I know I have a habit of trying to design Utopias, but it looks like someone beat me to it. What do you think of the Venus Project?

With the society we live in now, the only difference would be that this area would be the suburbs, except for a smaller, elite group. It’s all about money, remember.

That’s amazing, though.

Again, I admire your idealism and your wanting to make the world a better place, and again, I hate to be cynical, but no one has yet beaten you to a utopia that has had any broad appeal or ever lasted very long. I you could get enough people to commit to some of the utopian strategies and ideals that have been proposed over the last however many hundreds, or thousand of year people have been proposing these things, if you could get people to do that, the world might not be a utopia, but it would be a pretty good place. It’s just pretty difficult to do.

Edit: O.K. I actually read the whole Venus Project and what bothers me about that sort of thing is the fact that: It just ain’t gonna happen! To propose an idea that would involve getting the entire world to renounce the idea of money, to renounce a monetary economy and replace it with a resource-based economy. That simply will never happen. There are a tremendous number of problems in the world and a lot of suffering. I admire they want to make the world a better place, are dedicated to it and big picture thinker, but to waste time on something that will never happen at the expense of the possibility of putting your energies into fixing thing that can actually be fixed and trying to alleviate the misery of people who are suffering right this minute seems a better use everyone’s time and energy.

They’re retarded techno-utopianist with no conception of reality or anything resembling a functional understanding of societies past and present. Sounds like a great way for the rich to fuck everyone over more.

(Sorry I haven’t been on much lately, no internet at home, but I thought I’d offer the quick mention of my hatred for the Venus Project bullshit).

Right now, it’s all about money. But if I’m right about the worldwide crisis I’m predicting, it could give us the push we need.

Obviously, this wouldn’t work on any large scale, but it could definitely be feasible on a small scale, like a small town or something. It would start like any civilization: start very small and just grow out over time (then collapse? Lol).

Edit: No joke, this would probably work in Oregon.

I don’t know, dan. The core of the idea is getting rid of the money system all together and designing our lives based on an understanding of what resources we have on Earth and how its systems work together. What the creator is suggesting is that every single person on the planet could live this way, and that if this were so, there would be no wealth disparity. As I said, I don’t think it’s THE ANSWER, but imagine combining this sort of design with permaculture. If we could figure out a way for everyone to live and grow and create without fucking up this beautiful little ball we all share…just imagine what we could do, what beautiful things our lives could become.

The best Utopia is still available to anyone that wants it.
Simple living, little farmstead, nature, grow your own.

Us 60’s & 70’s peeps paved that road and it’s still a viable path. ;-)

What would the laws of such a system be? How much freedom would the people living in it have to explore or to go outside the social boundaries? Whay would be the society’s enforcement tools?

Because you can reform society and its rules, but you cannot change human nature.

I think it is too idealistic.

@Coloma

That’s probably what I’ll end up doing. Ever heard of Earthships?

I know this sort of thing won’t be implemented on a global scale in the near future, but can you imagine what the world would be like if we combined a social and spiritual revolution (which crisis and psychedelic drugs could both catalyze) with this kind of design?

My fear is that there will be a period of chaos, or that I may never see the end of the chaos. Thus, an Earthship somewhere remote seems my safest bet. Not for a while though, they take knowledge and time and still take money to build.

@marinelife

What we’re hoping is that we could live in a society with no need for laws or enforcement, where humanity could realize its full potential.

I think what he’s hoping is that technology and environment shape human behavior, that we can design our way out of this hole we’ve dug. It is certainly true that we must take scientific stock of the planet we find ourselves on and globally track the use of resources and the impacts this has. We must see the planet for what it is: an interconnected whole. We must build cities that are self-sufficient yet interconnected. They themselves must be designed as interconnected wholes.

However, I believe that we also must realize that we are also interconnected wholes, parts of an interconnected whole.

