Atlas City Project

It came to my attention that many people in the CityNet group don't know anything about RBE ironically. I decided to mail a summarization and info about us. I've gotten mostly good, though skeptical, feedback. One person, however, became quite irrational and violent (go figure, he's from Zeitgeist). I think everyone should be aware of these interactions and just not let them bother you. Here is our complete conversation. I changed his name (slightly) out of respect. Ok, I wasn't completely ignoring his taunts, but feel I did good considering the maturity level I was dealing with. It’s a little long.

JZeitgeist
It seems you don't know what an RBE is either....A Resource Based Economy is a global paradigm....anything less than that is not an RBE.

Chase Dimarco Not true at all. The word economy can be localized or globalized. A barter system used in tribal villages is as much an economy as money is in our current system or resources will be in the future system. To think such a drastic change can or will occur globally without first being proven in proof of concept projects is extremely optimistic, and even unrealistic.

JZeitgeist
no man...that is not an RBE as defined by Jacque Fresco.....Simply stated, a resource-based economy utilizes existing resources - rather than money - to provide an equitable method of distribution in the most humane and efficient manner. It is a system in which all goods and services are available to everyone without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude.

Chase Dimarco
Exactly how it will be within the city. Until the current system fails, however, there will be interactions with them. This is meant to help the transitional phase between the two systems and prove that the a highly efficient and modern city can sustain itself without the use of money within it's borders. Fresco has some great ideas about the final stages of what an RBE should be, but the tricky and unexplained part if how to get there. This is a stepping stone in the right direction.

JZeitgeist
agreed...although, as long as there is debt and servitude in the world, we are not in an RBE. In having to make outside trades for resources means you will have to succumb to trade agreements that, by their very existence, create poverty and social stratification. This is the reason that I suggested stating that you are a sustainable community whom advocates an RBE.

JZeitgeist
It is a system in which all goods and services are available to EVERYONE without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude.

Chase Dimarco
Again RBE does not need to be global, as nice as that would be. When there are several cities built we will no longer have to worry about trade agreements. A trade agreement is only necessary when there is limit, therefor supply and demand. If there is scarcity then it is not RBE. With limiting production to what is necessary it leaves open the ability to produce in excess, or at least non-limited. Being a city, it will be quite a bit more then a community. There are plenty of communities out there that qualify as a sustainable community, but this would be closer to what Fresco proposes a city should act and function as.

At least we are getting somewhere in this conversation. It's always nice to further explain individuals ideas, and interesting to see different perceptions of the same values. Do you have any ideas as to how this transition should occur? Do you agree with what we are attempting? I understand we seem to have a difference in definition of what "RBE" means to us, but besides that what do you think? Do you have any questions, or have you looked at the Atlas site?

On a side note, I would like to point out that there will likely be some philosophical differences between us due to the fact that you are a Zeitgeister. Not that that's bad, but Atlas Initiative Group is an off shoot of Zeitgeist. We split because of these philosophical differences about a year ago so I understand the points of view you are coming from. I hope you keep an open mind when it comes to these differences. There's nothing wrong with picking and choosing things you like from this group and things from that one.

JZeitgeist
A Resource Based Economy includes every person in the world dude....if it doesn't....it's not a resource based economy...you're design lacks integrity...and by the way you're trying to mangle this beautiful concept, I'm left wondering about your integrity.....get over yourself buddy.

Chase Dimarco
I'd say the ego lies completely on your shoulders here. Disagree if you wish. It deters our plans none.

JZeitgeist classist

Chase Dimarco
Alright, well you take care of yourself. I hope you may one day benefit from our success in building the first RBE city.

JZeitgeist In Africa right?

JZeitgeist exactly....

Chase Dimarco
Actually USA. Not sure what your getting at either way

JZeitgeist Now again...I support the notion that you are testing sustainable technology in a community setting....but it's not an RBE dude.

JZeitgeist the problem is that you're not sure what I'm getting at....anyways...nice talkin to ya Chassy....keep chasing that American dream

Chase Dimarco Your lack of altruism, kindness, and narrow-minded view is exactly why Zeitgeist hadn't had momentum since it's creation. Do you not see an issue with attacking everyone that has slight idealogical differences? Doesn't it make more sense for those going for RBE to help each other? I don't want a response, just food for thought.

Sadly it's the same response you would get from most hardcore Zeitgeisters. They get the vision but unless you are Peter Joseph or Jacque Fresco, you cannot get through to them. Its amazing to see how people cling to new ideas with religious fervor and denounce anything other than the original concept.

