The Venus Project

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

I beg to differ. It has been scientifically and spiritually proven that the environment in which a living creature is born dictates its attributes as well as its potential.

Please show me this absoltue irrefutable scientific proof to me because I've never seen it. Also spiritually, I'm sorry but ha!

There are plenty of studies to the contrary. I don't disagree that upbringing and such does shape a childs personality to some extent (perhaps even more than others) but that is not the whole story. If people took everything face value from what they were taught and shown everyone would be walijng replicas of thier parents are whatever influenced them, which is not the case.

Many people rebel from their parents teachings and others formulate thier own beliefs (either on thier own or through others). Its not as if what a child learns when they're are young will wire them for life.

Every human being shapes their personality through their own experiences and that will not change. The venus project trying to control that part of human development makes it come across as human experimentation and a restriction of the freedom of letting parents parent their child how they wish and for individuals to learn through their own experiences. Again everyone is different and will handle things differently and trying to control human development to the extent the Venus P{roject proposes leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

You seem to associate the idea of common vision with lack of freedom. How so? Is common sense lack of freedom? or is it just a cultural aspect of the society in which you are brought up?

I feel like the Venus Project is an intrusion on someones freedom. The Venus Project itself comes across as greedy in that the people who wish to have this utopia (have pleasure at the idea) are trying to make everyone feel the same about it by taking out the "systems" of others.

By your statements is your idea of common sense not a direct result of societys influence on you.

The Venus Project itself is no different than any system before it and is a very reckless idea that has no ground to support it plain and simple. It asks to change too much in form of individualistic freedoms and the personalities of people in society.

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

In the system that the Venus project proposes you will have much higher degree of freedom.

There won't any more advertising or propaganda flooding your senses the minute you do go outside. You mind won't be subjected to the subtle mind control of the mass media.

You won't have "elected officials" making decisions for you and corporations enslaving humans for cheap labor.

Your freedom won't restricted by how much money you have in the bank, you will be able to travel, live and do anything you want. In this society you are as free as your purchasing power is, without money you are nothing, you can't have "friends" or find "love".

I really want to see this higher degree of freedom, but I just don't.

Since when has the bare bone concept of advertising (showing something someone would want) ever been bad. Also I can assure you that propaganda will not end through the Venus Project.

As for the rest I've already stated how lack of such things will cause the fail of society so I won't touch it again.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Lio

The problem is that just the phrase "The future of human society: The Venus Project" just speaks of utopia. There's no other way to interpret it for most people. So the guys behind the project are already starting on the wrong foot.

The tittle of the thread is my own doing, so I believe that could be the problem. When you go to their website you won't find any allegations to utopia in the slightest.

I however, willingly chose to pick such a "flashy" tittle in order to attract attention. I guess that is cold and manipulative on my part... I might have to rename it to something more accurate though.

Watch this 1 min clip

First, convincing people that people will be more healthy or more happy if they drop their egos just doesn't work. It's something to be experienced, not put into logical argument. People hearing that argument won't necessarily drop their egos, but develop another ego identity that says "I am against ego," but the intrinsic "I" still exists, so it's actually counterproductive. I read your post on ego in the other thread, so I think you should know how common that is. And suppose people don't believe in the ego, the argument will move into the realms of what's human nature or what's not human nature, and they'll receive alot of resistance, like you are in this thread.

Excellent comment

But if you read my thread on the ego then you should know that my aim is not to get rid of the ego, as that is impossible, everyone has an ego because it is a defense mechanism. The problem now is that ego is being empowered by the system, through praise, competition, wealth and so on. The aim is to balance it to a "normal" state in which the ego won't interfere with the freedoms of others. Even Jesus Christ was selfish we he sought to led everyone know it had been the father who fed them when they were hungry and shelter them when they were cold

Second, the socioeconomic elites who own the country don't want that.

I'm talking about the people with all the money, all the power, who run everything important in the country - the upper 1% who want more for themselves and less for everybody else. They will never drop their egos, because they own you. Why would you drop your ego when you already have everything in the world? The world is simply a game for them - how much more money can we drain from the masses while we sit here in our estates and enjoy the greatest luxuries and pleasures of life while everybody else suffers?

Those are the people who run the country. They have the government in their back pockets, the supreme courts in their back pockets.

If I was one of them and I saw this "Venus Project" thing, I'd laugh at another futile attempt by the lower class to change the order.

Another excellent comment here.

