[elirien]

First of all thank you for the separation of the subjects at hand John. This material is kinda huge and I thought that it needed separate attention from the Zeitgeist Addendum movie (which covers more then just the venus project by the way).

Let's take this step by step:

THE FUTURE AND BEYOND
By Jacque Fresco

BEYOND UTOPIA

With the advent of future developments in science and technology, we will assign more and more decision making to machines. At present this is evident in military systems in which electronic sensors maintain the ideal flight characteristics in advanced aircraft.

These sentences state that technology is so advanced that it can now rule the under-ranked masses (that's the military example) which is wrong imho. What he describes is optimization not decision making. Science and technology don't make decisions. They open up the way to optimize ones efforts on doing things. That's why you can make an atom bomb and research into string theory with the science and knowledge of atoms for example. The decision and aim of your undertaking is still up to you.

The capacities of computers today exceed five hundred trillion bits of information per second. The complexity of today’s civilization is far too complex for human systems to manage without the assistance of electronic computers. Computers of today are relatively primitive compared to those that will evolve in the future. Eventually the management of social systems will call for require electronic sensors interconnected with all phases of the social sequences thus eliminating the need for politics.

This is again the same "borg/cyborg" mindset. The grade of complexity technology reaches just makes decision making or politics easier not making it obsolete but rather easier for the working man to reach rather then an intellectual elite or aristocracy. Look at what just the internet has done for sharing information on these matters. Again, good concepts but wrong idea.

Today modern industrial plants have built in automatic inventory systems, which order materials such as bearings and other mechanical replacements well in advance.

So what? The usage of these raw materials or sophisticated raw materials like a cpu or any mechanical object is still up to the individual if it isn't been used in a centralized political/production environment (for example your home in some sense).

We believe it is now possible to achieve a society where people would be able to live longer, healthier, and more meaningful productive lives. In such a society, the measure of success would be based upon the fulfillment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property, and power. Although many of the concepts presented here may appear as unattainable goals, all of the ideas are based upon known scientific principles. It is not my purpose to write an article that would be acceptable to people this is not the concern of science.

Well o.k. then.

The social direction being proposed here has no parallel in history with any other previous political ideology or economic strategy. Establishing the parameters of this new civilization will require transcending many of the traditions, values, and methods of the past. The future will evolve its own new paradigms, appropriate to each successive phase of human and technological development.

This is a blatant lie imho. This social direction can't be the same anyway because the people in history don't come back and live lives in today (i mean materially). Although I'm really curious what Diogenes or Beethoven for example would think about all of this if they lived right now.

There have been many efforts in this social direction all over history which we call centralization of power and globalization today. It has been all over history but it never succeeded totally. That's what these people mean by "our system is not perfect". Thank god it isn't imho.

Throughout the history of civilization few national leaders or politicians have ever proposed a comprehensive plan to improve the lives of all people under their jurisdiction. Although such individuals as Plato, Edward Bellamy, H.G. Wells, Karl Marx, and Howard Scott all made some attempts to present a new civilization, the established social order considered them impractical dreamers with Utopian designs that ran contrary to the innate elements of human nature. Arrayed against these social pioneers was a formidable status quo composed of vested interests that were comfortable with the way things were, and a populace at large that, out of years of indoctrination and conditioning, wanted no radical changes. These were the millions of unappointed guardians of the status quo. The outlook and philosophy of the leaders were consistent with their positions of differential advantage.

True in a sense but not entirely. I think Mr. Fresco is very right on the idea that there is conditioned human behavior rather then innate human nature. The problem here is again the same thing that they skip the part about human free will. People chose to do these things. They could have chosen to ignore all the hype against Galileo for example but they chose to reject his proven facts. Marx, Wells were people that were chosen to present the blueprint for a long thought out plan rather then individuals who had an idea. About Scott I don't know anything and I didn't read Plato that much to say something about him. But even if they had perhaps very good ideas about the development of humanity, humanity had choices on an individual bases rather then copying what some dudes in temples and government temples found to their liking. The above paragraph has nothing to do with the venus project since it is not even in the process of being demonized by idiotic mass allegations but rather is being dissected on an individual and intellectual basis.

In 1898, Edward Bellamy wrote the book Looking Backward. He conceived of an ideal egalitarian social system with many advanced ideas for its time. This bestseller generated a great deal of interest, and many people inquired as to how this type of cooperative Utopian society could be brought about. But Bellamy replied that he was just a writer and did not know how to create such a society.

The proposals he presented, and those of Plato's Republic, the writings of Karl Marx, H. G. Wells in his book The Shape of Things to Come, and many others all represent attempts to find workable solutions to the many problems that earlier civilizations were unable to resolve. There is little doubt that at the time of Bellamy’s books the social conditions were abominable, which made the Utopian ideal extremely appealing. What appears to be lacking in most of these concepts, however, has been an overall plan and the necessary methods for a transitional system to enable the idea to become a reality. Most of the early visions of a better world did not allow for changes in either technology or human values, tending to arrest innovative efforts. Additionally, all have lacked a comprehensive set of blueprints, models, and a methodology for implementation. Finally, they lacked competent individuals to bring about such a transition.