Ok first of all i noticed how people are using the word “Utopian” as if it is some kind of insult to the project, which is sad.
I do agree that most ideals are out of reach, but this doesn’t mean that the right thing to do is to find some other less idealistic thing but that is more doable. No, the right thing to do is to get as close as possible to the ideal, even though we could never actually reach it. So being an idealist is not equivalent to living up there in your own world where nothing is ever really going to happen, while all the real cynical people who are actually making a difference are down here being very realistic. Being an idealist for me means going after what you think is right and not give up to the status quo.
Now regarding the Venus project, i think it offers a solution to many problems and this is always a good thing, but like everything else it needs to be questioned and investigated and given a lot of thought to find out what’s wrong with that system. I don’t like it when people attack such ideas, even if they had their shortcomings, be constructive and positive, help building up the idea, don’t tear down other people’s attempts at improving the world.
I haven’t really paid the Venus project plenty of thought, but i was impressed at first, and i did spot some things that might be of concern for me in such a system, but im not going to get into it because i don’t believe that the Venus project should be an issue in the first place. It’s not like anyone is going to pass a bill any day soon declaring the launch of that project, and even those who disagree with the final utopian view of the project agree on the first steps which are to start improving what we have today, to control capitalism, and for some (including myself) to demolish it, and then we’ll discuss the next step, but our different views for the final goal shouldn’t stop us from uniting our efforts in fighting for what we all agree on, and so the things that i think deserve more discussion than the Venus project and similar ideas are the current problems and how to deal with those first. Ofcourse nothing is wrong with discussing ideals, but i’d hate to see people who should be standing together in these days, being divided instead over what might happen in the future.

@Hobbes But how will the society deal with evil people, selfish people, jealous people? I think those types will still exist.

@Evolving

Yeah, just let me say again that I do not think the Venus Project is a perfect answer. It provides workable technical solutions to many of the physical problems that plague us today.

@marinelife

However, I think you’ve hit upon the fact that he rather brushes the complexity and Mystery of the human mind under the rug. I think that this sort of vision will be impossible without some sort of shift in consciousness.

He’s saying that all seeming evil is caused by the environment in which a human is raised. I think the root cause of evil acts, selfishness and jealousy is the illusion that we are separate from one another. I think that if people behaved as though it were the case that we are interconnected wholes that are part of an interconnected whole, or at least tried to keep it in mind, we wouldn’t need laws. Instead, we would protect and help victims rather than punish those who harmed them. Because that person was harming themselves, and to harm him would be to harm ourselves.

@Hobbes
But if people are willing on certain occasions to harm themselves, how would viewing ourselves as interconnected with others really stop us from harming them? I agree that it would greatly decrease crime rate, but not to go as far as to say that this is the root cause of evil acts. It’s possibly one of the main roots.

“Evil” is pathological ego. Plain and simple.
Often the usual combo plate of nature vs. nurture.
Whether it takes the form of simple immaturity and ignorance or manifests as malignant mental disease such as narcissism and sociopathy.

Only a relatively healthy psyche can compute a sense of spiritual interconnectedness.

While true, that we ARE all “one”, in the truest sense of the word, as individual forms we must still be discerning.

We can have compassion but it is still foolish to extend your hand to a rattlesnake. lol

@Evolving

When harm does occur, the focus must be on helping and protecting victims, not on punishment. In some cases it may be necessary to act to prevent harm from occurring, but punitive measures are never justified.

@Coloma

Yes, knowing we’re all one won’t stop the rattlesnake’s venom.

What I’m trying to argue though is that we must reorganize society to reflect our interdependent nature, and that this must be caused/reflected by a shift in consciousness realizing that truth.

For example, departing from the Venus Project for a moment and taking a swing by Earthships:

What if we lived in an interconnected network of villages? Each village could be an interconnected network of homes, each supplying their own temperature control, air, water, food, and power, with waste being used to fertilize plants. They would be like cells within a larger organism, independent yet interdependent. If a home ever had a shortage for whatever reason, the rest of the village would help. If a village ever had a shortage, the wider network would help.

This isn’t nearly as in love with technology as the Venus vision, though it doesn’t at all reject it, and people would probably be even less willing to transition to something like that without serious pressure, but it seems to me it would not only work, but would effectively rid us of poverty, and I hope that crime and war and even interpersonal violence might follow.

Especially if most people grew mushrooms.

@Hobbes

Yes, the mushrooms would certainly lend themselves to a communal humor. lol

I seriously believe that psychedelics are a key to our evolution.

I can’t see mankind ever actually achieving a Utopian World. We are too diverse & most Americans are into “doing their own thing” (which does not work well when people need to join together to accomplish important issues, ie. the Republicans & Democrats ! ). I go along with @Coloma suggestion of a small farm & growing your own food. It might not be the total answer, but modified with Solar Power & Wind Power, it does have possibilities.

