Think about it.
Ok, we have so much work to do.
We don't consider people abnormal.
We don't consider people good or bad.
We consider the background they come from
and we try to generate a background
that will eliminate those behaviors.
However, during the transition
that will be extremely difficult.
After we establish the educational system
and a language that has uniform meaning
not subject to interpretation.
As long as [there's] 'subject to interpretation' language
you're going to have wide variations in human conclusions
but if we can develop a language
like mathematics or chemistry
or a language that has uniform meaning like engineering
in that case, most people will understand one another.
As long as you go on
the way we've been going on
language will always be subject to interpretation.
I don't say that people will pick up the new language
and begin to use it.
The transition will be painful
and will be comprised of many different types
of human behavior.
We're not talking about right or wrong, good or bad.
We're talking about human behavior that's reinforcing to all people.
That's the kind of behavior we will attempt to generate
by maintaining an environment
that informs people as to the nature
and factors that shape human behavior.
- Talk about the role of research
in the future in this type of society.
How would the findings of behavioral research
influence society?
Do you feel that it would, or do you feel that
behavioral research would not exist in the future?
- I think it will exist during the transition
There's no question about it.
They will try...
Since most people during the transition
are not scientifically oriented
they will try to identify the reasons
for behavior that's not desirable.
If they're wrong it won't work
whatever treatment they come up with.
If they happen to be on the right track, it'll work.
The only real difference between the scientific method is
if many people try the same experiments
and get the same results, it means that the system is vaild.
If they get different results
it means they have to do further experimenting
to try to ascertain what it is that shapes human behavior.
During the transition there will be differences of opinion
due to the language interpretation.
That's why I say we have to develop a language
that has uniform meaning to people.
What determines the accuracy of this system?
How well does the system work?
If it works well, we use it.
If it doesn't, there's more work that has to be done.
It's a very rational approach
without taking favorite points of view and pushing them
because society accepts erroneous points of view.
I think that in the future we can condition people to appreciate
information accumulation
rather than random opinions.
Information accumulation means
testing results, testing methods
and if they work, we use them, if they don't work
or if they work part of the way, we use that part which works.
There is no other way to learn
except to make decisions that are less correct
and that's based on background.
I think that in the future
children will be educated in using
scientific methods of evaluation
but they'll also know that the methods used
are not the best. They're the best we've come up with.
If a kid suggests other methods
we say "Why don't you test it out and let us know
what results you get?"
If I tell Larry "You can't grow food that way"
and he finds out that he can
he has to inform me:
"I did these same things
that you said didn't work",
then obviously, I have to turn around and say
"I didn't know that."
Can the average person participate?
They usually are not qualified unless they study
hydroponics or chemotherapy
or something related to the field
but just bursting out with "I don't know that I like that"
I can't deal with that. What do you think or suggest?
People say
"Will you experiment on animals in the future?"
If you have a new vaccination
that may help rabies
or some other human pattern of behavior that's less desirable
do you want us to give that shot to the person
or not? What is it you want to do?
Do you want to give it to chimpanzees and see what effect it has
or do you want to give it to a human being
or are you willing to accept new, experimental shots?
"I don't want to give it to animals, but I don't want to..."
Well, you're not offering anything.
Every vaccination that you get has been tried on animals
because people didn't know what else to do.
They didn't know who else to try it on.
There were some doctors that said "I will shoot myself with it
because I have no right to shoot anyone else."
A lot of them died.
Do you want doctors to try it on themselves
or have you a new approach to that problem
so we don't have to try it on animals?
What do you suggest as a new approach?
You say "Well, maybe we can build an artificial blood circuit."
Go to work on that. See if you can.
I'm not against people suggesting other things
but the suggestions better be based on some knowledge
of the human circulatory system or disease. Yes?
- Jacque, I think on the frequently asked questions section
it says The Venus Project doesn't support animal testing.
- Yes.
It doesn't. - This is not really the case though is it?
