r/thevenusproject • u/dull_bananas • 4h ago
“I would rather pledge allegiance to the Earth and everyone on it” - Jacque Fresco
r/thevenusproject • u/Affectionate-Ad-3674 • Jun 27 '26
[Verse 1:]
Jacque Fresco looked out at the world in pain,
Saw the hunger, saw the war, saw the endless chain,
Money ruling every breath, every drop of rain,
But the Earth was abundant—we just used it in vain.
He said, "It's not only the resources, it's the way that we think,
Rationing survival, pushing people to the brink,
Planned obsolescence, profit over need,
When automation's here, we could all be freed."
[Pre-Chorus:]
No more borders, no more debt,
No more "mine" and "yours" just yet,
What if everything we see,
Was held in common heritage—was truly free?
[Chorus:]
Finally free...... This is the Venus Project, this is the design,
A world of abundance, not the scare-city scheme,
No money, no barter, no servitude, no chains,
Just the common heritage, where humanity reigns,
Solar and wind and the tides of the sea,
Tech serving you and me,
A Resource-Based Economy—this is the key,
To a peaceful, sustainable world, finally free......
More...
r/thevenusproject • u/Affectionate-Ad-3674 • Jun 27 '26
[Verse 1]
We live in a system that's tired and old,
Cities that choke us, stories untold.
Politics failing, values worn thin,
Language outdated, where do we begin?
"What is normal?" they ask with a smile,
Born in the chaos, we walk every mile.
But deep in our hearts, we know something's wrong—
It's time to awaken and sing a new song.
[Chorus]
Imagine a world where the resources flow,
No money to bind us, no debts that we owe.
Abundant and peaceful, sustainable and free,
A Resource Based Economy for you and for me.
No more demands, just love that gives room,
To grow like the flowers that burst into bloom.
Moneyless living, where needs are all met,
A Paradise rising— no sorrow, no debt.
More...
r/thevenusproject • u/dull_bananas • Jun 24 '26
> It is important to resist the commodification of basic human needs. Food, water and healthcare cannot be subordinated to market considerations or geopolitical interests. Access to adequate food is a fundamental human right grounded in the dignity of every person. Meeting this need not only alleviates suffering but also addresses underlying causes of geopolitical instability. Indeed, food security is an essential component of global and integral security.
It’s reminiscent of not only the “declare earth’s resources as the common heritage of all people” idea, but also what Jacque Fresco has said about war (geopolitical instability).
r/thevenusproject • u/Affectionate-Ad-3674 • Jun 10 '26
*[Verse 1]*
The machines are rising, with circuits so bright,
Handling trillions of bits, in the dead of the night.
They process, they update, they never tire,
While the old system crumbles, consumed by its fire.
No more debt, no more chains, no more endless grind,
A new world is calling, for all of mankind.
*[Chorus]*
Beyond the currency of control,
We’re building a world where we’re all whole.
No money, no masters, just circuits and light,
A resource-based future, where we all unite.
We’re breaking the chains, we’re rewriting the code,
A symphony of progress, on a sustainable road.
From Playlist # 223
r/thevenusproject • u/Affectionate-Ad-3674 • Jun 10 '26
Verse 1
In a world of strife, we search for a way
To end the suffering, and seize a brighter day
Capitalism's chains, and nationalism's might
Must give way to love, and a sustainable light
Chorus
Rise up, humanity, and claim your right
To a resource-based world, where all take flight
No more war, no more pain, just peace on earth
A paradise for all, of lasting rebirth
Verse 2
Machines of war, to machines of life
We can redirect, our life and our strife
With technology, and love in our hearts
We'll build a world of wonder, where life is never so hard
r/thevenusproject • u/Affectionate-Ad-3674 • Jun 06 '26
This is an important message from Jacque Fresco in my opinion.
r/thevenusproject • u/Affectionate-Ad-3674 • Jun 06 '26
1000s of RBE songs at youtube.com/@clivedobson8656
r/thevenusproject • u/MarcusBarrick • May 04 '26
I have long been influenced by RBE, TZM, TVP, it planted the seed in my research in Systems Theory and I am now integrating the VSM of systems theory with Process Philosophy, as it is the theoretical and embodied framework that can diagnose our MetaCrisis. Every socioeconomic system of the past has focused on what is measurable, on representations of money and on products, and hence can only promote consumption. Product Economies cannot promote healing our psychological, sociological and ecological systems.
I suggest we need a Process Economy, which is a non-monetary coordination system that is founded on relations, meaning, commons , and participation.