You did good You, at the very least, exposed him to some new ways of thinking.

Yep, they may not all be bad, but too many are fanatical. Fanatics will never open their minds. I've had a lot of better responses since though.

This has been a more logical rapport between this person and myself. I'm going to be posting a few others later on to help everyone see what types of discussions we encounter all the time, and what mentalities. It also may help give some of your good ammo to use in your next debate. And I do always change the other persons name.


Steve
Hi Chase

That's fine, anyone can do what they like. Just please be advised hat the use of the term RBE is considered misrepresentation and legal action may be taken against such.

An RBE is by definition global, and any isolated attempts of bringing it about cannot work and will fail, as history has shown over and over. Research facilities and the like are welcome, but without a global consensus an RBE is doomed.

RBE is a lot more than permaculture and local sustainable communities, and it is vital to understand all the imperatives for it to succeed. This is wat separates TVP and TZM from all other (good and commendable) organizations. There are some very good reasons for not moving forward with actual city construction, and our most valuable asset right now is patience.

Chase Dimarco
I had a similar discussion with another person, and have to disagree with a part of that. RBE, being an "economy", is not required to be global. That is the ultimate plan, I understand, but it's also difficult to say due to very loose translations of the term. Anyhow, RBE (in terms that I use it) would have to be localized before it would become global. There seems to be a misunderstanding that the entire world will change in a day, as opposed to having small transitional stages. That is the plan of these groups, to begin the transition.

I have heard many arguments for not beginning a city yet, but have not found and logical ones to this point. I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on the subject as long as you keep an open mind to my thoughts as well. Hope to hear back from you.

Steve
Thanks for the reply, Chase. I am all for open discussions

I agree that there is absolutely no quick fix, and I do not kid myself (or anyone else) as to the complexity of the process required to reach a global resource based economy. There are many variables. But the most important one is the intention. What is it that we want? Do we want a sustainable world where everyone has equal opportunity? Well, then we have to view the world as one, and its resources as the common heritage of all mankind, because without that foundation, everything else becomes irrelevant.

Here's how I see it. We live on a finite planet with finite resources. If anyone wants to dispute that, I'd like to know where they went to school, if at all It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that out, right?

So, since the world has finite resources, and we are all dependent on the same basic needs for survival, then it should be a no-brainer that the only true "government" is the planet itself. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks is right, true or even fair; If we do not respect these basic laws of nature, we cannot obtain a sustainable society. I am pretty sure we agree so far?

While there certainly are regions in the world where something very close to an RBE could function in some regards, what happens to your steady, sustainable, prosperous little society when the rest of the world isn't as fortunate? I'll give you a hint. It has three letters, beginning with the letter "w".

And even if you could make it work to some extent, what if you are unable to supply a given resource within your local "RBE" economy? What do you do? You have to trade with someone on "the outside", that has access to that particular resource you need, right?

By its very definition then, this is not an RBE, for unless you have access to a needed resource, it is not sustainable in and of itself, which is exactly what the core of RBE states.

If you own a plot of land, you have to determine it's sustainability. If it does not meet your needs, you will be forced to obtain needed resources from somewhere else, hence barter fro them.

You could take this approach and go ahead (by all means, please do!), but then it is NOT an RBE, and should not be labeled as such. An RBE is by its very definition global. This might be semantics, but it is very important - especially for people not familiar with the direction - that there is no confusion, which is also why TVP is in the process of taking out a patent on the term.

In any event, like you say, none of us knows what the future will bring, and I support any partial project that can help raise awareness. But I cannot see how a true RBE can work without global consensus.

Chase Dimarco
Yes, I completely agree with your first few paragraphs. Finite resources are our only limitations at this point. This is why I don't understand how some couples can have a dozen children and not see potential negative consequences of this after a few generations.

Here's where the tricky parts come in. None of us deny that there are going to be issues in the beginning stages, but it has to start somewhere, right? Now, being that our city is planned to be built in the USA (and other in the respective countries) we don't necessarily have to worry about war and legal actions. We are still protected by the rest of the nation, even if they are not involved in what we are trying to do. It's just a different type of city in the same old country. It's not perfect, but the only logical way a gradual progression seems possible. The only other possibility I've heard is basically anarchy while the current system crumbles because no alternative was already put into place to guide everyone. This is one that I have a feeling we will go back and forth on because it's very complex so I'll just wait to see your response. I could go on forever.

