Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

The Venus Flytrap - No Science

Chapter 9.
Because it is not based on a scientific method, and not even based on a science.

 

9-01 Summary) It is not true to say that we can always predict how human group will behave in a specific society using knowledge about the effect of environment on human beings. Even if we have enough knowledge to perfectly predict human behavior under specific environment, it is still difficult to deductively estimate the behavior of human group within specific social system. It is nonsense to think that we can draw scientific conclusion on such problems without any statistical physics approach.

9-02 Fresco's opinion about human nature is opposite to opinions by most of socio-biologists, evolutionary psychologists and geneticists. Human beings, like all other animals, are only altruistic to the extent advantageous for survival of genes. Commonness between different tribal societies that are completely isolated in terms of culture and space overwhelms difference. Bloody conflict, obstinate class order and taboo are common in all types of tribal societies.

9-03 New terms created by Fresco in order to replace existing terms with prejudice are not academic, let alone scientific. The definitions of resource-based economy and money-based economy are unbelievably unclear that we cannot even ascertain whether they contradict each other. Vocabularies and classifications he created bring about more critical prejudices instead of eliminating them.

9-04 If one cold-headedly analyzed the so-called scientific methodology of Fresco, he will only find complete ignorance about the subject, vague idea, intentional and critical ambiguity, extreme jump of thoughts, humanistic inference and guessing that always replace scientific deductive reasoning, and unbelievable prevalence of academic dishonesty. Calling this as scientific methodology is nothing more than an insult on Newton, Einstein and Schrodinger.

 

----

9-05 As Jacque Fresco correctly pointed out, human behavior is determined by a complex interaction between genes and environment. We cannot always distinguish between behaviors determined by genes and behaviors determined by the environment. Most of behaviors cannot be explained without understanding the complex interaction between the two. The effect of genes on human behavior can be completely changed by the environment in which they operate.

9-06 However, we should not think that Jacque Fresco will be able to remove all prejudices just because he succeeded in removing one prejudice - which in fact is not very difficult to remove -. There is a truly important prejudice that has scarcely been discussed. It is the belief that we can easily predict movement of the system created by elements once we completely understand movements of such elements that compose the system.

9-07 I would like to especially emphasize that in most cases, properties of a system differ from properties of its constituents. Properties of water are completely different from properties of molecules that make up water. No property of molecules discontinuously changes. Individual water molecules do not have a property equivalent to gas-liquid phase transition. Sudden change in density and property under 1 atmospheric pressure and 100 degrees Celsius is the property of water which is not possessed by individual molecules.

9-08 We must not conclude that human groups will share the same attributes with individuals. Individuals have conscience, whereas groups do not. The belief that there must also be a social environment that can turn large group of population good if there is an environment that can turn individuals good is wrong. The problem of handling large group of population is not the same as handling individuals.

 

9-09 First, we need to summarize the terms we will be using in this Chapter. I would like to sue the term human nature, but it can be easily misunderstood as a term referring to specific human behavior or character determined solely by genes without relation to the environment. What I want to express is actually closer to a complex function that determines how human behavior, personality and belief will change according to the environment. I am going to use the term nature function, though it seems a little difficult.

9-10 In addition, we must distinguish between individual environment that determines individual behavior and personality through interaction with genes and social environment applied to large group of population. Influence by surrounding people has greater impact on formation of individual personality. Individual environment actually includes behavior of surrounding people and more universally includes behavior of all individuals excluding him.

9-11 Social environment is completely different. It refers to the political and economic system that becomes the background of resource, technology and individual interaction. This may or may not include culture and ideology. Here, we can accept the thoughts of Marx and Jacque Fresco that they are mere outcomes of political and economic system. Whichever it is, social environment does not include specific behaviors of individuals that compose the society.

 

9-12 It is now clear as to what is the difficult part. We may know social environment of the society we are trying to create, but we do not know about individual environment that determines behavior of each individual. Even if we pretend we knew the nature function and initial status of all individuals, we cannot easily determine whether the society will succeed or not. We must acknowledge the fact that this is a complicated problem and need to make appropriate intellectual efforts.

9-13 This is not different from the difficulty that exists in statistical physics, for instance to deduce properties of water from properties of individual water molecules. It is not difficult to predict how a water molecule will behave under specific environment. The problem is that the environment we need to understand for such prediction includes position of all other water molecules. In order to predict behavior of one water molecule, we must know position of all water molecules.

9-14 One of methods that help theoretically solve this type of problem is mean field approximation. [63] Unfortunately, it does not yield accurate answer in all cases. There are many systems of statistical physics in which mean field approximation is not accurate despite the fact that each component moves according to a much simpler principle compared to water molecules. It is more difficult to solve the problems theoretically. Statistical physicists often need to rely on computer simulations instead of theories.

9-15 Information scientists try to gain about models of statistical physics is not immense. This is nothing more than finding out whether phase transition exists and conditions under which it exists. We hardly know anything about systems of particles that follow much simpler principles than human beings. Since nature function of human beings differs according to genes, it is not only complex but also diverse. Therefore, it is more difficult to study properties of a society than you imagine.

 

9-16 We can theoretically predict phase transition of water. However, it is impossible unless we make a conscious effort to deduce properties of water from properties of each water molecule. We cannot expect to magically understand properties of water using our understanding about properties of water molecules. We can only rely upon scientific methodology based on demonstration.

9-17 Similarly, we cannot think we will be able to naturally draw desirable structure of human society from nature function. We have to use scientific demonstration method. I think that this work is also most likely to be accomplished through statistical physics. This is because deduction of system properties from properties of its constituents exactly belongs to statistical physics.

9-18 This is not a perfectly unrealistic story. As a student of statistical physics, I meet people who make the same attempt every time I participate in academic conferences. Their research still remains at the level of simple modeling on spreading of information on the internet. However, it may one day become possible to formulate a model that describes the entire society. By that time, it would be possible to apply scientific methodology to social sciences.

9-19 Of course, this is far away from what Jacque Fresco is trying. Instead of clarifying his assumption and simplifications to come up with deductive reasoning, he relies on poor humanistic inference. If it is difficult to draw satisfactory conclusion based on strict approach of natural sciences due to complexity of problems handled in social sciences, he can say so. The act of deceiving humanistic inference as methodology of natural sciences is merely a representative case of intellectual dishonesty.

 

9-20 When we use strict standard of logic, Jacque Fresco's error is obvious. He is confusing between the environment that determines individual behavior and social environment that can be changed through revolution. We can only change social environment, specifically political system and economic system, through revolution. If we want to discuss possibility of resource-based economy being successful, we should start the discussion from political system and economic system to be created by resource-based economy.

9-21 The argument that cooperative environment creates cooperative people may be mostly correct. However, is cooperative environment in this context really the social environment we mentioned above? Of course the answer is no. In fact, cooperative environment refers to an environment in which neighbors behave cooperatively more than anything else. If all surrounding people behaved selfishly, a person will grow up as a selfish individual under social environment of resource-based economy.

9-22 It is a mere circular reasoning to presume that most people are altruistic and argue that somebody in resource-based economy must become altruistic. Using the same method, I can argue that someone in resource-based economy must become selfish by presuming that most people are selfish. It is appropriate to expect someone to do the same when everyone else is committing murder and rape in a society that cannot punish people.

9-23 Fresco's claim may indicate that once everyone becomes altruistic, such situation can be maintained for long time. In other words, the situation in which all people behave altruistically seems to correspond to a type of equilibrium state in his system. But this is not sufficient to prove that resource-based economy will ultimately turn people altruistic. We should first examine whether this is a stable equilibrium state or unstable equilibrium state.

 

9-24 If a ball is placed at the center of a round bowl, we can say it is in stable equilibrium state. We can slightly move the position of ball by pushing it, but is will eventually return to its original position. On the contrary if a ball is placed on top of a dome, we would refer to it as unstable equilibrium state. As soon as the ball moves 0.1 cm away from the center, it will fall off to the ground without returning to its original position.

9-25 It is extremely difficult to determine whether the state of everyone in resource-based economy being altruistic is stable or unstable. Let us consider an example with easier model. In this model, an individual can only be in one of the two states, being good or evil. An individual has greater probability of being good if there are more good people around him. Probability of the individual being evil is greater if there are more evil people. Let the ratio of good people around him be x and the probability of him being good be f(x).

9-26 If the distribution of good and evil is always geographically uniform, we can say that goodness or evilness of an individual is determined by how many good people are there on average. [64] Now, consider two models with different values of f(x). One is f(x)=x². The other is f(x)=-x²+2x. Both models satisfy the condition that when x is 1, f(x) is also 1. The two models are identical in the way that if everyone is good, this state can be maintained.

