UNDERSTANDING TECHNOCRACY TECHNOCRACYS CYBERNATION

Selected writings by the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project.

Page 1 of 17

UNDERSTANDING TECHNOCRACYS CYBERNATION

Selected writings by the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project. This document is selected capture on the concept Cybernation to be deployed by the Zeitgeist Movement and its activist arm the Venus Project. Given the lack of exposure and failure to cite official documentation by the technocratic movement at large , it is required to Resources accessed on 3 January 2012

A Case for Social Cybernation

Source: http://tzmblog.zeitgeistitalia.org/en/blog/tom-skazinski/case-social-cybernation

Submitted by Tom Skazinski, published on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 22:13 Let us ponder and inspect the idea of a socio-economic paradigm shift, and plot a social direction with the help of social nation. Democracy, a loaded word, has a lot of connotations and ideologies associated with it; but what does it really mean? And, more importantly, how does it manifest in our current society? The ideological purpose of democracy is for everyone to participatefor the governing power to derive from the people. Unfortunately, when we inspect todays culture and the governing institutions, this ideological premise is questioned. Take the various democracy governments around the globe todaythey exist as entities operated by groups of individuals that people elect to power. The government needs to balance its budget, grow its GDP, uphold a framework of rules and laws of the land, and compete in the world marketplace in order to satisfy its interests. You would assume its interests to be that of serving its citizens collective needs and foster a healthy environment that creates incentives and motivates individuals to contribute towards the betterment of the social collective.

Page 2 of 17

That is the theory behind what our current monetary paradigm system is trying to achieve: if you satisfy your own needs and desires by earning income, you are contributing to the betterment of society as a whole. This is the staple and structure of todays mentality it is why we have jobs, why we have personal property, it is what the culture promotes, and what we dont question but assume is the golden rule of how society is to function.
This is the basis for the structure of todays mentality: it is why we have jobs; it is why we have personal property; it is what the culture promotes; and it is what we dont question, but assume is the golden rule of how society is to function.

Although this mentality or framework has some positive aspectsit will change: not because of some prediction or because of a growing enlightenment about alternatives that in theory would work better; but because simply putour current paradigm is not sustainable. [] No longer can our idealistic-democracy-driven government serve its citizens when its lifeline and existence is threatened by the continuing requirement for sustaining exponential consumption with no regard to natures limits, no regard to the wellness of its citizens, no regard to solving problems if these were to disrupt the generation of profit. This monetary paradigm is the greatest threat against which our species has ever had to contended, and will be viewed by future generations as the greatest obstacle we had to overcome in order to progress and mature as a species. Would a paradigm shift of the modern socio-economic-democracy ideology towards social cybernation a rational alternative? Do we even know if its even feasible and sustainable? As a computer scientist I look at this problem from an informational systems theory approach, there exists an infinite solution space of frameworks that tackles the issue at hand; a framework is a series or rules and standards with which we can organize our society. Our society runs on a massive collection of rules and standards, either assumed, or inferred from the past, or planned out and enforced by law. [] So shouldnt we collectively prioritize that the most influential aspect of our existence and the long term sustainability of our species be forever improving? and shouldnt we be continually optimizing this set of rules and standards? But, in our current society, does the average person even contemplate this? or do we assume this is the way things are; then, so be it? Im just an individual playing out my life in the current set or rules and standards; thats the way it is.

Page 3 of 17

Each of us to varying degrees, likes to pass the responsibility of our actions or our in-actions to others or to the collective: I was just following orders; No one told me this would happen; This wasnt my job, or simply I dont care about that. These seem to be the popular approach. We wont be able grow out of our past until we realize that the responsibility lies within each one of us; each one of us is able to make a difference, and collectively we can learn from each other to become sustainable and accomplish amazing technological progression. Once we have taken on the responsibility role the question now becomes how do we devise a new set of rules and standards to create a framework that works? Ive been always fascinated how nature works, and how low level simplicity results in emergent complexity. Life is no exception; if we look for inspirations, we can find it in processes that have worked in nature for billions of years; and pay attention to these. The solution, as it turns, out may be quite simple, to treat social frameworks as living organisms, with the rules and standards becoming the DNA of the frameworks. Simulate these frameworks using super computers for their fitness level, or their scorecard of what works and what doesnt, in addition to what we prefer from alternatives. We then apply genetic algorithms on this population of frameworks and witness scientific democratic evolution in action. Social rules and standards that are inefficient, irrelevant, corrupt in nature, and any other destructive aspects of society will fade out and perish as they will have the effect of lowering the fitness score of frameworks, while the holistic, cooperative, and synergistic rules and standards will continue to prevail and evolve. Would this approach be considered a centralized planned economy? I think not; I would call it self-governance with tools to give communities a series of evidence based decisions, and would be completely bottom-up, decentralized-driven-decisions guided by continues feedback of all individuals to form the fitness landscape where these frameworks will evolve in. This social cybernation project would continue to advance as the resolution and accuracy of framework simulation would continue to improve. It will be one of the greatest endeavors humanity has ever undertaken; but the rewards will be ever lasting and will enable the continuous progression of the human species. The Zemerge Project (a Zeitgeist Movement inspired Project) http://zemerge.com The Venus Project
Frequently Asked Questions From Over 25 Years Source Venus Project FAQ []