@Hobbes

Well..wait til you’re 50 something. haha
Been there done that, I certainly have some wild tales in the archives.
Maybe a temporary tool for enlightenment but not an everyday lifestyle.

Now Happy Brownies, those can be beneficial well into our senior years. lol

If enough people start using them together, though, I believe many people will begin to feel and experience the truth of our connection with one another in a way that no intellectual argument can persuade one of.

@marinelife “But how will the society deal with evil people, selfish people, jealous people?”

Backwoods justice is more efficient than any courtroom logjam. Open public humiliation is also very effective. I’m not saying it’s better. Just more efficient.

Harsh? Yes. But not as harsh as walking into a courtroom knowing that the person with the most expensive lawyer team with biased experts wins. Mafioso organizations govern themselves internally by way of backwoods justice and public humiliation (within the organization). There is no desire to rehabilitate. That is accomplished by setting a few harsh examples.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Are you really using the mafia as an example for a good society? Fear controls people, but it doesn’t stop them from harming themselves and others, in fact it often encourages it.

We have a different way of looking at it.

First… define “good society”. Will it include an over burdened legal system and prisons for profit?

When Jack attacks Jane, Jack has a reasonable expectation to get out of it by hiring clever spin doctor lawyers. He can influence witnesses and/or have the trial thrown out on technicality. His thoughts revolve on how to get away with it. Our society almost applauds him for getting over on the system.

But if some Good Ole’ Boys take Jack on a short trip through the deepest part of the woods, and teach him a lesson, then justice has been served without bogging down society. Jack, and everyone else learns that there are immediate consequences to actions. Though you may call it fear tactics, it is not. It’s an acknowledgement of reality… an understanding that illicit actions will have immediate consequences. The law of claw and fang.

I don’t expect anyone to understand my position. It is based mostly upon natural law.

My young son wants to touch the hot oven door. I can warn him. I can grab him. I can spank him and firmly scold him not to do it. But he still wants to do it anyway. And after all that, when I’m out of the room, despite all the warning, he walks over and touches the door. The next hour of screaming and crying confirms that he will never do that again. He now respects the hot oven door. And the reason adults don’t touch the hot oven door is because they understand the immediate consequence of doing so. That’s not fear of the oven door. That’s respect.

What is the “lesson”, specifically? Do they rape him? Do they cut off pieces of his flesh? Beat him until his bones break? Or do they simply murder him and throw his body in a ditch? What does any of this accomplish, exactly?

What if when Jack harms Jane, the first thing people do is ascertain beyond a doubt that Jack did in fact harm Jane, and then try to understand how and why? What if the next thing people do is to help and heal Jane as best they can? If Jack tries to hurt Jane again, they protect her, but nobody harms Jack because the damage has been done. What is the purpose in compounding the harm?

The oven door cannot help burning the hand. It is a natural property of the way heat conducts through materials. But we do not have to burn those who burn us. Instead, we can heal the burns. For those who burn others have been burned themselves, and are often those most in need of healing.

Your last three paragraphs didn’t say anything at all about the consequences for Jack. You wanted to know the “specific” lesson the Good Ole’ Boys teach him… but only so you can pass judgement on the Good Ole’ Boys by determining if their lesson was appropriate. The only other thing you said about Jack was “nobody harms Jack”.

I don’t want a Utopia where the Criminal is a Victim.

The lesson Jack learns from the Good Ole’ Boys will be appropriate to those who live in the area of Jane. They know the arena much better than you or I. As outsiders, we are not qualified to judge. In Summit County, they rape him. In Hogan County, they break his bones. It doesn’t matter and it is not for anyone who doesn’t live there to pass judgement upon. Everyone understands that if you attack Jane in Summit County, you get raped as immediate consequence. Likewise, everyone understands that if you attack Jane in Hogan County, you get your legs broken as immediate consequence.

Utopia allows individual communities to express their own authority upon justice. Certainly no one is silly enough to think that Utopia means that everyone thinks like you or me.

Criminals are victims. There is no excuse for harming another person, but people who harm other people have almost always been harmed in the past. Why is it OK to rape someone because they attacked someone else? Is the agony of broken bones less terrible because the sufferer is a guilty man? Since when do people have the authority to torture and murder you because they live nearby? Do you think the people in County X know anything more about Jack or Jane’s lives than Jack and Jane know about one other? We’re all ignorant and alone and afraid, all in torment. Why not heal instead of wound?

