Jacque Fresco

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

[Roland]

Wow.

I've followed The Venus Project and the work of Jacque Fresco since they were associated with the Zeitgeist movement. Jacque Fresco is a fascinating person with amazing ideas and I love the Venus project. I could listen to that guy talk all day.

I had not come across this talk before. Amazing! Thank you so much for sharing this. I will surely be watching this again sometime.

I wish more people knew about these things.

[Thrasymachus]

We do not live in enough of a surrogate, fake human created reality for you? You want more? People already don't know how to be brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, but they do know how to be shoppers and workers. Still you want more of such teleological progress?


People like you need to wake up from your trance. Fresco is a scammer, peddling puerile dreams, but a very attractive one because he offers the illusion of an external utopia without any inner change or effort on your part.

[Raksha]

Thankyou Karma Dondrup Tashi. I hadn't heard of this gentleman before, and I was very impressed. I have a good friend who has much the same ideas and I will show him this clip this afternoon, he will be overjoyed. I really, really wish the world were organised in the way that Mr. Fresco proposes, and that his ideas and the similar ones of His Holiness the Dalai Lama were put into practice. When I look at the leaders we actually have....
Thankyou again.
R.

[Roland]

We do not live in enough of a surrogate, fake human created reality for you? You want more? People already don't know how to be brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, but they do know how to be shoppers and workers. Still you want more of such teleological progress?


People like you need to wake up from your trance. Fresco is a scammer, peddling puerile dreams, but a very attractive one because he offers the illusion of an external utopia without any inner change or effort on your part.

Hello sir,

I'm really not that passionate about it. I am aware of what people say about the corruption/scamming and that is unfortunate. Yes, it is a utopia that would never work, I think. That aside, there are still some great technological and other ideas in there.

[Inge]

Wow, was my first impression after watching the video to, but then after thinking about it I don´t really know what he was trying to say, other than that politicians are idiots, and that he is really smart. After watching it I have no idea what the venus project is. What is it that he is talking about?

[dharmagoat]

Why in a utopia does the architecture look so garish?

[Roland]

Why in a utopia does the architecture look so garish?

[Adumbra]

Thrasymachus wrote:
\We do not live in enough of a surrogate, fake human created reality for you? You want more? People already don't know how to be brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, but they do know how to be shoppers and workers. Still you want more of such teleological progress? People like you need to wake up from your trance. Fresco is a scammer, peddling puerile dreams, but a very attractive one because he offers the illusion of an external utopia without any inner change or effort on your part.

Internal change? Well, that would be nice but human nature hasn't changed for thousands of years. We're products of our enviroment. People who live in a system of artificial (or actual) scarcity run by psychopaths aren't likely to become ethical and compassionate since this would lessen their chances of survival. I think Fresco's idea of changing the enviroment so that altruistic behavior at least isn't penalized and everyone's basic survival needs are taken care of is a much better plan than trying to convince people to be ethical and compassionate when they see those who are doing this having their faces jackbooted into the mud.

Fresco and his ilk are the real saviors of mankind.

It is the religious leaders like Muhammad and Jesus who have been pushing pipe dreams on us. Prayer has never solved anything. You can can pray 'till your face is blue for a cure to smallpox or more resiliant crops and recieve nothing.

Even the most well-intentioned of philosophers (and I include Buddha Siddhartha in that category) have only succeeded in making a shitty life more tolerable for the masses. Buddha knew he couldn't eliminate suffering and in fact took things like poverty, death, and disease for granted as part of the human condition. The best he could do was take the edge off of the mental suffering that these evils gave rise to.

It has always been the inventors and scientists like Fresco who actually changed world and left lasting legacies to humankind. Louise Pasteur is a good example (though I could cite dozens more): he didn't take disease for granted, he invented the vaccine, an idea which saved innumberable lives and still does.