Page 4 of 17

3. Why do you feel that an approach as revolutionary as The Venus Project is necessary? Our current system is not capable of providing a high standard of living for everyone, nor can it ensure the protection of the environment because the major motive is profit. Businesses aren't entirely to blame; they are forced to operate this way in order to retain the competitive edge. Additionally, with the advent of automation, cybernation, and artificial intelligence, there will be an everincreasing replacement of people by automated systems. As a result, fewer people will be able to purchase goods and services even though our capability to produce an abundance will continue to exist. This is well-documented in Jeremy Rifkin's new book The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-market Era (Putnam, 1995). The Venus Project offers a fresh approach that reverses the negative aspects experienced in our current applications of automation and artificial intelligence. This project eliminates the disastrous consequences that such approaches can have on our society, i.e. the displacement of millions of workers, skilled and unskilled alike. []

Essay
The Future and Beyond

By Jacque Fresco

Jacque Fresco

Beyond Utopia

Page 5 of 17

Source: http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/essay

With the advent of future developments in science and technology, we will assign more and more decision making to machines. At present this is evident in military systems in which electronic sensors maintain the ideal flight characteristics in advanced aircraft. The capacities of computers today exceed five hundred trillion bits of information per second. The complexity of today's civilization is far too complex for human systems to manage without the assistance of electronic computers. Computers of today are relatively primitive compared to those that will evolve in the future. Eventually the management of social systems will call for require electronic sensors interconnected with all phases of the social sequences thus eliminating the need for politics. Today modern industrial plants have built in automatic inventory systems, which order materials such as bearings and other mechanical replacements well in advance. We believe it is now possible to achieve a society where people would be able to live longer, healthier, and more meaningful productive lives. In such a society, the measure of success would be based upon the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property, and power. Although many of the concepts presented here may appear as unattainable goals, all of the ideas are based upon known scientific principles. It is not my purpose to write an article that would be acceptable to people this is not the concern of science. The social direction being proposed here has no parallel in history with any other previous political ideology or economic strategy. Establishing the parameters of this new civilization will require transcending many of the traditions, values, and methods of the past. The future will evolve its own new paradigms, appropriate to each successive phase of human and technological development. Throughout the history of civilization few national leaders or politicians have ever proposed a comprehensive plan to improve the lives of all people under their jurisdiction.

Although such individuals as Plato, Edward Bellamy, H.G. Wells, Karl Marx, and Howard Scott all made some attempts to present a new civilization, the established social order considered them impractical dreamers with Utopian designs that ran contrary to the innate elements of human nature. Arrayed against these social pioneers was a formidable status quo composed of vested interests that were comfortable with the way things were, and a populace at large that, out of years of indoctrination and conditioning, wanted no radical changes. These were the millions of unappointed guardians of the status quo. The outlook and philosophy of the leaders were consistent with their positions of differential advantage.

