Talk:The Venus Project/Archive 2

EPCOT
I deleted a "See also" link to EPCOT (concept) as I don't think they are particularity similar, one is a political utopia, the other was a project to create a city where different ideas could be tested in practice. As such, the only similarity is a positive view of the future, and in the rest they are rather opposites. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Resource-based economy - Additions that were reverted (30/05/11 04:08,30)
Why were the additions (below) I made, removed by OpenFuture at 04:08, 30 May 2011?

My motive in the addition was to rid it of rhetoric and insert some plain logical structure and more precise descriptive articulation. The voice used before the additions was like one of its activists preaching, while my voice in this was more detached yet observant; if you find I failed, where did I slip? --Adeikov (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The reverted additions
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=431569424

The Concept
In a resource-based economy, resources are allocated into the goods and services in consumer demand, based on factors of availability, sustainability and technological advancement. The role of money would be phased out, instead central computers serve a lineup of goods and services (see Star network), which citizens may order upon demand; central computers serve the lineup of goods based on sustainability and the latest in technological advancement; obsolete, unwanted, or unused goods would be recycled, reduced and/or reused, resource waste is a burden the system must eliminate to function efficiently.

The motivation for adopting a resource-based economy
An economy that is resource-driven serves consumers more effectively than one driven by money. In the monetary system, the access to goods and services is inhibited by the simulation of scarce resources, perpetuated and controlled, to regulate demand, justifying high-prices, so consumers lose money in the market economy. In truth (as Fresco argues), the world is rich in natural resources and energy and that, with modern technology and judicious efficiency, the needs of the global population can be met with abundance, while at the same time removing the current limits of what is deemed possible because of notions of economic viability. Economic viability is the capability of developing and surviving as a relatively independent social, economic or political unit.

Inserted After Fresco's quote on WW2 US aircraft deployment

 * {| class="wikitable"

! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! (see United States aircraft production during World War II
 * -style="background: khaki"
 * Type of airplane ||align=center|Total||align=center|1940¹ ||align=center|1941 ||align=center|1942 ||align=center|1943 ||align=center|1944 ||align=center|1945²
 * Grand total || align=center|295,959 ||align=center|3,611 || align=center|18,466 ||align=center|46,907 ||align=center|84,853||align=center|96,270||align=center|45,852
 * -style="background: #eeeeee;"
 * Combat airplanes|| 200,443||align=center|1,771||align=center|8,395||24,669||53,183||74,564||37,861
 * Very heavy bombers||align=center|3,740||align=center|-||align=center|-||align=center|4||align=center44|91||align=center|1,147||align=center|2,498
 * Heavy bombers||31,685||align=center|46||align=center|282||align=center|2,513||align=center|9,574||15,057||align=center|4,213
 * Medium bombers||21,461||align=center|52||align=center|762||align=center|4,040||align=center|7,256||align=center|6,732||align=center|2,619
 * Light bombers||39,986||align=center|453||align=center|2,617||align=center|5,954||11,848||12,376||align=center|6,738
 * Fighters||99,465||align=center|1,157||align=center|4,036||10,721||23,621||38,848||21,082
 * }
 * Many controls were put on the economy. The most important were price controls, imposed on most products and monitored by the Office of Price Administration. Wages were also controlled. Corporations dealt with numerous agencies, especially the War production Board (WPB), and the War and Navy departments, which had the purchasing power and priorities that largely reshaped and expanded industrial production. (see United States home front during World War II)

I reverted it because: I don't see the "voice of a preacher" you are mentioning in the text that is there now, but your additions definitely have that air, treating Fresco's opinion like if they are fact. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The table is completely irrelevant to this article, and the formatting was confused as well with a part indented for no obvious reason.
 * Your motivation section is POV and unsourced, except for a statement on what economic viability is that doesn't belong in this article.
 * The changes you did to the part about resource-based economy included information on how it should be organized that doesn't exist in the stated source (or as far as I can figure out, anywhere else. Sources on what Fresco actually means with RBE that isn't just talk about how great it will be, but actually explain how it will work and why it would be great would be highly appreciated. I can't find any.)


 * With the US WW2 aircraft production table, I meant to compare Fresco's quoted statements with statistics on aircraft production and the whole story of how the US government could manufacture aircraft beyond the insufficient money and gold funds in stock, and instead just used what material and personnel resources were available.


 * In the motivation section, I inserted a description of the mechanism expressed in a sentence that is expressed formerly in the term 'scarcity', that term gets bantered about without much context, it is only in Fresco's videos that I find an explanation, if I can find the video were Jacques described it I will use it as a reference; when the term 'scarcity' is used without a context, its too vague, not self-evident what is meant; even if in the link scarcity a person could understand, it is not evident in 'the venus project' article how scarcity works to the disadvantage of consumers and then society everywhere.


 * The concept of how a resource economy works; I brought together a summary derived from descriptions made in videos where Jacques explains a little more the details; if I can pin them down, I will reference them; it may be difficult because I am summarizing the essential bits from information learnt from different videos or different parts of the videos; I will do what I can. I hope the videos will be linkable by time into play so I can reference the descriptions.


 * When a description keeps at a level of description where the mechanism is unclear, yet spoken like it is, using terms sophistically and possessively or obsessively; I suppose that is where my distain arrises; or the "voice of a preacher" I perceived.


 * I will keep your thought in mind when I edit again. I will be more diligent with the referencing. And maybe I will understand what parts of my own have that air I wish to avoid, unless it proves to be more effective at explaining the details, framing the idea and its workings, better than the last summary.
 * --Adeikov (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can find the videos where he explains RBE and reference them that would be awesome. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there actually any theory outside of resource based economy that is relevant here?
Or should we merge the theory heading into resource based economy. The two sections currently say pretty much the same thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I might attempt that; I might disassemble and reassemble it with resource based economy section; put the theory under specify subheading; cause it refer to specific aspect of the motivation for change and the resource based economy section the way it is, is part concept and part motivation. --Adeikov (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That could work, at least if we get any more sources on how it's supposed to work. Most of the current sources are only motivation, ie they want RBE because it will lead to less poverty/less crime/something else thats good, but no explanation on why or how it would lead to these. And claims that market economy leads to bad things aren't really theory eitehr, but again just motivation. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Essential factors