Jacque Fresco has some damn good ideas. Buckminster Fuller did too. And if even if only a fraction of them turn out to be feasible he will have contributed more to human happiness than all the pessimistic philosophers in history (Buddha, Schopenhaur, et all) ever could. And, by the way, 'utopia' is a relative idea. Dirty, 19th century workers in London would consider the place I live to be a utopia even though to me its flaws are glaring enough. Jacque's society would not be perfect, but it would be damn better than where we are now. Progress, not perfection.

[catmoon]

Buddha is pessimistic? Funny, I thought he taught that there is a way out of this mess.

[Raksha]

Prayer has never solved anything. You can can pray 'till your face is blue for a cure to smallpox or more resiliant crops and recieve nothing.

For my part I believe that the greatest Buddhist saints could actually reach out and touch the surface of the moon with a fingertip, stop the sun in its tracks, or walk inside the hollow horn of a dead yak. Reality is malleable and plastic, because it is created by mind and the magical powers of mind are limitless. If prayer fails or the world is a limited, horrible place it is because we have projected it this way. If you pray and at the same time secretly believe that it is hopeless then you will indeed go blue in the face. My favourite miracle was when one Buddhist saint was explaining the Dharma to a group of sceptics, to demonstrate his point he walked over to a nearby mural depicting a herd of cows and milked one of them, filling his begging bowl with fresh milk which he then passed around.
R.

[Roland]

And, by the way, 'utopia' is a relative idea.

This is a very good point. I considered this immediately after I made the initial post and realized I've never used the word "utopia" with The Venus Project before... I suppose it doesn't really matter.

Also, if someone saying "without any inner change or effort on your part" is referring to internal/spiritual work, there is no where in the Venus Project that states there is no room for such things, nor that it is unnecessary. It simply doesn't address it. This is not any surprise since Jacque is an inventor among other things, so he is using technology and science to solve, or better handle issues in society that can be solved, or handled better with these things.

That being said, it would very obviously work to improve much of what is wrong in the operations of society today. Using the seemingly infinite abundance of clean energy instead of dinosaur juice, building circular, efficient cities with all services centralized for easier access, automating everything that can be so that people have more time to do things that really matter to them, self building cities, etc. And giving people what they need through a resource/abundance based economy instead of creating wage slaves in a monetary/scarcity based economy. Who would not want that? Besides, of course, corporations, etc. I'm not sure how, or if, it could ever be practically implemented when basically the entire world is run by corporations, greed (not going to get rid of greed, of course), money and oil. Something incredible would have to happen to change the minds of 7 billion or so people to transition from monetary based society to a resource based society. There would have to be incredible changes "internally" in the way most people see the world, or something very drastic, I don't know what. It could be a very gradual thing. Even not being fully implemented, at least we can use some of the ideas to improve what is going on. And of course, it is not going to eliminate all problems.

I wonder what the Buddha would say if these technologies existed in his time, or he was around now. Would he still give economic advice on how to run businesses (like in the Pali Canon)? Or would he present something along these lines? or both?

It is good to see someone supporting these ideas for once. Its is rare that I come across any one who is actually attentive to these matters, and if not, they are either indifferent, not knowing, or aversive. Which is not so surprising given some of Jacque's views which would be construed as "radical" to most people.

[Adumbra]

catmoon:
Buddha is pessimistic? Funny, I thought he taught that there is a way out of this mess.

I guess 'pessimistic' is a relative term as well. No, he wasn't a pessimist to the same degree that the Marquis de Sade was (which amounted to 'The world is Hell, humans are evil by nature, and there is no God so lets have fun destroying each other'). I refer specifically to his outlook on existence.He believed that existence is so full of suffering that it is better to not exist. Now, this is neither true nor false. It's simply a judgement that he came to after he saw how much suffering there is in life in proportion to it's scant pleasures. Buddha was probably a lot more affirming of existence before he saw the corpse and the begger. Imagine the shock, at the age of 29, of learning that people get sick and die. It doesn't seem so horrible to us because we grew up with that knowledge, but for him, it was impossible to affirm the value of a transient existence, painful or pleasurable, that utlimately ends in death followed by an endless and fruitless cycle of rebirths that end the same way.

