Name: 接受金星計劃的挑戰--"壞蛋 "理論。 (Take The Venus Project Challenge - The "Bad Egg" Theory)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T07:01:08.000Z
Duration: 10 min
Description: 【看影片學英語】數萬部 YouTube 影片，搭配英漢字典即點即查，輕鬆掌握單字發音與用法，長久累積看電影不必再看字幕。

Hey guys, and welcome to the 4th episode of Take The Venus Project Challenge.

If you're new to The Venus Project or to my Challenge, please watch my introduction video.

For the people who are becoming more informed on how The Venus Project is actually technologically

and economically possible, the most common objection I've found is what I call The Bad

Egg theory. This is probably the most frustrating objection, because these are actually people

who agree with the idea of a Resource Based Economy, but they're so bruised by our societal

flaws that they're afraid to even give humanity a chance...

Let me give you an example with this comment.

QUOTE: Personally, I think the Venus Project is a great but an ultimately unachievable goal.

Humanity itself would have to be revamped in order for this to happen.

(Hence, TVP is redesign of our culture and not just a redesign of our cities.)

QUOTE: So, I wouldn't worry too much about it one way or the other. Whether you're for it or against it...

I don't think that it's possible for anything like it to even come close to happening.

It's a great idea... but humanity's greed and selfishness gets in the way of it working out well for everyone

and turns it into a dictatorship, where just one bad egg takes control of everyone else's

kindness and generosity. All you need is one human who doesn't agree with what the

Venus Project says and bam, you're screwed because you've got no army to fight back against

them with... and you've got no laws to keep him at bay with. It's a faulty idea that's

too idealistic, and not realistic enough for me to agree with. END QUOTE

BRANDY: Okay, now let's think about this for a minute. If a Resource-Based Economy is too idealistic

because everyone might not agree then what do you call a 'monetary system'

that's primarily 'based' on competition but then proclaims 'on paper' that everyone

should behave and obey the law? I'd call 'that' idealistic. If a Resource-Based Economy...

a technologically advanced system of abundance in which everyone on the planet has access

to what they need is a faulty idea... then what do you call the current system that trumpets

equal opportunity for everyone "if you work real hard," while knowing in advance that

there's not enough money to go around... and knowing that if there were enough to go around

the system itself would collapse. I'd call 'that' faulty. It's a game that's rigged

before you even get a chance to play. Here we are in a defective chicken coop

raising "bad egg" all over the place, and now that there's even a glimmer of hope that we can

get passed our "greed" by finally living in abundance, we quit on the idea because supposedly

"one bad egg takes control of everyone else's kindness and generosity." As if "one bad egg"

in an evolving social system that's finally doing something about all this, is somehow

worse than 63,531,202 bad eggs in a society that 'can't' do anything about it.

Because the old-fashioned idea that if someone gets outta line we can "fight back" with our current "army"

and that "written laws" keep people at bay, is ridiculous at this point.

Where were the written laws when those 63 million crimes were committed?

So what it comes down to is that people are somehow, for some crazy reason...

more confident and 'comfortable' in our current so-called security systems, than they are

in implementing a new value system that dramatically reduces and eventually eliminates

the need for security. Let's put it this way... I'm pretty sure that if all the victims of war crimes,

and hate crimes, desperate crimes, or any other kind of violence or suffering

had their chance to do it over, they'd realize that 'genuine security' comes from addressing

the root causes of social problems... because obviously the patchwork didn't work out too

well for them... We're still here, so we have the chance to redesign our society...

instead of worrying that somehow if we all work together to implement a sustainable system

that's designed specifically based on our symbiotic nature, to meet every single human

beings biological and social needs... and to evolve to continue to meet everybody's needs

on a global scale... that we'll somehow end up worse off... because somehow, someday,

somewhere down the line... "someone might not agree."

Might not agree with what? That we need food, clean air, clean water, shelter, and a relevant

education to sustain those resources on our planet? Might not agree that we found ways

to harness energy and manage our resources properly, so that there's plenty to go around?

Might not agree that we're developing the technology to ensure the survival and healthy

development for everyone, so that they, themselves, can be completely independent, and learn to

pursue their life's true goals without financial constraint? And they might not agree

with people offering, not forcing, but offering, the technology to them, and to the rest of the world,

so they can take care of themselves. Call me crazy, but I say it's worth a try,

even if someone "might not agree" or someone "might be too greedy."

The bottom line is, "people are already greedy" and the only way we can change that,

is if we move forward, and if we stop just assuming what other people will do. You know, the funny

thing is, I've never actually heard anyone say "If I got everything I wanted in The Venus Project,

'I' would become greedy!" or "If I got everything I needed from the Venus Project,

'I' would become lazy!" So far, every single person has said, 'People' might be greedy

and 'People' will be lazy, which is just a faceless accusation. So if we all just stop

pointing the finger at other people, and be responsible for ourselves, that's one less

we all have to worry about! You'd be surprised how many "bad eggs" we can get rid of if people

THERAMINTREES: We can be self-defeating in our conformity. Say we have a group of people

holding opinion X. Unbeknownst to the group, half of them secretly disagree. But due to

the social penalties they've seen dished out to a few individuals who 'have' disagreed,

they keep quiet. By conforming, we add to the statistics of groups we don't actually

belong to, and perpetuate the idea of majorities who may not actually exist. Imagine if none

of us conformed in that way, how that would change the social landscape. Question the

group, and let's risk being more fully ourselves.

BRANDY: Everyone's so worried, "but what about that ONE person, there's always that one person?"

What about 'em?! Why should we let "them," a hypothetical person, or group of people,

stop "us" from finally uniting to pursue a better future? If just the 'thought' of tyranny

has you too afraid to improve the world you're living in, then the tyrants have already won.

We need to stop being afraid of the potential chaos that, frankly, ALREADY EXISTS, and focus

on becoming more widely aware of the corruption, and the environmental abuse that's going on

in the world, so we can move on and do the one and only thing we CAN DO, which is work

together to build a better foundation and start preventing it. Period. That's the only way.

What we're doing now isn't working! In case you haven't noticed!

We can't just live in fear and never change anything.

And changing presidents does as much good for the country as changing your clothes.

We have to change our system. We have to change our environment. We have to change ourselves.

DR. SAPOLSKY: It completely transformed the atmosphere of the troop, and when new adolescent

males would join the troop, they'd come in just as jerky as any adolescent males elsewhere

on this planet, and it would take 'em about 6 months to learn "We're not like that in

this troop. We don't do stuff like that, we're not that aggressive. We spend more time grooming

each other, males are calmer with each other. You do not dump on a female if you're in a bad mood,

and it takes these new guys about 6 months, and they assimilate this style,

and you have baboon culture, and this particular troop has a culture of very low levels of aggression,

and high levels of social affiliation, and they're doing that 20 years later.

HOWARD ZINN: Inevitably, in any discussion on war, at a certain point in the discussion,

somebody would say, "oh well, it's human nature." And, well first of all from my own experience...

and I still have to tell this to people because there are still people who