Page 6 of 17

In 1898, Edward Bellamy wrote the book Looking Backward. He conceived of an ideal egalitarian social system with many advanced ideas for its time. This bestseller generated a great deal of interest, and many people inquired as to how this type of cooperative Utopian society could be brought about. But Bellamy replied that he was just a writer and did not know how to create such a society. The proposals he presented, and those of Plato's Republic, the writings of Karl Marx, H. G. Wells in his book The Shape of Things to Come, and many others all represent attempts to find workable solutions to the many problems that earlier civilizations were unable to resolve. There is little doubt that at the time of Bellamy's books the social conditions were abominable, which made the Utopian ideal extremely appealing. What appears to be lacking in most of these concepts, however, has been an overall plan and the necessary methods for a transitional system to enable the idea to become a reality. Most of the early visions of a better world did not allow for changes in either technology or human values, tending to arrest innovative efforts. Additionally, all have lacked a comprehensive set of blueprints, models, and a methodology for implementation. Finally, they lacked competent individuals to bring about such a transition. The answers do not lie in debate or philosophical discussion of values, but rather in methodology. Thus what is needed is an operational definition of a better world, which is as follows: To constantly maximize existing and future technologies with the sole purpose of enhancing all human life and protecting the environment

Old styled Technocracy is still active

Today we have developed the necessary technology to surpass the fondest hopes and dreams of any social innovators of the past. The fact that previous attempts at social change have failed is no justification for us to stop trying. The real danger lies in complacence. The only limitations to the future of humankind are those that we impose upon ourselves. It is now possible to relieve humanity of many of its unresolved problems through the humane application of technology.

Page 7 of 17

Many years ago an attempt was made in the U. S. to understand a social and economic system different from our own. A film called "The March of Time" had this to say about Soviet Communism: "We believe that the American free-enterprise system will function better than the collective system. However, we wish you the best of luck on your new and unusual social experiment." The failure of communism to provide for human needs and to enrich the lives of its citizens is not unlike our own failures. Both failure and success are inherent in the on-going experiment that is social evolution. In all established social systems it is necessary to devise different approaches to improve the workings of the system. Science is replete with examples of experiments that have failed, as well as those that have been successful. In the development of the airplane, for example, there were thousands of failures before the first workable model was produced. [] An inscription on one of our government buildings reads as follows: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Attaining visions requires change. The major reason for resisting change is that it tends to threaten the established interests. Actually, the fear of social change is somewhat unfounded when we consider that the entire history of civilization has been, in a sense, an experiment. [] The future does not depend on our present-day beliefs or social customs, but will continue to evolve a set of values unique to its own time. There are no "Utopias." The very notion of "Utopia" is static. However, the survival of any social system ultimately depends upon its ability to allow for appropriate change to improve society as a whole. The paths that we choose will ultimately determine whether or not there is intelligent life on earth.
New Frontiers of Social Change

It has often been observed that common crises create common bonds. While people seek advantage during the times of prosperity, shared suffering tends to draw people closer together. We have seen this behavior repeated time and time again throughout the centuries, during times of flood, famine, fire, or other natural disasters. Once the threat is resolved, however, scarcity patterns once again begin to steer people back to their behaviors of seeking individual advantage. Sensationalist motion pictures such as Independence Day depict a world united for the purpose of repelling an invasion by a hostile alien culture. Indeed, it seems that the only force that would mobilize the world in a unified direction would be one that poses a common threat, such as a colossal meteor hurling towards the earth, or some other major catastrophic event. If such an event were to occur, all border disputes would become irrelevant in the face of impending disaster. While many would call upon divine intervention for salvation, all nations would surely combine their efforts and call upon science and technology to deal with this common threat.

Page 8 of 17

Bankers, lawyers, businessmen, and politicians would all be bypassed. Every resource would be harnessed and mobilized, without any concern for monetary cost or profit. Under this kind of threatening condition, most people realize where the key to their survival lies. For example, during the Second World War, it was the collective mobilization of both human and material resources that lead to a successful resolution for the U.S. and its allies. As the amount of scientific information grows, nations and people are coming to realize that even in today's divided world there are, in fact, many common threats that transcend national boundaries. These include overpopulation, energy shortages, pollution, water shortages, economic catastrophe, the spread of uncontrollable disease and so forth. However, faced even with threats of this magnitude, which are common to all nations, the direction of human action will not be altered so long as powerful nations are able to maintain control of the limited resources available. Although many people, publications, and multi-media presentations portray various aspects of the future and paint spectacular pictures of the developments to come in such areas as transportation, housing, and medicine, they ignore the fact that in a monetary-based economy the full benefits of these developments continue to be available to a relative few. What is not touched upon is how these new technologies of the future can be used to organize societies and economies efficiently and equitably, without the necessity of uniformity, so that everyone would benefit from them. The few think tanks devoted to brainstorming newer approaches to bring social organization up to speed with today's technological capabilities do not deal with social change as a global systems plan. Neither are there any overall social plans in government or industry to totally eliminate the negative effects of the displacement of people by machines, nor does there seem to be any genuine concern to do so. Many people believe that in the event of any social breakdown the government will bring about the necessary changes for their survival. This is highly improbable. In the event of such a breakdown the existing government would most likely declare a state of emergency in an attempt to prevent total chaos. It would then institute measures that may address immediate problems, at the same time attempting to preserve existing institutions and power structures, even though these may be a chief contributing factor to the problems.