 * Common global ownership
 * Sustainability
 * Cybernated Gift Economy (based on global resources, compiled into global manifest of resources, inferring the carrying capacity of the Earth, and determining strategies of sustainability and social wellbeing)
 * Cybernated Maintenance of Routine Governance
 * Integrated Global Culture

--Adeikov (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Transcript of Jacque Fresco
(Transcript|Video) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeikov (talk • contribs) 17:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

5m.55s “When I was a young man growing up in New York City, I refused to pledge allegiance to the flag. Of course I was sent to the principal's office. And he asked me, 'Why don't you want to pledge allegiance? Everybody does!' I said, 'Everybody once believed the Earth was flat but that doesn't make it so.' I explained that America owed everything it has to other cultures and other nations. and that I would rather pledge allegiance to the Earth and everyone on it. Needless to say, it wasn't long before I left school entirely. and I set up a lab in my bedroom. There I began to learn about science and nature. I realized then that the universe is governed by laws and that the human being along with society itself was not exempt from these laws. Then came the crash of 1929, which began what we now call “The Great Depression”. I found it difficult to understand why millions were out of work, homeless, starving while all the factories were sitting there. The resources were unchanged. It was then that I realized that the rules of the economic game were inherently invalid. Shortly after, came World War II where various nations took turns systematically destroying each other. I later calculated that all the destruction and wasted resources spent on that war could have easily provided for every human need on the planet. Since that time I have watched humanity set the stage for its own extinction. I have watched as the precious finite resources are perpetually wasted and destroyed in the name of profit and free markets. I have watched the social values of society be reduced into a base artificiality of materialism and mindless consumption. And I have watched as the monetary powers control the political structure of supposedly free societies. I'm 94 years old now. And I'm afraid my disposition is the same as it was 75 years ago.”

1h.46m.8s “The horror movies of the future will be our society, the way it didn't work and politics, would be part of a horror movie. Well, lots of people today use the term 'cold science' because it's analytical and they don't even know what analytical means. Science means: closer approximations to the way the world really works. So, it's telling the truth - is what it is. A scientist doesn't try to get along with people. They tell them what their findings are. They have to question all things and if some scientist comes up with an experiment that shows certain materials have certain strengths other scientists have to be able to duplicate that experiment and come up with the same results. Even if a scientist feels that an airplane wing due to mathematics or calculations can hold up a given amount of weight they still pile sandbags on it to see when it breaks, and they say 'you know my calculations are right or they are not correct'. I love that system because it's free of bias and free of thinking that math can solve all the problems. You have to put your Math to test also. I think that every system that can be put to test should be put to test. And that all decisions should be based upon research.”

1h.49m.52s A “Resource-Based Economy would be based upon available resources. You can't just bring a lot of people to an island or build a city of 50,000 people without having access to the necessities of life. So, when I use the term a ‘comprehensive systems approach' I'm talking about doing an inventory of the area first and determining what that area can supply- not just architectural approach- not just design approach- but design must be based on all of the requirements to enhance human life and that's what I mean by an integrated way of thinking. Food, clothing, shelter, warmth, love - All those things are necessary and if you deprive people of any of them you have a lesser human being, less capable of functioning.”

2h.9m.52s “The more justice you seek, the more hurt you become because there's no such thing as justice. There is whatever there is out there. That's it. In other words, if people are conditioned to be racist bigots- if they are brought up in an environment that advocates that why do you blame the person for it? They are a victim of a subculture. Therefore they have to be helped. The point is, we have to redesign the environment that produces aberrant behavior. That's the problem. Not putting a person in jail. That's why judges, lawyers, “freedom of choice” - such concepts are dangerous, because it gives you misinformation. That the person is “bad” or that person is a “serial killer”. Serial killers are made just like soldiers become serial killers with a machine gun. They become killing machines, but nobody looks at them as murderers or assassins because that's “natural”. So we blame people. We say, “Well, this guy was a Nazi - he tortured Jews”. No, he was brought up to torture Jews. "Once you accept the fact that people have individual choices and they are free to make those choices." Free to make choices means without being influenced and I can't understand that at all. All of us are influenced in all of our choices by the culture we live in, by our parents and by the values that dominate. So, we're influenced- so there can't be “free” choices. What's the greatest country in the world?' - the true answer: I haven't been all over the world and I don't know enough about different cultures to answer that question.' I don't know anybody that speaks that way. They say, "It's the good old USA! The greatest country in the world!" There is no survey. 'Have you been to India?' - 'No.' 'Have you been to England?' - 'No.' 'Have you been to France?' - 'No.' 'Then what do you make your assumptions on?' They can't answer, they get mad at you. They say, 'God dammit! Who the hell are you to tell me what to think?!' You know. Don't forget: you're dealing with aberrated people. They are not responsible for their answers; they're victims of culture and that means they have been influenced by their culture.”

2h.13m.6s “I believe that communism, socialism, free enterprise, fascism are part of social evolution. You can't take a giant step from one culture to another- there are in-between systems.”

2h.31m.25s “And when things get so bad that people lose confidence in their elected leaders, they will demand change if we don't kill each other in the process or destroy the environment. I'm just afraid that we might get to the point of no return and that bothers me to no end.”

--Adeikov (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Gift Economy?
The categorization of this is dubious and contentious. I have seen every source mentioning a resource-based economy and in none of them has it been labeled as a gift economy. It is apparent that it is your own categorization, and that is original research. Categorization requires analysis and that is not the duty of an encyclopedia editor. An encyclopedia editor gathers facts and views about a subject from sources. New views are not to be created. As tempting and comfortable as it is to categorize ideas, I recommend that it not be categorized unless such categorization can be attributed to a source.--Biophily (talk) 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I add a 2nd party source that may be used to source such a parallel the resource based gift economy; I have added it as a source. If the source is too weak, I will search further or I will replace the words 'gift economy' with the equivalent matching phrase that Jacque would use, source it and add the source. --Adeikov (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That looks like a self-published blog, and hence not a reliable source... --OpenFuture (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Zeitgeist addendum as a source
Zeitgeist Addendum is a movie. To verify that source you have to look through the whole movie in order to see if there is one specific place that supports the statement. Hence it takes two hours to verify each use of it as a source. I find that unacceptable... IMO we should only allow this or any other video as a source if the citation includes a quote and a time withing the movie where the quote is said, so that it can be easily verified. Opinions on that? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like pinpoint the times in that video where Jacques is expressing an idea; if any value can be by extracted and put into a neutral frame; I might try that, perhaps I will add the details on the talk page until it can be integrated and framed well with the rest of the material. I may do likewise with others videos on YouTube Venus Project Media page. --Adeikov (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! --OpenFuture (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work on that! Thanks! (Although I wouldn't mind timestamps for all the quotes). --OpenFuture (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome! This makes Addendum a useful source. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Transcript of Jacques with time-reference in video
(Transcript|Video)