9-27 However, there is a large difference between the two models. In the former model, f(x) is always smaller than x. This means that the probability of an individual being evil is greater than the ratio of evil people, as long as there are one or more evils. If a single person becomes evil, it will eventually prosper to cover the entire society. The latter environment is exactly opposite. If there is a single good person, the probability of an individual being good is greater than the ratio of good people. The state of everyone being good is only stable in the latter environment.

 

9-28 Why do we have to care about this? Isn't it sufficient enough if we can make everyone good and maintain this state? It is right. The problem is that unexpected events can always occur. Natural disasters, mistakes made by the planners and accidents change the environment. 'Abandoned experiences' that Fresco pointed out as harmful for children in infancy can occur by death of parents due to accident. Fosterers cannot replace parents, no matter how considerate they may be.

9-29 The probability of unexpected events is the same as what we call temperature in statistical physics. Electron in hydrogen is mostly in ground state, but it sometimes becomes unstably excited. The rate of this event is determined by temperature. However, temperature is the most important variable in statistical physics instead of being a secondary variable. As shown by the case of water, temperature can sometimes change the stable state in statistical physics. [65]

9-30 There is no doubt about the fact that resource-based economy immediately after the revolution corresponds to an extremely high temperature environment. Social confusion which inevitably follows sudden change and immaturity of the planners who have to work on things that the mankind has never succeeded will increase the probability of unexpected events to an unprecedented level. Unstable equilibrium state will not be sustained for a single moment.

9-31 In my opinion, resource-based economy is extremely vulnerable to unexpected events. If there are no laws and punishments, a single villain would result in enormous social chaos. The trust between people demanded by the social environment called resource-based economy is always greater than the actual trust between people who make up the environment. In other words, f(x) is always smaller than x. This is the reason why I believe that the all-altruistic state of resource-based economy is closer to an unstable equilibrium state than stable equilibrium state.

 

9-32 A problem remains even if resource-based is actually in stable equilibrium state. It may only be locally stable. While an eraser stood up vertically is stable within small angle of about 10 degrees, but it falls over once greater impact is applied. Does such thing also exist in statistical physics? Of course it does. Representative example is super-cooled water that remains in liquid state below zero temperature. Statistical physicists refer to it as metastable state.

9-33 Let us design a more interesting model. In this model, the probability of an individual becoming evil is determined by how many evil people there are and how many crimes occur in places geographically close to him. Let x be the ratio of evil people among 100 people closest to him including himself and let y be the ratio of people who committed crime. In this case, the probability of him becoming evil is (x/2)+y.

9-34 Let us now consider two social environments called A and B. A has a criminal law to suppress crimes. If there is no criminal law, an evil person commits crime. That is, x=y is true. On the other hand if a criminal law exists, only 1/3 of evil people commit crime. However, there is a cost. As pointed out by Jacque Fresco, criminal law is an irrational system that makes the society more irrational. [66] It increases the probability of an individual being evil by 5%.

9-35 B does not have a criminal law. Instead, it has an education system that can get rid of crime by turning people good. This decreases the probability of an individual being evil by 5%. Separately, both A and B has temperature, or possibility of unexpected event. Accordingly, the probability we calculated may differ by about 5% on average. Our interest is about which among A and B to choose if we had to choose one of the two societies.

 

9-36 In case of social environment B, about 5% of people are expected to maintain evil state for long time. Difference from the earlier model is that it is definitely in stable equilibrium. For instance, states in which 2% of people are evil or 7% of people are evil will gradually move towards 5%. The former happens by unexpected events and the latter happens by the influence of education system that controls evil people and crime. This clearly appears attractive.

9-37 On the contrary, A does have stable equilibrium state but it is not as attractive as the state in B, because about 30% of people are expected to be evil in the stable state of this society. Even the crime rate is 10%. Needless to say, this is higher than 5% crime rate of society B where criminal law does not exist. You might make fun of the criminal law in A and consider it as being useless.

9-38 However, this problem has a trap. The stable state of society B we discussed is actually a metastable state. As soon as the ratio of evil people exceeds 10%, education loses its ability to suppress spread of evil. Even if the ratio of evil people is 5%, there is a change of a cluster of 12 evil people gathered at a spot. Such cluster, once formed, never disappears. It will proliferate at a tremendous rate until 95% of the entire society is covered by evilness.

 

9-39 I did not design A and B to accurately correspond with market economy and resource-based economy. There is no meaning in doing so, but it is possible to turn B into a better social environment than A by changing some conditions. Do not place excessively large meaning on A and B. The lessons we need to learn are as follows: First, intuition is not always right. Second, it is impossible to scientifically determine success of social environment without considering details of statistical dynamics.

9-40 Nothing has yet been demonstrated about success of resource-based economy. This Chapter explains that it is practically impossible to scientifically prove it. It is extremely difficult to scientifically deduce from nature function of human beings whether a specific social environment or system will be succeed or fail, and it cannot be performed yet without introducing a daring assumption with extremely low reliability.

9-41 I am not saying we should give up on it. We should not stop such attempt. The problem is that the impatience of making hasty decision and attitude of skipping all essential intermediate processes are not helpful for improving the society or developing science. This is unquestionable when academic performance of my colleague statistical physicists is compared with poor claims of Fresco.

9-42 Correct attitude of a scientist is to frankly confess that he doesn't know things that he cannot perfectly draw, not to make a bluff that he can find out about everything. As already emphasized in Chapter 8, it is clear that experimental method based on piecemeal engineering is the only way to save us from the state of ignorance for some time. We do not have a magical method of determining success for a given social environment without such effort.

 

9-43 Perhaps I used too much space to explain something obvious. However, the purpose of this Chapter is not simply to reproach the so-called scientific methodology of Jacque Fresco which is actually unscientific. Through this Chapter, I struggled to demonstrate a more sound scientific methodology that can be distinguished from the method of Jacque Fresco. I believe I am not the only one who finds joy of precise deduction instead of supposition.

9-44 The best method of distinguishing between scientific methodology and its imitation is to see whether its argument is fun. Pseudo-science has a tendency to convey emotional affection instead of fun. They always talk about what is emotionally correct, not about what is logically correct. Poor but emotional persuasion is used in order to inspire the ethical demand that the subject of explanation must be correct, not to give a conviction that it is correct. Those who are trying to apply scientific thinking should naturally be aware about it.

9-45 It is not a good idea to talk about statistical physics if we were to focus on dishonesty and deception of Jacque Fresco as a scholar. We should move on to the fields of genetics and evolutionary psychology. Once they realize the fact that stories proudly told by Jacque Fresco as if to represent opinions of scientists are actually opposite of stories told by scientists, supporters of The Venus Project will be shocked.

 

 

9-46 The argument that human beings are born to be selfish, which Jacque Fresco opposes as being 'unscientific', is not something claimed by some foolish people who have never studied science. It is exactly an established theory of modern genetics and socio-biology. Jacque Fresco's belief that cooperative society can undoubtedly become successful because human nature can be developed in any way contradicts opinions by most scientists. There is no specific environment that can turn all human beings indefinitely altruistic.

9-47 It would be appropriate to cite the words of geneticists for supporters of The Venus Project who probably cannot accept this outrageous exposure. Richard Dawkins wrote in The Selfish Gene, "Human society based solely on the universal principle of genes called cold-hearted egoism will become an extremely dangerous society. No matter how deplorable, the fact remains true... There is nothing we can anticipate from biological nature if we were to create an altruistically cooperative society." [67]

9-48 Matt Ridley wrote in The Origins of Virtue, "There are as many negative instincts to human beings as positive instincts. Our mind is sometimes too easily sunk into racial discrimination and genocidal conflict due to tendency of human society to competitively aim for small group divisions." Fortunately, this book offers a solution: "Once we know how human beings acquired the ability of social credibility through evolution, we will learn how to cure lack of credibility." But do not get your hopes up too high, because this is about private property and market economy.

9-49 Of course this is his personal opinion. The proposition that we cannot draw the best society from nature constant of human beings is applied to Matt Ridley as it is to Jacque Fresco. The difference is that at least Matt Ridley knows his thoughts are mere opinions. Focusing on the genetics, it is obvious as to what the common argument of Matt Ridley and Richard Dawkins is.

 

9-50 Here, I should answer a question thrown out by all supporters of The Venus Project. Why do geneticists deny the belief that we can undoubtedly create an all-altruistic society through education? [68] Don't they already know that human personality is determined by mutual interaction of genes and environmental factors? Why do they talk like genetic determinists? The truth is, as we already discussed in Chapter 6, that we do not have to be genetic determinists to deny this argument.

9-51 Jacque Fresco and his supporters tend to jump to conclusions from obvious propositions. It is true that only some of people having genetic factor with breast cancer get breast cancer. However, how is it related to the fact that there is no such environment that allows everyone to lift 10 tons of weight? Explicitly speaking, there is no relationship. But we don't necessarily have to be genetic determinists to acknowledge this.

