Shockwaves from a Doomsday Claim

It started with a jarring headline and a 1,000-page report from the Geological Survey of Finland. Associate professor Simon Michaux warned that “we don’t have enough materials or minerals on the planet to support a comprehensive global transition to renewable energy technologies”. In blunt terms, Michaux claimed the clean energy transition is impossible. He tallied staggering requirements – for instance, to replace the world’s 46,423 fossil fuel power stations, Michaux argued we’d need to build 586,000 renewable power plants. His conclusions were apocalyptic: civilization would face unavoidable collapse as fossil fuels decline because green tech simply couldn’t be scaled.

The shock value of these claims was undeniable. Michaux’s report quickly went viral, amplified by doomers, climate skeptics, and even some policymakers unsettled by its grim outlook. He presented his analysis to heavyweight forums like the IMF, the UN Economic Commission for Europe, and the European Commission, lending it a sheen of credibility. Online, collapse-focused communities trumpeted Michaux’s message as proof that the “green energy revolution” was a fantasy. For many readers (including this author), the initial reaction was alarm – could it be true we’re fundamentally short of the metals needed to build EVs, batteries, and solar panels? If Michaux was right, the fight against climate change would be hopeless.

But as the dust settled, experts began to push back. A closer look revealed that Michaux’s doomsday analysis was built on flawed assumptions and a worldview tinged more by ideology than rigorous science. What follows is a journey from initial alarm to relief, as researchers and analysts dissected Michaux’s work piece by piece – ultimately debunking the myth that a lack of raw materials will derail the energy transition.

First Cracks in the Story

The first sign that something was off came from voices deeply versed in energy systems and innovation. In late 2022, Auke Hoekstra, a Dutch energy researcher and professor at Eindhoven University of Technology, took to Twitter with a viral thread aimed directly at Michaux’s claims. “Have others told you there are not enough raw materials to transition to 100% renewables? Did they say minerals are the new oil? Maybe they believed @SimonMichaux…? If so, please explain to them they were fooled, by showing them this thread,” Hoekstra wrote. In a series of detailed tweets, Hoekstra – a Program Director at Eindhoven University of Technology – systematically dismantled Michaux’s assumptions, pointing readers to data and analysis that painted a far more optimistic picture.

Around the same time, engineer and science communicator Dave Borlace released a methodical breakdown on his popular YouTube channel “Just Have a Think.” The video, Borlace explained, was dedicated to debunking the now-infamous Michaux report “which purported to prove that there weren’t enough minerals in the world to enable us to get off of fossil fuels”. It was an unusual moment in the climate discourse: a niche technical paper becoming a viral meme, then getting called out by name in an explainer video. Borlace walked viewers through Michaux’s numbers, highlighting contradictions and oversights. In one striking example, he showed that Michaux’s own data undermined his conclusion – if you removed a single extreme assumption (more on that soon), the remaining known mineral reserves were in fact sufficient to electrify global transport.

These early rebuttals set the stage. They suggested that Michaux’s analysis might be a house of cards, impressive in bulk but ready to crumble under scrutiny. To truly understand, I dug into the details and consulted the growing body of critiques from credible analysts. The deeper I looked, the more the narrative flipped: far from delivering a cold dose of realism, Michaux’s report was riddled with errors, false assumptions, and misrepresentations. As CleanTechnica analyst Michael Barnard would later put it, “Michaux makes so many compounding mistakes that it’s remarkable anyone takes him remotely seriously”.

Dismantling the Data: What Michaux Got Wrong

Assuming No Technological Progress

Michaux treated technologies as static – effectively freezing innovation at today’s state of the art. In reality, clean tech is a moving target. Hoekstra and others note that battery chemistry is already diversifying; future stationary storage is unlikely to rely on scarce minerals like nickel or cobalt at all. Michaux ignored emerging alternatives (like sodium-ion, iron-flow batteries, advanced recycling, etc.) and thus wildly overestimated long-term demand for certain materials. As Barnard observed, Michaux’s projections involve “rigid static modeling that defies how markets and supply chains actually work” – essentially a straight-line extrapolation with no room for human ingenuity.

Ignoring Efficiency & Recycling

One of Michaux’s most glaring oversights was downplaying the impact of efficiency gains and recycling in reducing raw material needs. For example, he assumed each new ton of steel or aluminum for clean energy must come from virgin ore. In reality, a huge and growing share comes from recycling – “one-third of global steel is already recycled”, Barnard points out​. Michaux’s model simply **“discounts the role of recycling,” failing to recognize how much scrap metal will be reused instead of mined anew​. Similarly, he assumed no improvement in energy efficiency. This “willful blindness to efficiency gains” inflated his energy and material demand projections far beyond what real-world trends support.