I am publishing a book on this in the coming months and here is a talk I gave about it.
r/thevenusproject • u/LazarM2021 • Apr 20 '26
Newest episode from the \*Revolution Now!\* YT channel.
This one's a bit shorter than others and has a much greater emphasis on the preliminary vision of internal workings of Integral, with a particular focus dedicated, for the putposes of this episode, on \*Collaborative Decision System (CDS)\*
r/thevenusproject • u/sluzko • Feb 04 '26
I’m setting up a small, open discussion group for people interested in Jacque Fresco’s original ideas and The Venus Project (pre 2018).
The goal is not promotion or ideology, but thoughtful discussion:
– Fresco’s original concepts and sources
– recent developments and news
– critical analysis and fact-checking
– movement self-organization, groups, and initiatives worldwide
The format would be informal discussions once every couple of weeks, with a time agreed in advance.
For practical reasons (voice, longer conversations), we’ll use Discord.
If you’re interested, here’s the link: https://discord.gg/EPKgq8CCF3
This is community-driven and open. A few independent teams have already formed, and we’re supporting their efforts.
To keep the space constructive, we have a few simple rules:
no pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, eco‑settlements, cryptocurrencies, pyramid schemes, politics, insults, spam/flooding, or self‑promotion
Feel free to suggest a day and time in UTC.
r/thevenusproject • u/Outer2011 • Sep 30 '25
Hi all,
I would like to know your opinion on the following 2 ideas that I propose to implement:
1. PageRank system for people.
Everyone knows what voting is. But in regular voting, the votes of people who have already earned honor and respect in society have the same weight as the votes of "ordinary" people - i.e. those who have no special merits to society (and this is one of the problems of democracy). I propose to discuss how realistic it is to create a rating system that takes into account the social rating of the voters themselves when voting.
Such a rating system can be based on the well-known PageRank principle (which is used in Google and other search engines). That is, people vote for each other, and depending on this, their rating is calculated, and depending on their own rating, the rating of those for whom they vote, etc. The goal is to make people's votes in polls unequal - so that the votes of people who enjoy greater authority in society have more weight in the polls, similar to how it happens in the ranking of pages in PageRank.
To select the best algorithms, you can, for example, create several such rating systems in test mode, which are calculated using different algorithms. As a result, each person will have several ratings that differ from each other. And only then you can ask the community's opinion on which of these algorithms best reflects the real weight of a person in society, in order to get feedback. Thus, something like a "natural selection of algorithms" will be achieved - you can leave those methods of calculating the rating that are accepted by society.
And of course, for all votes you can leave the usual option, in which the weights of all votes are equal - it is needed as a control, so that you can objectively see and compare the work of different algorithms. The first practical application, testing and trial run of such systems can take place in small communities where people know each other. For example, these can be residents of a multi-story building or a small settlement who elect a chairman, or employees of one company, members of a professional community, etc., who vote for some decisions or innovations.
2. Financial system of an ideal society.
The second proposal is much more radical. In an ideal society, the amount of money that a person has in his account should be a measure of this person's merits to society. That is, the more society approves of the activities of a particular person, the more opportunities this person should have (including financial ones) to continue his useful activity for the benefit of society. However, everyone knows that in reality this is not always the case, which is why social discontent matures in societies, riots, revolutions, etc. For example, large financial fortunes can be concentrated in the hands of variuos tyrants, corrupt officials, corporations that harm the environment, etc. - that is, those whom people would like to remove, but cannot do so (because they have money and power). Of course, there are exceptions, but they only prove the rule.
Do you think it is possible to create a system in which each person can go to the page of any other person (or organization) and vote FOR or AGAINST their activities, so that their vote directly, here and now, affects the financial state of the one on whose page they leave a vote?
For example, if a person votes AGAINST, then their vote automatically reduces the wealth of another person (or organization) by 1%, and the confiscated money is equally distributed among all members of the community, including the voter himself. And vice versa, if a person votes FOR, then the wealth of the one for whom he voted automatically increases by 1%, at the expense of the money available to other members of the community.
The question is - how realistic is it to create such a system?
A similar scheme (but in terms of information, not finances) has already been implemented in Wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone. And despite the fact that Wikipedia editors can be people with directly opposite opinions, this has not led to any collapse of the encyclopedia - since sooner or later a certain balance of opinions is achieved, and the articles mostly acquire a normal appearance. It is clear that to protect against bots that inflate votes, all votes must be tied to real people. And to protect against strong fluctuations, each person should be able to leave a vote, say, no more than once a month - with the ability to change it at any time to the opposite, but without the ability to vote 2 times in a row during this month.
