The Venus Project

[JMvS]

Now, now, let's discuss things in order:

First, central planning has some very strong proven limitations:
-while central planning has shown some reliability in managing war economies, that's precisely the limit to it! As in a war economy, the variable are reduced to a minimal number: how many soldier you have/can get, how many resources you need to equip and sustain them, and how many resources you still need to allot the remaining civilians to keep them alive and productive. WW2 was a time of scarcity all over the World, as resources went to War Effort, people surviving on minimal amounts of the less appetizing foods.
-the same conclusion can be applied to the USSR planned economy, as it was essentially a full time war economy: it managed to equip and maintain the largest army in the World, supplying it and it's ally with regularly modernized hardware. But that's it, apart maybe Vodka, it could not provide and distribute enough consumer goods, and even basic commodities such as food were scarce.
-this is due to human behaviors and needs being inherently chaotic, as long as they are past mere survival. Humans are diverse, first in their sizes and forms (thus related needs) and next in their likings, and they are driven by their successful omnivorous biology to seek the most diverse and appetizing means of subsistence.

So far, successful economic State interventionism is more or less limited to setting guidelines for development, with implementing related capital intensive investments:
-energy: dams, power plants and grids.
-transportation networks: roads, railroads, airports, highways, ports, etc...
-setting well connected industrialized zones.
-promoting key industries, via aforementioned elements and other policies.
Most if not any other market disconnected interventions have more than a tendency to result in failures.

Next, the very basic premise of creating a computerized way of managing it is essentially flawed:
-because it would have to be able to precisely and accurately determine the future in a chaotic system with an almost infinite number of variables.
-basically, that's what finance economist and traders have been pretending to do, only magnificently failing at it past extremely short, real-time management.
-also, the very idea of decidedly erratic and biased humans building a perfect system...


The Venus Project take on a Resource Based Economy, as highlighted by many peoples above (kudos to SaintessHearth for the link, but alas I can't give him any more cookies), to sum it up:
-resource availability can be very unequal and limited: there an extremely wide gap in the distribution and availability between, let's say for example, atmospheric O2 and gold...
-resources don't become magically available, you have to pour other resources to make one available (this is generally called investment). It also take various amount of resources to extract those (i.e. exploitation costs): operating an oil rig in Texas is not the same from operating one in the North Sea for example.
-now, like for Central Planning, Resource (War) Based Economies have been shown to work, actually providing much needed strategic resources in sufficient if not plentiful quantities, but again, it came at the expense of much sacrifices (for example, in WW2, miners were exploiting precious Molybdenum in the Swiss Alps, at an altitude of 3000 m, where conditions were extremely harsh and everything had to be carried by men, because at the time that was the only known deposit out of Africa).
-recycling is extremely limited, and as mentioned, takes even more resources... (try recycling... concrete for example...).
-more so, the VP seems to magically correlates environmental friendliness and abundance, which, unless you live in a magical world where you can summon anything at no cost nor impact, those are not exactly compatible, and even more often than not total opposites.

Placing all the blame on a "scarcity oriented economy" is pure nonsense, as explained above, but also because scarcity and abundance are only relative to the simultaneous evolutions of populations and resource availability, a very basic notion of elementary ecology the VP peoples seem to fail at.
Population growth is directly correlated to relative abundance, so for a true abundant RBE, availability of resources would have to grow at the same time, if not much more rapidly than the population.
Otherwise, you would have to mitigate either consumption or population growth as many human population have done in history:
-reduce individual consumption by promoting frugality; those were used, along with the maximized use of resources, in many societies like ancient China during past expansion boom periods. In any case, being linked with extremely large populations, it still exacted a heavy toll on the environment.
-curb population, either voluntarily, like in some Pacific Islands, trough absolute regulations on sexuality, reproduction, infanticide and required suicide; or trough the constant warfare between small post-Neolithic communities: (which mortality, considerably higher than the one resulting from recent wars, was kind of efficient).

Some communities do combine those to result in an apparent relative abundance:
-hunter-gatherer, but this has mostly to do with their constant struggle for survival, due to either harsh environment, and lack of means to extract the resources.
-monks: deliberately removing themselves from the gene pool, and aspiring for a frugal life; but this is mostly due to their perception of survival being a very secondary matter.
Anyway, both cannot be realistically used as models for the VP...


