dddave999 Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - If I want to live independent to this system in a self-sufficient sustainable non profitt, peaceful way with my own land will I be allowed? What if millions/ billions of people want to live like me? Who say yes? who says no? who decides how much land I / we can have?..

dddave999 Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - I want to design and build my own environmentally friendly house. I dont wont a pre-built modular house that looks like all the others. If dont agree to live in these modular houses will I get helped and re-educated?

TruthWorld Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - You could live where ever you would want to, you could live outside of the cities or benefit from an self-sustainnable city linked the a global system of resources management that provides you with goods and services. This is not about forcing is about providing an alternative based on world cooperation.

dddave999 Says:

Nov 25, 2009 - There will be a time when too many people want the same thing and some one will have to make decisions on where, who, how many etc. Who will that person/s be? How will he/she be elected? Will every one be entitled to the same things, the same sized house, and the same amount of shoes? Who sets the limits? Who sets the rules? Sorry to play devils advocate, but its an interesting problem dont you think?

TruthWorld Says:

Nov 25, 2009 - The system would be mostly based on access rather than ownership, there is no need for private property when you can have access to anything you need, private property is just an way of protecting the stuff you own and restrict access to others, ofcourse there will be things you may not want to share like clothes or the house you would occupie in that moment. Also people would probably travel a lot since they have free access to transportation instead of staying in one house their whole life.

TruthWorld Says:

Nov 25, 2009 - The decision making would be made by a process which is the scientific method, in other words no one would make decisions rather people would arrive at decisions using factual statistical analysis which would take into account all information available about an certain issue rather than someone's opinion based on limited information.

dddave999 Says:

Nov 25, 2009 - Assuming that machines had not yet the intelligence to carryout delicate surgery and we would still need doctors, surgeons, etc. would they be given the same status as a mime-artist or a singer or some one who had chosen to stare at his belly button all day?

dddave999 Says:

Nov 25, 2009 - I would not care whether I own it or not but the view, location, size would be critical to me. Would we all get the view we want? Would there be a hierarchy that would favour one section of society over another, which in turn would allow them more preferential treatment? If not would all people be allowed the same rights and privileges regardless of their age, I.Q. physical capability etc?

TruthWorld Says:

Nov 25, 2009 - There wouldn't be any form of hierarchy, people would be considered all equal. As for the view and size, like I said people would have the opportunity to travel anywhere so I can't see how something like that would be a serious problem expecialy if you realize that the number of people without a home today is increasing by millions. But I guess that all houses will be design to offer confort, that is they purpose after all. We have very much to worry about than just nitpicking about the view.

TruthWorld Says:

Nov 25, 2009 - That depends on your defenition of "status", what does it serve for, do you valorize recognition of people you know nothing about or do you like the feeling of helping another human being. Status in todays society is completly irrelevant, some football player has easly more "status" than some construction dude who works all day under hot sun. The recognition of your work would be the feedback of it and how you contributed to the society that directly influences and benefits you.

RE3V3R Says:

Dec 14, 2009 - Entitlement to things: Perhaps a way of determining the individuals consumption level (being different for each person) could work. Plus, why would you need 100 pairs of shoes when you only have 2 feet. The shoes would be made to last for ages, and would be readily re-cyclible from Resource Centres.Property ownership = gone. Limits are set to the carrying capacity of the earth and its resources. A massive database will present options and Humans will ultimately decide what path to take.

gorillebermuda Says:

Dec 22, 2009 - i think the blueprints jacques did won't be the future, he also thinks it. By applying the scientific method we could live better, what he says next is a supposition, for me. and by the way, i think it will be a hell better to live in what he build, he tought of that all his life. i think.

subcyon Says:

Dec 23, 2009 - no, sure u can build your own house. But i think the most people dont want to build an own house. ^^ Jacque has many diffrent houses and u can choose what u like. Also u can pick the inventory u like, want and need. And think of the consequences.. if u wont build pre-designed houses it will we difficult to house every human on the planet. Also its easy to extend pre-designed houses if we become more people.