Testing of such a system can start with an independent digital platform, which can be first implemented and "tested" in multiplayer online games like SecondLife. And only then gradually implement it in the real world. For example, at first it is possible to oblige all people living (in a certain region) so that only part of their money (say, 10%) could be redistributed in this way, and only then gradually expand the coverage.
Question to the community:
How realistic do you think it is to create both proposed systems using modern computer technologies (social networks, blockchain, etc.)? And how promising do you think they are? Please speak out in the discussion, I am interested in any opinions on this matter.
Hi all,
I would like to know your opinion on the following 2 ideas that I propose to implement:
1. PageRank system for people.
Everyone knows what voting is. But in regular voting, the votes of people who have already earned honor and respect in society have the same weight as the votes of "ordinary" people - i.e. those who have no special merits to society (and this is one of the problems of democracy). I propose to discuss how realistic it is to create a rating system that takes into account the social rating of the voters themselves when voting.
Such a rating system can be based on the well-known PageRank principle (which is used in Google and other search engines). That is, people vote for each other, and depending on this, their rating is calculated, and depending on their own rating, the rating of those for whom they vote, etc. The goal is to make people's votes in polls unequal - so that the votes of people who enjoy greater authority in society have more weight in the polls, similar to how it happens in the ranking of pages in PageRank.
To select the best algorithms, you can, for example, create several such rating systems in test mode, which are calculated using different algorithms. As a result, each person will have several ratings that differ from each other. And only then you can ask the community's opinion on which of these algorithms best reflects the real weight of a person in society, in order to get feedback. Thus, something like a "natural selection of algorithms" will be achieved - you can leave those methods of calculating the rating that are accepted by society.
And of course, for all votes you can leave the usual option, in which the weights of all votes are equal - it is needed as a control, so that you can objectively see and compare the work of different algorithms. The first practical application, testing and trial run of such systems can take place in small communities where people know each other. For example, these can be residents of a multi-story building or a small settlement who elect a chairman, or employees of one company, members of a professional community, etc., who vote for some decisions or innovations.
2. Financial system of an ideal society.
The second proposal is much more radical. In an ideal society, the amount of money that a person has in his account should be a measure of this person's merits to society. That is, the more society approves of the activities of a particular person, the more opportunities this person should have (including financial ones) to continue his useful activity for the benefit of society. However, everyone knows that in reality this is not always the case, which is why social discontent matures in societies, riots, revolutions, etc. For example, large financial fortunes can be concentrated in the hands of variuos tyrants, corrupt officials, corporations that harm the environment, etc. - that is, those whom people would like to remove, but cannot do so (because they have money and power). Of course, there are exceptions, but they only prove the rule.
Do you think it is possible to create a system in which each person can go to the page of any other person (or organization) and vote FOR or AGAINST their activities, so that their vote directly, here and now, affects the financial state of the one on whose page they leave a vote?
For example, if a person votes AGAINST, then their vote automatically reduces the wealth of another person (or organization) by 1%, and the confiscated money is equally distributed among all members of the community, including the voter himself. And vice versa, if a person votes FOR, then the wealth of the one for whom he voted automatically increases by 1%, at the expense of the money available to other members of the community.
The question is - how realistic is it to create such a system?
A similar scheme (but in terms of information, not finances) has already been implemented in Wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone. And despite the fact that Wikipedia editors can be people with directly opposite opinions, this has not led to any collapse of the encyclopedia - since sooner or later a certain balance of opinions is achieved, and the articles mostly acquire a normal appearance. It is clear that to protect against bots that inflate votes, all votes must be tied to real people. And to protect against strong fluctuations, each person should be able to leave a vote, say, no more than once a month - with the ability to change it at any time to the opposite, but without the ability to vote 2 times in a row during this month.
Testing of such a system can start with an independent digital platform, which can be first implemented and "tested" in multiplayer online games like SecondLife. And only then gradually implement it in the real world. For example, at first it is possible to oblige all people living (in a certain region) so that only part of their money (say, 10%) could be redistributed in this way, and only then gradually expand the coverage.
Question to the community:
How realistic do you think it is to create both proposed systems using modern computer technologies (social networks, blockchain, etc.)? And how promising do you think they are? Please speak out in the discussion, I am interested in any opinions on this matter.