Jacque Fresco - rate relations Accademia - Dec.19, 2010 ( 1 / 3 )

Jacque Fresco - Dec. 19, 2010 "Relation to Academia" www.thevenusproject.com The American Psychological Association. People who deal with mental problems; stress, all that sort of thing as far as I know have not written books on the effects of environment upon behavior, and criticizing the way government operates. It's unsane, and I've never found them to talk about government that way; maybe they'd lose appropriations if they did. But I don't know if they're interested in appropriations or understanding human behavior. I know of no group of psychologists that advocated social change in order to avoid most stresses and most of the problems that people have. I've never known neurologists that laid out a plan for informing people with better methods of evaluation so that they don't have the stresses they have. Therefore, all of their books seem to be maps of the brain and what region of the brain controls what pattern of behavior which is all right, anatomically. But does not describe, or alleviate problems. Knowing the anatomy of the brain will tell you that a tumor in a given location will cut out speech, or visual; that's all good information. But that's not what The Venus Project is about. The Venus Project is about finding solutions or workable ways of influencing people to modify their behavior, to fit the circumstances of the world, not the opinions, or reactions, or emotions of an individual. So when a person says to me "let's have input from the scientific community!" - the reason I don't go for that cause the scientific community never came up and said "Why go to the moon when the earth is falling apart, lets solve those problems first." They don't participate, they don't seem to suggest a direction, they merely describe the anatomy of the brain, which is all right, I have nothing against it. But they have no direction. I've never known The American Association of Architects to lay out a whole city system. They say the green rooftop, or the greening of a building does not change society. So the reason I do not seek information from the academic world is because they don't take it far enough. They deal with limited aspects of human behavior and limited functions of the brain. They study the brain, I would imagine, like I said before "If I fly over a village of thatch huts which are up on stilts in water, I can tell you the people probably live on fish, and their values are related to the coconuts and the food available on the island, and the problems they have with other islanders wanting to take their women, or their food away from them." So their philosophy will be a simple one. It would not be high level communication. So you don't need to go there and study the people. Just take a photograph. A photograph of New York City, Chicago, L.A., any city shows every building is a different size which means every man for himself, which means its a selfish self-centered culture. I don't need to ask what people are like in Chicago. I know by looking at the city, and the fact that they tolerate what exists. I haven't heard school teachers say "Let us make education relevant to the needs of people." I've never heard of a descriptive system from universities, or any elaborate organization. The democratic concept, for example, where everybody participates and contributes - I believe they can only contribute that which they've learned from the culture, and they can't be that different than be a member of a standard organization. Now if a person says "There are lots of aspects of The Venus Project that Jacque doesn't cover." You haven't asked those questions. How do you know that? So you have to say, "Andrew, what are his views on child nurturing?" "What are his views on family?" "What are his views on education?" and get that down and compare it with the academic world. You'll find that it is very different - except the anatomy. When a doctor says this is a knee reflex, this is a temporal lobe, he's right, frontal lobe, all that stuff, a map. There's nothing the matter with that. But it doesn't deal with any problems. I find most architects self-centered: designing buildings, and being proud of what they've designed and sharing rooftops of green, which is all right. But that isn't the answer to the problems. So, I thought if the academic world had any validity they'd be in confrontation with established views. I do not find that, so I do not find - even B.F. Skinner did not go into the anatomy of a new culture, how it works, what type of education with children. I asked Skinner whether he thought man was a machine meaning reasonably connected. By machine I mean, you can't roll your eyes in a given position, unless there is a muscle that pulls it there. That's what I mean by mechanistic. You can't see unless the visual system is supplied with light, and the back of the brain is supplied with enough associations to interpret the forms around them. So education comes from the environment, and as you pointed out, all cultures are primitive, because they are in a state of evolution. Primitive compared to what? Compared to what there is to know about people, we are primitive. As long as we have prisons, and military solutions, we are primitive. I will never listen to military people for their solutions to problems, unless they have outgrown that and have come to new conclusions. Like General Westmoreland, or Eisenhower when he said "Beware of the military industrial complex." I wish he elaborated more on that and spent more time on that. But he didn't. Apparently, he felt by saying that, he would alert people to be conscious of that area. Judgments are based on cultural systems. Otherwise no-one would ever go to the movie. Because it has nothing to offer. No-one would watch soap-operas, cause it has nothing to offer. Its a repeat of the same story. Jealousy, our present-day concepts of love, and family, are always uniform. If they weren't, it would not become popular. If a person is elected to be president by a group of Americans, they do not have the ability to judge a person's ability to manage society. They do not have the kind of training to nominate the proper people for education, neither do the educators. But when you take a course in engineering, as long as they deal with structures, and torsional loads, and compressional [loads], it's okay. But, how is it to be used? Engineers don't give a ***. If its a fascist culture, or a democratic culture, they make engineering projects for that culture. Engineers do not collectively, as a rule, in numbers, step out of engineering, and say "what is this for?" "How is it to be used?" - "I refuse to work on Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'd rather work on studying the culture that we disagree with, and see if we can find areas of agreement, not destruction." So I do not, personally, find evidence to align myself with scientists. I've never met a scientist. Just like I said, I've never met a Christian that upheld the Christian doctrine. A scientist to me, would be into sociology, anthropology, engineering to some extent, electronics to some extent, you know what I mean? To whatever extent they can be, they would be interested, and say, I don't know enough about decision making and different cultures to want to destroy them, I'd like to understand them before. I'd like to talk to their leaders. Even if we talk to the leaders with an American value system, he could not hear them. Do you understand what I'm talking about? You can't talk things over if you speak a different language and have a different reaction to words. If people do not understand The Venus Project, it isn't that Fresco likes to dictate the ways - I'd like to understand what they have to offer to alter society. I'm not interested in three views to an airplane, unless I know what that plane is for. Do you understand what I'm saying? I hope this answers the question "Why I do not usually join scientific commitees." Cause I do not find them to be scientific, nor oriented to be able to handle the wide range of problems. So I consider almost every society primitive, and if you disagree with me, what I'd like you to do is put forth areas that enable me to see the shortcomings. But don't say, "I don't agree with him." Point out the area of disagreement or what you think you disagree with. But without a conversation, without attending the tours, without sitting down, and sharing ideas, it would be very difficult to know exactly how I mean certain words. There are many semantic problems that can be resolved with a personal meeting. I don't know how to resolve problems with scientists in general. Unless I meet with them as individuals for a given amount of time. I can't give a guy in 20 minutes what I believe. Even if he's a scientist. There are some scientists that will take to this right away, I know that, cause they're looking for answers and they don't have the tools. I've met many scientists, but I've only had brief encounters with them. Like 10 minutes, 20 minutes, but never a long period of exchange of ideas, so far. This is the reason I don't seek answers from the academic world. If they are academic, it means they accept or they accept to a large portion, what goes on. That's my reason. cont'd