9-52 Speaking of breast cancer, there may be an environment that makes people with breast cancer gene to get breast cancer and environment that prevents breast cancer. However, we do not expect the same for everything. There is no such environment that allows people to develop wings. We may or may not believe that there is an environment in which all human beings become altruistic. It is absurd to denounce this as genetic determinism.

9-53 The thought that human nature can be developed in any direction is wrong. As human body has body organs with unique functions, it is an established theory that our mind also has a type of psychological organ with unique functions. We either reinforce or do not reinforce functions of existing organ. Not many things can be completely changed by environmental difference. It may overwhelm the area determined by genetic difference, but the area of genetic commonness dominates it.

 

9-54 If you are a supporter of The Venus Project, you may feel free to say that the mainstream geneticists and socio-biologists have fallen into prejudice. In fact, scientists who only study genetics for their lifetime may be those who can most easily fall into prejudice of overestimating the effect of genes. It is clear that the mainstream geneticists have never attempted to self-examine their prejudice, like economists.

9-55 However, supporters of The Venus Project that unhesitatingly accept such conclusion must be ashamed, because they have always been talking about superiority of natural sciences compared to social sciences. They behaved as if they were true spokesmen of natural sciences. They and Jacque Fresco never stopped to rely upon the authority of natural sciences in order to make their belief appear objective and appropriate.

9-56 Now they are throwing away all scientists that have opposing arguments. They openly claim that scientists who agree with Jacque Fresco are the only scientists with proper scientific thinking and that other scientists are those with prejudice that must be rescued through their scientific methodology. They selectively choose the performance of natural sciences.

9-57 Of course, scientists can have ideas different than the mainstream. Hamilton's selfish gene theory is accepted by geneticists today as the mainstream, but not all scientists agree with Hamilton's selfish gene theory. But such scientists frankly acknowledge that their opinions are different from the mainstream idea. Fresco strictly conceals this. He disguises his argument as something that all scientists agree with. He covers up his argument using the authority of science.

 

9-58 There is an astonishing similarity between supporters of The Venus Project and Christians whom they despise. Someone might argue that creationists have no interest in science, but this is not true. If an argument made by a scientist helps justify their belief, they enthusiastically cite the argument. Especially, creationists have unusual interest in the field of my major, statistical physics.

9-59 However, nobody would think that creationists are the true protectors of natural sciences. They selective choose science. What creationists do is to borrow a theorem or principle of science, reinterpret it as they please in terms of philosophy, and use it to negate another theorem or principle of science. Generally, the law of entropy increase, the most important law of statistical physics, is used to negate the evolutionary theory. I doubt whether they even know how to calculate entropy.

9-60 But we saw exactly same thing performed by Jacque Fresco and his supporters. According to them, the obvious fact that human beings are influenced both by genes and environment entirely negates the mainstream view of modern genetics and socio-biology. I am willing to make a bet on the fact that the argument they use is even poorer than the argument used by creationists.

9-61 The only difference between creationists and supporters of The Venus Project is that creationists at least do not think of themselves as the true protectors of natural sciences. Supporters of The Venus Project are not. They groundlessly conclude that any opposing arguments are objecting to science and scientific methodology. They actively use the authority of natural sciences by selectively choosing what they need. Such enormous intellectual dishonesty is incomparable to creationists.

 

9-62 Many theories about human nature today are based on scientifically incorrect knowledge about tribal societies. A tribe called Bushman living in the Kalahari Desert of Africa appears in the film 'Bushman'. This tribe is completely isolated from the civilization and is living primitively in peace without knowing war and fight. Human beings in nature are peaceful without greed. Greed, worry and violence are the products of incorrect social systems, namely capitalism. The term 'noble savage' represents such thought.

9-63 However in reality, most cases have been reported as opposite to Bushman. Warfare, rape and obstinate class order are as common as mysticism and collective formality in all types of tribal societies. There was no society without selfishness or jealousy. Steven Pinker's book Blank Slate reveals through evidences in cultural anthropology, archeology and biology the fact that arguments for existence of such society are lies. [69]

9-64 It is not true that the Native Americans had environmental ethics that could prevent excessive exploitation on nature. There is no evidence of 'ritual appreciating the dead animals' among Indian practices before the 20th century. Chief Seattle's emotional speech about the relationship between human and nature was made up by someone else. He was not an environmentalist. One of few facts about him is that he was a slave owner who massacred nearly all of his enemies.

9-65 The case of Chief Seattle suggests that the argument that the natives were described as overly cruel in order to justify the invasion is wrong. While the speech of Chief Seattle was quickly spread out despite its recent creation, its fakeness is not well known. Romantic descriptions on tribal societies are much exaggerated. What distorts the truth is not simply the effect of the privileged class to protect the system. Our own narrow-mindedness to only see what we want to see is greater. [70]

 

9-66 In 1768 when Rousseau's Noble Savage became popular, Louis-Antoine de Bougainville discovered the Tahiti Island. Diderot added an imaginary story to Bougainville's travel record. The scene where a sage of Tahiti describes their lives reminds us of the myth of Chief Seattle. On the following year, Captain Cook visited Tahiti and came back with a report on rich, comfortable and harmonious life of residents. They did not know embarrassment, hard labor, cold and hunger.

9-67 The dark side of the Tahiti Island was revealed on Captain Cook's second trip, including the custom to offer human beings as sacrifice, regular infanticide, obstinate class order, and strict taboo where women cannot eat in front of men. Explorer Jean Francois de Galaup wrote in his voyage log before he disappeared, "Even the most daring villains of Europe are less hypocritical than the natives of this island. All of their hugs are lies."

9-68 The same episode was repeated in the South Sea Islands. In 1925, the 23-year-old Margaret Mead visited Samoa. Just as Bougainville and Captain Cook did 200 years ago, he returned back with a story of natural paradise unstained by the sins of the Western world. For about 50 years from then, the story of Samoa was accepted as firm evidence on perfectness of human beings. However, as the mirage of Tahiti by Bougainville was, the mirage by Mead was transiently died away through precise investigation.

9-69 Purity of unmarried adolescent girl was a subject of worship protected by death sentence, even in societies where Christianity did not reach. Far from being free of rape, Samoa was one of the regions with highest ratio of rape in the world at the time. All of these cases were cited from The Origins of Virtue. Cases introduced in Blank Slate are even more terrifying. The ratio of men dying from war in native tribes of South America and New Guinea exceeds 20 percent. [71]

 

9-70 Hamilton's selfish gene theory begins with the insight where genes that can spread their duplicates best are naturally selected. This does not mean that genes only evolve selfish behaviors. In the Selfish Gene, the term 'selfish' does not refer to individual selfishness but to selfishness on the genetic level. Behaviors that seemingly appear as altruistic can be evolved, if it served for the selfish benefit of genes.

9-71 This suggests the following: If a gene that leads to selfish act is more advantageous than a gene that leads to altruistic act in driving competitors out and spreading its duplicates, the selfish gene will proper. The altruistic gene can only prosper when it is more advantageous than the selfish gene in driving competitors out.

9-72 The core of socio-biology is in that it is actually possible. There are many cases in which altruism on the individual level serves for the selfish benefit of genes. If you can sacrifice to save 4 sisters, it would be advantageous for your genes to do so. This is because sisters with same parents share at least 50% of genes. Your genes gain benefit from your altruistic act.

9-73 What I am trying to emphasize is that this is a zero-sum game. Population of most organisms in nature remains constant. When the population of antelope increases, the amount of feed each antelope can eat will be reduced. This results in reduced antelope population. Even if genes of antelopes are matched to 99.99% on average, it is not a good strategy for genes of an antelope to sacrifice itself to save 10 other antelopes. This is nothing more than suicide. [72]

 

9-74 The message thrown out by socio-biology about evolution of cooperation is clear. A completely altruistic act can only evolve for entities that share more genes with an entity than average, or family. We can predict whether a behavior will or will not evolve through genetic familiarity, or genetic distance among family members. The behavior of sacrificing one's life to save 3 siblings or 5 cousins can evolve, but the behavior to save 1 sibling or 3 cousins cannot.

9-75 Such predictive ability of socio-biology actually achieved a fruitful outcome with studies on social insects such as honeybees and ants. Honeybee and ant societies are made of large families. Since worker ants and worker bees can only spread their genes through queen ant or bee, it is not surprising to see them form a cooperative society. However, the threat of individualistic rebellion exists even in such societies.

9-76 Unlike working ants, working bees are capable of reproduction. Working bees can spawn eggs without mating. Of course, these eggs give birth to drone bees since they have not been fertilized by drone bees. This has the same principle as unfertilized eggs spawned by queen bees that give birth to drone bees. Why don't they spawn their own eggs? In fact, they sometimes do. One of the duties of working bees is to kill the babies of other working bees. Eggs without the queen bee's pheromone are eaten by working bees.