dannyboi923 Says:

Jan 10, 2010 - i should imagen researchers, designers & scientists?

sentient001 Says:

Jan 10, 2010 - He never said it would be PERFECT... I hate when people start saying this would not work over little issues . The problems that would be faced in this type of society are dwarfed by today's. So go troll elsewhere with the negativity. We need suck it up and do this up!!

invaderavon Says:

Jan 15, 2010 - If you are living in a self sustainable environment on your own you are already living within this system. If millions of people do, even better. You don't get ANY land, neither do I. You get a house which can be set up anywhere, but you don't get to shoot people for wandering near your house simply because they don't know it's there, or want to say hi, or are starving. If there are 10000 homes, or only 5, you still only get ONE. You can not ever have everything, where would you keep it?

jrgoku1000 Says:

Jan 19, 2010 - If you like the Venus Project, you can sign the Online Petition.

AugustusOctavianus Says:

Feb 22, 2010 - Ok, I see and kind of like this plan, but how the fuck are you going to move and rebuild every city on the planet? That means every person is going to have to be educated enough in order to chip in and build this if theres no money. How could you do this with pure resource trading? In order to build all new cities on the earth it would probably eat up the rest of the resources we have here on earth. Well somethings got to be done, but probably not in the next 50 years.

Starbat88 Says:

Feb 23, 2010 - @AugustusOctavianus Well, that's where the test city comes in, to SHOW people in a practical way, how this could work. Of course, we need enough people on board to actually build the city, and we'll likely need financial backing AT FIRST, to cover the materials. But once we get a few governments convinced (and there are a few who would stand to gain from such a new arrangement that they might actually promote it), the rest of the world will really take notice. [cont...]

Starbat88 Says:

Feb 23, 2010 - And it's about the intelligent use of resources, guided by what's practical and in the best interests of EVERYONE. And how do we decide that? We use empirical information and the scientific method to ARRIVE at such decisions. We can easily use today's computer technology to create software to make that information processing task much easier. We can mine the old cities for raw materials. New cities won't just come from mining more from the earth.

justinclark216 Says:

Mar 4, 2010 - @AugustusOctavianus Youre right, and what the transistion might be like is often talked about in Peter Josephs podcasts. But right now whats most important is just getting the informations out there.

amazinero Says:

Apr 4, 2010 - @TruthWorld. Good words. The change will, indeed, bring about new incentives for doing good. I think the incentives of status and class will be replaced by ones like contributing to rapidly progressing the state of mankind, as a whole, on an evolutionary scale. Technology is advancing so rapidly, that for us not to develop equally as rapidly, in terms of our thinking and understanding of social flaws, is altogether too counterproductive for us to allow it to go on, unchecked and uncorrected.

fibbsabaddy Says:

Apr 6, 2010 - @AugustusOctavianus It cant happen straight away. There would be chaos. It has to be gradual unfortunately. The only way there will be a drastic shift is if society falls completely apart probably based on human history. The combination of A.I, Nano tech and robotisation would take care of the transition and building and as for the change over. The people would demand it upon seeing what is being withheld from them. It will probably be painful.

TheHappydead Says:

Apr 27, 2010 - the venus project is a truly inspiring notoin however idealistic and unlikely it may seem it just needs more people to realise that this is a really good idea and it can be achieved.people need to see that our entire society breeds nothing but tribalism,paranoia, segregation and economic slavery for the majority and ridiculous wealth and power for a tiny minority. ..............its just how do start completly changing society?

dddave999 Says:

May 13, 2010 - @sentient001 4 months ago. Im afraid if youre going to get uppity and throw your toys out of the pram because some one has different opinion than yours, you wont last in the brave new world Jacque is trying to create. Grow up. I would hope this video has been put here to stimulate debate about the pros and cons of this type of living.