[TWilliam]

Thought I'd post a couple questions and responses from The Venus Project FAQ (emphases are my own):
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Why is this concept superior to other intentional community projects?

Intentional communities attempt to have a better standard of living within our current system but we see this as patch work. If there is an economic break down, the intentional community falls apart. From our point of view it is not a feasible solution, it is patchwork of private capitalism for a selected few. We are not against intentional communities, but [they do] not address the problems, [they] avoid addressing national and international conflict, unemployment, displacement of people by machines, environmental degradation, political corruption and all the other artificialities of our civilization.

Could individuals live outside the cities?

Yes people can live where ever they wish especially when there is more research done on self-sustaining houses in terms of energy, but there are/would be so many advantages of living in this type of city.

What the new city would provide is a total environment, with clean air and water, health care, good nutrition, access to information and education for all. The city would have art and music centers, fully equipped machine shops, science labs, hobby and sports areas, and manufacturing districts. These new cities could also provide all manners of recreation within a short distance of the residential district. This type of technology is inevitable. Waste recycling, renewable and clean power generating systems, and all manner of services would be managed by integrated, cybernated methods. The management of human affairs, such as life styles and personal preferences, are totally selected by the individual.

Of course, people will be free to live wherever they choose. But these cities are planned with plenty of open country, parks, and wooded areas. In the areas for individual housing there will be enough vegetation and trees between houses to impart a sense of privacy.

Our proposal for a city of the future represents an achievable, sustainable, and sophisticated environment, one that is designed to help bring out the best in the human potential. These cities will not only provide resources and information but will be university cities of continuous [personal] growth, designed to encourage individuality, creativity, and cooperation, with concern for the total person and the environment in which they live.

[b]It is not the intent of The Venus Project to foster uniformity. It is our intent to provide the best tools and information relevant to the needs of each individual. The system also welcomes constructive criticism of its proposals, architecture, and all other aspects of the social system.

[Narz]

To continue on my rant, there seems to be a bias on this forum towards anything that cannot be immediately implemented flawlessly right this second.

As if Leorando was a dumbass because he couldn't actually fully create half the things he designed. As if a technology that cannot be implemented tomorrow or the day after is totally useless.

It's good to be curious & have a skeptical eye but not to just fill in the blanks in your own way & they lambaste accordingly (as Ludi has done in this thread).

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'T')o continue on my rant, there seems to be a bias on this forum towards anything that cannot be immediately implemented flawlessly right this second.

As if Leorando was a dumbass because he couldn't actually fully create half the things he designed. As if a technology that cannot be implemented tomorrow or the day after is totally useless.

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'D')ude, you have your indoor and outdoor grow. The outdoor grow requires sunshine, pitifully scant in the canyons of the city. Even the wide open space of the typical postage-sized surburban back yard has little. As for the indoor grow? 10sq.ft./1 pound crop/600 watts/2 months is not going to feed people.

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'S')o you agree I have behaved badly?

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')Williams, read my posts. I don't have an attitude, just a lot of academic training, professional experience, and common sense.

[TWilliam]

God I hate this medium...

Wasn't questioning your credentials pstarr, only responding to the part about not having an attitude. I bolded that part to indicate such, but maybe your settings make that less obvious than it is on my screen...

Anyway... cool background...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e had our chance years and years ago and apparently blew it. So sad.

[Daniel_Plainview]

Near the end, at 2:25:01 Mike Ruppert says "the world is now using 6 barrels of oil for every barrel it finds; 5 years ago it was using 4 barrels of oil for every barrel it finds; a year from now it will be using 8 barrels of oil for every barrel it finds ..."

Can anyone corroborate that?

[Daniel_Plainview]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daniel_Plainview', 'N')ear the end, at 2:25:01 Mike Ruppert says "the world is now using 6 barrels of oil for every barrel it finds; 5 years ago it was using 4 barrels of oil for every barrel it finds; a year from now it will be using 8 barrels of oil for every barrel it finds ..."

Can anyone corroborate that?

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '
')Looks to me like there's a fair bit of available sunlight...

[pablonite]

I hear Jacques Fresco is apparently a former communist turned inventor-who-never-invented-anything, he has ties to the UN speaking at the 10th anniversary of the UN Earth Charter last year. The UN Earth Charter is global communism wrapped in sugar coated directives that sound much nicer than the actual implementation could ever be. Of course all that needs to happen is for every country to hand over their sovereignty to the UN for the carnage to begin in earnest.

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pablonite', 'I') hear Jacques Fresco is apparently a former communist turned inventor-who-never-invented-anything, he has ties to the UN speaking at the 10th anniversary of the UN Earth Charter last year. The UN Earth Charter is global communism wrapped in sugar coated directives that sound much nicer than the actual implementation could ever be. Of course all that needs to happen is for every country to hand over their sovereignty to the UN for the carnage to begin in earnest.

[mos6507]

I actually sat down and watched most of this to see what the whole buzz is about. That clip has over 2 million hits which is not something to be casually shrugged off. Considering that the last 20 minutes contain a fair amount of doomer porn, the ideas presented here are obviously now percolating in a lot of heads.

I think the people behind this are clearly well-meaning, and they do a fair job of illustrating the problem. However, it raises issues that it can't realistically solve, namely population which doesn't even get mentioned until the last peak oil segment.

The future as they would like to see it is predicated on the world containing "enough" to meet the population's needs if we just abandon money and build the technocopian dream.

Even though it features someone like Ruppert prominently in it, it doesn't present powerdown or "lifeboats". It presents a global epiphany like something out of a science-fiction novel, followed by everyone living in what looks a cross between a cruise ship and EPCOT center.

Even though it wants computers to spit out the optimal uses of the planet's resources, it doesn't entertain the thought that there might not be enough resources even after that optimization is done, even though it says that BAU means we need two earths in a few decades (which is probably a lot worse than that. I've you're talking Bill McKibben's Eaarths, maybe 3, 4, or more). There are already studies out there that say to live at 1 earth means everyone lives like a Bangladeshi, and that's today. Now stack another few billion on top and peak oil and climate change into the mix. Suddenly vertical farms and renewable energy will magically plug the gap? It strains credulity.

So yes, I'm all for a resource-based economy, but what if the computers (like the limits to growth model itself) say that humanity is in fact overdrawn? How do you resolve that in the most peaceful way possible? And if not everybody buys into that? Then what? It presents an all or nothing proposition.

Listen, it was a very well made documentary, containing some very good information that people should see. I just think the end result is a lot of wishful thinking that maybe is about 40 years too late to apply if the end goal is "happily ever after".

I'd certainly root for it over BAU, but I think there would ultimately be a rude awakening when we discover there just isn't enough to go around and some central authority has to decide who lives and who dies (lifeboat ethics).

[scas]

The whole world doesn't have to do that, just a few isolated countries while the rest burn. Maintain stability through the famine and the few that live will be able to go on sustainably. Of course it would need to be a neutral country with a substantial defense force. Thats if were capable of surviving Global Roasting and a Hydrogen Sulfide Event.

His buildings are outlandish, but the concepts can applied to smaller or more efficient structures. Suit the needs of the building site.

Who knows, maybe after we die the trees will grow tall and cool down the Earth a bit. Unlikely though.

On another note, I just watched BBCs Walking with Cavemen...great documentary. A lot of extinct ancestors back to Lucy and beyond, and that's all within a world with polar ice.