Overstated Battery Requirements

Perhaps the single biggest mistake was Michaux’s treatment of energy storage. He posited that a renewable grid would need an enormous buffer of lithium batteries – so large that it consumed most of the world’s lithium, leaving little for electric vehicles. How large? Michaux misinterpreted one study to claim that Germany alone would require 12 weeks of full backup storage (all battery-powered) to cover renewables’ variability. In fact, the study’s recommendation was 24 days, not 12 weeks, and it assumed a mix of solutions, not just lithium batteries. By concocting a scenario where lithium-ion bears the full burden of grid backup, Michaux arrived at absurd conclusions – like a €3.6 trillion price tag for German batteries that would supply “400 times the country’s actual [electricity] demand”. In reality, grids can be balanced with a portfolio of tools (transmission, demand management, diverse storage types). The world will need orders of magnitude less storage than Michaux assumed, and much of it won’t even use the vulnerable minerals he focused on​.

One-for-One Replacement Fallacy

Michaux’s accounting took today’s fossil-fueled economy and essentially swapped every piece for an equivalent green piece, 1:1. This misses how systems transform. Analysts note that a fully electrified world won’t have the same infrastructure or energy usage patterns. For instance, Michaux calculated materials as if we must replace every kilometer driven by gas cars with an electric car kilometer. But new mobility models (like more mass transit, fewer cars, smarter logistics) can shrink the total vehicle fleet. RethinkX, a futurist think tank, projects an 80% reduction in cars through shared autonomous EVs – Michaux dismissed this, but then paradoxically argued that if it did happen, the remaining EVs would be driven so much their batteries wear out faster. It’s a convoluted stance that fails to imagine any upside: either we have too many cars or too few; Michaux managed to portray both as doom. What he didn’t consider is that entire sectors will disappear in a clean economy – e.g. the colossal fuel supply chain. As Nafeez Ahmed explains, an electrified transport system eliminates the need to extract, ship, and refine billions of barrels of oil and tons of coal, “freeing up vast quantities of metals from the obsolete oil, gas, coal and ICE infrastructure” that can be recycled. Michaux’s models simply never accounted for these system-wide shifts, leading him to double-count demand and ignore huge savings.

Ideology Over Science: The Worldview Behind Simon Michaux’s “Impossible” Transition

The sheer number of mistakes in Simon Michaux’s analysis raises a question: how did a professional geologist get it so wrong? Part of the answer lies in his worldview, which comes through strongly in his public talks and associations. Far from being a neutral analyst, Michaux often sounds like a man preparing for apocalypse – a perspective that seems to have biased his work toward doom and distrust of any solution.

Designing The Future’s own investigation into Michaux’s background reveals a fascination with conspiracy theories and pseudoscience that is startling for someone advising governments. In internal presentations (later made public), Michaux has declared that “the transition to renewable energy is a big hoax” and that we’re being “led around by a trick” – he claims governments will eventually admit “sorry – there was no plan” after stringing the public along. He speaks of a coming “Great Reset” orchestrated by shadowy elites, warns that global powers intend to collapse fiat currencies and even deliberately depopulate the planet to under 1 billion people. This is hardcore collapse ideology, verging into areas beloved by internet conspiracy forums.

But Michaux doesn’t stop at political conspiracies. He is also promoting his own project — an isolated “research settlement” that he presents as a space for “new science” and preparation for societal collapse. He actively pitches this idea to audiences within esoteric, New Age, degrowth, and pseudoscientific circles, portraying it as a kind of ark — an experimental base for survival and the “restart” of civilization.

According to Michaux’s own description, his planned “Prometheus Nexus Institute” would study “Nikola Tesla’s vibration energy, energy transfer through the atmosphere, Viktor Schauberger’s vortex energy and perpetual motion machines, and Electric Universe cosmology” – in short, a grab-bag of pseudoscience.

It’s a remarkable profile: a senior geologist at a national survey who espouses prepper conspiracies and magical energy theories on the side. This context explains a lot about his doomsday mineral report. Michaux approaches green technology not as an eager problem-solver but as a skeptic bordering on denialist. His analyses consistently assume nothing will improve (“fight or flight” panic mode), and he often proposes absurd alternatives instead of mainstream solutions. In fact, after claiming solar, wind, and batteries can’t work, Michaux’s preferred vision (his “Purple Transition” scenario) involves a Rube Goldberg mix of thorium reactors, synthetic fuels, and hydrogen – an inefficient mashup that one critic described as “the equivalent of someone insisting we build a fleet of steam-powered airships in the middle of the jet age.”. It seems Michaux would rather bet on exotic experiments and even pseudo-technologies than trust the exponential improvements in clean tech already underway.

Crucially, Michaux’s ideological bent aligns with certain groups who have latched onto his work. As Barnard noted, “A bunch of different groups have adopted him as their go-to guy for their particularly perverse view of the world.”​ These include the extreme degrowth advocates who argue the only solution is to intentionally shrink the economy, fossil fuel interests eager to cast doubt on renewables, and even hydrogen economy promoters who use Michaux to claim batteries won’t cut it. Michaux himself has openly advocated for “embracing degrowth”, essentially giving up on the idea of green growth and modern lifestyles. It’s no surprise, then, that his analysis skews negative – it was always geared to conclude “impossible”, fitting a narrative of inevitable collapse and the failure of industrial society. As one detailed rebuttal put it, Michaux’s view is “far from a sober, scientific perspective; this view is itself an ideological reaction” rooted in fear of change​.

