Notes on the Venus Project
Overview
The Venus Projectis aimed at changing global economics by declaring that all resources are held in common by humanity. It is an attempt move towards a "economy of plenty" that is similar in some ways to the Open source ecology community idea. They propose to eliminate our current monetary system and replace it with an "economy of resources". The Venus Project seems to think that a global scale is more effective than the village scale envisioned by OSE.
The notes below examine an essay by Jacque Fresco, principle founder of the Venus Project. It can be found at [1]. The comments are mine (Mark Norton) and are not intended to represent the views of the Open Source Ecology organization.
Beyond Utopia
we will assign more and more decision making to machines
While this is certainly one view of the future, the OSE viewpoint is that people are very much in the loop. The GVCS is designed to leverage automation at a small, open source scale to bootstrap a village into being a self-sufficient community. Abdicating decision making to machines may not be in the best interests of society, in the long run.
We believe it is now possible to achieve a society where people would be able to live longer, healthier, and more meaningful productive lives.
Perhaps, but our society, as it currently exists, is extremely unbalanced. Only the top few percent of the wealthy will actually lead a longer, healthier life.
the measure of success would be based upon the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property, and power.
This will require some radical shifting of the rules by which we run our civilization. Acquisition of wealth, property, and power is at the very heart of the game of western civilization. It is a worthy goal, but how do we get there?
Although many of the concepts presented here may appear as unattainable goals, all of the ideas are based upon known scientific principles.
Being based on scientific principles is not enough. People do not act according to "scientific principles". Sociology is a very complex subject and only starting to be understood as a scientific discipline.
Establishing the parameters of this new civilization will require transcending many of the traditions, values, and methods of the past.
How will this be done? It's easy to say, but how exactly will we transcend our history, culture, and current values (including the negative ones)?
In 1898, Edward Bellamy wrote the book Looking Backward.
Mr. Fresco seems to imply that Bellamy's writing is key to his thinking. See [2]. Mr. Fresco states Bellamy and other writers of his time lacked a comprehensive set of blueprints, models, and a methodology for implementation ... they lacked competent individuals to bring about such a transition. Presumably we have such things now.
what is needed is an operational definition of a better world
Define it and shall come into being. To be fair, a definition of the goal is essential to attaining it. Here is Mr. Fresco's definition:
To constantly maximize existing and future technologies with the sole purpose of enhancing all human life and protecting the environment.
I can agree that technology can be used to enhance human life and used correctly, it can be used to protect the environment. However, people are going to have very different views on what this means. Bringing a larger number of people around to the same shared vision is very difficult, especially on a large (national) scale.
It is now possible to relieve humanity of many of its unresolved problems through the humane application of technology.
How? Show me how.
In all established social systems it is necessary to devise different approaches to improve the workings of the system.
In some ways, this reflects one of the core philosophies of Open Source: explore possibilities and don't worry about failure. Good solutions to a problem will emerge out of the seeming chaos of forking, tinkered designs, re-used designs, etc. However, it is much easier to accept the failure of a piece of software or a badly designed piece of equipment than it is to admit that a social experiment failed. Social designs have a direct impact on people's LIVES. If OSE would attempt similar social experiments, the well being of it's participants must be first and foremost in it's requirements.
Fresco goes on to talk about failed science experiments, such as the search for a cure for syphilis. I note that in this process, only microbes were harmed.
All of the technology we use today, such as computers, cellular phones, the Internet, aircraft, and automobiles, are in a constant state of improvement and modification.
This statement is a bit too broad for my tests. Even in high tech, there are examples of very static technology. QWERTY keyboards come to mind. While it has been true of the past 50-80 years, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Even Moore's law will require radical design change if we are to continue a doubling of computer performance every two years or so. In my view, exponential grown is inherently unsustainable over the long term.
Yet our social system and values remain largely static.
This is a simplistic statement. Social systems and values change as well, but societies - especially large ones - have a kind of social momentum that makes change on a large scale difficult. That said, there can be single instants in time which have profound effects on a society. The bombing of the World Trade Center on 9/11 had an absolutely profound effect on the United States ... and not all for the better, either. The problem comes in trying to plan and execute such a pivotal event with an end in mind. Asimov examines some of these concepts in his "Foundation Trilogy".
The future does not depend on our present-day beliefs or social customs, but will continue to evolve a set of values unique to its own time.
This statement doesn't make sense to me. The future MUST depend on present conditions for it to evolve. There can be no change, without a pre-condition. To disregard present day beliefs and social customs seems like a recipe for failure to me.
However, the survival of any social system ultimately depends upon its ability to allow for appropriate change to improve society as a whole.
I note that the Egyptian Bureaucracy lasted for thousands of years in part because they eliminated the possibility of change. It was quite successful and "survived" a long time. I think by their very nature, social systems change - sooner or later. Whether or not they "allow for change" will not alter the fact that change will happen. It could be stated that societies survive because it's members "react" well to change. Also, the definition of "to improve society as a whole" is subjective.