On another hand, the Basic Income concept also presented in SaintessHearth link is quite interesting, and seems worth to look into for post industrial economies.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Actually, it might be possible to calculate "fairness," but it would require worldwide voting. Using the Borda count or a more advance ranking system, people would rank what is most important to them, and the computer would produce the aggregate rankings. I suppose food, medicine, clothing, shelter would be at the top. Anyway, based on the rankings, calculations of what every person would need, and a comfortable surplus, the available producers would be compensated for their contribution at a consistent rate. A vote will be taken once per arbitrary period of time to make sure that any mistakes or overlooked items are ironed out, but after a while fluctuations should cease unless a disaster hits.

So bassically we'll build machines to figure out what we need...by having everyone agree beforehand what we need. You're still stuck in the catch 22. To build this kind of system you need a level of cooperation and unbiased desire for fairness on the part of everyone that according to the Zeitgeist movement humans are incapable of performing at. Thus the necessity for the construction of the system to solve the problem. If we could create a system like this and agreed to abide by it, there wouldn't be any need for the system, cause humans would have already figured out the entire problem. It goes back to the issue of not understanding the method/theory of a mathematical function and trying to build a pocket calculator to do it for you.

What you described above requires cooperation and objectivity that according to the Zeitgeist movement humans are incapable of.

Originally Posted by monir

We will need to evolve as species

It really is silly how little understanding people have as to what evolution really means.

Originally Posted by JMvS

Next, the very basic premise of creating a computerized way of managing it is essentially flawed:
-because it would have to be able to precisely and accurately determine the future in a chaotic system with an almost infinite number of variables.
-basically, that's what finance economist and traders have been pretending to do, only magnificently failing at it past extremely short, real-time management.
-also, the very idea of decidedly erratic and biased humans building a perfect system...

This.

I'll go back to the calculator analogy. Someone who can't understand how a mathematical function works is not going to be able to program a calculator that tells him how to do that function.

[Jaden]

It really is silly how little understanding people have as to what evolution really means.

There's a broad definition of the word, indeed the definition of "evolution" itself has evolved. I believe he reffered to cultural evolution, which is much more significant than biological evolution in causing short-term changes to our species, and we can consciously change its direction.

Ahem, anyway, building the perfect descision-making machine was the problem, right? I think that's just a beautiful ideal, though. Of course the machine would be afflicted with our current lack of knowledge, and for a long time any meaningful machine can't even be built. Or maybe it can, I wouldn't know. Ha ha.

Since human goverment is still the way to go I suppose following the Venus Project we'd move towards something like a Technocracy. The problem with this, in turn, is that the most knowledgeable people are not always good leaders...

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

It really is silly how little understanding people have as to what evolution really means.

Physically yes. We evolved from the Erectus to Sapien. Mentally no, for the past 300 years, even the mathematical academics of Fractals have proven us to put ourselves into depressive recessions once per century.

We have already reached the peak of mental evolution that we constantly screw our own race up every now and then with wars, environmental damage and stupid projects like this that drain whatever valuable natural resource we have left. This......is called the epitome of intelligent stupidity.

P.S You don't have to thank me with cookies JMvS. Just gimme a bunnygirl.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

We have already reached the peak of mental evolution that we constantly screw our own race up every now and then with wars, environmental damage and stupid projects like this that drain whatever valuable natural resource we have left. This......is called the epitome of intelligent stupidity.

There really isn't any such thing as "peak" evolution. "Good" evolutionary traits merely refers to characteristics that increases an organisms chance to reproduce in their current environment.

The important factor here isn't that humans have reached some kind of Plataea for mental evolution, it's just that there isn't any pressure for it as a matter of survival. Despite the massive amount of social chaos that still exists in the world, mankind as a biological entity is thriving based on the fact that people are reproducing more.

And while capacity for death has increased, the scale and randomness of these events prevent there from being any kind of coherent pressure towards more "enlightened" humans becoming predominant. Simply because an enlightened human is just as vulnerable to die mass famine and war.

[synaesthetic]

There's a reason government shouldn't muck about in economy.

What's politically expedient is often economically suicidal, and vice versa. This is why communism doesn't work.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

There's a reason government shouldn't muck about in economy.