"Corporatocracy" - Headline
(after John Perkins and Peter Joseph)

54m.40s "My name is Jacque Fresco. I'm and industrial designer and a social engineer. I'm very much interested in society and developing a system that might be sustainable, for all people. First of all the word 'corruption' is a monetary invention, that aberrant behavior, behavior that's disruptive to the well-being of people. Well you're dealing with human behavior. And human behavior appears to be environmentally determined. Meaning if you were raised by the Seminole indians as a baby, never saw anything else, you'd hold that value system. And this goes for nations, it goes for individuals, as families they try to indoctrinate their children to their particular faith, and their country and make them feel like they're part of that. And they build a society which they call established. They establish a workable point of view and tend to perpetuate that. Whereas all societies are really emergent, not established. And so they fight new ideas that would interfere with the establishment. Governments try to perpetuate that which keeps them in power. People are not elected to political office to change things. They're put there to keep things the way they are. So you see the basis of corruption is in our society. Let me make it clear. All nations then are basically corrupt because they tend to uphold existing institutions. I don't mean to uphold or downgrade all nations, but communism, socialist, fascism, the free enterprise system, and all others sub-cultures are the same. They are all basically corrupt."

"industry" - Headline
58m.23s "What's in it for me?, is why people think. And so if a man makes money selling a certain product, that's where he's going to fight the existence of another product that may threaten his institution. Therefore, people cannot be fair. And people do not trust each other. A guy will come over to you and say 'I've got just the house you're looking for'... he's a salesman. When a doctor says 'I think your kidney has to come out', I don't know if he's trying to pay off a yacht or that my kidney has to come out. It's hard in a monetary system to trust people. If you came into my store and I said 'This lamp that I've got is pretty good, but the lamp next door is much better', I wouldn't be in business very long. It wouldn't work. If I were ethical, it wouldn't work. So when you say industry cares for people... that's not true. They can't afford to be ethical. So your system is not designed to serve the well-being of people. If you still don't understand that there would be no outsourcing of jobs if they cared about people. Industry does not care. They only hire people because it hasn't been automated yet. So don't talk about decency and ethics, we cannot afford it and remain in business."

(after Peter)

1h.3m.14s "So you see, you have built-in corruption. We're all chiseling off each other, and you can't expect decency in that sort of thing.

"politics" - headline
1h.3m.28s "...a feeling that they don't know who to elect. They think in terms of a democracy, which is not possible in a monetary based economy. If you have more money to advertise your position, the position you desire in government, that isn't a democracy. It serves those in positions of differential advantage. So it's always a dictatorship of the elitist, the financially wealthy."

(after Peter)

1h.5m.14s "It's not politicians that can solve problems. They have no technical capabilities. They don't know how to solve problems. Even if they were sincere, they don't know how to solve problems. It's the technicians that produce the desalinization plants. It's the technicians that give you electricity. That give you motor vehicles. That heat your house, and cool it in the summer time. It's technology that solves problems, not politics. Politics cannot solve problems 'cause they are not trained to do so." (1:05:14 to 1:05:48)

(after Peter)

"technology" - headline
(after Peter)

1h.7m.29s "...and writing your congressman is fantastic. They tell ya, 'Write your congressman if you want something done.' The men in Washington should be at the forefront of technology. The forefront of human study. The forefront of crime. All the factors that shape human behavior. You don't have to write your congressman. What kind of people are they that are appointed to do that job? The future will have great difficulty... and the question that's raised by politicians is: How much will a project cost? The question is not: How much will it cost?, but: Do we have the resources? And we have the resources today to house everyone, build hospitals all over the world, build schools all over the world, the finest equipment in labs for teaching and doing medical research. So you see, we have all that, but we're in a monetary system, and in a monetary system there's profit."

(after Peter)

"scarcity" - headline
1h.9m.40s "What is scarcity? It's based on keeping products valuable. Slowing up production on oil raises the price. Maintaining scarcity of diamonds keeps the price high. They burn diamonds at the Kimberly Diamond Mine. They're made of carbon. That keeps the price up."

(after Peter)

1h.10m.50s "People use the word instinct because they can't account for the behavior. They sit back and they evaluate with their lack of knowledge, and they say things like 'Humans are built a certain way. Greed is a natural thing.' as though they'd worked for years on it. And it's no more natural than wearing clothing."

(after Roxanne)

1h.11m.45s "If you eradicate the conditions that generate what you call socially offensive behavior, it does not exist. A guy says 'Well listen, are they in-born?' No it's not!"

(after Roxanne)

1h.12m.13s "War, poverty, corruption, hunger, misery, human suffering will not change in a monetary system. That is, there'll be very little significant change. It's going to take the redesigning of our culture, our values, and it has to be related to the carrying capacity of the earth, not some human opinion or some politicians notions of the way the world ought to be. Or some religion's notion of the conduct of human affairs. And that's what The Venus Project is about. The society, that we're about to talk about, is a society that is free of all the old superstitions, incarceration, prisons, police, cruelty and law. All laws will disappear and the professions will disappear, that are no longer valid, such as stockbrokers, bankers, advertising... Gone! Forever! Because it's no longer relevant."

(after Peter)

1h.15m.18s "What the Venus Project proposes is an entirely different system that's updated to present day knowledge."

(after Roxanne)

"A resource based economy" - Headline
(after Roxanne)

1h.16m.40s "It's a very different system and it's very hard to talk about because the public is not that well enough informed as to the state of technology."

"Energy" - Headline
1h.16m.55s "At present we don't have to burn fossil fuels. We don't have to use anything that would contaminate the environment. There are many sources of energy available."