9-77 Queen bees mate with several drone bees. This means that not all working bees share the same father. Working bees have closer genetic familiarity with the queen bee than other working bees. Working bees might prefer their sons compared to sons of the queen bee, but working bees prefer sons of the queen bee over sons of other working bees. Working bees protect the collective benefit by monitoring their system.

 

9-78 The colony of bumblebee is small in size. Bumblebees form small groups of about 400 entities, working bees and drone bees combined. When the active period comes to an end, the queen bee flies away for hibernation and starts over on the following year. None of the working bees follows the queen bee. A very interesting fact was discovered about such difference between bumblebees and honey bees. Unlike queen honey bees, queen bumblebees practice monogamy and only mate with a single drone bee.

9-79 While sperms made by a human male have different genetic compositions, sperms made by a drone bee are identical. This is because drone bees are born from unfertilized eggs. All drone bees are pure clones having half of mother's genes. This suggests that in bees, genetic familiarity between siblings is 75% instead of 50%. They receive different genes from the mother, but they receive identical genes from the father.

9-80 Working bumblebees are genetically closer to sister working bees than they are to the queen bee. Once the colony begins producing drones, working bees resist the queen bee together instead of cooperating with the queen bee like honey bees do. They breed sons of working bees instead of sons of the queen. This is why bumblebee colonies remain as small groups and are disassembled at the end of each active period.

 

9-81 Socio-biology does not predict that no cooperation can evolve except for family relations. Unconditional altruism definitely cannot evolve, but conditional altruism like reciprocal altruism may evolve. A reciprocal altruist cooperates with someone who has never betrayed but refuses to cooperate with someone who betrayed before. It satisfies the condition of evolutionally stable strategy often abbreviated as ESS.

9-82 ESS has the same meaning as metastable state we discussed in statistical physics. [73] It suggests that once such strategy is widely spread in a society, another strategy cannot infiltrate. For instance, there cannot be a turncoat in the society where most individuals are reciprocal altruists. He will lose the opportunity to receive cooperation and become miserable.

9-83 This doesn't mean that altruists always expect rewards in doing altruistic acts. In fact, the behavior actually expected to be naturally selected is a slightly 'excessive' reciprocity, not the reciprocity that can give greatest help to the individual. Genetic benefit does not always accord with individual benefit. [74] It is impossible to make individuals to perform excessively reciprocal behavior based on calculation. The supposition that reciprocity will be evolved as a type of instinct is more persuasive.

9-84 Our thoughts are full of reciprocal ideas such as loyalty, debt and revenge. It is not a coincidence that most of tribal societies have religions that offer sacrifices and pray in expectation of reward by God. Our reciprocal habit is so explicit that we even utter curses on the spite of inorganic matter when we kick a broken machine. [75] Our desire to punish non-cooperative individuals surpasses the desire to cooperate.

 

9-85 People who already knew that human nature is not determined by genes but by complex interaction between genes and environment probably needed patience to read along. For convenience, I presumed that there is a gene that determines specific behavior such as cooperation and sacrifice. However, it is erroneous to think that a gene that determines specific behavior is naturally selected. Behavior is not decided single-handedly by genes.

9-86 However, this problem can be easily resolved by recalling that genes determine nature function instead of human nature. Nature function is naturally selected, not the nature itself. This makes our subject a little complicated, but the essence does not change. Nature function that can best spread its duplicate will survive and leave more descendants.

9-87 We can easily predict that human behavior requires certain level of plasticity. Under any environment, nature function that creates reciprocal nature in reciprocal environment and selfish nature in selfish environment will be advantageous for survival compared to nature function that simply creates reciprocal nature. (In relation to this, studies tend to show that our personalities are influenced more by current environment than environment in which we grow up.)

9-88 But whether genes determine human nature or nature function, unchanging truth is that there isn't much to expect from human genetics that have evolved most of its time in the ecosystem which works like zero-sum game. [76] Considering the fact that not all traits are naturally selected and there are many traits obtained as by-products of evolution, we cannot expect to have perfect cooperation as to build a perfectly collectivistic nation or nature constant necessary to create such cooperation.

 

9-89 What is Fresco's view on human nature? He does not believe that there is no inherited human nature. We have desires for comradeship, intimacy and love regardless of our culture. The problem is in that Fresco believes we only inherit positive natures. We are born with good traits, and bad ones come from the culture.

9-90 He says, "We have certain human needs… The only way that you can talk about human nature concretely is by recognizing that there are certain human needs. We have a human need for companionship and for close contact to be loved, to be attached to, to be accepted to be seen, to be received for who we are. If those needs are met, we develop into people who are compassionate and cooperative and who have empathy for other people."

9-91 However, according to recent studies, we naturally have desires such as jealousy, vengeance and possessiveness, a truly wicked habit according to collectivists. We also seem to naturally have a habit to create small group divisions and detest outsiders. We make up groups with everything and fight: Sexual orientation, favorite soccer teams, and Microsoft users versus Apple users, etc.

9-92 It is easy to say that all negative behaviors are created by the environment or suppression during childhood just because some negative behaviors are so. However, something that makes us feel comfortable doesn't prove it is right. There is no reason for only the positive natures to be naturally selected. Especially since it is gradually being revealed as false by recent studies, it is not only dishonest to positively describe human nature but also dangerous.

 

9-93 I would like to point out one last thing. Study on genetics and environment is meaningless when it is performed without strict variable control. Studies on adopted children only handle children who were grown up in the same home environment but have different genes. Studies on identical twins handle children with the same genes who were grown up in different homes. Only such types of studies can be acknowledged with scientific value.

9-94 For instance, studies arguing that a child grown up in a violent home environment is likely to become violent can be interpreted in any way. Children who have grown up in violent home environments mostly are the ones who have violent parents. This may only indicate that children with violent genes are likely to become violent.

9-95 Unfortunately, it is impossible to distinguish whether studies introduced by Fresco have scientific rigor. If he were to quote studies supporting his arguments and introduce specific papers and academic data, we could have easily read and verified them. However, Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph don't do so. We are extremely lucky to even know names of scientists who conducted such studies. In many cases, they are introduced as anonymous.

9-96 There is nobody with a degree in genetics among few scholars who appeared or were cited in Zeitgeist series. The field of their study mostly belongs to a strand of psychology, namely psychiatry which only focuses on pathological behaviors. If pathologically serious violence is caused by the environment, would it suggest that violence itself is caused by the environment? There is no ground to expect any scientific rigor in their discussion about general human nature.

 

9-97 As I finish up the story about genes and environment, I would like to introduce my opinion about why collectivism must fail because of human nature. To speak of the conclusion first, collectivism will fail by positive natures in addition to the most selfish human natures that we wish did not exist. They include everything from desire to be loved to desire for comradeship and intimacy.

9-98 None of our instincts perfectly aims for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. All instincts are selfish to some extent. Love towards relatives is relative-egoistic. Affection towards intimate ones is group-egoistic in that it differentiates between intimate and non-intimate ones. Our natural sympathy also differentiates between people we can see and people we do not see.

9-99 However, such tendencies lurking behind our instincts are not unfortunate at all. Neo in the film 'Matrix' chose to save one woman precious to him instead of saving the world, but none of us criticize him as being unethical. The problem is that in collectivistic society, such instincts disrupt realization of social virtues as much as selfish instincts limited to individuals do.

9-100 We should not think an instinct that brings mostly good results in individualistic society would also do so in collectivistic society. Our 'humane' affection towards relatives is as critical as selfish desires in collectivistic society. Regarding benefit of 5 or 6 relatives including oneself over benefit of 100 million people is nothing different than regarding one's own benefit over benefit of 100 million people.

 

9-101 As the phrase 'one for all, all for one' tells, the important good of collectivistic society are efforts that are beneficial for the whole. For example, labor performed by laborers in the transition period without reward is so. However, even the people who most romantically illustrate collectivistic society do not feel moved by such type of good. They simply feel moved by improvement in life quality to be offered by collectivism and imagination on affectionate exchange between individuals.

9-102 Therefore, we would be deceiving ourselves if we were to believe that our human desires will help us perform the good required by collectivism. Giving up the time we can spend with family and friends for 100 million people we don't know or for the abstract whole is the one thing that our human desire would never want. Thus, given the fact that all mistakes of collectivism are the consequence of such virtue, who would voluntarily perform such virtue?

9-103 It may be true that collectivism, if successful, will bring greater leisure time than individualism. It may be able to remove some unproductive labors such as advertisement industry. Romantic collectivists support collectivism because of such promise. The problem is that this promise can only be accomplished when most individuals can perform the virtue demanded by collectivism.

