Comments on: Changing the Old Ac System: Factors and Considerations

By: stevemcweed

stevemcweed — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:29:59 +0000

We look back through history at other economic systems – feudalism and mercantilism for example and they always are replaced. However, when the individuals who are in power benefit most from the system why would they change it… and the answer is they wouldn’t. Thus it will require a significant event – most likely technological – to abolish our current system and replace it with one like the Venus project proposes. The internet is a fantastic technological tool for the dissemination of unfiltered information, however it must be adopted and trusted by many more people before it can have the desired effect. In my opinion, the catalyst for change will be the development of personal energy generating devices or something similar in nature. When people realize they no longer have to rely on anyone else for energy things will change significantly. They only reason every individual on earth does not generate their own energy is because we have been told and lead to believe that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible when in fact this is totally false and could be changed in a matter of months.
References :

By: I , a happy Bolshevik

I , a happy Bolshevik — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:27:59 +0000

Scientists used to share their knowledge with other scientists as part of the scientific method , scientific knowledge must be reproducible. As "Science" is increasingly done by huge Corporations , the findings of scientists will became secret.This will not only be a brake for knowledge , but it will also be a source of "scientific fraud", I bet many "scientists" made a lot of money with shares of Bio-Nano-irreproducible- results patents.
References :

By: Marcus Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:25:08 +0000

Does the monetary economic system stifle scientific progress?
Science is fundamentally unbiased when it comes to how fast or how slow it can march at. But when you introduce science and economics you get a totally different picture to how science really ought to work.

Science does not have boundless energy it could have because scientific inquiry at the moment has imposing barriers to change and progress when no profit is presented. Picture how government grants are given, and how the actual dissemination of this money by such an authority is more of a consideration of profit than health concerns or other more altruistic purposes.

When a system is hellbent on margins and not humanitarian reasons, how can it be a plus for science and the betterment of mankind? How can it serve as an incentive to technology when it has a stranglehold on what is worthy or not depending on profit.

If you really are an advocate of science, then you might want to consider what kind of society would favor science and scientific progress. I think the world could be a better place if money wasnt the limiting factor and people could work in unison where the greater purpose would be collaboration than subjugation to a monetary social order where human progress is secondary at best.

Recently I stumbled across an alternative scenario to how we could conduct science under. A platform that could eliminate some of the factors that stagnates us for the meantime. A resource based economy could deliver alot more change when we supplant wealth with sincere scientific advancement.

What are your thoughts? Is money the best social engineering tool man will ever come up with?

http://www.thevenusproject.com/