(after Peter)

"work" - Headline
1h.23m.20s "Now America is inclined towards fascism. It has a propensity by it's dominant philosophy and religion to uphold the fascist point of view. American industry is essentially a fascist institution. If you don't understand that... the minute you punch that time clock, you walk into a dictatorship."

(after Roxanne)

1h.23m.50s "You're brought up to believe that you shall earn your living by the sweat of your brow. That holds people back. Freeing people from drudgery, repetitive jobs which make them ignorant. You rob them. In our society, that is a resource based economy, machines free people. You see, we can't imagine that because we've never known that kind of world."

"automation" - Headline
(after Peter)

1h.25m.5s "When an industry takes on machines instead of shortening the work day, they downsize. You loose your job. So you have a right to fear machines."

1h.26m.11s "We have machines that clean out sewer, it frees a human being from doing that. So look at machines as extensions of human performance."

(after Peter)

1h.26m.58s "Instead of putting up a sign 'Drive carefully. Slippery when wet' put abrasive in the highway so it is not slippery when wet. And if a person gets in a car and they're drunk and the car oscillates a great deal, there is a little pendulum that swings up and back and that will pull the car over to the side... not a law, a solution. Put sonar and radar on automobiles so they can't hit one another. Man made laws are an attempts to deal with recurring problems and not knowing how to solve them they make a law."

(after Peter)

"incentive" - Headline
1h.28m.40s "If people have access to the necessities of life without servitude, debt, barter trade; they behave very differently. You want all these things available without a price tag. Now then, you've gotta have a price tag. What will motivate people? A man gets everything he wants, he'll just lay around in the sun. This is a myth they perpetuate. People in our culture are trained to believe that the monetary system produces incentive. If they have access to things, why should they want to do anything? They will lose their incentive. That's what you're taught to support the monetary system."

(after Roxanne)

1h.29m.31s "When people have access to the necessities of life, their incentives change. What about the moon and the stars? New incentives arise. If you make a painting that you enjoy, you will enjoy giving it to other people, not selling it."

"education" - Headline
(after Roxanne)

1h.30m.26s "Our society's major concern is mental development, and to motivate each person to their highest potential. Because our philosophy is the smarter people are the richer the world, because everybody becomes a contributor."

(after Roxanne)

"civilization" - Headline
1h.31m.1s "Patriotism, weapons, armies, navies, all that is a sign that we're not civilized yet. Kids will ask their parents... 'Didn't you see the necessity of machines? Dad, couldn't you see that war was inevitable when you produce scarcity? Isn't it obvious?' Of course the kid will understand that you were pinheads raised merely to serve the established institutions. We're such an abominable, sick society that we won't make the history books. They'll just say that large nations took land from smaller nations, used force and violence. You'll get history talked about as corrupt behavior all the way along until the beginning of the civilized world. That's when all the nations work together. World unification, working toward common good for all human beings and without anyone being subservient to anyone else. Without social stratification whether it be technical elitism or any other kind of elitism, eradicated from the face of the earth. The 'state' does nothing because there is no 'state'. The system I advocate, a resource based global economy is not perfect, it's just a lot better than what we have. We can never achieve perfection."

(after Peter)

1h.37m.45s "The concept of god, is really a method of accounting for the nature of things. In the early days people didn't know enough about how things formed, how nature worked. So they invented their own little stories, and the made god in their own image. A guy that get's angry when people don't behave right. He creates floods, and earthquakes, and they say it's an act of god."

(after Peter)

1h.40s.19s "The Bible is subject to interpretation. When you read it, you say 'I think Jesus meant this. I think Job meant that. Oh No! He meant this.' So you have the Lutheran, the Seventh-day Adventist, the Catholic, and a church divided is no church at all."

(after Peter)

1h.41m.35s "You don't see the plug to connect to the environment, so it looks like we're free... wandering around. Take the oxygen away, we all die immediately. Take plant life away, we die. And without the sun, all the plants die. So we are connected."

(after John Perkins and Peter Joseph)

1h.50m.10s "They're not gonna give up the monetary system, because of our designs of what we'd recommend. The system has to fail, and people have to lose confidence in their elected leaders. That will be a major turning point if The Venus Project is offered as a major alternative. If not, I fear the consequences. The trends now indicate that our country is going bankrupt. The probability is our country will move towards a military dictatorship to prevent riots and complete social breakdown. Once the US breaks down, all the other cultures will undergo similar things."

(Then Peter and J. Krishnamurti)

Peter Joseph as a source of criticism and interpretation
There is a video where Jacque or Roxanne have an exchange of heated remarks at the date on their break away; Peter made the criticism about time, cost and likelihood of them reaching their target.

Also his view of the resource-based economy or his critique of the present economy; these could be a good source of parallel and disagreement; if Peter has a page or section on the Zeitgeist movement wiki, we could make valid comparisons and parallels and criticisms.

My motive here is to gently and subtly introduce other perspectives without affirming any; and any comparison with other experts to allow the reader a broad perspective and maybe gauge objectively and cleanly as possible. --Adeikov (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Resource-based economy section (9/6/2011)
I was trying think of ways this could be structured best; I think it is better than it was before 28/5/2011; a reader could now pick up on some sense of coherence and substance. Yet, it is not perfect, it is to some degree messy, and some phrases like 'judicious efficiency' are weighty or not as flowing, and even some my own additions need more flow. I may attempt some revision, without subtracting anything vital or nuanced. --Adeikov (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Videos of "The Venus Project Media" channel
--Adeikov (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Transcript of Jacque in "Jacque Fresco-Corrupting Factors, Social Responsibility"
(This done by myself, so any error is mine, though should be mainly punctuational)

"How would you prevent the venus project from becoming corrupt, if people put up money to build the first city and try to dictate the policy of the city? First of all, the venus project would not be sponsored by people that think this system will work; it is the failure of this system that enables people to put money up for an experimental system. If doctors want to build a new hospital to operate differently, they build an experimental hospital and they check it out if it works, if doesn't they go back to the other system. If the venus project designs a city and it doesn't work, we'll change the design, until it does, just like a research programs, there is a lot of things in research that don't work, and so you don't stop doing research, you have to continue doing research, until it does work; will it work perfectly? No, every year it will get better, if you keep at it. So, I see all things changing always, I see no final frontiers, no utopias, and the basis for corruption if you were to have a man finance a city and he tries to steer it in the monetary direction, it'll fail, just like the monetary system.