The Verdict: Transition Is Challenging But Far From Impossible

The journey from viral doom to factual debunking offers a few clear lessons. First, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and Michaux’s claims did not hold up when experts shone light on the details. Once scrutinized, his prediction of global mineral shortages blocking climate action turned out to be exaggerated and misleading. Yes, the sustainable transition will demand a tremendous scale-up in mining and materials processing in the coming decades. Yes, we must plan for bottlenecks, invest in recycling, and continually innovate to use less and reuse more. But nothing in peer-reviewed science or real-world data suggests an insurmountable geological barrier. On the contrary, studies from institutions like the International Energy Agency conclude that known reserves and foreseeable technology will be sufficient to achieve net-zero – with mindful policy and likely substitutions.

Second, we’ve seen how an ideological filter can twist analysis. Michaux’s collapse-oriented mindset led him to cherry-pick assumptions that confirmed his pessimism. The result was not sound science but a kind of anti-renewables pseudoscience, dressed up in technical language. As Barnard quipped, “if you thought bad takes on the energy transition were limited to fossil fuel lobbyists, Michaux is here to prove that pessimism can be just as detached from reality as corporate greenwashing.” In the end, Michaux’s work tells us less about the physical limits of Earth and more about the psychology of doomerism – a reminder that even a associate professor can build a false model of the world if they ignore human adaptability and scientific progress.

In hindsight, the “Michaux scare” of the 2020s will likely serve as a case study in getting the energy transition story wrong. It shocked many, but it also galvanized experts to communicate more clearly about what’s possible. Today, we can say with confidence that global minerals shortages will not derail the energy transformation​. The only thing that can derail it is giving up. And as we’ve seen, those urging us to abandon decarbonization – whether out of profit motive or apocalypse fervor – have a habit of being wrong. Science, innovation, and sensible planning remain firmly on the side of an achievable green future.

Yevhen Sliuzko

I have been at the center of all this dirrection for over 13 years and can tell you a lot of things, from detailed explanation of Jacque Fresco’s original proposals, to experience of working with the movement, to little known and insider information.

I have organized the most successful and effective team of The Venus Project movement, now represented by Designing The Future, as well as the 1.5 million subscriber Jacque Fresco channel, small and large events, radio and TV interviews, working with universities and schools, organizing events, running a network of groups in 60 cities with regular meetings, and much more. Exposed and fought fraudulent companies and initiatives to protect The Venus Project’s reputation.

Organized and negotiated the construction of The Venus Project’s smart city, with the then living Jacque Fresco, which was their best chance. This has now evolved into a full-fledged smart city project and test site for the development of the entire industry of smart cities, called “Mission on Earth”, which will be launched soon, late 2024-early 2025, and we’re directly involved.

After the new directors of The Venus Project changed course, I strongly opposed it without hesitation, especially knowing the details of the gamble – taking the side of Jacque Fresco’s original ideas. Whatever the outcomes, I will continue what I have started, with the goal of giving humanity a chance to move toward a resource-based economy, or at least to point society in the right direction. I hope you will join us.

sluzko.com

The post Simon Michaux: From Resource Warnings to Fringe Beliefs appeared first on Designing The Future.

Jacque Fresco’s phrase, “Don’t build me a monument”, has become one of his most quoted lines. People repeat it at every opportunity, attaching any convenient meaning they wish to it. At times, it reaches the point of absurdity: there are those who seriously claim that the mere existence of our YouTube channels “Jacque Fresco” (on Russian and Ukrainian) or themed groups on social media is already an “unwanted monument” that should be taken down since “he didn’t want monuments.” Under every post or video mentioning Jacque, you’ll find comments scolding, “He asked not to be turned into a cult!”

But the most dangerous trend begins when this phrase is used as a tool for logical manipulation—to dismiss Jacque’s ideas and the original The Venus Project, or even to erase them entirely.

What Jacque Fresco Actually Meant

Jacque Fresco spoke about the idea of a “monument” many times, and each time, he was not calling for people to stop mentioning his name or to abandon his ideas. What he meant was that no design or concept should become a dogma or a cult, even if it is excellent for its time. He emphasized that future generations should improve and redesign everything we have created—that is the essence of progress.

Fresco said, “By putting up a monument to me in front of a city, you are holding back the future.” He compared it to a laptop, explaining that your current laptop isn’t perfect; it’s simply the best option available right now, and in ten years, it will be outdated. Progress cannot be stopped, which is why talking about a utopia—an ideal society—is pointless. Everything can be improved, and there should be no “untouchable” ideas or authorities.

In other words, there is no need to “immortalize” today’s designs—the future should not be built on worshiping what was achieved in the past, but on continuously improving it.