This is the very reason why the project faces such great odds; the established power won't let up. Namely the United States. Did you know that a lot of countries that are eager to know more about the project and Jack Fresco now spends most of his time giving lectures around the world? He was even awarded an engineering design award in Mexico 3 or 4 months ago. The US is the only country that doesn't want to hear anything about this project... and for a good reason. The US is the biggest bully in the room and he won't let go easily.

Which is precisely why a block buster motion picture is in the works, called Earth 2.0, currently being designed by zeitgeist England, specially aimed to appeal the American market. It is yet unknown what the plot will be or how it will be distributed...

The way to bring about something as subtle and delicate as a shift in people's awareness of their egos is to do it under the radar without trying to make it a big deal, so that when it does happen across the world, we can then reveal what has been going on, without any resistance or opposition. Eckhart Tolle did a fantastic job with Power of Now and A New Earth presenting the ego in the best way anyone has ever done.

But The Venus Project? They messed up from square one.

Another internet point to you

This is impossible when people are being conditioned through the media to be compleasant, idealize and never question the system.

In fact I have something dire to say about the future of the Venus Project; the internet is at the moment the closest thing we have to freedom that is accessible to everyone. It is solely due to the internet that the project has been able to grow tremendously during the last year and a half. To chapters all over the world, when not even 4 years ago it was only a tiny idea somewhere in Florida. However, if corporations ever succeed in privatizing the internet you can kiss this movement good bye.

The Venus project has been up and going since the 70s! yet the people involved with it never had any way to connect to other people because the media is tightly controlled.

But don't be fooled. The elite already knows that the internet is not being very helpful to their establishment. They will continue to bride politicians in congress, such as John McCain to create legislation to privatize it. Watch out ;P

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

This is impossible when people are being conditioned through the media to be compleasant, idealize and never question the system.

People don't oppose this because it makes no sense. It's because they're brainwashed by the corporate elites and can't think for themselves. If they could they'd agree with me.

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

The more I read and watch about this, the more of a pipedream it becomes.

It is not physically possible to eliminate scarcity and the economic problem. Scarcity a fact that in this world no one can get everything they want when they want it, because means/resources are actually more limited than that. Thus people must make choices between alternatives and decide how resources will be used or that they'll be used by you, and thus all others must forgo its use. There is also a scarcity of things like creativity, talent, intelligence, and physical/mental energy and ability. We can't eliminate the fact that we must decide what to do and to forgo other possibilities. We must formulate decisions on how to make the best of the finite resources available, because they will not provide us with everything. Scarcity is a fact of reality that we can't change.

This fact of reality contradicts the Venus Project's premise that it is only our current social system (of private ownership) that is "scarcity-based", and that we can eliminate scarcity by eliminating private property (and therefore money). Without this premise, the whole idea of the Venus Project collapses.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter_Toki

The more I read and watch about this, the more of a pipedream it becomes.

It is not physically possible to eliminate scarcity and the economic problem. Scarcity a fact that in this world no one can get everything they want when they want it, because means/resources are actually more limited than that. Thus people must make choices between alternatives and decide how resources will be used or that they'll be used by you, and thus all others must forgo its use. There is also a scarcity of things like creativity, talent, intelligence, and physical/mental energy and ability. We can't eliminate the fact that we must decide what to do and to forgo other possibilities. We must formulate decisions on how to make the best of the finite resources available, because they will not provide us with everything. Scarcity is a fact of reality that we can't change.

This fact of reality contradicts the Venus Project's premise that it is only our current social system (of private ownership) that is "scarcity-based", and that we can eliminate scarcity by eliminating private property (and therefore money). Without this premise, the whole idea of the Venus Project collapses.

Did you watch the video Awakening? Your comment is thoroughly addressed in it.

I think that by claiming that everyone would just want to fill themselves in material wealth you are just simply transplanting the current society with its current empowered egotistical beliefs over the Venus project system. Did you know that before the 1900s was not as materially oriented as it is now? It is only through capitalism and its propaganda that corporations were able to grow by selling people things they didn't need.

Of course all things are finite, this is where the resource based economy comes into play, the intelligent management of the earth resources through the implementation of the scientific method. But, you can't dismiss the fact that due to technological advancements in the last century humans are not able to consume all that is produced. The advent of synthetics, modern agriculture, energy production, and nano technology in the near future. Have made this possible. The US alone wastes nearly 40% of the food it produces, there is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone.

