Kind of like we have now. Yes. Exactly.

"…And that was the first time I encountered a scientist that was unscientific

He should have said, “What is it you have against it?”…"

“…I was interested in science but they were owned by corporations…”

“…And computers at that time could retain 1,000 trillion bits of information per second…”

He talks about that guy in the wheelchair exactly as I think too.

Conflict of interest here. In an ideal world, science would not have to depend on influences that inhabit the progress of knowledge, provided that is with ethical constraints. But who decides what is ethical ? Obviously the cheque book signee.

I’ve put a great deal of research and thought into this. Please bear with me.

The lack of understanding about the amount of influence that the common person has disturbs me. It’s a bit of a paradox revolving around the default behavior that emerged in living systems that’s also present but somewhat less pervasive in human nature. Animals tend to settle into a niche’. Some of us do this as well. It’s only the habits of those inclined to continue advancing for what ever reason that spreads and perpetuates our advancement. There are still tribal and agricultural societies that have split off and settled into that niche’ because of undesirable aspects of changes being made. As a major example, privacy (which I think is actually a trust issue) has been sacrificed throughout our development, at every stage.

What happened with the economy began before I was born. Croudsourcing emerged as a tool for increasing the efficiency of business models. It was partnerships that included things like employing investors and buying in bulk. Due to this, the small businesses that didn’t have the resources or the profit margins to take advantage of this tool slowly fell by the wayside. It took a multifunctional, global communication and distribution technology (the internet) to begin to address the issues with and find solutions for the unlevel playing field. Solving this problem is likely to take over a half century; beginning to end. The cause of the poor health of the economy is aggregation of the markets in a small number of large businesses. The answer is a large number of entrepreneurships.

The emergence of the 5/40 job is a consequence of the early days of the industrial revolution. Large numbers of laborers were needed in those business models. In the 1950s there was a somewhat healthy middle class that was founded in small businesses distributing locally. Things have changed. Automation is becoming more prevalent. There is likely to be more room for entrepreneurships and partnerships within the economy. This has the potential to bring about better times than in the 50s.

Our issue now is probably more habitual than anything. Since this is not the 20th century, large businesses are not going to create very many jobs. Automation is likely to be a solution for falling or stagnant profit margins. Rising unemployment is a reasonable view of the near future. The solution requires that many break out of that 20th century niche’ and build the small businesses of the 21st century. If that does not occur then that will be a more liable cause of why the economy would collapse. The corporations are incapable of sustaining the economy. Economies are based upon growth and the huge corporations who have cornered the markets through croudsourcing have little room for it. The tactics to keep the economy afloat have been just as desperate as anything else. Blaming the large businesses and world leaders not only is no longer an option but also no longer justified. The average person should solve these issues by either taking part in croudsourcing, or point out where it is likely to fail or not judge the system at all.

I am a fan of ideas behind the Venus Project. I think it has the potential to be a model for the way we shape our future. This however is less likely to occur if we feel powerless to bring it about. This is one of my main gripes about conspiracy theory. It’s the cognitive dissonance. The theory is presented to the average person and a false feeling of lack of control ensues. Deep down it’s evident that it’s not the case because the method is to present it to the average person. If it were so, what would be the use? That is cognitive dissonance. It promotes an unwillingness to research and solve the issues. It promotes the life of an uninformed martyr.

I doubt very seriously that we are currently in a position to bring about a resource based economy. I don’t think we’re far off though. The appeal of a monetary system is it’s simplification of the economy. It’s why it was chosen long ago. In order to bring about a resourced based economy we would have to be able to survey and distribute the resources in an economically and ecologically viable manor. This would require awareness and understanding of all of the components of the entire system. We don’t have that capability as of yet. I’m however confident that this could be done through advancing artificial intelligence. We don’t seem to have that far to go before we have a system that could do a pretty good job with it.

The problem in the near term goes back to my first paragraph. Our capabilities are not likely to overcome our habits. In order to receive a ration one would have to have their own personal information accounted for in said system. Good luck promoting that. Right now there is huge controversy over provenance vs privacy. This is influencing a lot of peoples decisions about how much to participate in the technological revolution and information society. I would expect that more people would split off and preserve the industrial way of life through “off the grid”, sustainable forms of energy and food production. I would also respect their will to do so.

I think that through circumstantial arm twisting that the unit currency will disappear in the numbers this century. I also think that many of the ideas that Jacque Fresco has put fourth will be implemented in that time. I am almost convinced that the biggest obstacle to this is the influence of the average person.

I realize that this isn’t a pretty picture that I’ve painted but I can support it ad nauseum. I am however not a scientist and would suggest a grain of salt with my views.