The phrase “don’t build me a monument” was aimed at dogma and stagnation, not at denying credit or the sharing of knowledge. Fresco did not want his projects or himself to become a sacred cow that would hold back progress. He never said, “erase my name, throw away my books, delete my videos.” On the contrary, he spent his entire life trying to share his ideas as widely as possible—he simply understood that, over time, these ideas would also need to be improved and developed further.

Erasing Jacque Fresco Under the Pretext of “Avoiding a Cult”

Sadly, Jacque’s words about monument became a convenient cover for those who, after his death in 2017, decided to radically change the direction of the project. The new directors of The Venus Project, appointed in 2018, announced the “next evolution” of the project—and this “evolution” quickly took a strange turn. Many of Jacque Fresco’s original proposals were declared outdated and effectively discarded.

Almost all information about Jacque Fresco’s original proposals, as well as materials about him personally, has disappeared from The Venus Project’s website, with rare exceptions. The Program, Frequently Asked Questions, transition plans, and other key materials have been removed, leaving only brief, generic mentions of the project’s former direction. Now, many of Jacque’s ideas, lectures, and books are available only as paid products in the store: you can purchase them, but you can no longer freely access them in full.

The website museum, which was planned as an alternative to the erasure of Jacque’s legacy and was meant to be called the “Jacque Fresco Foundation,” has remained “under construction” for five years and is essentially an abandoned site with only a couple of pages.

It is also worth mentioning that production was completely halted on the documentary The Man of Tomorrow (about Jacque Fresco), and there has been a refusal to publish Jacque’s archived lectures and their transcripts, despite multiple crowdfunding campaigns that were held for this purpose.

Requests for access to archival materials for new videos and documentaries—which our team was ready to create—were also denied. In addition, plans for a Major Feature Film of The Venus Project, intended to vividly illustrate our potential future and the transition toward it (for which funds were also raised), were quietly scrapped and forgotten. The idea to publish a book outlining Jacque’s core proposals, based on his lectures and announced by the new directors as nearly complete back in 2020, was also never realized.

Any attempts at collaboration are met with a demand to unconditionally accept the new direction and to hand over full control to the directors and their chief ideologue, Simon Michaux—“a special scientist and visionary” who is now positioned as the project’s hope instead of Jacque Fresco, despite Michaux’s fascination with conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific concepts.

And yet, despite all of this, the new leadership insists that they are “not straying from Fresco’s ideas.” They frequently reference Jacque’s statements—or rather, carefully selected quotes taken out of context. The phrase “don’t build me a monument” has become their favorite justification. The logic goes: since Fresco himself said not to turn him into an icon, they are now free to abandon his plans, designs, and ideas and replace them with something entirely different. If anyone points out the contradictions between the new direction and Fresco’s own words, the response is always: “Jacque didn’t want his words to become dogma, so we’re simply offering an ‘evolution’ of his ideas.”

But What Do We See in Practice?

The conversation has shifted from a resource-based economy of abundance to the idea of inevitable resource scarcity—particularly the resources needed for transitioning to renewable energy. Relying on Simon Michaux’s unique calculations, which have not received support from the scientific community, the new direction uses these claims to justify a complete reinterpretation of Jacque’s ideas and a push toward a “simpler life” in harmony with nature.

The project has moved away from the scientific method and toward a distrust of “mainstream science,” promoting the idea of a “new scientific method based on philosophy” (whatever that means). It is worth mentioning Nathaniel Dinwiddie, a member of the board of directors: a philosophy graduate from the University of Kansas, he now actively uses his skills to reinterpret Fresco’s ideas and skillfully manipulate logic and meaning.

A Convenient Excuse

Those who disagree with the new direction are simply removed. The project has turned into a closed citadel with non-disclosure agreements, no feedback channels, and mass blocking of any criticism. English-language platforms where Fresco’s ideas could still be discussed have been shut down, and public spaces have been cleared of those who disagree with the “new line.”

Using Fresco’s phrase, “don’t build me a monument,” has become a convenient tool for manipulation. A single fragment of Jacque’s words is taken while ignoring everything else, using it as an argument against any reminders of his real ideas and proposals—or any form of criticism. The result is the illusion that abandoning Fresco’s legacy is somehow what he would have wanted.

In reality, this pretext is used to discard the project’s core principles: the scientific approach, the focus on eliminating scarcity, and the creation of a society of abundance. Instead, entirely different views are promoted, pushing Jacque and his ideas into the background while leaving only a slogan to silence dissent and divert the discussion away from the core issues. Fresco dreamed that his ideas would help change the world. He never dreamed that, after his death, a single phrase of his would be used to justify abandoning everything he worked to build.

Download the logic manipulation posters from the project Your Logical Fallacy Is

When honest arguments run out, rhetorical tricks begin. It is important to recognize this and not fall for it. To protect yourself, it is worth studying logical fallacies, sophistry, rhetorical techniques, and methods of manipulation and emotional pressure. This will help you identify the substitution of concepts, false appeals to authority, and other tactics used to divert conversations and silence genuine criticism.