It is the same with money, most of the wealth is gathered by about 1% of the population while the rest competes for scraps. Everyone in the world could easily get more than enough money to be lift out of poverty.... virtually eliminating it, but guess what? The system would collapse because it requires scarcity to function. Why do you think the US treasure just doesn't give every US citizen one million dollars? Again, the ego is at play here.

Please watch the following documentary whenever you have time, The Century of the Self It addresses the underlying causes of supply and demand under the current system in a very effective way:

This is by far the most enlighten documentary I have ever watched, it is a shame that very few people have heard of it.

By the way if you watch this documentary you might start thinking of the game Bioshock

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

And how exactly can it be achieved by environmentalism? How is that going to allow future human expansion? What mechanisms would cause it?

Well, as I said, mass mind control... Everyone in the venus project apparently admits that the transition is the problem.
I connect enviromentalism with the utopia that the venus project suggests, because it's so strongly included, and the biggest trial in bringing about the change is to change the hearts of people into loving something as abstract as "the world" over other things.

And how does enviromentalism allow for future human expansion? I don't know. It might not. But this question can be countered by another: Is our current expansion justified? Is it sustainable, or is humanity just getting into a debt that will come back to bite asses later?

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Did you watch the video Awakening? Your comment is thoroughly addressed in it.

Yes I watched it and I have been watching and reading about it quite a bit all day and it still fails to impress me or answer any of my questions "thouroughly" more so it just tackles the frontal idea of them and gives a one sentence statement of how it will be solved. These statements usually have not much to back them up aside from highly subjective historical information.

This Venus Project hopes to change what cannot be changed, the human factor of the societal systems. As I've said before the system is not the problem, it is people with desires to take advantage of the system. This will not change through the Venus Project there will always be people like this.

Money is not the problem, money is an instrument. It facilitates transactions between people. A transaction can be good or bad, but that has nothing to do with the medium of trade. Slavery would not have been ended by getting rid of all whips and shackles, nor war ended with the elimination of guns.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter_Toki

Money is not the problem, money is an instrument. It facilitates transactions between people. A transaction can be good or bad, but that has nothing to do with the medium of trade. Slavery would not have been ended by getting rid of all whips and shackles, nor war ended with the elimination of guns.

Money is an idea, correct. The problem is it encourages competition, it encourages the hoarding of capital, it encourages social stratification. All these are very subtle mechanisms in the way the system operates. Yes, nobody is forcing you to stomp on others while you make your way to the top but it is a perfectly legal move and it pays off quite well to do so. The system wants you to climb to the top of the pyramid.

Again, I encourage you to watch the century of the self, you won't be disappointed.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Did you watch the video Awakening? Your comment is thoroughly addressed in it.

I think that by claiming that everyone would just want to fill themselves in material wealth you are just simply transplanting the current society with its current empowered egotistical beliefs over the Venus project system. Did you know that before the 1900s was not as materially oriented as it is now? It is only through capitalism and its propaganda that corporations were able to grow by selling people things they didn't need.

Of course all things are finite, this is where the resource based economy comes into play, the intelligent management of the earth resources through the implementation of the scientific method. But, you can't dismiss the fact that due to technological advancements in the last century humans are not able to consume all that is produced. The advent of synthetics, modern agriculture, energy production, and nano technology in the near future. Have made this possible. The US alone wastes nearly 40% of the food it produces, there is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone.

Too bad it's not in fact a fact. We do not grow enough food to feed everyone. We could. Africa should be agriculturally self sufficient. However, that simply isn't the case. Even if it was, we'd still have scarcity. We'd only be able to produce so much food, and the population would quickly grow to the point that 100% of the food production is still insufficient. Let's not forget all the other things that make modern life modern.

It is the same with money, most of the wealth is gathered by about 1% of the population while the rest competes for scraps. Everyone in the world could easily get more than enough money to be lift out of poverty.... virtually eliminating it, but guess what? The system would collapse because it requires scarcity to function. Why do you think the US treasure just doesn't give every US citizen one million dollars? Again, the ego is at play here.

No they can't. Also it's increasingly clear you don't understand what scarcity is. Giving everyone in the US 1,000,000 dollars? There's over 300 million people in the US. At $1,000,000 each, well just take that 300 million and move the decimal 6 places the the right. $300,000,000,000,000 That's 300 trillion dollars. Now what's the GDP of the entire world? Something like 87 trillion dollars?

Please watch the following documentary whenever you have time, The Century of the Self It addresses the underlying causes of supply and demand under the current system in a very effective way:

This is by far the most enlighten documentary I have ever watched, it is a shame that very few people have heard of it.