Many people throughout history have taken politicians to task for actions that have not been entirely in society's best interest. The reasons for this become clearer when one realizes that even in modern democracies, these leaders do not benefit the lives of the average person. Rather, they maintain the preferential positions of much of the established order. There are growing indications of awareness on the part of people in many areas of the world that events have gone beyond the control of their political leaders. Everywhere we see political figures and parties come and go, political strategies adopted and discarded for their inability to satisfy the demands of one faction or another.

Page 9 of 17

The reason that we do not suggest writing your congressman, or any number of governmental agencies, is that they lack the necessary knowledge to deal with our problems. Their focus is to preserve existing systems, not to change them. It appears that there are few within presentday societies who want to phase themselves out. In modern industrial societies the cause of inaction lies within the cumbersome political process itself, an anachronism in an era when most decisions can be made on any important issue in a split second by the objective entry of relevant data into computers. The prime conditions that would really effect social change will come about when conditions have deteriorated to such an extent that governments, politicians, and social institutions no longer have the support and confidence of the people. What once worked is acknowledged to be no longer relevant. If the public were better informed, only then would it be possible to introduce a new and improved social arrangement. [] True social change is not brought about by men and women of reason and good will on a personal level. The notion that one can sit and talk to individuals and alter their values is highly improbable. If the person one is talking to does not have the fundamental knowledge of the operation of scientific principles and the processes of natural laws, it is difficult for them to understand how the pieces fit together on a holistic level. The solutions to our problems will not come about through the application of reason or logic. Unfortunately, at present we do not live in a reasonable or logical world. There appears to be no historical record of any established society's leader who deliberately and comprehensively redesigned a culture to fit the changing times. While there is no question that political leaders, to a limited extent, modify some modes of behavior, the real factors responsible for social change are brought about by bio-social pressures, which are inherent in all social systems. Change is brought about by natural or economic occurrences that adversely affect the immediate circumstances of large numbers of people.

Page 10 of 17

[]

Technocracy Inc circa 1930s Unfortunately, the world's outmoded social, political, and international order is no longer appropriate to these times. These obsolete social institutions are unable to grasp the significance of innovative technology to achieve the greatest good for all people, and to overcome the inequities forced upon so many. Competition and scarcity have caused an atmosphere of jealousy and mistrust to develop between individuals and nations. The concepts of proprietary rights, intellectual property, copyrights, and patents manifested in corporate entities and in the sovereignty of nations, preclude the free exchange of information that is necessary to meet global challenges. The European Union represents an attempt to bridge the present with the future, but it falls far short in that it relies on the crutch of the monetary system. [] However, it is not enough to point out the limiting factors that may threaten the survivability of all nations. The challenge that all cultures will encounter in this technological age - some more than others - is that of providing a smoother transition, which would introduce a more appropriate way of thinking about ourselves, the environment and the management of human affairs. The ultimate survival of the human species depends upon planning on a global scale and to cooperatively seek out new alternatives with a relative orientation for improved social arrangements. If humankind is to achieve mutual prosperity, universal access to resources is essential. Along with the introduction of new paradigms towards human and environmental concern, there must be a methodology for making this a reality. If these ends are to be achieved, the monetary system must eventually be surpassed by a world resource-based economy. In order to effectively and economically utilize resources, the necessary cybernated and computerized technology could eventually be applied to ensure a higher standard of living for everyone.