Not Monuments, but Continuing the Work

What should those who truly value Jacque Fresco’s ideas do? Continue the work he began. Today, the original Venus Project has reached a dead end, and hopes of returning to its initial direction are fading. Legal and administrative barriers make it difficult to share Jacque’s original materials: the new owners control the rights to his books, lectures, and films, making it increasingly hard to share them freely. For example, we were prohibited from using even archival footage of Jacque under the pretext of copyright. But this is no reason to give up.

Jacque created a foundation of knowledge not so his ideas would remain frozen, but so they would be developed, adapted, and improved. Yes, much has to be started again, but we are not starting from scratch. We have a knowledge base, Jacque’s body of work, our team’s experience, and partnerships ready to launch smart city projects. The path is not easy, but we continue to move forward. Everyone who shares these views can contribute.

If you care about the original ideas of The Venus Project, now is the time to help revive them—through financial support, your time, your skills, joining a volunteer team, or launching your own projects aligned with the shared vision. The main thing is not to remain silent or stand on the sidelines.

Jacque did not want monuments. He wanted change. Let him be remembered not by statues, but by real actions that improve people’s lives. Develop ideas, stay critical, share knowledge. Then no manipulation will knock us off the path to the future we all deserve.

To everyone ready to act, we invite you to join us. Instead of building monuments, let’s build a new world.

Read more:

Yevhen Sliuzko

I have been at the center of all this dirrection for over 13 years and can tell you a lot of things, from detailed explanation of Jacque Fresco’s original proposals, to experience of working with the movement, to little known and insider information.

I have organized the most successful and effective team of The Venus Project movement, now represented by Designing The Future, as well as the 1.5 million subscriber Jacque Fresco channel, small and large events, radio and TV interviews, working with universities and schools, organizing events, running a network of groups in 60 cities with regular meetings, and much more. Exposed and fought fraudulent companies and initiatives to protect The Venus Project’s reputation.

Organized and negotiated the construction of The Venus Project’s smart city, with the then living Jacque Fresco, which was their best chance. This has now evolved into a full-fledged smart city project and test site for the development of the entire industry of smart cities, called “Mission on Earth”, which will be launched soon, late 2024-early 2025, and we’re directly involved.

After the new directors of The Venus Project changed course, I strongly opposed it without hesitation, especially knowing the details of the gamble – taking the side of Jacque Fresco’s original ideas. Whatever the outcomes, I will continue what I have started, with the goal of giving humanity a chance to move toward a resource-based economy, or at least to point society in the right direction. I hope you will join us.

sluzko.com

The post Jacque Fresco: Erasing Ideas Under The “No Monument” Excuse appeared first on Designing The Future.

The Venus Project’s View on Bioregionalism:

“By analyzing the natural boundaries of a bioregion, we can determine the carrying capacity of a specific region on Earth and design systems that align with the capacities and limitations of that environment… The result is an ecological geography rather than the political geography of nations. Natural boundaries instead of national boundaries.”

– From the completely updated FAQ of the new The Venus Project

The original FAQ with 108 questions is now available only on our website:

Frequently Asked Questions: Jacque Fresco and original The Venus Project (before 2018)

An Illusion of a Simple Solution

But how many regions should the world be divided into under this concept? Two, fifty, five hundred? Rivers and ecosystems rarely align with convenient lines on a map, while large cities often sit at the intersection of different ecosystems. Mountains and watersheds can create dozens of enclaves within a single country. Who decides where these lines will be drawn, and who enforces them on millions of people? These schemes inevitably lead to coercion and conflict, as some regions will demand resources from their neighbors, and refusal will lead to forceful seizures under the banner of “ecological justice.

Bioregionalism overlooks what has allowed humanity to move beyond isolation: global energy systems, transportation, communications, and international division of labor. We have built a system in which some regions produce medicine and technology, others provide food and raw materials, and energy grids connect continents, powering hospitals and factories regardless of local ecosystems. Attempting to “live within local resources” means dismantling these connections, returning to scarcity and isolation.

Even seemingly local issues like fisheries require international governance; otherwise, marine ecosystems will be destroyed. Agriculture in the Nile or Ganges regions depends on global trade in fertilizers, technologies, and fuel, not on “local self-sufficiency.” Bioregionalist proposals ignore these interdependencies, substituting real solutions with slogans.

Bioregionalism does not solve the problems of war and poverty; it creates new lines of conflict under the guise of “sustainability.” It does not eliminate scarcity; it demands living within its constraints. It does not build resilience; it destroys infrastructures developed over generations.

Furthermore, bioregionalism ignores the extreme inequalities between regions in terms of resources, technologies, infrastructure, and living standards. Some regions have abundant water, fertile land, and minerals, while others rely on imports for even the most basic goods. Some have advanced medical systems and technology, while others lack access to them entirely. Dividing the world by ecosystems cements these inequalities, turning them into a permanent condition. Instead of eliminating scarcity for everyone, it proposes to distribute scarcity, leaving some regions in abundance while others remain in chronic deprivation.