So, we'll have a city, which we can use, but the guy that run a city will be out, his business will be out, because people don't have purchasing power to keep him going. And as I said before, if wealthy people, all buy big yoahts, and they keep them loaded ready to leave with food, sea piracy will grow, be more pirates in the sea grabbing yoahts, because they can't sail indefinitely without fuel. So, they all go out to the West indies, and they can occupy an island, all these wonderful yoahts, and were millionaires. And if other people on islands are starving they'll invade that island. You understand, you can't live to yourself is the message I'm talking about. If we don't take care of everybody including ourselves, we cannot build a world free of war, poverty, and hunger.

It's been said in religion, all these things, but they don't know, didn't know how to attain it. They thought if only people would be decent and fair. They can't in a competitive world. If you manufacture stockings that have runs in them, people have to buy new stockings, but if Larry invents stockings that don't have a runs, he'll put you out of business or you buy his patent and don't produce it because you want to sell stockings. So how can you be decent and ethical in a competitive world, how can you love your bother if you take advantage of him, by owning a patent that stops him from making something that will benefit other people. If you take a patent out on crutches and your wheelchair, people can't use it unless they pay you. So, all patents and private property deprive other people. When a guy is very wealthy, if he owns four thousand acres of land, I would say he's kind-of a selfish individual, you don't need four thousand acres, unless he gave it to some charity, I'd gathered the man is truly religious. Doctors without borders for me, are more religious than most church attendee, church attending people.

People that do good without reward, you know, the only reward you get is seeing less poverty, hunger, starvation, and deprivation; kids with swollen bellies, all gone. If that don't give you incentive, if your only incentive is the money system, then you don't understand human beings, because you owe your own life to the advances made by Edison, Louie Paster, and all the other people; you're alive because of them. So, if you don't feel you want to put anything back, into the earth, to make it a better place, I would say your harmful to yourself and society. Should we kill those people? No, sent them back to school to learn or show them evidence of the system you believe in and have them produce counter-arguments, don't stop them. Well, if they say this system kills incentive, say, what is your evidence for that. Always, don't kill them, because if you start killing people, you always have people you want to kill. You know what I mean? People just...say, “Well those bastards don't care about anybody but themselves." Well, I would say they need bits of information to be able to do the things that are better for people. Well, who, decides which is better for people? Eventually, the majority of people will decide that. If the system doesn't work, they won't operate it, or they'll find a system that does work.

You know went I was a kid, cops used to blow a whistle to stop traffic and I remember talking a lot, a system where a red light see, a section of pavement went up and it stopped the cars, so they couldn't violate the law. Even if there's a red light, a guy's talking to somebody in the car he can go through a red light. But, we don't want evaluators that might stop on the floor you want it to stop at, we want evaluators that stop on the floor you want it to stop at. We don't want traffic controlled by a light in the guy isn't watching it, we want traffic controlled by a mechanism in the car, instead of a red light, the car stops when other cars are passing, and when they cease to pass you get the go-sign, but don't leave anything up to people, it won't work. Even on an aircraft carrier today there is a guy that signals planes to come in, if a plane has a landing gear problem, he's given priority, they tell the other planes to fly around a little, until the damaged airplane lands. Nobody makes that decision except the conditions that prevail. Do you understand what that means? If we begin to run out of farm land, and the wealthy people or the middle class have difficulty getting food, then a lot of research will be done on hydroponics and ocean farming.

But right now you can't get a nickel for ocean farming, because it's not that necessary, as long as they're eating, that's your problem. And if you make it your problem, you might kill the wealthy guy for his bank account or kidnap his wife for ransom, so that you too can eat.

So, the system generates predatory bahaviour, where take advantage of other people, well you say that human nature, that's the way things are today, there's always been scarcity, so most people are out to take care of themselves. So, if you don't take care of yourself, no one's going to take care of you. And, so, they make us predatory, the system is like that. But you say, “Well, I think its up to each individual," if you really study it you'll find that each individual is made to conform to the social institutions that exist, if they don't conform, they wind up as vagrants in prison or they have difficulty getting a job they don't conform, so your pressed by many different forces to conform. If you walked around without any clothing because you don't believe in clothing, you'll be picked up and arrested and put in jail, if you continue to do that, you might be put in a mental hospital. But that isn't a free country, nothing is free. In a free country, you're free to make your own decision, you're never free to make your own decisions. If you live in any culture, they will work on you, so that you correspond to the values of that culture."

--Adeikov (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Videos of "Jacque Fresco -- JacqueTalk" channel
--Adeikov (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirected
The article relied entirely on primary sources so it was redirected, per the earlier AfD to Zeitgeist: Addendum. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What AfD? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/The Venus Project. 128.59.169.48 (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That was 2008. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you should take the article to WP:DRV if you think that recommendation was incorrect. I don't see any discussion that changes the determination of that consensus. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article discussed for deletion was this, a very different article from the one today.
 * In addition this WAS discussed first in 2009, where several people made the point that it should in fact be merged with Jacque Fresco, and then in 2010, where the consensus was to merge Jacque Fresco into this article, which I also did. (Fresco has since been given a new and much better article). The AfD simply does not apply to todays article, it's different articles, and your failure to see a new consensus comes from not looking.
 * AfD's are not permanent decisions, and deletion reviews are to undelete articles that have been deleted. This has already been undeleted, and been so for two and a half years. If you want to delete it, you have to take it up for AfD again. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is not the same article, the 2008 AfD no longer applies. Polyamorph (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

EXCESSIVE GROOMING
This article reads like an advertisement, with no critical views, very POV. There are plenty of criticisms of TVP, especially its absurd "resource based economy" theories.75.69.183.33 (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In order for the criticisms to be there they have to be valid forms of criticisms. In other words, the critics must actually address the ideas presented other than plain projections. Your notion of a resource based economy being absurd is your own projection with no real objective reasoning for it. Also, if it reads like an advertisement, please point out what in the article is reading like one. Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd love to see some reliable sources for criticism of resource based economy. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There are some acceptable criticisms out there. I will add them in a few weeks if no one else does. The whole article is lacking.--Biophily (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It does read like an advertisment, i think the biggest problem with the VP is the total lack of planning about how to get from where we are now to a global resource based economy, i don't think you need a reource to put that in there. Archwindows (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source for criticism : Richard Heinberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.82.204.95 (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Resource-based economy section again
This material is currently sourced to the organisation or quotes from its founder. In short it is an advertisement for their views. This article is about an organisation, and independent sources are needed for a description of their activities and beliefs. An exposition of their philosophy belongs elsewhere, assuming that it is sufficiently notable for other sources to have discussed it. So I have boldly removed the entire section. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD of interest
Articles for deletion/Resource-based economic model. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding valid counter point of view
In order for a counter point of view to be valid, it must supply a "cited" alternative to the argument. If the Wiki reads like an advertisement it's due to the fact that no one thus far, is either educated, nor intelligent enough to supply a cited alternative to the concept of a Resource Based Economy.

