http://www.thevenusproject.com/

FUTURE BY DESIGN

A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

it is an interesting concept is it not

i have been thinking about them for about 6-8 months now

trying to figure out if they are as good as it sounds

but it seems that for this to come to be a one world society must come to be

and the evil in the world would lose a lot of power under this concept

it is excitingly good yet scary

is it really as good as it sounds or will it be a way to have control of everyone

as they say in the song

things that make you go hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

What we have isn't working and the powers that be want more. Their enslavement of us through a monetary system that they control is definately not the answer, as has been proven.

We as populations of people have the power to crush their rule! They are few by comparison. If we are to succeed we need a viable alternative. I for one think "Venus", while it does call for globalization, has a very good agenda, and if you remove the "profit" (greed) factor what is the negative side of such existence? You could disagree with any who might lead, and what could they threaten you with? Take away their power, their money, who are they?

i never said it was a bad thing

i said """it is excitingly good yet scary"""

as is most any major change (scary)

it sounds like a great thing

and i agree the system in place is not working

but it is not the system in places fault necessarily

i would have to say that the irresponsibility (including mine) that has lead to the situation that has caused this system to become a slave for pay program

but i hope the venus foundation is truly a good group

just makes on e wonder

Sounds a bit like the world government described in the TV show Star Trek.

I understood your comment, and I agree. Change is always scarry, but it is instilled fear we have been programmed to, allowing them to maintain their control.

Change is needed. If things don't change, they go sour, rot, and become unusable. Change under direction of "the same leader based model" is not change, only alteration. You can put ice cream on a pie made with rotten apples and it might make it better, but it's still unedible.

It's fear that makes us to question (this is not a bad thing), but question and research we must! If we believe there has to be a better answer, then there probably is, and hopefully we are wise enough not to ignore or discredit a possibility in our complacency.

Many believe in GOD (by whatever name), how many have seen him? If we believe something is possible, want to see it work, we can make it work. It is our nature.

The Venus Project may not be the answer, I don't know, but their philosophies sure sound more fruitful than what we face now, and I wish to think we are capable of making it work, even if we find flaws needing addressed in its onset.

Perhaps wing, but would that be so bad? Where are we now?

The Federation of Nations..... sounds better than "One World Order".... don't you think? "Order" implies global control!

a ""rose"" by any other name still smells the same

great...ya got adj excited now

depends on how sweaty i get sorry sojourn lol

ok...i'm not looking for an arguement (there is already one on this) but doesn't the OP make it a socialist type of system? again just asking because I will admit to not knowing alot about socialism

I am a big Star Trek fan. The point I was making is that the producers of Star Trek have always tried to use knowledgeable consultants to predict the society and technology of the future in a positive way. I was serious in asking if there was any direct overlap between the ideas expressed on the show and a more formal complete version of the general concept.

A socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.
It is called communism and hasn't worked in the past. How would you overcome corruption? Who would be in charge of this system? A single person? A committee? What checks a balances would there be to prevent the kind of situations seen in USSR and other communist nations? How would you convince those currently rich to give up their wealth? Would we all have to live in identical housing wear identical clothing? Would the motivation to innovate continue? What about property rights?

I am obviously not the one with the answers to these or any questions about the concept. I just think that if we took away the basic compelling source of corruption, greed, the world would be a better place.

You can give it any label you want, but if people weren't so stressed, didn't have to worry about bills and taxes, how bad we were being screwed by possibly corrupt leaders, where the next meal was coming from, everyone worked and had a job and purpose..... it couldn't be a bad thing. You couldn't profit from corruption because everyone has what they need.

The banks own everything now. We are one nation, under credit, and very few people can say they really own anything anyway.

I think the chances for technological advances and education would be much better because there wouldn't be some corporation buying up the rights to technology just to suppress it.

As far as the rich giving up there fortunes, do they care so much about us right now with the trouble we are in, outsourcing our jobs, homeless, unemployed? They would still ahve what they need, just not be so pampered and "special" in their own eyes like they are now.

I don't suggest it is a bad idea. I'd like to see greed gone as much as anyone else. If someone could reasonably address all the questions that arise from such a proposal, I'd back them. I just see this idea as rather Utopian and unrealistic.

curious....even if you do away with money...there will still be greed. some people just want what others have...correct?

in a perfect world we would all hold hands and sing songs...but because of some mentalities...that won't happen

keep in mind...I'm not up on a lot of the economy and how it all works (yes I can admit that lol)...so I'm just thinking out loud here

I stated before, there is no perfect society. Many things would change along the way. Look how the US has changed in 200 years. It sounds like a good start in a NEW direction, and we all know the one we're on don't work. It would not require any more or less work than we do now, and the rewards have to be better than we face now!

Change will come, regardless of good or bad and it does not depend on a president or any government. I can assure you this. This current system is collapsing, people just need to hold out a bit more, it's gonna get worse before it gets a whole lot better.

Don't look for "change" from Obama. He is a maintainer and part of the old system. A blind men could see, how he is trying to beat the dead horse with bank bailouts, that had absolutely no purpose or sense, he is just another puppet, at the long line of many puppets so far.

Eventually he (and other world leaders) will not be able to maintain this crashing system. I've been saying this for months, I know many thinks that I'm a "lunatic", but 4 years ago I was reading about the collapse of the banks from many and if I would have said anything 4 years ago what is obvious today, they would have called me a lunatic.

So I rather be called a lunatic and believe what I believe and be always prepared for anything instead of being a person with a tunnel vision and behave like a sheep, like many do.

Sounds like globalization and the one world gov concept to me.