What Jacque Fresco Proposed

Jacque Fresco demonstrated how we could design sustainable cities without borders by using science and automation.

He spoke about the voluntary global unification of humanity to utilize the Earth’s resources for the benefit of all people, removing borders and scarcity through science, automation, and logistics. Natural zones and ecosystems should only be considered for designing cities and planning production, not for dividing people into enclaves.

Jacque Fresco often emphasized:

“We cannot solve the world’s problems within the framework of nations.”
“Borders create conflict, not solutions.”
“Science and technology are capable of eliminating scarcity if the resources of the Earth become the common heritage of all.”

The Real Solution: A Global System

The real solution does not lie in dividing the world and isolating people into fragmented enclaves but in building a global management system that eliminates scarcity and preserves ecosystems for the benefit of every person on the planet. Everything else is merely a rebranding of the same problems that have caused wars and poverty throughout history.

We live in a world where borders and scarcity breed war and suffering. New borders disguised as “ecological solutions” will not address these problems. The path forward lies in a global system that eliminates artificial barriers and scarcity, using science and technology for all people while respecting the environment. If you see this and understand that true sustainability is impossible without removing artificial barriers, join those who are working to build a real, not illusory, foundation for the future.

We continue to seek out and share solutions that truly work and move the world forward. Join us if you want to be part of these changes.

Read more:

Yevhen Sliuzko

I have been at the center of all this dirrection for over 13 years and can tell you a lot of things, from detailed explanation of Jacque Fresco’s original proposals, to experience of working with the movement, to little known and insider information.

I have organized the most successful and effective team of The Venus Project movement, now represented by Designing The Future, as well as the 1.5 million subscriber Jacque Fresco channel, small and large events, radio and TV interviews, working with universities and schools, organizing events, running a network of groups in 60 cities with regular meetings, and much more. Exposed and fought fraudulent companies and initiatives to protect The Venus Project’s reputation.

Organized and negotiated the construction of The Venus Project’s smart city, with the then living Jacque Fresco, which was their best chance. This has now evolved into a full-fledged smart city project and test site for the development of the entire industry of smart cities, called “Mission on Earth”, which will be launched soon, late 2024-early 2025, and we’re directly involved.

After the new directors of The Venus Project changed course, I strongly opposed it without hesitation, especially knowing the details of the gamble – taking the side of Jacque Fresco’s original ideas. Whatever the outcomes, I will continue what I have started, with the goal of giving humanity a chance to move toward a resource-based economy, or at least to point society in the right direction. I hope you will join us.

sluzko.com

The post Bioregionalism: The Illusion of a Solution and the Road to Conflict appeared first on Designing The Future.

But the truth is, most of these books don’t provide understanding. They provide the feeling of understanding. They lull you to sleep. They create the illusion that you’re “approaching truth” while the world remains the same. They sell promises that can’t be tested, and hopes that are easy to market.

Jacque Fresco put it simply: if an idea can’t be tested, if it doesn’t deliver results, if it can’t be applied to truly improve people’s lives — it’s useless. The scientific method doesn’t need “sacred nature” or meditations on “how complex everything is.” It doesn’t need oracles. It requires honesty and testing.

But if you honestly test ideas, you’ll have to let go of many pretty words sold under the label of “new science.” You’ll have to admit that books like Stuart Kauffman’s Reinventing the Sacred or Iain McGilchrist’s The Master and His Emissary become tools for those who want to talk about the future but don’t want to build it.

This article is about how these pseudo-scientific “deep” books replace real work and the scientific method, and why, if we truly want a better future, we need to learn how to distinguish knowledge from illusion.

Take Reinventing the Sacred by Stuart Kauffman. It’s often praised as a “bridge between science and ethics.” In reality, as philosopher Daniel Dennett sharply noted, all this talk of “the sacred” in nature is “religious rhetoric without substance,” selling ignorance as wisdom.

Kauffman writes:

“We can find a new sense of the sacred, one that is fully natural, and that empowers our ethics and politics.”

But a “new sense” without testing facts, models, or reproducible results gives ethics nothing but fog. This is a direct rejection of the scientific method that Fresco used to build The Venus Project, where every idea had to be backed by experiments, calculations, and the ability to truly change the world, not just by pretty words.

The same applies to The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist. People quote it when they want to feel chosen, convinced that the “left hemisphere is destroying the world” while the “right” will bring back harmony. But as neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell points out, it’s “a myth packaged as a philosophical poem” that ignores data in favor of a pretty metaphor.

McGilchrist writes:

“The left hemisphere is a wonderful servant, but a terrible master.”

Yes, it sounds like a shaman’s proverb, not a conclusion drawn from experiments. It’s convenient to discuss over tea, giving the illusion that you “see the world deeper,” but if you ask, “How can this be tested?” — there will be no answer.