Raksha:
For my part I believe that the greatest Buddhist saints could actually reach out and touch the surface of the moon with a fingertip, stop the sun in its tracks, or walk inside the hollow horn of a dead yak. Reality is malleable and plastic, because it is created by mind and the magical powers of mind are limitless. If prayer fails or the world is a limited, horrible place it is because we have projected it this way. If you pray and at the same time secretly believe that it is hopeless then you will indeed go blue in the face. My favourite miracle was when one Buddhist saint was explaining the Dharma to a group of sceptics, to demonstrate his point he walked over to a nearby mural depicting a herd of cows and milked one of them, filling his begging bowl with fresh milk which he then passed around.

Um, well, if you aren't being facetious I will admit that the mind certainly does hold amazing latent powers. But how many people have access to them? Men and woman who never get sick and live to a healthy 120 years are pretty rare. I don't think we're gonna eliminate AIDS, cancer, and depression by teaching everyone pranayama and Taoist internal alchemy. How many have the time and discipline to learn?

Roland:
I wonder what the Buddha would say if these technologies existed in his time, or he was around now. Would he still give economic advice on how to run businesses (like in the Pali Canon)? Or would he present something along these lines? or both?

Impossible to know for certain. He would certainly favor the elimination of suffering to whatever degree possible. Buddha did admit that life had it's pleasures but in his discussion on meditation (sorry, don't have the reference) he explained that even the first Dhyana is far superior to the best sex you could ever have. There was another time when, as a very old man, he looked at the beautiful scenery before him and confessed to Ananda that he wouldn't mind living another century if it were possible to do so in good health. If I had to guess, I would say that he would still reject sensual pleasures, but only because for him they are all inferior to the tranquility of deep meditation. It would be more like rejecting a lesser good for a much greater one than simple running away from a painful and meaningless existence.

[dzoki]

I refer specifically to his outlook on existence.He believed that existence is so full of suffering that it is better to not exist. Now, this is neither true nor false.

I am not sure, where you got your info on Buddha´s teaching, but I have never heard that Buddha would say that it is better to not exist. Existence and non-existence are just two extremes. Buddha did not show a path into non-existence, he showed the path beyond existence, but this state cannot be pointed to as non-existence, since it has presence. It is however beyond limits of minds conditioning and judgement. It is our own mind that pinpoints things as real, existent, non-existent etc. So since it cannot be pinned down or shown it cannot be spoken of existent either.

Impossible to know for certain. He would certainly favor the elimination of suffering to whatever degree possible. Buddha did admit that life had it's pleasures but in his discussion on meditation (sorry, don't have the reference) he explained that even the first Dhyana is far superior to the best sex you could ever have. There was another time when, as a very old man, he looked at the beautiful scenery before him and confessed to Ananda that he wouldn't mind living another century if it were possible to do so in good health. If I had to guess, I would say that he would still reject sensual pleasures, but only because for him they are all inferior to the tranquility of deep meditation. It would be more like rejecting a lesser good for a much greater one than simple running away from a painful and meaningless existence.

Tradition has it that Buddha mentioned three times to Ananda, that he could live until the end of eon, he hinted this, so that Ananda would request him to do so, for the benefit of others. For Buddha life and death are illusions so he had no stake in continuing life. Ananda missed this opportunity and when had finaly asked Buddha, Buddha said that it is too late now, since he cast away his will to live.
Dhyanas are in fact considered just a state of calm a focused mind, they are in no way a goal of buddhist meditation. Being attached to dhyana is no different to being attached to sex. Since Buddha is by deifinition (his own) someone who is free from all bondage, how could he choose one object of bondage over the other?