Page 11 of 17

With the intelligent and humane application of science and technology, the nations of the world could guide and shape the future for the preservation of the environment and humankind. What is needed to attain a global society is a practical and internationally acceptable comprehensive blueprint. Also needed is an international planning council capable of translating the blueprint and the advantages that would be gained through world unification. This proposal could be presented in the vernacular, in a way that non-technical people can easily understand. In actuality, no one should make decisions as to how this blueprint will be designed. It must be based on the carrying capacity of our planet, its resources, human needs and the like. In order to sustain our civilization we must coordinate advanced technology and available resources in a total, humane, global systems approach. There is no doubt that many of the professions that are familiar to us today will eventually be phased out. With the rate of change now taking place, a vast array of obsolete occupations will disappear more rapidly and more extensively than at any other time in history. In a society that applies a systems approach, these professions will be replaced by interdisciplinary teams the systems analysts, computer programmers, operation researchers, and those who link the world together in vast communications networks that are assisted by high-speed digital computers. They will eventually lead us to large-scale computer-based methods of social operation. Social operations are far too complex today for any elected politicians to handle. It appears that most politicians do not give serious attention to this and other problems. Only in times of war or national emergencies do we call upon and assemble interdisciplinary teams to help find workable solutions to varying social problems. If we apply the same efforts of scientific mobilization as we do during a war, large-scale beneficial effects can be achieved in a relatively short time. This could readily be accomplished by utilizing many of our universities, training facilities, and staff to best determine possible alternative methods to solving these problems. This could eventually help us to define the possible transitional parameters for the future of a sustainable global civilization. The process of social change must allow for changing conditions that would continuously update the design parameters and allow for the infusion of new technologies into emerging cultures. Design teams utilizing socially integrated computers could automatically be informed of new developments. As this process is continuously updated, it would generate a more appropriate code of conduct. By appropriate conduct we mean the necessary procedures to accomplish a given task. All the limitations imposed upon us by our present-day monetary system could be surpassed by adopting a global consensus for a worldwide resource-based economy, in which all the planetary resources are viewed and treated as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants. In this manner, the earth and our technological procedures

Page 12 of 17

could provide us with a limitless supply of material goods and services without the creation of debt or taxation whatsoever.
The Obsolete Monetary System

Although skillful advertisers lead us to believe otherwise, in today's monetary-based economies, whenever new technology is introduced, the human consequences are of little concern to those introducing the technology - except, of course, as customers. In a monetarybased system, the major concerns of industry are profit, maintaining a competitive edge, and watching the bottom line, rather than the wellbeing of humanity. [] What industry seeks to do is improve the competitive edge to increase the profit margin for their shareholders. It does not serve the interest of a monetary based society to engage in the production of goods and services to enhance the lives of people as a goal. With rising public concern regarding the greenhouse effect, acid rain, polluted air and water, etc. some companies are also beginning to realize that for sustained market presence it is in their best interest to heed social and environmental concerns. While such trends are commendable, they are insufficient as a method of solving the overall problems of waste, environmental degradation and unnecessary human suffering. The monetary system has been a useful, but interim tool, it came into being as a means of placing a value on scarce objects and labor. The monetary system of course replaced the barter system, which involved direct trading of objects and labor. However, just as there was no universal-bartering standard in the past, there is no global monetary system today. Individuals and groups, now as in the past, however, still need to exchange objects and labor for today's goods and services. The unequal distribution of skills, resources and materials throughout the world necessitates global trade. Until the last few decades, the monetary system functioned to a degree. The global population of three billion was not over consuming world resources and energy, global warming was not evident, and air and water pollution were only recognized by a relative few. The start of the 21st century however finds global population at an exponentially rising six billion, with resources and energy supplies dwindling, global warming a reality, and pollution evident worldwide. []

Page 13 of 17

The following is a Q&A, which is answered directly by Jacque Fresco (unless otherwise noted). http://www.tzmnz.com/thevenusprojectfaq.htm []

How does The Venus Project compare with Communism? Communism used money and labor, had social stratification, and elected officials to maintain the communists' traditions. Most importantly, Communism did not eliminate SCARCITY nor did they have a blueprint or the methods for the production of abundance. Machine production rather than labor will dominate the future. Perhaps through no fault of their own, they also had to maintain huge military expenditures to protect themselves from invasion of fascistic and capitalistic institutions. Communism being similar to a resource-based economy or The Venus Project is an erroneous concept. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders. The Venus Project's aim is to surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons and the military would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people.

The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities are managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments.