These books give you the feeling of understanding but not actual understanding. They provide a convenient ideology for those who want power without responsibility, giving excuses not to use the scientific method, not to test hypotheses, and not to measure results.

Yet Fresco spoke differently. He called for conclusions built on testable data, not feelings, for designing systems capable of eliminating poverty and decay, and for testing each idea in reality. He didn’t create a cult of worshiping nature; he wanted us to understand nature and work with it through science, not through philosophical meditations.

As Carl Sagan wrote, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But these books offer no evidence, only smooth words designed to lull rather than awaken.

That’s exactly why such books replace real literature on systems theory, engineering ecology, automation, and practical design for a new society in recommendation lists. Because after reading about “sacred chaos,” you don’t have to build anything, test anything, or answer to anyone.

How Books Become Tools for Cults and Kill the Scientific Method

Why are books like Reinventing the Sacred or The Master and His Emissary so easily and openly recommended in circles that call themselves “projects of the future”?

Because they are convenient.
Convenient for creating a group of obedient listeners rather than a community of critical thinkers.

When the foundation shifts from testing hypotheses, gathering data, and experimentation to “new feelings” and the “sacred creativity of nature,” criticism becomes heresy. Any question like, “How can this be tested?” can be brushed off with, “You just don’t understand the depth.” People who believe in these books eventually end up running in circles, discussing mysticism and metaphors, feeling “special” while creating nothing.

This is a classic cult-building scheme:
– There is a text supposedly containing “the truth.”
– There are “guides” who know how to interpret this truth.
– There are ordinary people who “don’t understand” and are therefore “not ready.”

In such an environment, genuine testing and doubt become dangerous because they break the spell. They demand you measure what has been built out of thin air. And it turns out that behind the words “new understanding,” “sacred,” and “nature creates” is nothing but a convenient cover.

As Richard Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” These books do exactly that: they let you fool yourself while feeling that you are “following the path of the Universe.”

But the worst part is that they steal energy from real change. People who could be working with data, building resource distribution models, tackling ecological challenges, or designing waste and energy management systems instead end up debating which hemisphere is “better” and how to “surrender to nature.”

This is how the scientific method dies.
This is how critical thinking dies.
This is how “projects of the future” turn into talk clubs.

What can you do to avoid this trap?

1. Return to the basics of the scientific method.
   Every claim must be tested, every prediction compared with reality, every hypothesis open to falsification.
2. Filter your reading.
   If a book offers “feelings” instead of data, “awareness” instead of experiments, and “sacredness” instead of testing—it’s a clear sign you’re looking at new age, not science.
3. Remember Jacque Fresco.
   He didn’t say “trust nature”; he said, “Study nature, build models, test, adjust, improve.” He had no “sacred” texts; he relied on engineering, systems thinking, and science, without mysticism.
4. Ask a simple question: “What in this can be tested?”
   If the answer is “nothing,” the book might be good for meditation—but not for changing the world.

People who truly want to change the world don’t have time for cults.
They have projects, data, models, experiments, mistakes, and the work of fixing them.
And if there is anything “sacred” in that path, it is not the chaos of nature, but the truth revealed through honest testing and hard work.

If we want a future without poverty and meaningless labor, where we have learned to live with nature and with each other, we need to stop looking for oracles in books and start looking for errors in our models. We need to stop believing that “the universe creates” and start creating ourselves, step by step, testing and improving. It’s boring. It’s hard. But it works.

This is how we distinguish real work from convenient talk.
This is how we distinguish moving toward the future from yet another new age bush cloaked in pretty words.
This is how we stop being a crowd around a shaman and become a community capable of building a different world.

Read more:

Yevhen Sliuzko

I have been at the center of all this dirrection for over 13 years and can tell you a lot of things, from detailed explanation of Jacque Fresco’s original proposals, to experience of working with the movement, to little known and insider information.

I have organized the most successful and effective team of The Venus Project movement, now represented by Designing The Future, as well as the 1.5 million subscriber Jacque Fresco channel, small and large events, radio and TV interviews, working with universities and schools, organizing events, running a network of groups in 60 cities with regular meetings, and much more. Exposed and fought fraudulent companies and initiatives to protect The Venus Project’s reputation.

Organized and negotiated the construction of The Venus Project’s smart city, with the then living Jacque Fresco, which was their best chance. This has now evolved into a full-fledged smart city project and test site for the development of the entire industry of smart cities, called “Mission on Earth”, which will be launched soon, late 2024-early 2025, and we’re directly involved.

After the new directors of The Venus Project changed course, I strongly opposed it without hesitation, especially knowing the details of the gamble – taking the side of Jacque Fresco’s original ideas. Whatever the outcomes, I will continue what I have started, with the goal of giving humanity a chance to move toward a resource-based economy, or at least to point society in the right direction. I hope you will join us.

sluzko.com

The post We’re Being Fed “Deep” Books Instead of Science appeared first on Designing The Future.

We’ll break down what this event is really all about, headlined by indigenous shamans, and how the aliens are involved! (Yep, that’s right).