What's politically expedient is often economically suicidal, and vice versa. This is why communism doesn't work.

Communism doesn't work because it's an economic theory that doesn't account for human nature and is adored by it's practitioners like a religion. This is a vibe that I'm getting from the Venus project as well.

People who find movements like this attractive really need to keep in mind that literally thousands of movements like this have promised that they suddenlly had the solution to creating heaven on earth.

[synaesthetic]

That's definitely part of it, but seriously, if a business composed itself the way the US government does, they'd have gone under a long, long time ago.

Government and business really shouldn't mix. They're mutually exclusive, the antithesis of each other. Government should step in and regulate where necessary to ensure that the individual rights of their citizens are protected, as well as ensuring a safety net for when everything goes to hell, but government shouldn't get involved any further than that.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

The important factor here isn't that humans have reached some kind of Plataea for mental evolution, it's just that there isn't any pressure for it as a matter of survival. Despite the massive amount of social chaos that still exists in the world, mankind as a biological entity is thriving based on the fact that people are reproducing more.

Considering how terrible the 2008 version of the movie The Day The Earth Stood Still, the following quote still makes so much sense in light of this discussion:

"Only at the precipice do we change."

Yeap, I agree with you. On a much less somber note, we (American) just passed a universal health care bill.

[synaesthetic]

More like a big bloated bag of suck healthcare bill. What's really sad is that said big bloated bag of suck is mostly better than the status quo.

[monir]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

More like a big bloated bag of suck healthcare bill. What's really sad is that said big bloated bag of suck is mostly better than the status quo.

"Beggars cannot be choosers."

Considering the main focus of this article in the thread is about pointing out how old ideas such as Capitalism has proven itself to be a dangerous form of economic model that is slowly bringing us to the brink of extinction and highlights the need for change, I thought mentioning the health bill serves as perfect reply to the cry for change. Afterall, 80% of the presentation of the Zeitgeist movement is about criticizing American and our stubborn awayness toward change. You can call it dry humor if you must.

Anyway, let's not delve into the health-care topic in this thread.

[Arbitres]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Physically yes. We evolved from the Erectus to Sapien. Mentally no, for the past 300 years, even the mathematical academics of Fractals have proven us to put ourselves into depressive recessions once per century.

We have already reached the peak of mental evolution that we constantly screw our own race up every now and then with wars, environmental damage and stupid projects like this that drain whatever valuable natural resource we have left. This......is called the epitome of intelligent stupidity.

P.S You don't have to thank me with cookies JMvS. Just gimme a bunnygirl.

No, this is just a waste of resources, Saintessheart. There is no evolution whatsoever. More like a backwards step if anything. Evolution is good, this is like the one box of junk that's in the way but you dunno what to do with it.

Exactly.


I would dare say the Venus Project could be a reality if people were connected as an entire race, without the following.

War, rape, acts of violence, crime, poverty, elite social structures, fluctuating economical structure, chain of command, status quo, population increase/decrease, defects, individualism.

Not necessary in that order.

The thing is people as mankind has too many barriers and walls standing in their way to do this. I would've torn down said barriers and walls BEFORE announcing Uranus project.

Oh? It's Venus Project? Not from where this is going.


Being able to build a dome city under water is an amazing and ambitious goal - thing is. Is it realistic?

Natural Resources vs changing environment vs mankind seperated into factions vs current crisis of economy the world over.

I said this but we have a -limited- amount of natural resources. The planet won't live forever, being able to ascertain space colonization will take all of mankind as well, but we can atleast mine asteroids and grow plants and animals on colonies.

Under water? Sure... Sure... I can't say it will or will not succeed.

It's just if it does, the rest of the world will be screwed because the amount of effort and resources it took.

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by monir

"Beggars cannot be choosers."

Considering the main focus of this article in the thread is about pointing out how old ideas such as Capitalism has proven itself to be a dangerous form of economic model that is slowly bringing us to the brink of extinction and highlights the need for change

Looking at it realisticly, Capitalism is also the reason we thrive (and are becoming a burden as a species to this planet)

Say what you want, but extinction is not really a bad thing in the grand scale of things


For the VP to succeed, humanity would need a slap in the face and a big decrease in numbers to be mentally accepted
Unfortunatly for it to become reality, you need an enormous workforce which will again put a strain on the natural resources

Funny thing being, if population was decreased to a minimum level, the whole VP would have lost it's neccessity

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by monir

Considering how terrible the 2008 version of the movie The Day The Earth Stood Still, the following quote still makes so much sense in light of this discussion:

"Only at the precipice do we change."