Page 14 of 17

Communism is a political system managed by a form of ideology, which does not necessarily relate to human or environmental needs. Communism uses money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders and uses indoctrination. The Venus Project's aim is to surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons, banking, advertising, stockbrokers, military, and government would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people. The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities would as quickly as possible be managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments. One of Communism's concerns is the condition of labor and the working class. The Venus Project's major concerns are producing products with limited labor and eventually eliminating labor and at the same time giving people all the amenities of a prosperous, high energy society. It is not our aim to produce a society that does nothing but enjoy leisure time. Instead people will be introduced to limitless opportunities to explore, create, participate, and learn. The Venus Project offers science and technology in the service of humankind on a global scale and eventually helps to eliminate all the artificial boundaries that separate people. The system uses no money and makes goods and services available without a price tag, debt, barter, or servitude of any kind. If we use our technology intelligently, we can create an abundance of goods and services for the entire planet. We use machines and automation to produce and distribute all manufactured products, which will be available at distribution centers to everyone. The purpose of this high technology is to free people so they can pursue their own interests and fulfillments. We would surpass the need for human participation in the production of goods and services. There is no taxation or obligation of any kind. We advocate no government by human systems. They have always proved inadequate. Computerized systems and cybernetics would be applied to the social system and must comply with the carrying capacity of our global resources. The machines' main purpose is for the manufacturing and distribution of goods and services while maintaining a clean environment with service to all and profits to none. When people have access to resources, most crimes will disappear.

Page 15 of 17

The need for police, military, and prisons will eventually vanish with it. Of course this will coincide with the necessary changes in education. I hope this helps to clarify some points. We realize this is a simplified description of how it differs from communism. Will there be a government? As to the need for government, only during the transition from a monetary based society to a cybernated high-technological resource based economy of common heritage would it be necessary to utilize the services of systems analysts, engineers, computer programmers, etc.

They will not dictate the policies or have any more advantage than other people. Their job will be to carry out the restoration of the environment to near natural conditions as possible on land and in the sea. They will also economically layout the most efficient way to manage transportation, agriculture, city planning, and production. This too is always in the process of modification and updating to fit the needs of an ever-changing civilization. There are no final frontiers. What is The Venus Project going to do with people of aberrant behavior? Aberrant behavior is produced by aberrant social conditions, malnutrition, minimum wage, lack of motivation, poor role models, and lack of relevant education. People always reflect the influences of environment. Even the wealthiest people today suffer from intellectual poverty. They too commit crimes such as exploitation of the environment and other human beings. We do not consider gambling casinos offensive today as a criminal institution, but in the future they will certainly be looked upon as part of our aberrant society along with thousands of other aberrant patterns we consider right and normal today. Do you advocate killing anyone people with aberrant behavior? By "mentally unstable" or "aberrant people" do you mean those of GE who are some of the biggest polluters of the environment and knowingly exposed their workers to carcinogens that caused their deaths, or those that manipulate money for profit without contributing to the well being of people's lives, or those who lend money for an automobile for example and if the person cannot pay off the last payment they do not take a tire and the steering wheel equivalent to the payment, they take the whole car? Or perhaps you may mean judges who put people in jail for life for killing over resources, yet the leaders of nations bomb and kill entire cities and countries for resources and to secure markets and then put statues in parks to honor the ones who carry out this procedure? There would have to be an awful lot of killing going on if a saner society wanted to rid itself of "unstable" or "aberrant" behavior. No, we do not advocate killing anyone.

Page 16 of 17

We think that this system is like a cancer on a cat that is eating its host and it will do away with itself in time. The mere march of events of technology will eventually do away with jobs that enable people to buy the goods turned out, and new social designs will have to emerge. We feel that at that time a military dictatorship will most likely occur. We would like to introduce the concepts of a resource-based economy to the public so they will understand that there are other possible alternatives. Monotonous and dangerous jobs will inevitably be done away with by the advance of technology. People in a resource-based economy will be given the opportunity to study, travel, work to help others, design, create, etc. - or work in the arts or sciences - if they desire. I find it so sad when people ask, "What will people do?". Their brains have been so flattened that they have no other options in their lives other than a job and in most instances it is one that they do not like. Children, when they are young, are curious about everything and if nurtured they could have a much greater range of interests and abilities. This culture does a wonderful job of limiting peoples' interests, opportunities, and abilities, and it conditions them to be lazy. People are not born that way any more than they are born with bigotry, hatred, prejudice, or particular values. We are aware that it is the environment that shapes people and if the culture is not changed there will be little change in human behavior.

[]

Page 17 of 17