthropological studies have found that cooperation between nonhuman primates...
...often comes from the notion of kinship;
we humans share this as well.
For example, most people tend to regard their family higher then their friends.
Just watch the Sopranos and you'll see this association in play.
There's their family and then there's their mafia family, its just a clique;
and these cliques develop by association.
Well, interestingly enough, paleontologists have found that all of humanity...
...seems to be linked back to a woman they call Mitochondrial Eve;
who lived about a quarter of a mil...
She evidently bore a mitochondrial genome
...which was the template for all later mitochondrial genomes as we know today.
In other words: we're all related, we're all kin...
...we're all family.
Likewise, quantummechanic string theory if you subscribe...
...to these abstract fields, teach us, that the divisions we see...
...in our five sense reality are essentially surface illusions.
There is no separation. We exist in a sea of molecular flow.
It doesn't matter what you call it but the deeper we go...
...the more unified and similar things seem to become.
In other words, all signs point to unity.
So, I want everyone listening to keep this in mind...
...next time they turn on the tv and see the almost daily...
...slaughter of soldiers around the world...
...the blue and white collars' crime and abuse that occurs...
...the absurd abject poverty, slavery and destitution...
...these are your brothers, your daughters, your grandchildren...
...starving - murdering each other - leaving each other behind...
...YOU murdering - YOU being left behind - YOU being killed.
Until we begin to see each other as ourselves, nothing will change.
We are one planet. Thank you very much for coming.
[applause]

Where are we going? Part 2

Translate and Transcribe

Share

Video Transcription

Other videos from admin