9-104 In order to do so, individuals must not only suppress selfish desires but also the most human desires such as the desire to spend more time with family members. We can have greater leisure time as a result of most people giving up on such desires. [77] Who would be willing to endure such sacrifice? Wasn't the exact reason why romantic collectivists supported collectivism because they wanted to acquire the opposite?

 

9-105 Primitive men were able to exhibit the spirit of cooperation on mammoth hunting solely because they could share mammoth after hunting. Cooperation by laborers in communist society appeared in a totally different way. They cooperated to deceive the party leadership and become indolent. This was the only way they could gain and share their mammoth, the right to be indolent. Such cooperative mind was what spoiled the collectivistic societies as much as selfishness did.

9-106 However, cooperative mind that sometimes allows us to resolve difficult problems together in an individualistic society and collectively selfish cooperative mind which always spoils collectivistic society are not different desires. They are exactly the same desire. Our humane emotion was evolved to share 100 of benefit to small group of people around us rather than sharing 1/100 of benefit to a million people.

9-107 Accordingly, the human desires we have become as large an obstacle as egoism in realizing the virtue required by collectivism. Unlike Jacque Fresco's belief, collectivistic society can only be rescued through a kind of brainwashing that strictly destroys individual human desires instead of reinforcing them and inserts value system of the society. We saw the same thing happen in collectivistic nations of the 20th century.

9-108 Someone might have to say that our desires are way too imperfect to make global collectivism successful. However, this imperfectness is what we regard as most beloved. I feel fortunate that we are definitely not perfect utilitarians and that we consider one important person as more precious than thousands of people we don't know. I am not a collectivist, since I love human nature and desire.

 

9-109 Collectivists might argue they can rescue collectivism by arousing a panhuman community spirit based on emotional persuasions such as everything-is-connected theory, but I doubt whether this would succeed. Arousing romantic enthusiasm through emotional media is a different problem than making people endure trouble for the whole. Enthusiasm helps to start a revolution, but that is all.

9-110 Large group of population cannot be as altruistic as small scale workplaces where individuals form intimate relations. All 'unregretful' human desires resulting from mutual intimacy and fellowship are helpless in preventing our discrimination between people close to us and people we have not seen before within a group with anonymity. If something is formed, it is nothing more than collectivistic enthusiasm created by our tribal spirit. It justified massacre in Hitler's system.

9-111 Of course, the theory on connection of all things is not a simple emotional persuasion, if we were to take Jacque Fresco's word as is. It is the method of giving pleasure to our souls and a magical means to acquire universal truth and regain cooperative nature. At the very last moment, such anti-scientific mysticism rescues collectivism, not scientific proof. Needless to say, this is not related with scientific methodology at all.

9-112 If all human beings have the ability to gain pleasure from the fact that all things are connected regardless of the environment in which they grow up, it would be proper to refer to this ability as a type of human nature. My question is as follows: How is this nature naturally selected? Of course, supporters of The Venus Project probably have never asked this type of question. This suggests that they are actually far away from the scientific mind of inquiry. I would have been extremely curious about this topic.

 

9-113 Some people might argue that recent findings in brain science and cognitive science demonstrate mystical psychological capability in human beings. However, this is one of many lies spread out by those who believe in new age science. Not only that, believing in books like 'Water Knows the Answers' and 'The Secret' is nothing different from believing in books published by creationists. New age scientists are as threatening as people who believe in intellectual design as a pseudo-science group.

9-114 As a science student, I feel extremely unfortunate about books like 'The Secret' being very popular in the United States and circulated under the name of science. [78] As stressed out in the 68th annotation, the best method of distinguishing between pseudo-science writing and true science is to look at the appendix. I have never seen any of these books with such arguments that provided a single journal entry of 'Science' that supports their arguments.

9-115 New age scientists frankly acknowledge that their views are different from views of ordinary scientists. They consider themselves as revolutionists of the scientific circles. As material success of market economy is insufficient to Fresco, the fruit of natural sciences is insufficient to them. As Fresco believes that money disturbs improvement of our society, they believe that classical methodologies disrupt further development of science. [79]

9-116 In fact, Fresco's position about most topics is closer to the position of new age scientists than the position of scientists. His mysticism and view on human nature are very similar to attitude of new age scientists. If he were really influenced by new age scientists, his deception becomes more fatal. He is officially uniting with those who deny the methodology of modern science. Think about what this means. He has been claiming that he is a protector of scientific methodology.

 

 

9-117 People who saw Note 30 in Chapter 4 probably recognized the fact that Jacque Fresco does not accurately understand the meaning of 'rule of law'. To tell the truth, he actually fails to understand most of things he is trying to criticize. His ignorance about money is especially critical. He imitates error easily made by people who don't know economics. It is the naïve expectation that all cost problems will disappear with abolition of money.

9-118 However, large cost of producing a good or service means it requires large amount of resources and labors, because the cost is used to purchase resources and labors necessary. Resource-based economy cannot resolve the problem of cost. It is simply translated into the problem of conserving, or efficiency using, resources and labors.

9-119 Supporters of The Venus Project might argue that supporters of market economy worship money as a panacea, but the opposite is closer to reality. They mysticize cost because they do not understand the essence of cost. They believe that cost will disappear with money since cost is shown in the form of money. The truth is that the money is incapable to creating problems of cost which did not exist. Cost exists, whether or not money does.

9-120 Many supporters of The Venus Project, as well as Fresco, seem to superficially understand the fact that money is merely a means of exchange in market economy. But the problem is in that superficial understanding is not always reflected in thoughts. They probably have never seriously thought what it 'actually' means to say that renewable energy is economically infeasible. They are the ones who overestimate the power of money. They worship money as a devil.

 

9-121 According to the theory of labor value by Ricardo and Marx, price of a good is proportional to total time of labor required to produce the good. If a good that can be made by 5 hours of labor has the same price as another good that requires 8 hours of labor, everyone will produce the former good. The law of supply and demand will reduce price of the former. If we do not consider profit of the capitalist, it is easy to prove that price of a good will be exactly proportional to total labor time used to produce the good.

9-122 Here, total labor includes labor necessary for finding raw materials, processing, and make machineries required to produce the good. For instance, if 1 hour of labor is exchanged with 10 dollars, a machine maker will sell a machine made through 300 hours of labor at 3,000 dollars. If the machine can produce 100 goods on average during its life span, price of a good will be increased by 30 dollars.

9-123 Imagine what this means. The fact that it takes 300 hours to make a machine and that the machine can produce 100 goods means we need 3 more hours of labor per good on average, excluding any labor required to actually use the machine and produce goods. The essence of the theory of labor value is that we can explain all cost problems in terms of labor.

9-124 The theory of labor value is not accepted today because of a few problems. According to the theory of labor value, price of a raw material is only proportional to labor needed to excavate and process it. This fails to explain changes in price of resources caused by scarcity. Thus in this text, I will use labor and resource to explain cost instead of explaining it solely based on labor. It is still not perfect, but it should be sufficient as a primary approximation for our discussion.

 

9-125 What does this mean? It is simple. The most efficient investment for capitalists in capitalistic economy is also the most efficient investment for wise planners of resource-based economy. If capitalists are not automating tableware production line due to 'economic infeasibility', the wisest planners of resource-based economy should not automate it either. This is because automation of tableware production line would mean consumption of greater resource and labor

9-126 This always happens when the technology is in its early stage. If life span of machineries is short, it requires much labor to repair them, and amount of labor and resource necessary to manufacture them is large, it can require smaller amount of resource and labor for production by not implementing automated production. A wise planner of resource-based economy will not introduce such machines, not for his benefit but for the society.

9-127 I am not arguing that the best decisions made by each economic subject in capitalism will always accord with the best decisions made by wise planners of resource-based economy. The essence is that there is no dramatic difference between them. Except for special circumstances that require intended situation design, economically feasible choice is never exchangeable with economically infeasible choice.

 

9-128 This holds true for both choices by economic subjects and national policies. The best decisions to be made by the government of a capitalistic nation with a specific purpose are not much different from the best decisions to be made by the planners of resource-based economy with identical purpose. Policies regarded as excessively radical in capitalistic nation is also excessively radical in resource-based economy. Policies that fail in capitalistic nation will also fail in resource-based economy.

9-129 What would happen if we were to immediately force over 80% of energy we use to be renewable energy? Price of energy will rise by a factor of 3 or higher, and all necessities will become doubly expensive. This is because economic infeasibility of renewable energy refers to such things. As a result, it is easy to recognize that our life will become unimaginably devastating.

9-130 We should not believe we can avoid such consequence in resource-based economy just because there is no money. Speaking in the language of resource-based economy, the fact that price of energy will increase by a factor of 3 means we need to invest 3 times as much resource and labor as we did to gain the same amount of energy. Since the amount of resource and labor we can invest is limited, the planners of resource-based economy would have to make us conserve energy.