That's what made me really pissed off at the ending of the Day the Earth Stood still. Cause creating a situation where violent sociopathic behavior is being massively selected for will change humanity. Just not in a way that any one would like. Wanna know who's going to survive when there are dozens, or even hundreds of times more people than the environments natural carrying capacity and you don't have technological agriculture? The most efficient cannibals.

Mass anarchy, famine and total violence are not situations that select for the kind of traits you'd need to build a utopia.

[Sugetsu]

It seems that nobody has changed their opinions on the Venus project. People still hold fast to the same preconceptions that they had before they knew anything about it, such as the project being just another religion, yet another dream of Utopia, or Jack Fresco being a madman, or that their promoters are out of touch with how the real world works. Those are very common assumptions that are to be expected any time a new idea is presented. The more radical the idea the more resistance it will encounter, again, this is all well and good, it is logical to react in this way, specially when the intended target of the idea are people that are very comfortable in the world they live in. The United States is at the seat of power, and it likes it that way. (not assuming all posters come from the US, just pointing out that it is easier to absorb the idea if you come from a poor country)

Therefore, the following essay is my personal opinion on the Venus project and the reason why I have decided to embrace it with such passion. Please note that the following text encompasses my own theories and ideas of the world we live in. If you find some of those eerily similar to ideas presented in books or other sources of information, even the Venus Project itself it is because I believe that there is no such thing as an original idea; there are millions of different variables at play in our lives and therefore a near infinite number of ways to arrive at the same conclusions as other people. Those who got famous by "their own inventions" are just individuals who believed it was important for the rest of the world to know as well as having the adequate set of circumstances for those ideas to manifested. As the saying goes: Knowing without doing is equal to not knowing.

WARNING, IT IS LONG!

Spoiler:

Most people I know, seen, read about or heard of in this world have a common belief: The human race posses hardwired behavior that is immutable and deeply embedded within our beings. Some people consider that this special behavior is the defining aspect of the human species. They call it "human nature".

This claim is partially true. The only hardwired non-physical mechanism that we posses as species is instinct. Reactions, such as Fear, fight or flight response, hunger, mating, social interaction are part of our instinctive nature, which is also shared with the rest of the natural world. The only difference within a human being and any other living entity is our ability to control and subdue our instinct, which is made possible thanks to our high level of consciousness.

Ego and instinct are one and the same. Ego is the defense mechanism of life, which gains or loses strength according to the level of consciousness of any given organism.

Human beings depended heavily on their instinct at the beginning of human civilization, when life expectancy was no longer than forty and more than fifty percent of the population was destined to die by the age of five. At that time it was every man for himself, and the determined factor of survival success was the strength of one's ego.

It was during those early times of human history that our current profit system was created. After all, the underlying factor in profit is "what is in there for me?". You can't teach a dog new tricks unless you reward its behavior.

During early civilization, education was something that only the leaders of the pack could have access to, it was a defense mechanism, born out of our instinct to survive, in order to ensure the continued dominance of those in power.

Hierarchy, social stratification and political systems also made their way into human civilization. After all we are all hardwired for social interaction. We depend on our fellows in order to live. It is this inescapable dependency that allows for the ego to manifest more strongly on those which meet the conditions to lead the pack. Those with higher self confidence and high self stem project an aura of command upon those who lack on these qualities. These highly egotistical beings light a path of certainty and security for those who are weaker. The ego holds the answers and the "light" in "a world filled with darkness and uncertainty". This is why the weak flocks to the strong like a moth flocks to the flame.

Religion arrived naturally at the dawn of our species as another mechanism of protection against the unknown, given that humans have a greater consciousness than all other life forms in this planet, we have the impulse of explaining the countless phenomena that only our species is capable of perceiving. Ignoring such an impulse would leave it defenseless in the wake of mother nature. I don't see religion as just the belief in supernatural forces, but in fact, any belief at all. Therefore, belief is religion. We are all creatures of belief, hence, we are all religious creatures.