Well some guy called Jesus had such an idea about a spiritual Israel a while back. He was killed like so many others. What is this paragraph trying to represent? Guilt for what some bigots done and gluing that to their new theory? Built-in rebellion? That's Acharya S's and contemporary media's style imho.

The answers do not lie in debate or philosophical discussion of values, but rather in methodology. Thus what is needed is an operational definition of a better world, which is as follows: To constantly maximize existing and future technologies with the sole purpose of enhancing all human life and protecting the environment.

Well hello fascism. Hello the Georgia Guide stones' mentality. Watch Endgame if you want to see what "no debate and philosophical discussion of values" + "enhancing all human life and protecting the environment" condone. This is optimization of materialism again not debating and researching what we are. It is saying "that's the truth. don't debate it but rather stop here in evolution and cope with centralization". I could go on and on.

Today we have developed the necessary technology to surpass the fondest hopes and dreams of any social innovators of the past. The fact that previous attempts at social change have failed is no justification for us to stop trying. The real danger lies in complacence. The only limitations to the future of humankind are those that we impose upon ourselves. It is now possible to relieve humanity of many of its unresolved problems through the humane application of technology.

Yes. Very true.

Many years ago an attempt was made in the U. S. to understand a social and economic system different from our own. A film called "The March of Time" had this to say about Soviet Communism: "We believe that the American free-enterprise system will function better than the collective system. However, we wish you the best of luck on your new and unusual social experiment." The failure of communism to provide for human needs and to enrich the lives of its citizens is not unlike our own failures. Both failure and success are inherent in the on-going experiment that is social evolution. In all established social systems it is necessary to devise different approaches to improve the workings of the system.

When you ignore the individual and digitize the masses to social engineering statistics that will happen all over. Failure is built in these systems because it ignores the other side of humanity that science tries to learn and control of, spirituality. What the hell do these people think. If I put my head in the sand that it will go away? Hell no. There is more around you then you can even imagine. Why in logic's name would you want to use systems that oppress the individuals development by sucking them dry of their energy in form of money, motivation and intellect? The venus project is nothing more then the same experiment-failure that is called "the great work" by some. Why would one want to try that if you know that it's the same system packaged differently and optimized for more central control through the wrong use of technology?

Science is replete with examples of experiments that have failed, as well as those that have been successful. In the development of the airplane, for example, there were thousands of failures before the first workable model was produced. In the field of medicine, Dr. Erlich attempted over 600 different approaches to controlling syphilis before one was finally proven successful. 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. Yet our social system and values remain largely static.

Well that's what I described above. What changes in a system that is based on centralization?

An inscription on one of our government buildings reads as follows: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Attaining visions requires change. The major reason for resisting change is that it tends to threaten the established interests.

Actually, the fear of social change is somewhat unfounded when we consider that the entire history of civilization has been, in a sense, an experiment. Even the American free-enterprise system, during its earliest stages, faced a multitude of problems much more severe than they are today. These included long work hours, exploitation of child labor, inadequate ventilation in industrial plants, lack of rights for women and minorities, hazardous conditions in mines, and racial prejudice. Despite its many problems, it was the greatest social experiment in history in terms of diversity of lifestyles and individual freedoms, innovations in architecture and technology, and overall progress in general. It is imperative that we continue the process of social experimentation in order to transcend our present limitations and enhance the lives of everyone.

That's exactly what Manly P. Hall said about America and it's future. I can't recall which book or lecture it was but I do recall it in William Cooper's mystery babylon series. The episode was called America's assignment. You can find it here: http://oneheartbooks.com/resources/a...ry_babylon.htm

Besides linking "vision" to many esoteric symbolism there is the grand problem with his theory that he himself addresses. Everything changes in the universe. The problem with social engineering is that it tries to blend humanity to a form that they believe is to be true because of the meek science that has just understood a very small bit of what could be deemed as reality. Since everything changes in this "reality" there can be no "one perfect system" or "order". Continuing to pursue such static and ignorant behaviorism like the venus project and probably many other social engineering feats that we will see itself is contrary to the system "reality" operates in.

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. There are no "Utopias." The very notion of "Utopia" is static. However, the survival of any social system ultimately depends upon its ability to allow for appropriate change to improve society as a whole. The paths that we choose will ultimately determine whether or not there is intelligent life on earth.

True in a sense. "Utopia" or "(usually lowercase) any visionary system of political or social perfection. (dictionary.com)" is based on the concept of separation that I have also done with this topic. Although if you look at it from the whole to the separate parts you can see the aim of what is being proposed.

I will continue later on with his views.

to be continued...

I hope I didn't rant none sense while trying to express myself.

Take care.

addendum :P : I really need a life here lol. I mean commenting was tiring enough. I can't even imagine how it affects people reading all of this. Sorry if it gets too boring