9-131 Of course we cannot permanently rely on fossil fuels. Then what is the best policy? It's simple. It should be in the form of gradually increasing the rate of renewable energy in our lives through sustainable and progressive investment. In fact, we are already doing this. The research paper from MIT cited by Peter Joseph in Zeitgeist Addendum is about this topic. Where is the dramatic difference?

 

9-132 Someone might want to talk about 'planned obsolescence'. However, there is no such thing in truly free market. In the market, corporations must not only compete with other corporations that are already competing with them but virtual corporations that may enter their market one day. If there is a method of supplying a good with longer life span at the same price and existing corporations do not apply this method, a new corporation will appear, introduce the method and take away all consumers. [80]

9-133 Those who argue for planned obsolescence provided many actual cases supporting their argument. The case of incandescent bulb is probably the most dramatic among them. Some of early incandescent bulbs have life span of over 100 years. Right now, life span of incandescent bulbs is 1,000 hours. There is a slight exaggeration, but this is true. Does this prove existence of planned obsolescence?

9-134 We can find a perfect refutation to this argument at http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/light_bulb.html. The refutation says, 'Incandescent lamps are extraordinarily sensitive to changes in the supply voltage. Operating a 100-watt, 1,000-hour, 1,700-lumen bulb at half voltage would extend its life to about 65,000,000 hours or over 7,000 years.'

9-135 I won't expose all cases of 'planned obsolescence' here, but I do want to point something out. The reason why goods like personal computers and cell phones are quickly replaced is because technological advancement is fastest in that field. In fact, consumers are the ones who do not want durable goods. Entrepreneurs are simply obeying instructions of consumers. It would be a great waste to make a good with 30 years of life span when the good is only going to be used by consumers for a few years. [81]

 

9-136 Ignorance about economics is revealed in different places of the Zeitgeist series. Look at the following sentence from Zeitgeist: Moving Forward: "And even with the 20 trillion dollar bank bailouts starting in 2007 an amount of money which could have changed say, the global energy infrastructure to fully renewable methods instead going to a series of institutions that literally do nothing to help society institutions that could be removed tomorrow with no recourse." 81)

9-137 What Peter Joseph does not realize is that inflation occurs when the amount of dollars in circulation, not total amount of dollars, increases. Even if you have 100 trillion dollars' worth of gold, gold stored in storage would not have any effect on price of gold. This is the very reason why the US government could resolutely spend 20 trillion dollars in relief loan. This money is not circulated. That is, it does not affect remaining parts of the economy.

9-138 Of course, 20 trillion dollars of relief loan can bring serious inflation. However, the term serious is not appropriate for describing the catastrophe to be aroused when 20 trillion dollars is placed into real economy. It is ruinous. Remember that the current money in circulation in the United States is 1 trillion dollars. The relief loan will drop the value of dollars by a factor of 21 because the value of money is inversely proportional to the amount of money.

9-139 Many Americans are enraged because investment of 20 trillion dollars was put into unproductive cause. However, this investment did not bring catastrophe because it was put into unproductive cause. Many intellectuals who criticize relief loan today do not wish such investment were made in real economy. They wish such investment did not happen. They will agree with my view that it is very fortunate for us that Peter Joseph is not the president of the United States.

 

9-140 But let us return back to the original topic. The purpose of this Chapter is not to expose ignorance of Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph. It is to expose that what they claim to be scientific methodology is not scientific. The effort of Jacque Fresco to become scientific in the field of economics is shown by denial of existing economic classifications or terms and creation of new terms.

9-141 Jacque Fresco does not acknowledge traditional classification between market economy and planned economy. Instead, he generates a new classification of an economy based on resources and an economy based on money. In fact, his new terms are found here and there, and there even exist terms as strange as 'ruling value syntax'. However, we should focus on the classification between an economy based on resources and an economy based on money. Is his new classification more scientific than the traditional classification of economics?

9-142 So many supporters of The Venus Project carelessly say there is planned obsolescence in money-based economy. However, money-based economy includes communism with money. Planned obsolescence clearly does not exist in communism. They sometimes denounce money-based economy, calling money as debt. But money-based economy clearly includes systems that use commodity money such as gold and silver.

9-143 But if we were to nitpick about this, what can we say about money-based economy? The fact that this concept is useless for any kind of discussion is obvious to all serious observers. When discussing about profit system or fractional reserve banking system, using this term is not simply inappropriate but arouses bad influence. Even Fresco keeps failing to provide general theorems and propositions that can be applied to all money-based economies.

 

9-144 We have been classifying economic system into two according to how we distribute resources and goods: Market economy and planned economy. Someone is probably aware that these two form antithesis in their meaning. The market performs distribution of resources and goods in market economy. This is exactly what the plan does in planned economy. If the market distributes resources, it is market economy. If the plan distributes resources, it is planned economy.

9-145 Of course, there is a wide intermediate area between perfect market economy and perfect planned economy. However, we learned from the past experience that an economic system gets closer to planned economy as it moves away from market economy. There has not been any economic system distant from both market economy and planned economy, except for completely self-sufficient economic systems like food-collecting societies in the primitive age. It seems as if we must choose between market and plan in distributing resources.

9-146 The term planned economy does not sound well, but market economy is the same. Scientific language must be so. Studies may one day find out that planned economy is better than market economy, but we should not indicate such conclusion in the words in advance. In science, terms that do not suggest anything other than the concept they represent are considered as most desirable.

 

9-147 The biggest problem of classification into an economy based on resources and an economy based on money is that it does not form an antithesis. There is nothing in common between the role of resources in an economy based on resources and the role of money in an economy based on money. Except for play of words such as 'An economy based on resources is based on resource and money-based economy is based on money' that mean nothing, there is no way we can define the two concepts so they would form an antithesis.

9-148 What does it mean for an economy to be based on something? If you interpret dictionary meaning of the word base, you would have to acknowledge the fact that an economy based on money is based on resources, too, as much as resource-based economy is. Money-based economy also collapses when there is no resource. The word base should have some kind of context, and I am asking what it is.

9-149 Does it refer to the base of rational judgment by economic subjects? Someone might say that while the planners and computers of an economy based on resources economy make judgment with consideration on the amount of resources and demand, economic subjects of money-based economy consider signals sent by prices. This sounds plausible, but the problem in this case is that the concept of money-based economy cannot include communist system in which the government arbitrarily decides prices - and therefore price cannot be a tool for economic calculations.

9-150 The word base is used within different context in the two. The base in an economy based on money means an economy based on money is maintained by circulation of money. The base in an economy based on resources means the planners and computers make decisions based on the amount of resources and demand. Such definition of terms means we are giving up on the semantic antithesis. Yet, this is what Jacque Fresco is doing.

 

9-151 The reason why we demand semantic antithesis is simple. It is because we cannot determine whether or not they contradict without it. It is uncertain as to whether judgment based on the amount of resources and demand can be made in an economy maintained by circulation of money. This is a subject of economic discussion. In any case, remember that money-based economy includes communist systems with money. [82]

9-152 In comparison, the fact that market economy and planned economy contradict each other is indisputable. They refer to two different methods that can be alternatively used for the same purpose. We cannot leave the work of distributing resources and goods completely to the market while completely planning it out. You cannot simultaneously cook an egg into fry while hatching it. This may sound like nothing special, but we expect such clarity in scientific classifications.

9-153 Until now, we have only been talking about whether or not there can be an economic system which is money-based and resource-based at the same time. However, we must discuss whether there can be an economic system that does not correspond to either of the two. In fact, this is not even a subject of discussion, because it clearly existed in the past. There are many economic systems without money that supporters of The Venus Project are not willing to call an economy based on resources.

 

9-154 In fact, it is not sufficient to define an economy based on resources as 'an economy in which economic decisions are made based on the amount of resources and demand.' Wicked dictators can survey the amount of resources and demand for their ambition. Ancient dictators did similar things, but we do not refer to it as an economy based on resources. It actually refers to 'an economy based on the amount of resources and demand with the purpose of distributing resources using sustainable method for benefit of the greatest number.'

9-155 Why must an economy based on resources always be 'good'? Such obsession makes definition of an economy based on resources overly complex, but this is unnecessary in terms of classification. [83] It complicates the definition of an economy based on resources. It critically reduces academic utility of classification between an economy based on resources and an economy based on money.

9-156 It is easy to determine whether something is planned economy or not, since it is defined by structure of the economic system. However, it is much more difficult to judge whether or not something is an economy based on resources. It requires information about things not designed within the economic system. Intentions of the planners cannot be pre-designed. We might be able to speculate on it from social environment, but it is not as easy as it sounds.