Simply stating that "they" (Fresco, Meadows, TVP, TZM) won't do "it" for me so it would never work, is not a valid alternative.

"I'm afraid of it, " is not a valid alternative.

"They're a (pick your "ism") is not a valid alternative.

The main stream media point of view is not a valid alternative.

Emotionalism is not a valid alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.49.117 (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's good to look for valid alternatives because there may be adjustments to the concept of an RBE that come from it and it also solidifies the legitimacy of the initial point of view should no one come up (and they won't imo)a better plan for a sustainable future.

Irwin Nobody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.49.117 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Tags on top
I think it may be o.k. to remove the neutrality tags and clean up for Wikipedia tags of the article now. I removed a lot of the vauge, iffy material. It still needs more outside of itself citations, but I think the article might be passable now. Comments? Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean up
Cleaned up the self promotion p.o.v. aspect wording, phrasing. Rephrased some things for clarity and neutral presentation and removed some unsupported promotion things, self sourced. No 2nd or third party sourcing at all on things removed. Also removed some video that appears not notable and is sourced to thing itself through Youtube only and not seriously written about elsewhere. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your bias against The Venus Project is evident, but do not merit removing CONSTRUCTIVE verifiable, third party sourced facts and encyclopedic information. Such removal is unconstructive, so please stop. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotDeletable (talk • contribs) 07:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * An exposition of their philosophy belongs elsewhere, assuming that it is sufficiently notable for other sources to have discussed it. En.Wikipedia is not a promotional or ideological mechanism. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Included New York Times critical commentary to "neutralize" the article. The repeatedly removed, latest edits should not be disruptively removed because they contain encyclopedic information such as 1) dates and statements of an advanced automation-human labor elimination connection for readers to understand that this project predates the seemingly more known, Zeitgest Movement who merely copied it six decades later; and 2) Mr. Fresco's notable work as an engineer for readers to identify this project as one based on his engineering background, as opposed to a movement that was based on an unknown (outside of Zeitgest work) filmmaker's interest in this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 12:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not disrupt article improvement referenced by independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 13:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Little information - should be stub?
As it currently stands, this article has extremely little information, and the article about Jacque Fresco actually has more information about the venus project than this article about the venus project... 37.200.35.119 (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral presenting
Biophilly please stop returning the same edits that are biased toward your organization. You are not a neutral editor. That has shown in the past on this subject. You are involved promotion as in advertising of, for Fresco, you have interviewed him and are an active participant in his groups etc. where you present his ideas, in a very public way You have a You-tube channel devoted to him. You are watering down or obscuring information in the past from cited material, removing neutrality aspects and now reintroducing those edits again formatting them slightly differently. I am not saying to recluse yourself from this subject. Just that it is paramount that a member of Fresco's fan club or what ever it is that you are promoting, not put non neutral edits in, because if you change the spin as in tone to make it pro Fresco then you are in a conflict of interest. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry your claims have no basis and are completely unrelated to the edits I made. I don't see how I jeopardized neutrality at all. From your continuous efforts to grossly over exaggerate my position, it seems you are trying to oust me so that you can get your way and crap all over these articles by keeping information minimal and low quality. I noticed incorrect info in the article that you wrote so I fixed it. You are reverting improvements.--Biophily (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that you are a single purpose editor Its obvious that the article Venus Project and Jacque Fresco were disasters previously and are barely o.k. now and it has been difficult for neutral editors to improve them because of Fresco's fan base. Before they were absolutely bad. It is obvious you are involved media wise with Fresco and Venus Project or were, it is above in the link in black and white, so you are in a conflict of interest that shows. Feel free to fix the typos etc., but sugar coating information and taking the neutrality out of the article such as before, is not a good idea. All anyone has to do is look at the article page history to see how atrocious the quality was previously, say six months ago. While being a single purpose editor is not that big a deal and you are a single purpose editor on Wikipedia, making information conform to Fresco standards is a bad idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Haven't checked the source cited; if it says the split was acrimonious, we can say so too. Tom Harrison Talk 13:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. However, someone must verify. Due to the poor and imprecise citation style, we are only left to guess where in that 120 minutes of audio it is stated. In addition, it is a poor source to begin with.--Biophily (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue is that no popular press has written on this issue or not much anyway even in passing. It is apparently not particularly notable that these groups split in media coverage. Looking at material from the two groups as primary source is all we have. Fresco is excited and animated about Joseph and his group misusing his ideas and information. Joseph defended himself adamantly. There is an exchange, an expression of anger between them that Fresco's associate Roxanne Meadows also echoed strongly in their primary sourced information. Doubtful that any actual news media organization even reported on this, at least I can't find it. For sure there was an angry split from each other according to their primary sources from both groups apologizing their positions back and forth. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * True, however there are a few sources for it. I believe Peter Joseph has spoken on the issue in press interviews, though I don't follow his press coverage enough to remember which. I know the Orlando Weekly also mentioned it (see in Fresco article). The sources aren't the best top notch mainstream institutions, but they are moderately considerable. That the group split is more encyclopedic than the emotions and motives involved, unless it has been the dominant consideration in the press that documents it, which is meager.--Biophily (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Organization status
Regarding User:Xan81 edits and his entry on my talkpage, I have a question. What is the status of The Venus Project. Is it a Nonprofit organization or something else? --Rezonansowy (talk &bull;&#32; contribs) 14:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Jacque's Venus Project is a for-profit business. Categorize it as you please; just don't categorize it as a non-profit. Xan81 (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Criticisms of a resource-based economy
This section doesn't actually contain any criticism. It's as of now very confused and of little value IMO. Should we try to fix it (I don't know how) or just remove it? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is really a criticism of the efforts of Fresco; the later bit was a counter point to the criticism; perhaps a section called disadvantages? The criticism of Jacques goes best under the transition subheading where the efforts of Fresco are outlined. An actual criticism section of the whole Venus Project needs to be broader than doubts about progress but also of the whole idea too.