By the way if you watch this documentary you might start thinking of the game Bioshock

Originally Posted by Jaden

Well, as I said, mass mind control... Everyone in the venus project apparently admits that the transition is the problem.
I connect enviromentalism with the utopia that the venus project suggests, because it's so strongly included, and the biggest trial in bringing about the change is to change the hearts of people into loving something as abstract as "the world" over other things.

Even if they did that mass mind control, what then? How does that solve anything?

And how does enviromentalism allow for future human expansion? I don't know. It might not. But this question can be countered by another: Is our current expansion justified? Is it sustainable, or is humanity just getting into a debt that will come back to bite asses later?

So basically there's no mechanism that you can site to do this in the real world so you're resorting to a tu quoque fallacy?

[Solace]

Break's done. Thread unlocked.

I'm sure everyone is wondering why I locked it in the first place. This should be painfully clear to those who saw how this ended up in the other thread, requiring me to step in and end that discussion. I'll do the same here if people cannot discuss with each other instead of arguing points at each other.

I see so much dismissive behavior in this this thread that even I'm annoyed. That's hard to do.

To the supporters and opposers of the Venus Project, I recommend using logic supported by facts. Link if you have to. Generic arguments are not going to fly here. If you're that person from the other thread (or even if you're not), and this topic annoys you that much, you're free to not discuss it. Chances are you've already said your peace anyway.

I changed the thread title by the way. Clearly it was too grandiose for some to handle.

[Jaden]

So basically there's no mechanism that you can site to do this in the real world so you're resorting to a tu quoque fallacy?

For now yes. Every argument for enviromentalism has a anti-enviromentalist backlash, such as shooting the research down as "pseudo-science", ignoring the warnings as "scare tactics"...In the end it's a matter of personal belief.

[Nightbat®]

This Venus Project has already been tried, it was called "U.S.S.R" where everyone worked for the common goal
and we know how that turned out

You can't change human nature, greed and corruption have been present even before we were able to do more than grunt

and if anything, history has shown that humans actually thrive on conflict and crisis
neccessity gave us the greatest ideas, wars the best inventions

[Jaden]

Well, the common idea of "human nature" is something I dare to argue against. We are _not_ inherently bad. The science speaks against this, behavioural biologists have tried since long to isolate "criminal genes" and failed. Instead it has become more and more apparent that behaviour is something we pick up from the environment.

In Zeitgeist they talk alot about this, about how a corrupt society warps our values from a very young age. And that's something I completely believe in.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Jaden

For now yes. Every argument for enviromentalism has a anti-enviromentalist backlash, such as shooting the research down as "pseudo-science", ignoring the warnings as "scare tactics"...In the end it's a matter of personal belief.

No it's a fundamental part of your argument. If you don't have a valid mechanism that you can point to and explain how this will lead to positive changes in human society, you're basically saying step 1: environmentalism Step 2:??? Step 3: Utopia.

Originally Posted by Jaden

Well, the common idea of "human nature" is something I dare to argue against. We are _not_ inherently bad.

Strawman. No one said humans are inherently bad, just inherently greedy. Greed is not necessarily bad and in many instances is actually a positive thing.

The science speaks against this, behavioural biologists have tried since long to isolate "criminal genes" and failed. Instead it has become more and more apparent that behaviour is something we pick up from the environment.

Yet taking a pill that alters the chemical balance of the brain has a huge impact on someone behavior. It's clearly not all environment, just as it's clearly not all nature.

In Zeitgeist they talk alot about this, about how a corrupt society warps our values from a very young age. And that's something I completely believe in.

That's what makes them nutters. Such people have been making claims about how society is corrupting the youth for thousands of years. Socrates was sentenced to death on such charges. It's never true though. Youth today are no more or less corrupt than those youth back in Athens were, or youth at any time in between.

[Jaden]

I certainly see greed as bad, when its end game is that you are stepping on others to amass wealth. And there's no doubt our society teaches us greed. Those born rich tend to take their luxuries for granted and in the lower classes everyone is burdened by the lack of money.

There's no room to consider our destructive influence on the planet or the inefficience with which resources are spent. That would be a waste of time because it doesn't generate profit.

Maybe not all do, but I see a flaw here and there might be something to be done about it. Talking about creating a utopia is a little far-fetched but the Venus Project raises interesting points and statistics that make people question whether we're currently on the right track.