9-157 If we classify economic systems according to their structure, the subject of study would be on what common outcome will be derived by economic systems that belong to the same group. But if we classify economic systems according to the outcome, the subject of study would be to determine which category each economic system belongs. I can only say that the classification criteria which include purpose of the planners belong to the latter not former, and that it is a foolish classification method.

 

9-158 Please don't think of this as a mere nitpicking. Inappropriate classification is not dangerous simply because it is unscientific. It has awfully bad influence on our thoughts. As I said, it is completely uncertain as to whether money-based economy maintained by circulation of money and an economy based on resources based on the quantity of resources and demand contradict each other. However, we are implicitly accepting the presumption that they do contradict one another by using this classification.

9-159 We sometimes hear people say we need to choose between growth and distribution. Many people complain that such dichotomy arouses the delusion that growth and distribution are contradictory. I would like to emphasize that the problem of growth and distribution is not about classification. [84] I can only imagine about the enormous chaos to be caused by inappropriate classification between an economy based on resources and an economy based on money.

9-160 The term resource-based economy has a problem, too. This word simultaneously has two meanings that cannot completely accord: First, specific alternative proposed by Jacque Fresco and second, economic system that altruistically distributes resources based on the amount and demand. Do the former and latter accord? Or, is it at least true that the former is included within the latter? The claim that Jacque Fresco's alternative is 'an economy based on resources' is not as obvious as the fact that it is planned economy.

9-161 In reality, opponents of Jacque Fresco like me are exactly arguing that his plan cannot be so-called 'an economy based on resources.' [85] If resource-based economy falls into dictatorship as I predict, think about what people with the exactly identical ideas as Jacque Fresco after 100 years would say about it. Nobody will refer to it as 'an economy based on resources.' (Likewise, nobody calls North Korea as a truly socialistic nation.)

 

9-162 Many supporters of The Venus Project have at least three prejudices. First, it is fundamentally impossible to manage resources on earth based on the plan under economic system maintained by circulation of money. As I will demonstrate in Chapter 10, this is not only untrue in planned economy with money but also in market economy with money. Second prejudice is that Jacque Fresco's plan will obviously bring about 'an economy based on resources.' We cannot assure that.

9-163 And third is that we must give up on money-based economy to resolve problems in specific type of money-based economy. [86] The argument that we must end money-based economy because of the so-called money=debt problem is wrong. It can more easily be solved by the gold standard or greenback system. Unless there is a greater problem in the gold standard or greenback system, it cannot increase the reason for us to end money-based economy.

9-164 Did Fresco really not know the fact that his ambiguous use of terms arouses prejudice? It is a fact that he is not very knowledgeable. However, he warned more about the danger of improper terminology than anyone else. Though he did not say anything about the dangerous habit of collectivists to identify individualism with egoism, his criticism was valid about tendency of free-marketeers to regard opposition to free market as opposition to freedom.

9-165 I think Fresco is intentionally generating prejudice. Why must an economy based on resources be 'good'? It's simple. It should be superior to other things because it is Fresco's alternative. He created classification not to classify economic systems but to differentiate between his alternative and others. He even gave up on clarity and utility of classification for this purpose. In the end, what is 'ruling value syntax'? What is ideology?

 

9-166 What I introduced in this Chapter does not even explain half the dishonesty of Jacque Fresco as a scholar. Listen to what he says in Paradise or Oblivion: "This system will keep installing more and more automation cutting down on the purchasing power of the majority of people. There will come a time called the Gaussian curve where employment is that, production is this and purchasing power is that."

9-167 The Gaussian curve generally refers to the shape of function we call normal distribution function. Refer to the Wikipedia document at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function. Unfortunately, this document will not be very helpful in understanding the words of Jacque Fresco. Don't be disappointed. I have earned more than anyone else about the Gaussian curve and I do not understand what he is talking about.

9-168 What he is trying to say is clear. He is talking about large scale unemployment caused by mechanization, reduced purchasing power, and failure of the system. But what is the 'Gaussian curve'? What shows the 'Gaussian distribution'? In normal market economy, there are factors that seem to take the 'Gaussian distribution'. [87] However, there is nothing in a stopped system with the 'Gaussian distribution'. Employment, production and purchasing power do not resemble the Gaussian distribution.

9-169 Even if something in a stopped system shows the Gaussian distribution, it would be incorrect to refer to the stopped system itself as the Gaussian curve. It is as inappropriate as calling human beings as the Gaussian curve just because human height shows the Gaussian distribution. It is never based on the custom. Nobody before Fresco used the term Gaussian curve in this sense. Only Fresco 'calls' it the Gaussian curve.

 

9-170 Perhaps Jacque Fresco newly defined the term Gaussian curve in one of his writings. However, how can he do so? He may be able to refer to it as the Fresco curve, but he cannot refer to it as the Gaussian curve. He is not Gauss. It is totally absurd to give another person's name to a concept one defines. This is an insult on Gauss.

9-171 Using curve as a term to show specific economic viewpoint is also inappropriate. It is as foolish as calling boiling temperature as inflection point. Even this is not a sufficient analogy to describe its stupidity. It is closer to calling electromagnetic force as elastic constant. This may seem like an exaggerated analogy, but it sounds as plausible as Fresco when we explain that 'Charged objects attract or repel each other, it's called elastic constant.'

9-172 Why did he use such an inappropriate term? Why did he add the sentence 'It's called Gaussian curve' that nobody but himself would understand? Academic people are not very suspicious about other people. They are familiar with reading incomprehensible sentences in research papers written by others. They habitually believe there must a context. This is also applied when such context practically cannot exist.

9-173 Jacque Fresco is probably aiming for people with little academic knowledge who have never heard of the term Gaussian curve or do not understand its meaning. Jacque Fresco mysticizes himself by saying things they do not understand. The problem is that it was actually successful. [88] Do I need to further describe his intellectual insincerity?

 
 

----

[63] There is a model in statistical physics that examines properties without approximation. One-dimensional and two-dimensional Ising models are examples. This is possible because Ising model is a model that handles 'spins' fixed on top of rectangular lattice. It is impossible to find general solution for movement of objects flying while exchanging gravitational force when there are 3 particles. Refer to the Wikipedia document at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem.

[64] This is what statistical physicists refer to as mean field approximation. It presumes that the state of system components is geographically uniform. Therefore, we can handle a single variable - mean evilness of the entire society in this case - without considering complex geographical factor. If about 30% of social members are evil, we can assume that about 30% of people nearby someone are evil.

[65] Let us make clear what it means by equilibrium state in statistical physics. For instance, assume that 10% of electrons are in excited state at room temperature. Looking at a single electron, ground state is the most stable state. However in a complex system with 10,000 electrons, unless electrons have mutual interaction, equilibrium state would be the state in which about 1,000 electrons are excited. Only this state can be maintained for long. The equilibrium state will change in this model when temperature becomes absolute zero. Since electrons cannot be in excited state at absolute zero, all electrons will be in ground state. The model we considered in the main text was the absolute zero model where unexpected events cannot occur. We did not consider the fact that unexpected events changing our environment can occur. The equilibrium state will be changed if we devise a new model with consideration on this.

[66] I am thinking about Jacque Fresco's trite argument that a criminal is not ethically responsible for committing a crime because the surrounding environment gave psychological problems to him. In fact, my interest about necessity of criminal law is functional. That is, I do not care much about its ethical legitimacy. My viewpoint on criminal law is that it is a necessary evil. I included it in my model in a way that Fresco would agree with.

[67] This sentence and the following sentence are probably written with slight difference from the original text. As a Korean, I only have Korean version of The Selfish Gene. I had to translate the sentences in Korean version back to English. The cited text appears in Chapter 1 'Why Are People?' of The Selfish Gene. The sentence from The Origins of virtue quoted later on appears in Chapter 13 'Struggle of All People against All People'.

[68] Someone might say that the expression 'undoubtedly' unnecessarily limits the argument of supporters of The Venus Project. As we already mentioned in Chapters 7 and 8, The Venus Project is a type of social engineering that should not be attempted unless there is an absolute certainty that it will be successful. Supporters of The Venus Project who think 'undoubtedly' can be omitted undoubtedly do not understand what they believe in.

[69] In this writing, I mainly quoted contents from The Selfish Gene and The Origins of virtue. However, if you are willing to root out the myths that human beings can be developed through culture and there is a noble savage somewhere on earth, there is no better book than Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. This book on the environment and human nature is so excellent that it single-handedly is a perfect refutation of Jacque Fresco. I randomly chose the these from the book: The power of language in restricting our thoughts is exaggerated; Image does not decide our view of reality; Environmental determinism is as dangerous as gene determinism and was historically more dangerous; Exposure of violence in the mass media has little or no influence on violent behavior in real life; Animals sometimes kills another animals for fun; Animals that form societies do not go into war and violence because they are short of food or land. Of course, some books have opposing arguments than Blank Slate. The problem is that most of these books were not written by scientists with expertise in this topic. I recommend people to always check out the appendix of books when they cannot distinguish between them and truly scientific books. If the appendix has a list of references and papers extending over 10 pages, you may believe that the book contains opinions by scientists. Blank Slate satisfies this criterion.