Beliefs are closely guarded by the ego, because to do away with them leaves us exposed to the world, a world filled with uncertainty, in which we have no control over it.


Instinct is still our governor in the present. in our current civilization, you can trace almost any action back to the ego, such as competition, praise, approval, propaganda, fear, hatred, sorrow, war, money, politics, main stream science, Christianity, Islam.. etc. Ironically, it is that same instinct, which ensured that our species survived and thrived in a uncertain world, that know threatens our own destruction.

There comes a point in any civilization in which its scientific and spiritual knowledge reach a dangerous threshold. If the knowledge of one of these two is too high compared to the other one, then the civilization starts to decline and ultimately self destruct. We are currently at this point in our civilization.

Our scientific knowledge continues to grow at an exponential rate. We hold powerful knowledge in our hands, but knowledge is a double edge sword; it can cut on the positive or the negative side. Our current environment has empowered our egos to dangerous levels, and now we are beasts with immense power. We are like children, and we have found the matches. We are playing a dangerous game because our ego keeps us in a child like state. We are blinded by our ego and at any moment we will make a mistake for which the only price to pay is extinction.

However, in the event that the child is mature enough in order to use the matches responsibly, he will be ready to leave his nest and make a life of his own in the stars above. By this analogy I intent to demostrate that it is impossible to reach space travel with our current spiritual level. We will self destruct long before we are able to leave this planet behind. The amount knowledge required to thrived in space is leaps and bounds more powerful than anything we know, but remember, "with great power comes great responsibility".

What is the ego then?

The world is full of light, light so bright and intense that underdeveloped organisms are blinded by it and die. This light is knowledge. Therefore, these organisms need to seek shade in order to shelter from it. The shade's name is Ego. The ego shelters the weak organism by enveloping it in a cocoon shape like structure. This "cocoon" varies in size and thickness.

Its thickness dictates how much light is able to get through to to the organism and how the light will be filtered. Not all organisms will see the same light spectrum, which is determined by each respective cocoon. If the membrane is very thick the organism is very primitive, and its knowledge is extremely limited. Strong beliefs usually take place in cocoons with thick membranes. If the membrane is very weak, the organism is highly developed and its knowledge is high. Organisms with weak membranes usually posses no belief systems.

The organism can interact with other organisms depending on whether their respective cocoons are compatible. If two or more organisms can filter the same light spectrum and they find each other, they tent to merge their membranes in order to form a single cocoon, which in turn increases its size. If there are multiple organism living within, then the cocoon grows so big that it becomes a living entity. The living entity varies in size as well, depending on the number of organisms that it shelters. These living entities also have varying membrane thickness, which in turn dictates their capacity to filter light.

I must clarify that the color of all cocoons is pitch dark when they are first created. Their color will go lighter as the organism's begins to develop.

And so the world is filled with light but also full with many living entities within it with different sizes, colors and shapes. These entities often fight one another to death, this factor is determined depending on their size and color. If its size is very large and has a very thick membrane then it will often fight other entities in order to establish dominance. Much suffering and chaos ensues when there are multiple large entities with thick membranes in the vicinity.

There are cases in which organisms within these entities leave its host to form other living entities or in rare cases to live on their own. These rare cases however, have a very special function in the world, they often serve as bridges of communication among living entities. I call these bridges of communication "empathic channels". These empathic channels often lead to the unification of living entities by weakening their thick membranes. Empathic channels are essential in order to end chaos and suffering because they lead to the unification of organisms.

Was this analogy much too confusing? It was required in order to make my point. The light represents existance, which is manifested to us as information, which we are unable to recieve all at once and therefore we filter it. The living organisms represent each of us, our individual selves. The cocoon represent our beliefs. The living entities represent shared beliefs, such as Christianity, patriotism, Nazism, Darwinism, Islam, democrats, republicans, The United States, France, China... and any other groups or associations.

The emphatic channel represents the moment in which our differences are set aside in order to find a common goal. One example of an empathic channel is laughter, it can overcome any language barrier, any religion or dispute and we all share it.

The organisms that break away from living entities and opt for "Loness" not loneliness but rather solitude, posses very weak egos, they are almost childlike; able to live in the present and enjoy life fully. They do not care about approval and think for themselves, they hold no beliefs.

So?