At last to the topic, Fresco is no saviour, I assure you. His idea of Venus project contains several assumptions that operate with forcing ideas upon human beings - should the project be brought to the full scale. One of them is the idea that humanity will have to abandon the old cities. Why would people do that? Ok maybe some people will find it nice to live in sterile and uniform apartment complexes that Fresco´s project proposes (I doubt that there would be many of those), but what about people who like where they live and like the place they call home. Would Venus project move them by force? Another idea of his is that people should abandon their religious afiliations, including showing the outward signs of their religion. I am not sure everybody will like that. You know overall Venus project seems to me to be good old Marx and Engels minus the revolution. One of the warning signs should be that whenever somebody tries to publicly criticize Venus project, there is a host of people who will use ad hominem and other "debate" techniques in orther to silence the criticism.

[Adumbra]

dzoki:
I am not sure, where you got your info on Buddha´s teaching, but I have never heard that Buddha would say that it is better to not exist. Existence and non-existence are just two extremes. Buddha did not show a path into non-existence, he showed the path beyond existence, but this state cannot be pointed to as non-existence, since it has presence. It is however beyond limits of minds conditioning and judgement. It is our own mind that pinpoints things as real, existent, non-existent etc. So since it cannot be pinned down or shown it cannot be spoken of existent either.

I think Schopenhaur said it best:

...we must banish the dark impression of that nothingness which we discern behind all virtue and holiness as their final goal, and which we fear as children fear the dark ; we must not even evade it like the Indians, through myths and meaningless words, such as reabsorption in Brahma or the Nirvana of the Buddhists. Rather do we freely acknowledge that what remains after the entire abolition of will (to live) is for all those who are still full of will certainly nothing ; but, conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and has denied itself, this our world, which is so real, with all its suns and milky-ways -- is nothing.
-Arthur Schopenhaur, The World as Will & Idea Book 4, chapter 71.

'Nothing', of course, is only a concept while Nirvana is an experience and I will take it for granted that no one present here has experienced it. Buddha seemed to be only capable of describing it in negatives: timeless, spaceless, changless, selfless, causeless. Whatever Nirvana is, it is clearly the absence of anything that most people would define as existent since all that we know of as existent is bound up with causality i.e. space-time (even dimensionless concepts require a brain to conceive them). What do we call that which does not exist in space-time? Nothing. We say that it does not exist.

But let us not get entangled in semantics. My point is that Buddha rejected human existence, even all that we could consider alive, as an abberation to be annihilated (and as a side thought, I wonder, if he lived today, would he be at all concerned over the real possibility of a nuclear war killing every living thing on this planet. The end of all life: would this not necessarily be the be the end of all suffering as well? A shortcut to Nirvana?).

Dhyanas are in fact considered just a state of calm a focused mind, they are in no way a goal of buddhist meditation. Being attached to dhyana is no different to being attached to sex. Since Buddha is by deifinition (his own) someone who is free from all bondage, how could he choose one object of bondage over the other?

Interesting... but then to appreciate an experience is not quite the same as being attached to it. I can appreciate a sunny day without wishing that the sun to always shine. So Buddha indulged in meditation, but was not attached to it.

At last to the topic, Fresco is no saviour, I assure you. His idea of Venus project contains several assumptions that operate with forcing ideas upon human beings - should the project be brought to the full scale. One of them is the idea that humanity will have to abandon the old cities. Why would people do that? Ok maybe some people will find it nice to live in sterile and uniform apartment complexes that Fresco´s project proposes (I doubt that there would be many of those), but what about people who like where they live and like the place they call home. Would Venus project move them by force? Another idea of his is that people should abandon their religious afiliations, including showing the outward signs of their religion.

Well, I am by no means an expert on Fresco (so forgive me if I am wrong) but I have never heard him even imply that anyone should be forced to move into his cities or abandon their religion. He simply seems to assume that any sane person would prefer to live in his cities rather than some dirty, crime-ridden inner city ghetto (which is why he has such appeal to the poor). As for religion, since it is only an opiate that dulls the pain of poverty and boredom, I think Fresco just reasons that the various religions will loose their following once poverty and drudgery have been eliminated (something I personally doubt).

