Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

Jacque Fresco - Language in Transition, Research, Animal Testing, Energy Comparison (Repository)

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
Think about it. Ok, we have so much work to do. We don't consider people abnormal. We don't consider people good or bad. We consider the background they come from and we try to generate a background that will eliminate those behaviors. However, during the transition that will be extremely difficult. After we establish the educational system and a language that has uniform meaning not subject to interpretation. As long as [there's] 'subject to interpretation' language you're going to have wide variations in human conclusions but if we can develop a language like mathematics or chemistry or a language that has uniform meaning like engineering in that case, most people will understand one another. As long as you go on the way we've been going on language will always be subject to interpretation. I don't say that people will pick up the new language and begin to use it. The transition will be painful and will be comprised of many different types of human behavior. We're not talking about right or wrong, good or bad. We're talking about human behavior that's reinforcing to all people. That's the kind of behavior we will attempt to generate by maintaining an environment that informs people as to the nature and factors that shape human behavior. - Talk about the role of research in the future in this type of society. How would the findings of behavioral research influence society? Do you feel that it would, or do you feel that behavioral research would not exist in the future? - I think it will exist during the transition There's no question about it. They will try... Since most people during the transition are not scientifically oriented they will try to identify the reasons for behavior that's not desirable. If they're wrong it won't work whatever treatment they come up with. If they happen to be on the right track, it'll work. The only real difference between the scientific method is if many people try the same experiments and get the same results, it means that the system is vaild. If they get different results it means they have to do further experimenting to try to ascertain what it is that shapes human behavior. During the transition there will be differences of opinion due to the language interpretation. That's why I say we have to develop a language that has uniform meaning to people. What determines the accuracy of this system? How well does the system work? If it works well, we use it. If it doesn't, there's more work that has to be done. It's a very rational approach without taking favorite points of view and pushing them because society accepts erroneous points of view. I think that in the future we can condition people to appreciate information accumulation rather than random opinions. Information accumulation means testing results, testing methods and if they work, we use them, if they don't work or if they work part of the way, we use that part which works. There is no other way to learn except to make decisions that are less correct and that's based on background. I think that in the future children will be educated in using scientific methods of evaluation but they'll also know that the methods used are not the best. They're the best we've come up with. If a kid suggests other methods we say "Why don't you test it out and let us know what results you get?" If I tell Larry "You can't grow food that way" and he finds out that he can he has to inform me: "I did these same things that you said and they didn't work", then obviously, I have to turn around and say "I didn't know that." Can the average person participate? They usually are not qualified unless they study hydroponics or chemotherapy or something related to the field but just bursting out with "I don't know that I like that" I can't deal with that. What do you think or suggest? People say "Will you experiment on animals in the future?" If you have a new vaccination that may help rabies or some other human pattern of behavior that's less desirable do you want us to give that shot to the person or not? What is it you want to do? Do you want to give it to chimpanzees and see what effect it has or do you want to give it to a human being or are you willing to accept new, experimental shots? "I don't want to give it to animals, but I don't want to..." Well, you're not offering anything. Every vaccination that you get has been tried on animals because people didn't know what else to do. They didn't know who else to try it on. There were some doctors that said "I will shoot myself with it because I have no right to shoot anyone else." A lot of them died. Do you want doctors to try it on themselves or have you a new approach to that problem so we don't have to try it on animals? What do you suggest as a new approach? You say "Well, maybe we can build an artificial blood circuit." Go to work on that. See if you can. I'm not against people suggesting other things but the suggestions better be based on some knowledge of the human circulatory system or disease. Yes? - Jacque, I think on the frequently asked questions section it says The Venus Project doesn't support animal testing. - Yes. It doesn't. - This is not really the case though is it? - Well, during the transition during the transition, yes. After the transition, people will be researching like mad all different