We need our instinct to survive, that is out of question. The problem we face as a species right now is that we have entered and stayed in the comfort zone that our ego has provided for us. We are deeply asleep. We are being programmed constantly and it is that programming that makes us into machines. Within that programming we are absolutely blind and can't think beyond our own self imposed boundaries. Anything that attacks that programming creates a flight or fight response.

However, we are human beings, we have a very big advantage over any other life forms on this planet; we can control our impulses. If we start taking a hard look at ourselves, instead of the external world, in a way in which we beginning the process of observing our egos at play we will be able to be our own masters. Right now, our instinct guides us, it controls us, it tells us what to do and not do. Only by studying ourselves we will be able to balance our egos, so that it is us and not it that controls us.

-------------------------------

This is the very reason why I think the Venus project is a sound approach at the problems we face today. If we become aware that we are constantly being programmed by the media, our religions, our flag, and our seek of approval from others, then we can we can begin to change the environment we live in. So that our children grow up in world in which they won't be forced to create an image of whats is beautiful and what is not. If we educate them properly on how to control stress, being parents, loving themselves and respect others then that which er call "Human nature" will cease to guide us.

@Justsomeguy, sorry I promised you I would answer to your post earlier, but I believe that this essay of mine should directly or indirectly respond some of your questions.

[Nightbat®]

Sugetsu, I applaud your idealism,
But if things sound too good to be true, they usually are

it proves just how naive and like sheep people can be
if I were a dictator, I'd love to have subordinates like you


here's my analogy:

You sound like a converted feeling everyone should enjoy your new found 'goal/cause'
needing to preach the word of god to others

Don't become something like a jehova's witness even trying to put your foot between the door to force your idea

....for I'll break it and kick you off my porch

-



Instead of following the (in this case Venus Project) flock, be critical, even you're not that stupid to follow something blindly?
Yet you are willing to give your future to soulless machines

your freedom of thought, your human desires, all shelved for such a thing as the VP?
then what will your life actually be? Wouldn't it just be better to remove humanity and hand over the planet to machines?


Instead of forcing somthing like the VP onto humanity, why not let nature handle it
for starters I sincerely believe that will sort it all out (I also believe karma is a bitch)
and maybe the VP will evolve naturally

...but ofcourse there are always impatient dreamers that want to see them realized at any cost in their lifetime

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

...but ofcourse there are always impatient dreamers that want to see them realized at any cost in their lifetime

i think his name was pol pot.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

Sugetsu, I applaud your idealism,
But if things sound too good to be true, they usually are

it proves just how naive and like sheep people can be
if I were a dictator, I'd love to have subordinates like you


here's my analogy:

You sound like a converted feeling everyone should enjoy your new found 'goal/cause'
needing to preach the word of god to others

Don't become something like a jehova's witness even trying to put your foot between the door to force your idea

....for I'll break it and kick you off my porch

-



Instead of following the (in this case Venus Project) flock, be critical, even you're not that stupid to follow something blindly?
Yet you are willing to give your future to soulless machines

your freedom of thought, your human desires, all shelved for such a thing as the VP?
then what will your life actually be? Wouldn't it just be better to remove humanity and hand over the planet to machines?


Instead of forcing somthing like the VP onto humanity, why not let nature handle it
for starters I sincerely believe that will sort it all out (I also believe karma is a bitch)
and maybe the VP will evolve naturally

...but ofcourse there are always impatient dreamers that want to see them realized at any cost in their lifetime

I think you missed the point of my essay entirely. If anything you understood completely the opposite or didn't pay attention to it, or was too confusing to you. What you say is exactly the product of big egos. The idea that I presented to you were ideas that were there long before I joined the Venus project. Do you know why my nick name is Sugetsu? I have been using it since the beginning of the decade. We are water.

For those who understood it, I have a small comment: Do I think that the VP can achieve a world in which we no longer filter the light? Not at all. But it will be a very large living entity with a very weak membrane.

PS: and again, machines in VP are to do the same thing they do now, which is to do mundane, repetitive and brainless jobs that humans should not waste their precious time doing.

Edit: I just found a great documentary directly from main stream science in which the very idea of human nature is discussed and how it affected the creation of modern civilization. It is quite interesting and it supports the idea of the Venus project

http://video.google.com/googleplayer...&hl=es&fs=true