I am not sure everybody will like that. You know overall Venus project seems to me to be good old Marx and Engels minus the revolution.

All forms of communism presume that there will be workers. And for there to be workers there must be work to be done. I see Fresco's vision as being much closer to aristocracy than communism. In an aristocracy the elite work to better themselves while the slaves and/or serfs do all the necessary drudgery to keep everyone fed, clothed, and housed. The only difference in Fresco's version is that the 'slaves' are mechanical, cannot suffer, and do not require rest.

One of the warning signs should be that whenever somebody tries to publicly criticize Venus project, there is a host of people who will use ad hominem and other "debate" techniques in orther to silence the criticism.

Ad hominem attacks belie a weak intellect, not necessarily a weak position. In other words, just because some people use weak arguments to defend Fresco doesn't mean Fresco is wrong. It just means that some of his fans need to study rhetoric.

[Raksha]

...the mind certainly does hold amazing latent powers. But how many people have access to them? Men and woman who never get sick and live to a healthy 120 years are pretty rare. I don't think we're gonna eliminate AIDS, cancer, and depression by teaching everyone pranayama and Taoist internal alchemy. How many have the time and discipline to learn?

Following in the footsteps of Lord Buddha can eliminate all ills. Even just a healthy mental attitude can have dramatically positive effects on ones health. I'm not denying that we live in a dark age and that all such efforts are paddling upstream against the flow of negative karma, which is extremely strong. Of course, I would be overjoyed if everyone mastered internal alchemy, like in the golden age, but alas that isn't going to happen. Instead we have do whatever we can, no matter how little, like solitary ninjas against an endless army.
R.

[lobster]

guys
I was really looking forward to the question section. Is that available?
Also enjoyed the responses in this thread . . .

Spirituality can make us saner, smarter and more able (that's the plan).
The results speak for themself.

[SocietalAddress]

Look, I understand people are skeptical about Jacque Fresco and his work, and when you look at the pictures you can't escape the idea that the Venus Project is a design of a utopia.

However, there are many, many videos in which Jacque Fresco explains his work, and all of the machines and equipment he designed have a scientifical foundation. They are the products of our current scientifical knowledge. Just to say that materially they are achievable.

Furthermore, Jacque Fresco often emphasizes that The Venus Project is not a design of a utopia. It is not perfect. There will still be problems, and people need to be trained to address those problems. But a lot of the problems we have now, and have always had, can be solved with technology.

Also, why would it never happen? Did you know that a study of a couple of years ago concluded that 147 companies own 40 percent of the world's wealth? 147 companies, of the numerous existing companies in the world. Does that seem fair to you? Are you aware of corporatism, of politicians serving in companies' best interest because they are being paid for it, and the medical business corrupting because they'd rather get paid than saving lives? As Jacque Fresco says: don't take my word for it. Do research on it.

We don't have to accept the current state of the world. We can undo a system we've created ourselves. These systems are not physical laws. They are man-made. We can change it. But we'll have to co-operate, and we'll have to want to. Do you understand? You have the capacity, the capability, the intelligence, and the skills to help change the world. Do you understand that? Don't underestimate yourself. Rise above the general notion that "we are what we are and we can't do anything about it". Rise above the misconception that it is in human nature to compete and kill and destroy. It is not. We've built amazing things. We've done amazing things. Study has pointed out that humans, social creatures (or animals if you will), are more prone to cooperation and support, than they are to hostility. It is the monetary system that makes us compete, it is the monetary system that corrupts us.

We don't have to live like this.

That said, Jacque Fresco a scammer? That's based on nothing. What hidden agenda could he have, doing what he does? He advocates world peace, humanity and technology utilized to the benefit of people. He has made the improvement of our civilzation his life's work. He gives us practical blueprints and models and designs. How can that be a scam?