As for "outside resources", this will be an issue at first. There is no template in place so we will have to experiment. Eventually, when we get a few cities built, each will make certain products an increase what we are able to have/share. At the beginning, it is likely we will just have to live with more limited variety. It's better to have the necessities in quantity then variety in scarcity. We don't predict there will be limitations that hurt, just not the varieties we have now (IE: Oranges are in dozens, even hundreds of products in our commercialist society. We may be limited to just oranges, juice, jelly, the more basics).

The definition of RBE we are using is more local, while yours is more global so this is where we may have confusion. Within the city we will be RBE in that all living, utilities, education, food, etc is free and freely shared in sustainable and non-limited quantities. In dealings outside the city it will not, but we don't have an option in that. The closest we will come to that with outside dealings would be donations, which would actually meet your definition I believe. Again, it will take experimentation to see.

I find it ironic that we have actually received several threats because of difference in opinion on the definition of RBE. The word "economics" is defined as "the management of the resources of a community, country, etc.", but holds no connection to the Earth or it's entire population. Though Fresco came up with an interesting label for a concept that has existed as long as we have, the hostility and resentment we have dealt with because of a different (and only very slightly different) idea for a phrase (that is not in any dictionary or legal literature to gain absolute definition) seems a bit much. This was my semantically different part to toss in .

I'm glad to hear that you support any type of movement though, even if it is only "partial". I don't disagree with it being partial, but until someone has a better idea to make it global eventually this seems like the only movement (not just our group, the many "partial" groups out there) trying. This has been a very interesting rapport so far. It helps me understand other views and try to see where our disagreements can be bridged.

Steve
Hi Chase

I understand most of your dispositions, and I commend your efforts in actually trying to practically organize within the current economic structure. This also however where I see potential big trouble, and why research cities would seem a more logical step.

You say that you won't necessarily have to worry about war and legal actions, merely because the city is within US borders, and you will have access to many of the needed resources. That's all fine and dandy, as long as the rest of the US is fine and dandy as well. Trouble is, we are moving rapidly towards a structural economic collapse within the US, which will spread to the rest of the world, given the nature of our current global economy. I doubt you disagree with that?

Most of the "true" economists out there are screaming at the top of their lungs, but government and media do their best to avoid the issues, tone them down, or outright ignore them, because it would create a wide spread panic within the general population, who gullibly believe that their government has their best interest at heart.

My contention is, that we simply don't have the time. Our foremost priority must be in educating as many people as possible about the true state of things, so that we (maybe) can avoid a complete melt down. History teaches us, that any civilisation or society has a limited life span, primarily because they are based on fixed ideas, philosophies and dogma, which at some point become incompatible with natural law.

Most likely scenario is a collapse, as has been the case repeatedly throughout history, whether it be through revolution, natural disaster or economic collapse. Difference is, that an economic collapse today means global collapse on a scale never before seen in the history of the known universe, because everything is so intertwined. This is the message we have to get out there, along with information and knowledge as to how we can solve most of our problems.

My point is, that when the inevitable collapse occurs, it won't matter that there are isolated pockets of RBE-type local economies, because there will be billions of angry, hungry people ready to kill for survival. Unless we are succesful in getting the information out there, so that Average Joe understands that there is another way.

That being said, I am also personally quite disappointed in the both rhetorical and practical dismissal of some of the RBE-type initiatives that both TZM and TVP are officially exhibiting. I believe in cooperation and dialogue (which at least rhetorically) are core values of TVP and TZM, and the banning of thought and practical initiatives don't exactly align with the overall directive of neither TZM or TVP. I have a sneaking suspicion, that this is primarily an American phenomenon, since we in Denmark for instance have a much more liberal approach to cooperation. Having spent time with Jacque and Roxanne, I spot some both cultural and community differences that need to be adressed openly.

That being said, I concur with the disposition, that our highest priority at present is the spreading of awareness of the direction as a practical and pragmatic and absolutely doable alternative to our current mode of operation. If people are in the dark about our possibilities, we can accomplish nothing.

I understand your frustration, but I will reiterate, that a RBE as it is defined by TVP is by its very definition global, and therefore the concept must be understood as such, whether it is a legally accepted term or not.

Ultimately, this is all about "the means to an end", and within the concept of a RBE the means ARE the end. Or paraphrased; there is no end (no utopia), which is the major, and very crucial difference between RBE and any other societal system.