New Frontiers of Social Change
common crises create common bonds
I agree with this phenomenon, to some extent. How can it be used to evolve society in the directions proposed by The Venus Project? Mr. Fresco points out several threats that transcend national boundaries:
overpopulation, energy shortages, pollution, water shortages, economic catastrophe, the spread of uncontrollable disease
These are big problems and actually quite abstract for most people. I'm not sure that they are the kind of crisis that creates a common bond in people, else it would have happened by now. I suppose that we can take Planned Parenthood, The Sierra Club, Earth First, and similar organizations as people with a common bond joining together to deal with these crises. Some of them have had a profound impact on our society and culture, but I think is has been a slow, arduous process.
However, faced even with threats of this magnitude, which are common to all nations, the direction of human action will not be altered so long as powerful nations are able to maintain control of the limited resources available.
This serves to introduce the "resources must be shared in common" premise.
in a monetary-based economy the full benefits of these developments (advances in transportation, housing, medicine, etc) continue to be available to a relative few
Well, I can agree with that. Even those with some money do not receive a commensurate amount of the wealth being generated by the system as a whole. Hidden behind this are the concepts of societal control and power. Who has control in our society? Who has power? How can that be changed. The OSE approach is to gather a small group of people and change the rules of society-at-large within it. At a small scale, the GVCS might very well create an economy of abundance. Can this scale to larger groups of people like cities, nations, or the whole world? Unknown and we will likely not live to see if it is so. That shouldn't prevent the attempt, however.
What is not touched upon is how these new technologies of the future can be used to organize societies and economies efficiently and equitably, without the necessity of uniformity, so that everyone would benefit from them.
Still waiting for Mr. Fresco to explain how technology can be used to organize society.
Neither are there any overall social plans in government or industry to totally eliminate the negative effects of the displacement of people by machines
No, I wouldn't think so. As long at the rich get richer, why should our society care about people being displaced by machines? This is one reason why the GVCS is important. The 50 machines that enable a high civilization to be constructed do NOT displace people in the process. Rather, the empower them to better their own, individual lives. They are tools that can give meaning to life, used well.
Even in modern democracies, these leaders do not benefit the lives of the average person. Rather, they maintain the preferential positions of much of the established order.
This is something that the OSE should bear in mind. While creating an OSE Community to be completely self-sufficient, some outside of that community may view it as a threat, especially to the established order of things. Expect to see legal action, enforcement of byzantine legal codes (building codes, for example), negative publicity, etc. It would do well to prepare for that eventuality.
The prime conditions that would really effect social change will come about when conditions have deteriorated to such an extent that governments, politicians, and social institutions no longer have the support and confidence of the people.
Waiting for that to happen seems like a bad idea to me. Let's see what can be done before everything goes to hell.
True social change is not brought about by men and women of reason and good will on a personal level.
This is something that I cannot accept or believe. It suggests that individuals can do nothing. I disagree in part because it depends on the scale at which one acts. If I convince a few of my friends to get together and build a LifeTrac that we share in common, change has happened in at a micro level of society.
If the person one is talking to does not have the fundamental knowledge of the operation of scientific principles and the processes of natural laws, it is difficult for them to understand how the pieces fit together on a holistic level.
Again, I don't agree with this. In part, it is a matter of education, but it's also a matter of how change is presented and in the ability of a person to trust. Indeed, I think that much of our current societal train wreck is the result of people gaining the trust of those who do not understand the underlying principles and consequences.
The solutions to our problems will not come about through the application of reason or logic.
This leads one to wonder what will lead to solutions. Emotional appeal?
Unfortunately, at present we do not live in a reasonable or logical world.
No, of course not. We live in a world that includes emotions and the spiritual. Societal change must include the emotional and spiritual.
There appears to be no historical record of any established society's leader who deliberately and comprehensively redesigned a culture to fit the changing times.
Hmm. Wouldn't the American Revolution count?
the real factors responsible for social change are brought about by bio-social pressures
We need more definition here. His list includes limited resources, war, overpopulation, epidemics, natural disasters, economic recession, downsizing on a mass scale, technological displacement of people by machines, and the failure of elected officials to overcome such problems..
The introduction of the medium of money to the exchange process brought about a significant change in society, as did the introduction of mechanized agriculture and the Industrial Revolution.
Money and technology.
the world's outmoded social, political, and international order is no longer appropriate to these times
While I'm included to agree, I want to know why. I want to understand the details, lest we set up a new system that leads to the same end.
These obsolete social institutions are unable to grasp the significance of innovative technology to achieve the greatest good for all people
I think they understand it all right. The problem is that the "greatest good for all people" doesn't necessarily lead to the most wealth, control, or power for the elite. Those in power are not altruistic.