 * I might take the later part of the criticism section and use it in the resource-based economy section; after some framing with the flow of that material.--Adeikov (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A big criticism would be from Isaac Asimov - but he's not alive, anymore. But turning everything over to automation is foolish, at best. Machines are capital - society is social. Any criticism for a capitalist society such as this would fit in this section.

- John Henry is unavailable for comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_(folklore) Xan81 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan81 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section (again)
It's nice to see a lot of activity here, but I don't really see much improvement of the article, and the criticism section is one example of this. There is few references, Bryan Caplans talk about anti-market-bias is relevant, but unless we can find a place where he directly says the TVP is a victim of this bias it's WP:Original Research. The "Counter-point" seems to contain no actual counter-point. To me adding material which doesn't have references or is original research isn't improving the article. As of now we are just getting more and more conjecture, opinions and guesses. I don't like that development. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's because the best criticism so far about The Venus Project is not in English but in Spanish ("El Proyecto Venus contrastado"/ "Corroborating the Venus Project"). A Spanish economist, with the help of some architects, engineers and physicists made a vast critic of Fresco's "Resource Based Economy", his life, curriculum vitae and every invention Fresco tried to materialize. I hope someone could translate the overwhelming amount of text that man wrote from Spanish to English -that's why I don't dare to include the links in the article myself: they are in another language although that economist uses sources and quotes in English. They are some of the most extensive critics I've ever read (the last one has more than three hundred pages in only one post!):


 * El Proyecto Venus contrastado (3ª parte). Análisis profesional y técnico de las características de el Proyecto Venus (PV) y de la Economía Basada en Recursos (EBR). ¿Son ciertas, fiables y están refrendadas por el método científico? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.65.111 (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I will review the material added myself, after studying the original research criterion and neutral pov criterion better, I will rectify the issues, and ensure conformance. I knew not all of it was perfect and would require alteration later, my motive here was structured flow and better clarity of the concept and critique Jacque Fresco discusses. Tell if my alterations are improvements, I know it's not perfect, I forsee a rewrite based on this structure, but better flow and cohesion and better conformance with Wikipedia. --Adeikov (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Super! You are finding some more sources on RBE, this is good. If you, or someone else, can find reliably sourced criticism, then we could get somewhere with this. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * http://mises.org/daily/4636 --Biophily (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I emailed the bunch of bloggers at Econlib.org for their analysis, critique, and parallel of the economic model offered at venusproject.com and how I wish to use them to reference on this article at Wikipedia, and for any good reference material they of that directly relates to thevenusproject.com economic model. Hopefully I will get treasure trove of reliable references, 2nd or 3rd party, for the article.

Bryan Chaplin is one of the bloggers, they are all economic experts which would be a great source of reference, and potential in future. --Adeikov (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this will be acceptable. This would amount to provoking sources to produce source material for Wikipedia. There may be a policy against that. If it is acceptable practice, the writers would have to publish an article somewhere about it; an email response would not be valid.


 * Aside from that concern, there is another concern pertaining to the contrived nature of this affair. I suspect that if the writers were to respond with an article, it would be the product of an internet surf (discovering notions of utopia and communism), and not a thorough examination of Fresco's main book. This would be because the research was requested of them, and not self-motivated. The result could be a half-baked. Though I could be wrong. --Biophily (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, a resource-based economy is generally a populist ideal. So far, it falls short of academic consideration. In cases such as these, the fate of the idea usually results in two outcomes: only certain aspects of the idea are attended to and the idea is commercialized, or the idea reaches such a noticeable state of populism that academics begin to study it as populism. Whether the idea would actually enter discourse is unknown, perhaps quite unlikely. Elementary parts of Fresco's resource-based economy have been considered thoroughly, but not as a part of Fresco's brand. For the few academics who have considered it as Fresco's brand, the response is positive. However the positive response is not detailed, and basically only expresses approval of the ideal and they refrain from criticizing it – probably because of the idea's humanitarian aspirations and well-intentioned nature. This leaves us with very limited criticism of it. There are plenty of sources that explain a resource-based economy, and plenty with positive regard, but too few expressing detailed criticism useful for your intended purposes here.

There are many sources that review the Venus Project. And there are plenty that mention a resource-based economy. I propose that elaboration of the resource-based economy concept be further pursued, and analysis of it be abandoned. Beings there is limited voices criticizing its viability, we should leave out those voices that profess its viability. We should stick strictly to the concept as elaborated by Fresco and in the context of it as his general philosophy or vision, and/or the philosophy/vision of the Venus Project and its followers.

The best place to find elaboration of the concept is in his book, The Best That Money Can't Buy - not the internet. But if you do not have access to that book, you might consult the essay on the Venus Project website, or you might consult his ebook Designing the Future. If you want third party sources you can look here:
 * Transforming the Global Biosphere
 * Imagining the Cybernetic City
 * The World According to Fresco

By the way, including the often repeated quote about WWII arms proliferation should be included, as that is as close to a resource-based economy as we have had in modern times.

This article needs a lot of work. --Biophily (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

How is this "Resource Based Economy" supposed to work without having some centralized form of resource management. TBH this sounds like warmed-over Marxist claptrap denying the old language of failed concepts with the idea that new language will somehow make these concepts succeed. It appears to me that Venus Project is a cult of personality centered on Fresco, and Fresco's only unique contribution seems to be this "Resourced Based Economy" which has no definition at all, other than things will be "free". I would assume that people that presume to tell the world exactly how their economies are going to operate should at least be able to explain their notions by using something other than vague and ambiguous language that simultaneously means nothing and everything both at the same time. I propose deletion of this entire article, as well as the one on "Resource Based Economy", and put these pie-in-the-sky Utopian idealists on notice that they are going to have to come up with something more than a glorified version of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory to merit a wikipedia article. Otherwise it seems like wiki is being used to create an air of legitimacy to what appears to be a flim-flam get rich scam. Do they sell t-shirts, and self-help videos? I imagine a world where interstellar space travel is also free and instantaneous, using the transmogrified energy coefficient of the trans-flux capacitor. Can I have a wikipedia article too? Jonny Quick (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The existence of the article has nothing to do with your personal views. It has to do with sources and the notability of the subject in any aspect at all.--Biophily (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

a partial skeleton of a history

 * The Venus Project is a copyright term started in 1995 by Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows in Venus, Florida, United States.[1]

The link in the footnote indicates that there exists a short book titled The Venus Project, for which copyright is claimed. There is no copyright on the title of a book.