Criminals are victims? They are victims of a society which teaches them that there is no immediate consequence to their actions. If it did, they would think twice before becoming a criminal.
___________

I’ve heard that in some countries, thieves get their right hand chopped off. Never capable of shaking hands normally with a person. It is an outward sign that they were once a thief.

Do I have any right to judge the justice system of a community that I know nothing about?

@Hobbes “Why not heal instead of wound?”

Because forcing healing upon someone who doesn’t want it is like wounding them.

Any victim you examine has been a criminal, and every criminal a victim. We are all in pain. We all cause each other pain.

Healing isn’t forced, it isn’t violent. When people ask for help, it should be given. Sometimes, people hurt other people, but our response should not be to hurt even more, but to help whoever was hurt as best we can.

When a system cuts off people’s hands, that’s all you need to know in many ways. You know a human is in pain. To reiterate an old argument: what if that thief was stealing food to feed his starving family?

The starving thief must weigh the pain of starvation against the consequence of being punished.

To help those who have been hurt? Ever hear of tough love? If Jack attacks Jane, the best thing I can do to help Jack understand that was wrong is to kick his ass really really bad. Bad enough that Jack is laid up in the hospital for a long time. Time enough to think about what he did to deserve getting his ass kicked. That would help Jack more than anything. It would also serve society very well. And Jane would feel like society cares for her too.

He is starving, but so are his children and wife. He must weigh his love for them against the pain of punishment. Is that what you’re advocating?

So tough love is when the Good Ole’ Boys of Suffolk County take Jack into the deepest part of the woods and rape him? Is that what you’re advocating?

Yip.

Jesus. My blood went cold.

Have you ever been raped? Or had your hand cut off? How can you wish those things on other people?

Who said I wished that on other people?

You’re saying they’re acceptable things to do if condoned by a culture.

Jesus? Look, sure… I’d much prefer that J walked onto the scene and said “Let him without sin cast the first stone”. But that’s fixing Utopia after the crime has been committed. That’s not the point.

The point is to fix Utopia before the crime is committed. Were Jack and the starving thief forced to endure immediate consequences, that would make them think twice before committing the crime. And no… suffering is no excuse to break the law.

We are talking about Utopia… aren’t we? Why is there any crime to begin with? A Utopian society would set a standard to prevent it from ever happening in the first place. My justice system assists that endeavor much better than any band aid after the fact.

It’s like our medical industry. We don’t practice preventative health care. We’d much rather you be sick so profit can be generated by keeping you from dying. But we both know it would be better for all if the origin of the sickness were addressed in the first place.

But why do people commit crimes? You seem to think it’s because they’re intrinsically wicked and need to be scared into being good. I think that desperate people do desperate things, people who suffer make others suffer. I don’t think the way to prevent people from hurting each other is to threaten to hurt them more. I think the way is to not put people in situations where they have to weigh their lives and the lives of their loved ones against following laws, because laws will always lose.

The natural law of immediate consequence is nothing to do with fear whatsoever. The same law judges people who eat well, or don’t. It judges those who educate children, and those who harm them with equality. Think of it as a type of Karma… you get what’s coming. Good or bad. Truth is the most beautiful monster that we’ll ever meet.

There is no “threatening” someone into compliance. You’ve misread me. An understanding that one will be held accountable for their actions is not a threat. That’s simply the balance of a Utopian society.

Look… If you crash my car… I forgive you. But you’re still going to pay to get my car fixed.

There is an infinite difference between a hot stove burning someone and some people torturing another person because he hurt someone else. The difference is humanity.

What I’m saying is, if I crash your car, the focus should be on how to get your car repaired or on how to get you a new car, not on how to punish me.

It’s not punishment. It’s consequence.

It is punishment when a group of people decide to hurt someone for doing something they think is wrong. A hot stove doesn’t decide.

I’ve only just come back to the site and have only skimmed the responses. Has anyone talked about resource drawdown? Point being: alternative technologies like the ones the Venus Project proposes to use in droves are, in fact, extremely energy intensive. Solar panels have terrible EROEI, a concept that anyone talking about alternative energy needs to understand. Check out the book Searching for a Miracle for a really good examination of that.

Rap News 9