Look, it is okay to be skeptical. It's not that I'm not skeptical myself. Though it is a minor issue compared to the well-being of humans and animals, I am concerned about disappearing cultures. Wouldn't life be too monotonous living in a world like The Venus Project? Won't the pleasure of traveling disappear in a world like that? And what about the sewers and the underground railways and all that jazz. I have questions too. But I put them in an email and I sent them to the Venus Project. I did that today, so I can't tell you what their answers were.

But anyway, I understand you're skeptical. But if you call it a utopia, it means you think it's too good to be true. Think about that. Too GOOD to be true. It's good. You'd like to live in a world like that. But you can't believe that would ever happen.

Why not? What are your questions? What are your doubts? Formulate them. Present them to the Venus Project, or try to think of solutions yourself.

Instead of thinking against it, try thinking along. Let's be constructive.

[Roland]

It is possible. The technologies exist or can be developed. They are not that far fetched and are realistic.

What I'm not sure is possible is the practical implementation of the project. How would that happen? Other than a complete economic meltdown where there is no other alternative, or some sort of societal collapse. Even then, how? Would it not be more difficult to implement in a world which is in that much more turmoil? I wonder if there is any sort of smooth(er) transition into this sort of thing, and if enough people would agree to let go of currency or even to accept the ideas of the project for it to actually be effective.

Jacque says that he invented thousands of things, but could never afford the patents for them. Furthermore, he would get really close to finishing his inventions, and would spend the last of his money on them. He would not be able to pay his bills, so "the auctioneers" would come to his place and sell off all his inventions. But he didn't really care, he just loved to invent things. In that way, he has contributed greatly to society already, and this was far before the Venus Project, which is basically a culmination of his life's work.

I don't know how or if the accusations of scamming are valid. There is no way I could know for sure whether any of that is true or not, at least not that I can currently see, but I tend to lean much on the side of it not being true. Primarily because all things I've read in relation to scamming seems very contrived and like nonsense.

Oh and the couple of times that I've emailed them, I've never gotten a response. Although this has been many years ago. Maybe I will try that again...

[Roland]

At last to the topic, Fresco is no saviour, I assure you. His idea of Venus project contains several assumptions that operate with forcing ideas upon human beings - should the project be brought to the full scale. One of them is the idea that humanity will have to abandon the old cities. Why would people do that? Ok maybe some people will find it nice to live in sterile and uniform apartment complexes that Fresco´s project proposes (I doubt that there would be many of those), but what about people who like where they live and like the place they call home. Would Venus project move them by force? Another idea of his is that people should abandon their religious afiliations, including showing the outward signs of their religion. I am not sure everybody will like that. You know overall Venus project seems to me to be good old Marx and Engels minus the revolution. One of the warning signs should be that whenever somebody tries to publicly criticize Venus project, there is a host of people who will use ad hominem and other "debate" techniques in orther to silence the criticism.

The idea is that no one is forced to do anything during the "transition period". People can still live in their houses, use the existing cities, basically while the project "grows". But no existing structures would be updated or repaired. I am someone who doesn't like living in cities, so that would not work for me. But there would be custom made houses that can be built in any area, and not everyone would have to live in the cities, if they didn't want. Apparently the idea is that people could see the advantages of the cities and custom houses and might be convinced to transition to them. Following that idea, I would assume that the more prominent and larger scale it becomes, more people would be willing to accept. I'm guessing this is the implication.

As for religion, and I'd imagine this is the sketchiest and most difficult part, people would just practice what ever they want to practice. No one would be forced to abandon anything, according to the project. But I think the sketchy part, probably to some people, is where they would try to "educate out beliefs that are irrelevant" and the assumption that some people will see the advantages of the Venus Project and will naturally and gradually choose to abandon their beliefs. Which I think is what you are referring to when you said "Another idea of his is that people should abandon their religious afiliations..." I see how people can have problems in this area, for sure. People are not going to like you trying to educate them on the irrelevancy of their beliefs, whether they are irrelevant or not, or whether someone decides they are irrelevant or not, etc. This would surely cause problems. Prodding at people's beliefs never brings anything good, as far as I know.