 * A nonprofit organization started by Fresco and his business partner Roxanne Meadows is Future By Design, started in 2003.[2]

So what? —Tamfang (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of what Fresco did was was in the past, like 1940s, designing different things, so by the time of The Venus Project there is not that much to report on, he morphed from inventor to social designer. It is a copyright name. He copy-wrote it to protect it so that probably means they are worried someone will use it for something or make money somehow from the term. Its just information that was found to round out the article. He also tried to copyright the term resource-based economy and was turned down. What do you suggest? Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You can't copyright a phrase in US law. You can register it as a trademark, but establishing copyright on the content of a work is not sufficient to claim trademark protection for its title; otherwise (for example) "Heaven Can Wait" wouldn't be the title of two Hollywood movies and a pop song, all unrelated to each other.  I imagine that the Patent & Trademark Office turned down Fresco's attempt to register "resource-based economy" because he wasn't proposing to sell a service by that name.
 * I don't agree that it helps to pad the article with data that don't explain or reveal anything. It's like saying "Over her lifetime, [notable person] had 33 pets and named one of them Sara"; mentioning the name gives more data than otherwise, but is it really more information?
 * The article would be improved with some history of TVP, but what it now has isn't better than nothing. —Tamfang (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So change it then if its not accurate. What is your point? the Venus Project does not have a lot of history to it. Mostly it is Fresco and his partner living somewhere and giving talks about his thinking. You are referring to this Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a copyright for a book. Isn't that crystal clear?
 * Tamfang, see the Venus Project section in the Jacque Fresco article for sources on TVP's history.--Biophily (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion (somewhat)

 * Another opinion here. I recommend looking at reliable sources about the information in question. Personal web sites don't count. If there's enough coverage about the subject matter in reliable sources (at least 3 according to policy), then the subject matter is noteworthy and can be included. I hope that helps to break the stalemate. USchick (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Info on split with Zeitgeist
I think its a good idea to include more information on the split between Fresco and Joseph. The reason, it is direct quoting from Fresco from an outside of self sourcing perspective. Fresco's Venus Project was impacted significantly by the split and having the perspective of what and why by Fresco giving his reasons for breaking off the alliance serves the article. The article is also a little small or thin on information in general so adding a bit more without filler is good. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree that this subtopic is notable enough for two paragraphs of supposedly direct transcription from a YouTube video. The previous state of the article (a one-sentence summary of the occurrence, with citation) was preferable. Please trim. startswithj (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not a sub topic. It had a big impact on both groups. Fresco broke off the relationship and that should be mentioned in the article. It was acrimonious. You removed all the information. That is not trimming. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is definitively a subtopic; were it not, it would deserve its own Wikipedia article. I cut it back to its previous state of being a one-sentence summary. If you or another thinks it deserves more, I suggest trimming the two paragraphs and back-and-forth quoting, as that level is excessive. startswithj (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still uncomfortable with the level of detail in this quoting, and it's a bit one-sided, no? startswithj (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is detailed according to the source but even that was cut back a little in the edit. It is direct quotes from Fresco. It is the article about the Venus Project and not Zeitgeist so that could play a part. There is no reason why a tit for tat approach has to be used with Joseph presenting some counter point unless its on the Zeitgeist Movement article. If there is a source for him that is newsworthy and reliable maybe it could be included also. I just do not see one but there may be one out there somewhere. Then maybe a rejoinder of that could be included. It seems like the break up is a major part of the history now of Venus Project and Zeitgeist so it deserves more than cursory presentation. Joseph has talked about it in his Youtube videos but that probably is not a good source because self sourced information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's still us quoting one party who claims to be quoting the other party, which makes it hearsay (and therefore something we should avoid reprinting). startswithj (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've drawn up a summarized version of the more detailed material, while avoiding the problem of quoting the source's quotation of the interviewee's claimed quotation of the film director. I also added tags to the citation to show the source quotation in our references section. startswithj (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your paraphrase is way off the mark and changes the meaning of the direct quotes. Its original research, the way you presented it. Reverted. Plus adding another Youtube video of Peter Joseph chatting on this topic is defeating to the article which is over sourced to itself or Zeitgeist already. Your other little changes are more copy edits that do nothing in particular. Right now there is a small consensus that the other edit you are reverting is o.k. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Earl King Jr., could you please be more specific as to how you feel it is "way off the mark"? What meaning is changed? How would you summarize Fresco's words? Also, could you please respond to the concern about meta-quoting Joseph via Fresco? How is that not hearsay? Thanks, startswithj (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Like another person recently that said they did not want to be drawn into some rhetorical debate with you, more or less, mostly my points are just that, from my perspective, but also from an information aspect of improving the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing where someone supposedly said that—link? My questions are not rhetorical but content-specific: How is the meaning changed? How is meta-quoting not hearsay? Thx, startswithj (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not following what you are saying. You included all the disputed information in the citation footnote so all this rhetoric over this is a non issue ''…he said 'I got the idea now. I’m going to run it my way.' I said: 'You can’t do that, I’ve spent 75 years working on this. You have to study more. So I split with him, because I’ve been working on it for so many years, and doing away with my own beliefs in order to understand what shapes human behaviour…he said that he would use TZM movement as the activist arm of TVP. But he never consulted me [on] what the activist arm would do. So, you are doing exactly what you are complaining about, and called meta quoting and hearsay'', though it is hardly that in my opinion, it is just reliably sourced information about the split from an independent interview source. Anyway it is a non issue now since the disputed aspect is included in the footnote citation link. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Very glad you feel it's a non-issue now, thank you! startswithj (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)