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.