possible alternatives to try to alleviate that condition. I don't like raising cows or pigs for the dinner table but we'd have to study more on nutrition and how meat affects human behavior and if it's detrimental to human behavior. People say "Well, I don't believe in killing animals." Maybe, with the possibility of nanotechnology we can make liver tissue, beef without raising animals and killing them. We might be able to take atoms and arrange them into whatever molecular configuration is desirable: vegetables or animal tissue. That would mean no killing or torture of animals but unless you come up with the nanotechnology they will continue to do the testing on what they consider inferior animals unless you suggest something else so we have to do a fantastic amount of research. In doing research we can come up with ideas but not doing research, saying "I don't believe in killing animals" if you don't suggest an alternative, they will go on doing that so I suggest a great deal of experimental work. If the experiments are wrong, it just won't work. A lot of people want to know "How do I know that these cities will cost less?" I'm not going to give them the figures on that because all I know is if you repeat the same design (in this case it's eight times) it's going to cost less. If every building is a different size, it's going to cost more. If you standardize windows and everything else in the mid-buildings the cost is less but if every skyscraper has windows that are custom built for that building you're going to have to pay more in terms of energy to get that. If transportation is built in the middle of the city zone, it goes around. (I mention that many times.) They want to know what the figures are, how much it will cost to do that. That's a price system question. Do we have resources to do it? That's the real question. How much concrete do we have, and if we don't have enough concrete what kind of new materials can we develop to take care of that? Basically, I can't give them cost estimates because land costs vary. It depends on where it is and how far that land is from concrete. Siam has the largest concrete company in the world so if it's built in Siam, it'll cost less but if it's too far away from Siam we'd use other composite materials. I can't tell you, maybe ten years from now or five years from now a new material comes out so why should I specify that all these would be built of concrete reinforced with metal? I don't know what new materials will come out. At that time, if it's five years from now it'll be the latest material. Right now if I design a city of what I know of up to now it won't be the latest. It won't be the best. Do you understand that? There are other problems that I mentioned in the past: giving people blueprints to cities. They can take out patents on it that can stop us from putting it up because they own the patents. I can't just hand out blueprints of cities to people because certain things I don't know. Let's say that the soil is 65 ft deep then you come to bedrock. Do you know what that is? So, you need piling under the building all the way down to the bedrock. I can't give you any estimate on the city unless a geologist shows me a cross section of the soil. I don't know how many piles we need. Are we 15 ft from bedrock? Are we on solid bedrock? New York has bedrock about 10 to 20 ft down and so big skyscrapers can go up without too much piling. I can't know all those things. If I gathered information of all the areas of the world I would be giving people all kinds of information to save them a lot of financial investment in a monetary system. They might begin to turn out cities like this because they're more financially able to turn out cities if they economize. That's about the only kind of information I can give out. I can't give out specifics because I don't know what people will do with it. Our job now is cleaning up the mess rendered by the free enterprise system which can take years to clean up. I don't like that but we have to do it. If we don't clean up the mess, the oceans... They say they have epidemics of certain types of fish dying and coming ashore. What the hell to do research on what's killing the fish! We want to remove what's killing the fish! Do you understand what I mean? Is it the radioactive material the army dumped in the sea? Is it the nerve gas the army dumped in the sea? I don't care what it is. Whatever it is, we have to clean it up as best we can. I don't know, by the time we get to the first Venus Project City how far along will they dump and poison the air and all that. There comes a point of no return. If you've done too much damage to the environment we cannot solve those problems. If you let the price system go (the money system) the pollution will arrive at a density where it's impractical to clean up.

Video Details

Duration: 14 minutes and 9 seconds
Year: 2011
Country: United States
Language: English
Producer: The Venus Project
Director: The Venus Project
Views: 118
Posted by: ltiofficial on Nov 2, 2011

Jacque Fresco talks about Language in Transition, Research, Animal Testing, Energy Comparison (2011-10-25). Note: This location contains only "official", fully proofread versions of the transcript & translations, whose sharing is encouraged. More will be added as they are completed at: ( If your language is not yet represented here, consider helping these efforts by joining your language team at

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.