[70] If the myth that there is a peaceful tribal society with social system equal for all people is true, it would be more proper to call this 'pleasant truth' instead of 'inconvenient truth'. It clearly makes us feel pleasant. Whether we are in hell or purgatory, the myth that heaven exists makes us feel pleasant. The truly inconvenient truth is that it is only a myth. I will return to the topic of human nature function that can easily fall into romantic myth of collectivism at the end of this chapter.

[71] Romanticists may want to believe that these natives were deviant in a way, but such thought is very wrong. It brings the thought that native culture can be acknowledged only by passing a moral test, and this test cannot be passed by anyone. Unlike what is generally accepted, we cannot justify massacres by recognizing that natives are human beings with the same desires as we do. The opposite is even more dangerous.

[72] Perhaps it would be better to describe in this way. Even if population of a species is actually increased by the altruistic gene, the gene that makes us do selfish behavior always benefits in terms of ratio. The selfish gene will eventually prosper to the extent that population increased by the altruistic gene is reduced.

[73] Keep in mind that the concept corresponding to ESS is metastable state, not stable state. As several metastable states can exist within a system of statistical physics, many ESSs can exist. Although cooperation-competition model takes reciprocal altruism as ESS, it also takes complete egoism as ESS. Which of the two is more stable is not important here. However for several reasons, it would not be bad to emphasize the fact that reciprocal altruism is closer to a more stable ESS. While a reciprocal altruist cannot survive in the group of complete egoists, entities belonging to a cluster can gain greater benefit compared to complete egoists once reciprocal altruists can successfully gather to create a cluster of sufficient size. Here, greater benefit refers to increased opportunity for reproduction. The cluster of reciprocal altruists will gradually proliferate. Someone probably is aware that this result is the opposite of social models A and B we mentioned earlier. It is easy to explain the reason. It is impossible for people who belong to specific cluster in completely collectivistic society to enjoy greater material benefit. Under such environment, reciprocal individuals cannot win competition against complete egoists. Competition does not exist. The two models look similar, but their essence is completely different.

[74] If you were a gene related to reciprocity, it would be more advantageous for you to make your host perform a greater reciprocal behavior than what is expected to be beneficial for him. You host entity will experience loss due to excessively reciprocal behavior, but another reciprocal entity anticipated to have high probability of possessing a copy of reciprocal gene can benefit. Excessively reciprocal gene can be naturally selected because of exactly the same reason as sacrifice for relatives. Of course, this is not a pleasant thing for other genes that share the same host with you. However, they cannot alter the situation since they are not genes related to reciprocity. As far as natural selection of reciprocity is concerned, they are nothing more than bridesmaids. Genes are 'selfish' in this sense. I know that this is an extremely unpleasant description, but I can't help it. Socio-biology is always like this.

[75] What we need to keep in mind about this is that emotion is not logical. Jacque Fresco's claim that a criminal committed crime because of the environment in which he grew up may be correct, but this does not help us remove our hatred unless we actually know the environment in which he grew up and empathize with him. If you are suspicious about this, think about how the fact that machines do not have thoughts cannot prevent us from attacking machines.

[76] People have a tendency to think of wildlife as romantic because they have not experienced cruelness of the Mother Nature. While Jacque Fresco argued that animals would only cooperate under abundant environment, there is no such thing as abundant environment in the natural world. Abundant environment results in increased number of animals and becomes less abundant as a result. Furthermore, the argument that animals only cooperate under abundant environment is far from the truth. As far as sexuality is concerned, animals can never have complete abundance. Chimpanzees are as political as human beings. However, chimpanzees do not form hierarchical order because of food shortage. It is intended to determine the order of priority for mating. The reason why male baboons and dolphins cooperate is to rape females. In fact until detailed research on chimpanzees and dolphins was conducted, we believed that they are peaceful animals. This reminds us about the case of Samoa and Tahiti.

[77] The argument that we can gain more leisure time by giving up on leisure time might sound somewhat strange, but this is not strange at all. This is the classical problem of prisoner's dilemma. It is advantageous for individuals to not give up on their leisure time. However, collectivistic society will collapse if everyone does so. We can obtain greater leisure time while producing the same amount of goods as in individualistic society when everyone gives up on leisure time to a certain degree.

[78] I have nothing to complain about positive thinking as a belief. More research is necessary, but it may be true that positive thinking increases the possibility of success. However, it is no correct that this happens because of a supernatural 'law of attraction' instead of a psychological effect influencing our abilities. At least, it is a fact this contradicts with modern science.

[79] It's not a fact that research method of natural sciences was innovatively changed by the quantum theory and theory of relativity. Research method has not changed much, both in terms of experiment and theory. So far as I know, the quantum theory and theory of relativity were created using the method that Faraday and Maxwell used to complete classical electromagnetism. Therefore the argument that such change is necessary is actually funny. Almost no quantum scientist or cosmologist believes that the methodology of natural sciences should be changed because of the quantum theory and theory of relativity.

[80] There is no reason to assume that corporations newly entering a specific market will have weaker marketing ability compared to existing corporations. In fact, there is greater possibility that they are actually not new - Microsoft and Sony jumped into the game console industry which had been shared by Nintendo and Sega in the past. Is anyone surprised by this fact?

[81] Someone might condemn such behavior of consumers as being irrational, but exactly how is it irrational for consumers to prefer products with life span of 3 years which is 20% cheaper than a product with life span of 10 years? This really is not irrational or wasteful compared to Jacque Fresco's plan to completely destroy existing, imperfect but still useful, cities and rebuild new cities from the beginning.

[82] In fact, no economic planner believes there is a need to devise specific plans on how to distribute each good to individuals. The essence is about how many of each good to produce, or how to distribute resources and labors. Market economy makes use of market mechanism and planned economy uses plan. Many supporters of planned economy acknowledge that markets are necessary in the process of distributing produced goods. Though market was not proposed as an alternative, Jacque Fresco also believes that it is unnecessary to devise a plan for detailed distribution of goods. He promised he would allow us to take whatever we want. Therefore, his plan about production and distribution of goods is only a comprehensive plan like the plan devised by the authorities of communistic society. I cannot understand why such comprehensive plan suddenly becomes impossible just because of money.

[83] This will become clear when we compare traditional classification with Jacque Fresco's classification. I support market economy, but I do not think that all market economies are good. Those who support planned economy also do not believe that all planned economies are good. We can recognize advantages and disadvantages, and try to correct disadvantages by using the terms market economy and planned economy. Jacque Fresco's classification does not permit this.

[84] In my viewpoint, the problem of selecting among the value system prioritizing growth and system prioritizing distribution can be separated from the question of whether they contradict each other. In fact, we must answer the question of whether policies for growth and distribution always accord instead of whether they always contradict. If the former is not true, we may one day need to choose between growth and distribution.

[85] Of course, I have been using the term 'resource-based economy' to refer to Jacque Fresco's alternative. There is no other way to refer to it. Perhaps to supporters of The Venus Project, I could have seen as opposing 'distribution with consideration on the amount of resources on earth and demand' when I opposed 'resource-based economy'. However, this is not my fault. We really do need to use proper terminology.

[86] This prejudice is formed because Jacque Fresco attacks the current system based on the evidence that can only refute one of many money-based economies and deceives that overcoming money-based economy is the only solution. For instance, it seems unimportant to him that communism is money-based economy without planned obsolescence. This of course is not important to me since I am not a communist, but he is not in the position to think as I do.

[87] There are many things around us that show the Gaussian distribution. However, it is wrong to think that everything shows the Gaussian distribution. For example, our wealth does not have the Gaussian distribution, and so does purchasing power. The central limit theorem guarantees that a random variable will show the Gaussian distribution only if it is a combination of many random variables with finite mean and dispersion. It would be wrong to think that other random variables will also show the Gaussian distribution. Recent studies are showing that things happening in market economy are actually far away from the Gaussian function. For example, it is more accurate to approximate fluctuation in stock market using Levy alpha-stable process than using Weiner process based on the Gaussian function. While employment and production seem to have the Gaussian distribution under ordinary conditions, we cannot hastily ascertain it.

[88] When I searched Jacque Fresco and Gaussian curve together, I found people using Gaussian curve in incorrect meaning as they believed that he taught them a new knowledge. It was painful to look at them. Peter Joseph claimed that having hopes on democracy is an act of insulting one's own intelligence, but I think there is no greater insult on intelligence than this.