- Well, during the transition
during the transition, yes.
After the transition, people will be researching like mad
all different possible alternatives
to try to alleviate that condition.
I don't like raising cows or pigs for the dinner table
but we'd have to study more on nutrition
and how meat affects human behavior
and if it's detrimental to human behavior.
People say "Well, I don't believe in killing animals."
Maybe, with the possibility of nanotechnology
we can make liver tissue, beef
without raising animals and killing them.
We might be able to take atoms and arrange them
into whatever molecular configuration is desirable:
vegetables or animal tissue.
That would mean no killing or torture of animals
but unless you come up with the nanotechnology
they will continue to do the testing
on what they consider inferior animals
unless you suggest something else
so we have to do a fantastic amount of research.
In doing research we can come up with ideas
but not doing research, saying "I don't believe in killing animals"
if you don't suggest an alternative, they will go on doing that
so I suggest a great deal of experimental work.
If the experiments are wrong, it just won't work.
A lot of people want to know
"How do I know that these cities will cost less?"
I'm not going to give them the figures on that because
all I know is if you repeat the same design
(in this case it's eight times) it's going to cost less.
If every building is a different size, it's going to cost more.
If you standardize
windows and everything else in the mid-buildings
the cost is less
but if every skyscraper has windows
that are custom built for that building
you're going to have to pay more in terms of energy to get that.
If transportation
is built in the middle of the city zone, it goes around.
(I mention that many times.)
They want to know what the figures are, how much it will cost to do that.
That's a price system question.
Do we have resources to do it? That's the real question.
How much concrete do we have, and if we don't have enough concrete
what kind of new materials can we develop to take care of that?
Basically, I can't give them cost estimates because
land costs vary. It depends on where it is
and how far that land is from concrete.
Siam has the largest concrete company in the world
so if it's built in Siam, it'll cost less
but if it's too far away from Siam
we'd use other composite materials.
I can't tell you, maybe ten years from now
or five years from now a new material comes out
so why should I specify that all these would be built
of concrete reinforced with metal?
I don't know what new materials will come out.
At that time, if it's five years from now
it'll be the latest material.
Right now if I design a city
of what I know of up to now
it won't be the latest. It won't be the best.
Do you understand that?
There are other problems that I mentioned in the past:
giving people blueprints to cities.
They can take out patents on it
that can stop us from putting it up because they own the patents.
I can't just hand out blueprints of cities to people
because certain things I don't know.
Let's say that the soil is 65 ft deep
then you come to bedrock. Do you know what that is?
So, you need piling under the building all the way down to the bedrock.
I can't give you any estimate on the city
unless a geologist shows me a cross section of the soil.
I don't know how many piles we need. Are we 15 ft from bedrock?
Are we on solid bedrock?
New York has bedrock about 10 to 20 ft down
and so big skyscrapers can go up without too much piling.
I can't know all those things.
If I gathered information of all the areas of the world
I would be giving people all kinds of information
to save them a lot of financial investment
in a monetary system.
They might begin to turn out cities like this
because they're more financially
able to turn out cities if they economize.
That's about the only kind of information I can give out.
I can't give out specifics
because I don't know what people will do with it.
Our job now is cleaning up the mess
rendered by the free enterprise system
which can take years to clean up.
I don't like that but we have to do it.
If we don't clean up the mess, the oceans...
They say they have epidemics
of certain types of fish dying and coming ashore.
What the hell to do research on what's killing the fish!
We want to remove what's killing the fish!
Do you understand what I mean?
Is it the radioactive material the army dumped in the sea?
Is it the nerve gas the army dumped in the sea? I don't care what it is.
Whatever it is, we have to clean it up as best we can.
I don't know, by the time we get to the first Venus Project City
how far along will they dump and poison the air and all that.
There comes a point of no return.
If you've done too much damage to the environment
we cannot solve those problems.
If you let the price system go (the money system)
the pollution will arrive at a density
where it's impractical to clean up.