Competition and scarcity have caused an atmosphere of jealousy and mistrust to develop between individuals and nations.
True, but how do we fix it?
The concepts of proprietary rights, intellectual property, copyrights, and patents manifested in corporate entities and in the sovereignty of nations, preclude the free exchange of information that is necessary to meet global challenges.
Such things are mechanisms of control. We should be very careful to respect that control (and power). We may not agree with it and seek to change it, but the power is very real. For example, should a large corporation decide that one of OSE's open source designs infringe on one of their patents or IP, a lawsuit would wipe out all that OSE has accomplished - regardless of the merits of that suit.
We cannot regress to traditional values, which no longer apply. Any attempt to retreat to the methods of the past would condemn untold millions to a life of needless misery, toil, and suffering.
Untold millions are already suffering. I am not prepared to abandon all traditional values. Indeed, I'd like to see some return such as personal integrity, the value of inquiry, intelligent discourse, etc.
The challenge that all cultures will encounter in this technological age - some more than others - is that of providing a smoother transition, which would introduce a more appropriate way of thinking about ourselves, the environment and the management of human affairs.
More appropriate ways to think imply education of some kind. I have long been of the belief that education is essential to social change. Indeed I think the erosion of our educational system has contributed greatly to our decline.
The ultimate survival of the human species depends upon planning on a global scale and to cooperatively seek out new alternatives with a relative orientation for improved social arrangements.
This is extremely naive. Humans have trouble cooperating in groups of 10, much less billions. I give the example of both the United Nations and the European Union as examples of attempts to plan things on a very large scale that has had only moderate success.
Along with the introduction of new paradigms towards human and environmental concern, there must be a methodology for making this a reality.
I'm all for methodology. I'm interested in hearing what it might be.
If these ends are to be achieved, the monetary system must eventually be surpassed by a world resource-based economy.
So now we coming to it: eliminate money. Money is a means to coordinate action in the world. It is a way to keep track of work, value, and exchange. So the follow on question is: what will replace money?
In order to effectively and economically utilize resources, the necessary cybernated and computerized technology could eventually be applied to ensure a higher standard of living for everyone.
It could be, perhaps, but how do we actually move to providing a higher standard of living for everyone? Eliminating money won't do it without something to replace it.
With the intelligent and humane application of science and technology, the nations of the world could guide and shape the future for the preservation of the environment and humankind.
Do they really want to? Seriously, do they even care? I mean in the aggregate. Individuals may care.
What is needed to attain a global society is a practical and internationally acceptable comprehensive blueprint.
Hopefully open source and available to all.
Also needed is an international planning council capable of translating the blueprint and the advantages that would be gained through world unification.
A high level cabal? An Illuminati of powerful men? I have absolutely no faith that such a thing could come to be. Change must be bottom up. It will not happen top down.
This proposal could be presented in the vernacular, in a way that non-technical people can easily understand.
Ironically, this directly contradicts a statement that Mr. Fresco made earlier in his essay. He state that such things could not be explained to people who don't understand the underlying principles. Fortunately, I think it could be explained, presented properly. If only I knew what was going to be presented.
In actuality, no one should make decisions as to how this blueprint will be designed.
So we have a committee that will translate the blueprint, but no one will actually design it.
It must be based on the carrying capacity of our planet, its resources, human needs and the like.
So the blueprint will emerge naturally out of the carrying capacity? I suspect the Club of Rome has already drafted this blueprint and it calls for Malthusian drops in population.
In order to sustain our civilization we must coordinate advanced technology and available resources in a total, humane, global systems approach.
There seems to be vacillation between proposing a group of people to coordinate the changes needed and expecting that it will emerge naturally out of the actions of all. Seven billion people can't get together and decide to coordinate technology and available resources. Scale matters.
the systems analysts, computer programmers, operation researchers ... will eventually lead us to large-scale computer-based methods of social operation.
Whew! Good news at last. I am part of the cognoscenti. Geeks shall save us all. Well, we let politicians, businessmen, and lawyers have first crack at it, so perhaps it's reasonable that the technoratti have a chance at lasting social change.
Social operations are far too complex today for any elected politicians to handle.
Oh, they are going to LOVE hearing that.
All the limitations imposed upon us by our present-day monetary system could be surpassed by adopting a global consensus for a worldwide resource-based economy, in which all the planetary resources are viewed and treated as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants.
What does a "resource based economy" mean? Money can be a symbol for resources. Should we lug around the real things, instead? I truly believe that money is NOT going away. It might became more abstract than it is now. Hard currency is disappearing, for example.
In this manner, the earth and our technological procedures could provide us with a limitless supply of material goods and services without the creation of debt or taxation whatsoever.
This is not a justified conclusion based on the argument presented so far.