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

Originally Posted by Jaden

Instead it has become more and more apparent that behaviour is something we pick up from the environment.

Well yes enviornment has effect on someones behaviour, but that is not the whole problem and thus it shouldn't be considered to be the main problem when trying to solve the problem. There is much, much more to it than just simply the enviornment.

Humans being highly social, including nurturing, cooperation, altruism, and even facial expressions are all not directly connected to enviornmental influence. Those are behaviours that have a biological basis, with genetics.

Now of course I'm not saying that it is mostly genetics either. A variety of genetic and environmental factors are involved in the development of any trait. Having a genetic variant doesn't auotmatically mean that a particular trait will develop. The presence of certain genetic factors can enhance or repress other factors. Genes are turned on and off, and other factors may keep a gene from being turned on.

Originally Posted by Jaden

Well, the common idea of "human nature" is something I dare to argue against. We are _not_ inherently bad.

We are not talking about "bad" here, we are talking about "greed".

Originally Posted by Jaden

I certainly see greed as bad, when its end game is that you are stepping on others to amass wealth. And there's no doubt our society teaches us greed.

I think you don't understand what greed truly is. Greed is not taught, what you are thinking of is already existing greed being pampered.

Greed is nothing more than desire for more. This desire is found in everyone and has always existed within humans. It is even present in many other species aside from humans.

Also, since when has greed always entailed that you must step on others? One can hord something without it affecting anyone else. Greed (A want or desire alone) isn't bad with reason.

[Jaden]

Yes, genes have their say in our being, but I wouldn't suggest we begin to mess with people's genes if it can be helped...you know. It would make the Venus Project a little too ridiculous, if the residents of future utopic societies had to be some genetically engineered clone populations? XD

That's why the focus is on the enviromental factors, and a lot can be achieved by manipulating those, as you described they can even override the influence of genes at times.

[Arbitres]

Utopia will remain static the moment it is made. Letting everyone into utopia is impossible. That is why it's so impractical, because utopia is for 'everyone'.

Not necessary, people will always be seperated.. The wealthy, the poverty-ravaged, the mature, the childish... I say the Venus Project sounds like a good dream. Because "if a dream becomes real then it wasn't a dream to begin with" right?

I would rather see the entirety of huamnity reach for the stars. This world is stagnanting and becoming more ugly and disgusting because of our continued 'refinement' of the world. Eventually it will become uninhabatable, even for us. Where will we be? Dying rapidly and painfully, Space Colonization might be way out there, even compared to The Venus Project, but it's also far more ambitious, as well.

If underwater cities ARE made, then it would be evident the ones that can pay for it are the ones that get to live there. Simple as that. Those stuck financially might as well have no future with The Venus Project, as we are just support, once it suceeds, then possibly more then half of the people would be stuck, still living on land. Not seeing the fruition of The Venus Project for themselves.

That isn't a flame(bait), it's a matter of opinion. Space is our best chance for survival, Earth won't last forever, truth enough - We've seen the effects starting to stack and grow.

Putting billions of dollars for a undersea city would be nice, but think about the future generations. They are more important then the current or past generation.

[Sugetsu]

Everyone, I highly encourage you to watch the videos linked in this post, some of them are long, but they are highly informative, they talk about human behavior. I hope that after you watch them we come to some sort of agreement so that we can move the discussion forward.

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

This Venus Project has already been tried, it was called "U.S.S.R" where everyone worked for the common goal
and we know how that turned out

You can't change human nature, greed and corruption have been present even before we were able to do more than grunt

and if anything, history has shown that humans actually thrive on conflict and crisis
neccessity gave us the greatest ideas, wars the best inventions

It has not, the U.S.S.R has no relation to the Venus Project. Please watch this very brief video:

This is is something you could have easily research on your own. Why ask such an obvious question? If the answer in the video doesn't satisfy you, there are a hundred more of those videos, audio files and texts for you to read.

You can't draw conclusions on how the project will function based on an argument such as communism.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

No it's a fundamental part of your argument. If you don't have a valid mechanism that you can point to and explain how this will lead to positive changes in human society, you're basically saying step 1: environmentalism Step 2:??? Step 3: Utopia.

Utopia? I thought we were past that argument already. Scroll up on page 3 and you will find a clear answer by the director of the Venus project.

Strawman. No one said humans are inherently bad, just inherently greedy. Greed is not necessarily bad and in many instances is actually a positive thing.

