The Venus Project: Environment

The attitude of supporters of the Venus Project to the environment completely coincides with the mainstream dominating the last few decades: save everything that can still be saved; ecological balance; peaceful mutually beneficial coexistence, symbiosis, etc. We, naturally, agree with all these fine installations, but in this short article, however, we want to put some accents.

Let's see what Jacque Fresco says about this and starting from his comments, we will quickly talk about this topic. Let's begin.

«Science should not be used to conquer nature, but rather should point out our interdependence and connectivity to nature, and explore how to utilize our knowledge to live in accordance with the natural order of things».

«Conquest of nature». Our relationship with the environment over many millennia can be described in two words - a deaf defense. From the expression "interdependence" you can safely remove the first part - we were in strict dependence on the objective world laws and fought a bitter struggle for our survival.

The situation changed when we finally found ourselves and began to actively and orderly use our rational (ontologically different from the natural, biological) essence. Since we had a science, the relations with the nature have acquired dual character. On the one hand, deaf and blind defense continued to take place in a more stable and streamlined manner, we switched to fairly solid defensive fortifications and began to successfully and methodically repel the onslaught of the objective world. On the other hand, we began to plunder nature more intensively and aggressively. The latter was connected in the first - and the last - in turn with the social relations that we had in this period. Forests, certain types of animals - all that could bring good profits were cutted down and brought to complete devastation. All this, naturally, continues to this day and has reached a remarkable degree at which we can already use the word "interdependence". Today our "defense" activity turns into a monstrous load on the planet.

Apparently, there could not be any talk of “conquering nature” here. Robbery and injurious devil-may-care attitude are not a conquest. It was the case with the “conquest of nature” that brought the population of 1/6 of the land a little, which in an attempt to overcome alienation was so inspired by the lack of a yoke of objective social laws that it decided to turn back the rivers, etc. But it passed, they were again put on a yoke and the "conquest of nature" was over.

So do we need to "conquer nature" or not? Whether accept we

«Live in accordance with the natural order of things»? Let's begin with the fact that we never agreed with "natural order of things". From the moment when we took stones and sticks in our hands, when we put on our skins, when we began to consciously grow the kinds of plants and animals we needed, we clearly told this world that we would not live in harmony with the natural order of things. According to this motto all our existence is built. Our relatives, friends die of deprivations, injuries and diseases? – we do not like it, we develop medicine as means of fight against the similar "order of things". Our relatives, friends are for tens, hundreds, thousands of kilometers from us? – we do not like it, we develop means of communication and transport as a means of combating this “course of things”. At last, our relatives, friends die – there is nothing more natural in this world – we do not like it, and the future will show what we will be able to make with it.

This is the essence of man as a rational being - never live in harmony with the natural order of things. In general, in the universe there are no such concepts as "natural" and "unnatural". Everything that a rational being does on reasonable grounds and by rational methods is naturally. When we talk about "artificial", unnatural, the biological in us judges the rational - no more.

«The only hope for developing a new civilization is to accept responsibility for improving our lives through knowledge, understanding, and a deeper comprehension of humanity’s relationship to natural processes of evolution».

Further evolution. Our opinion about evolution and its "natural processes" is the following. Evolution is the development and complication of reflection systems. Starting with the notorious singularity and ending with the appearance of reflection and reason. We can forget about the biological evolution of anything on this planet. The big arrow of objective evolution ended with the advent of reason. The existence of societies that obey the objective laws of social development is a kind of objective evolution inertia, acting as alienation in the course of the historical movement. Now we approach a point in which objective evolution has to be completely removed. Everything that we will do as rational beings who have overcome alienation will be a further evolution. Words about "natural processes of evolution" in that sense and in that context in what they were told by Jacque lose meaning.

Disadvantaged and poor, sick and needy people on this planet this is a problem of evolution not pity and sympathy. Therefore, by the way, cold philosophy is more valuable than drunk and dribbling moralizing.

Let's go further. Jacque Fresco:

«Almost all life forms of the past including plants, animals, and even humanoid forms, have been replaced during the process of evolution. There are no permanent structures in nature. The assumption that the human being is the final product of evolution is based upon narrow self-centered projection. The human being is not a separate self-sufficient entity: we are integrated into and dependent on nature to survive.

It is arrogant and unrealistic for us to believe that man is the final product of evolution. More and more we see the merging of human ingenuity with machine intelligence. How many have been helped by artificial limbs, joints, hearts, skin, and so forth? How much pure information, unhampered by human frailties, is processed by computers every day? The next stage of evolution must surely be the merging of biological systems with man-made systems».

«Narrow self-centered projection». Jacque constantly considers evolution as a biological evolution, Jacque constantly views man as a purely biological being. From here baby talk about "prostheses" and "merge of systems". I.e. we have a trouble – only two legs, and a centipede have forty, but the stuff – we still can be evolve to centipedes. Not to say that this view of things is selfish, but the fact that it is ugly narrow is undoubtedly. Computers, cars are the next step in evolution? Means, props, thing are the next step of evolution? The merging of man with the thing is the next step of evolution? With your permission, guys, we meanwhile will remain where we are.

About self-centered projection. The last 150-200 years a man has been beaten and humiliated as you will not wish to the enemy. The pygmies grew stronger from exertion in order to expose a man sick, aggressive, pervert, maniac, by anyone, if only he would sit and not rip, bring profit and snuffle into his two sick holes not daring to think more. Today is the time not to put yourself on a pedestal, but just to look at things soberly and simply.

Jacque speaks of an "anthropocentric pedestal". LOL what?!!! We drove ourselves below the baseboards, look at us disgusting.

Yes, we are not a “crown of evolution”, we agree, today and tomorrow we are evolution itself. Selfishness is in a such situation to say: “we are small, we are don't care“. We are not damn small, we are at the edge of evolution and if not all, then very, very much in this universe depends on us. And from here, from this position, we need to think about our relations with the environment, the laws of nature and everything else.

«All nature is subservient to natural law. Natural laws dominate all living systems».

«It has taken many years to realize that the human being is subject to the same laws of nature that govern planets, stars, and living and non-living systems. Setting human behaviour apart from these laws is arrogant, erroneous, and dangerous».

«Laws of nature». …dominate all living systems. All right, again hello. We are not only and not so much a biological systems. We are rational and social systems. The laws of nature too often and too intrusively restrict our freedom. Of course, abstractly it is possible to put himself "over laws of the nature" only in imagination, but we put ourselves over laws of the nature in the practice, learning and using some laws against other laws in the direction favorable to us. It is a part of our essence and only a person who has little understanding of himself can say that we must lie down and submit for the sake of our own good. It never was and will not be.

By the way, the same words are constantly being told to people by pig-iron heads regarding the “laws of the market”, competition, etc., invented by themselves, biosocial bullshit. This is arrogance! Building yourself on a pedestal! You will pay for it! Money, private property, the domination of the "strong" over the "weak" these are all unshakable laws of nature, the violation of which will erase you, arrogant dwarfs, into powder. At the same time they are happy eating pineapples and grouse, always nod to you in the direction of the USSR. Maybe the analogy is not fully justified, but there is something identical here.


We summarize. In fact, we completely agree with the “project” policy regarding the environment. Nature is our foundation, our homeland. We do not want to live in a concrete civilization, we love nature and consider it a matter of honor to preserve its diversity. We just wanted to put accents. If it is necessary we will roll up this planet in asphalt entirely. But we hope and even sure that it will not be needed. Everything will be fine.