Chase Dimarco
It's very interesting how some of these concerns have been expressed, especially dealing with the cultural differences involved with TZM TVP members and even Jacque. That really makes me think that a lot of the dismissals we get have to deal with some of these.

For instance, I don't disagree with you that the economic situation is failing, especially in America. It should, in all likelihood, fall this generation if things progress. This is another reason that we believe that it is necessary to build now, and how it relates to spreading awareness. I'm sure you have come across your own share of people that just don't care, don't believe, or fight for the right cause in the wrong manner (as I get from fanatical Zeitgeisters often). Just spreading the word on forums and movies is great, but I think there is a better way. Many people still think this is just a dream, so what better way to convince them it's not then to show them. Here's a hypothetical:

Let's assume we could put a date on the collapse of the monetary system if it continues on it's current path. Let's say, for arguments sake, it will be in 2050, giving us about 40 years unless something is done. Now let's say a city, such as Atlas, was built by the year 2015, and survived steadily for many years after.

As those in the monetary system begin to see the utterly useless endeavor of sustaining their existence "the way things are" it is brought to their attention that such a city exists. With newly inspired motivation, they go through the learning process and eventually move into the city. Now, after a few years, the cities population has expanded to the point that a new city was required to be build (maybe several times over).

With an exponentially increasing awareness in RBE it is much easier to support such initiatives and cities, and with it there is a decrease in the population that is reliant on the monetary system. As a side point, this would also increase the longevity of the monetary system (by less using it) for a little longer, supporting those that are unable or unaware of change. Within a generation it would be possible to change over a good percentage of people based on "lead by example" philosophy, and showing them that it works. It would be on it's way to becoming nearly global (for it's difficult to make and idea completely global, no matter how good or ethical it may be).

From your perspective, Atlas would be built, the nation will fall, and they would wipe us out. That is a possibility. We could also be wiped out by a meteor any day, but should we not bother trying? I believe, whether right or wrong, that the sooner this is completed the higher likelihood that we will be able to change enough perceptions to avoid complete collapse, thus anarchy.

I can't think of a nice way to say this, but I can't afford to worry about everyone else until I can take care of myself. You can't help those that don't help themselves. If I show them the ideas and concepts and they refuse I will not think any less of them, but I can not force everyone. So if/when the collapse comes there will be problems and horrors. Maybe we will have enough of a social structure (and building structure) to make a difference and save some aspects of humanity. I hope we change enough paradigms to prevent anarchy and chaos, but you can only lead a horse to water...

Steve
Chase, I think we agree probably 95% of the way. Like I said, I have no objection to your endeavor, only to the use of the RBE term. You might call it "RBLE" - Resource Based Local Economy", and clearly state the differences to a full blown RBE, and the issues involved with keeping it local. That may actually spread awareness of the necessity to go global.

I totally agree that cities should be built, but initially as research facilities, because there are so many parameters that need to be addressed scientifically, none the least the social and emotional imperatives. Just like astronauts go through rigorous training in water pools and g-accelerators before they are sent into actual space. If something goes wrong in space, no one can hear you scream. You're done. No second chances.

One of Jacque's key points is exactly that you need to show people how it works, not just talk about it in theory, so there is no question practical implementation is needed. But there are some really hard obstacles to overcome, specifically the value systems we employ, so "going all in" may prove very difficult without rigorous trial and error. Remember the Biosphere experiments? They lasted 2 years before the scientists were ready to tear each other's heads off. I foresee some dangerous obstacles in this regard. Any transition is not going to be quick, even if we are running out of time.

In any event, I commend your efforts, and I'd like to stay in touch. You are obviously on the right track and we get nowhere unless we start talking to each other for real. Not all of us are as dismissive as the "officials"

Chase Dimarco
There definitely will be a lot of trial and error. Being that it will be limited to the initial city, there will be a rigorous application process to make sure everyone inside has the right ideals to begin with. Of course, there will be issues. Luckily you can leave at any time if you don't like how things are working, there will always be someone wanting to take your spot. I have enjoyed this rapport as well. I think we are closer then 95% since our only real disagreement is semantics on what RBE means. I'm glad you have been much more hospitable then the majority of the responses I get. I guess it comes with the territory though.

sadly their arguments aren't surprising as they are the same we have been dealing with for some time. however, his research city idea may have some merit, except for funding procurement for such an idea.