Greed is not the accurate term. We all have egos, which are defense mechanisms to protect us from external forces. The ego is reinforced in tough environments; for example in areas where it is the law of every man for himself. The ego is much weaker in children for example, which is why children are so easy to teach, learn things and absorb things from the environment at a much higher rate than a normal adult.

Yet taking a pill that alters the chemical balance of the brain has a huge impact on someone behavior. It's clearly not all environment, just as it's clearly not all nature.

That's what makes them nutters. Such people have been making claims about how society is corrupting the youth for thousands of years. Socrates was sentenced to death on such charges. It's never true though. Youth today are no more or less corrupt than those youth back in Athens were, or youth at any time in between.

Yes chemical imbalances help to alter behavior. It is the same with some genes that create certain propensities to certain behavior until triggered. However, the environment in which a person lives dictates whether the person will have access to such substances or conditions that trigger such behavior. Chemical and genetic related behavior are a small part of our behavioral system which largely affected by environmental stimuli. Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays sought to take advantage of such human characteristics. If you watch the century of the self documentary that I posted just a few post ago in page 3 you will find more in-depth info.

Jiddu Krishnamurty also explained how there is only human conditioning and how it defines who we are and our level of potential. He debates this with 3 prominent scientist in the 1980's. Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7CIFJfyDUQ

Bruce Lipton is working on new area of behavioral genetics, in which he explains how genes themselves are altered by the environment, and how they don't really dictate one's behavior:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB81L9zGLjE

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Bruce Lipton is working on new area of behavioral genetics, in which he explains how genes themselves are altered by the environment, and how they don't really dictate one's behavior:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB81L9zGLjE

I specifically remember reading this guys book "The Biology of Belief" and no where in the entire book does the he describe "how" cellular functions are related to our spiritual natures, nor does th he detail any systematic way in which to achieve the kinds of potential he keeps repeating that humans are able to attain.

This doesn't seemed to have changed in the 8+ videos I just watched of him.

It seems like Dr. Lipton is a well-meaning man, but I am afraid his departure from objective rationality is tantamount to a man whose found religion and given his reasonings over to faith. He states that environment has a profound influence over gene expression and that genes in and of themselves do not dictate biology.

Those are not new revolutionary ideas. A case in point is the well studied sea urchin gene Endo16, which plays a very important role in the gastrula stage of larva development. Endo16 is quite an intricate gene, its regulation is controlled precisely by certain modular components, which dictate when to activate the promoter region, which allows the cellular machinery that transcribes the genetic information into the code (mRNA) that in turn gets translated into actual protein. These modular, regulating components are extremely sensitive to the environment, and the environment serves as inputs, which then cause a series of logical responses of where, when, and in what amount the gene will be expressed. The environmental inputs that play a role in regulation are various proteins, called transcription factors, which either induce or repress gene expression. Temperature and pH level also play a role in the expression of many genes.

Dr. Lipton claims that illness can be cured by mere belief. I find this to be nonsense and very unprofessional. If conscious belief worked this way, bringing about realities we wish for, then we'd be perfect spitting images of what we want. But where's the reproducible proof?

To me Mr. Lipton is stretching the conclusions too far beyond the data. Lipton's two papers of 1991 and 1992 show that immortalized endothelial cells take on different phenotypes in the culture dish when grown in different conditions. Hardly surprising now, but from this he gets an epiphany that DNA does not control every characteristic manifested by a life form. Would anyone say otherwise nowadays? That's the problem with many of his claims (particularly in his book); he keeps claiming to have arrived at heretical paradigm-shifting ideas that in the end are either trivial (the membrane is the brain of the cell), yet scientifically unverifiable but unoriginal retreads of New Age standards (there is a vibrational energy that communicates between life forms), or fairly undisputable truisms (how you think can affect your physiology). In his book this is all presented in the context of telling his story of transition from academic scientist to proselytizer of the "New Biology" in a traveling road show. First of all, to still call yourself a cellular biologist 13 years after your last paper was published takes some chutzpah in my book. Secondly, the book was more the story of a man with a mess of a life finding peace and happiness outside of the rat race. His whole "DNA is not paramount" schtick is knocking down a straw man. To refer to "scientists" as genetic determinists and social Darwinists, believing that genes direct everything with no regard to the environment, is quite simplistic. Overall, I feel a little somewhat down criticizing an enthusiastic and energetic purveyor of quite positive and optimistic ideas about the human condition. But I've heard or read all of these ideas elsewhere, much better presented, but still unconvincing.