About the event organized by a psychospiritual coach

A 31-day summer camp that will bring together up to 300 participants, where in the end the “ greatest minds of the planet” will present an ideal plan to create a sustainable civilization, focusing on a new concept of cities (actually eco-villages). All this is presented outwardly in an allegedly scientific manner and with the most serious intentions to change our world.

Masterminding Eden is a freshly created event website, no history, no links to business registration. Nowhere to verify that it will take place for real. Social media of the initiative is empty or just starting to fill up.

Despite this, they charge a substantial fee even for a simple application for participation – $110. Participation in the conference itself will cost $2,500/week and $8,000/month. This does not take into account where you will live, as the center where all this will be held – supposedly on the reconstruction (in fact, no). You are given the choice of living in a tent, a campsite, or a sleaping pod. The amount increases depending on the chosen living conditions.

The event is directed and organized by Camara Cassin, a certified psychedelic psychospiritual coach from Canada (screenshots taken from her LinkedIn profile). An image search found Camara among the headliners at the New Age “Conscious Technology Symposium” held in the fall of 2024, featuring the popular pseudo-scientist who cures with $1,200 crystals, Nasim Haramien. It’s quite possible that this is the exact format of the event that we’ll see here as well. A webarchive of the website of Camara’s main business showed the provision of services in bioresonance treatment (the same story as crystals), as well as folk medicine, homeopathy and so on.

The entire event, the wording in the text on the conference website, or in the podcasts, is buzzing with consciousness and demonstrative environmentalism, grandiose in scale, that will change the whole world and save our civilization from the “6th extinction”.

Among the participants, there are companies with a spiritualist orientation. For example, I took from the very top of the participants, highlighted by large portraits, Juan Carlos Kaiten: his company Social Alchemy combines advanced collective intelligence and social synergy practices with ancient and modern spiritual knowledge. Or another, like HOLOS: specializes in psychedelic experiences and retreats (with the note that everything is legal under local laws). I met on the list those promoting “tribal wisdom” and Indigenous culture reconstructors. There are also dubious empty companies/failed startups, movements or think tanks with a focus on eco- villages, or plans to create different concepts of cities, unity with nature, etc.

// Not that they’re the greatest minds, but most of them seem to have their own beliefs that they’d be willing to defend to the last – and if only for the sake of making this spectacular show, it would already be worth it to gather them all under one roof for 31 days and launch a reality show, making some serious competition for Mr. Beast. I’d watch the entire season. Especially its finale.

The venue is a conspiracy museum

The conference will be held supposedly at the Next Gen Village innovation hub. Photo search leads to the Jungfrau Park amusement park.

Let’s get this straight. It is not an innovation hub at all – it is an amusement park, formerly a conspiracy museum on contacts with extraterrestrial civilizations (there is a chapter about it further on). Although it is repeatedly mentioned in presentations of the “Masterminding Eden” as an educational and scientific center. This park rents out space. But whether that space will be rented is also questionable.

In any event of failure with the park rental, as it became known from a recent podcast, a particular eco-village in Italy – a much more realistic alternative – is being considered as a backup option. Probably, the organizers are already realizing that it might not be possible to raise the necessary amount of money to rent a fancy location. And then the whole thing with brainstorming for a month – 12 groups of 12 people who will “constantly be intermixed” (whatever that means) – will take place in much more humble surroundings.

The choice of the 12×12 format, however, is thought-provoking in itself. It seems that numbers play a symbolic rather than practical role here. Such a construction reminds of an attempt to create an illusion of sacredness, initiation, and some exceptional knowledge. After all, in religions, secret orders, esoteric circles and New Age communities, the number 12 – and especially 144 – carry a special meaning. It seems that the event is based not so much on content as on ritualism and a sense of belonging to a “higher knowledge”.

When asked “why would we be there for 31 days?” – the host and organizer said that it had never happened before, and it would be a “Manhattan project for all mankind” – in general, a super megagalactic event.

Headline: spiritual leaders and wisdom keepers

The headliners at apparently esoteric camp and the backbone of the entire “Masterminding Eden” team are spiritual teachers and wisdom keepers from all continents.

A video snippet from the podcast:

– Yeah, so you would be amazed to hear that when we first launch our application process, the very first people to apply and come on board were more than 20 Indigenous wisdom keepers and spiritual teachers from around the world.
We have them represented from every continent.

– It’s amazing.

Simon Michaux will take part at this event as well. And over a year ago, on one of his podcasts, he already told us all about it. So, it looks like everything’s going according to the plan:

“I want everything to feel like Sacred Femininity collabored with Sacred Masculinity.” Council of Elders – gather spiritually and philosophically awakened, socially and media conscious people from around the world and put them in one conference, feed them till they drop and let the ideas flourish, do this every year. Like a shaman from the Amazon jungle, Native American elders – anyone we can reach. Let’s learn from them.

From the summary of Simon Michaux’s podcast #1.

We’re also promised a full video report, and maybe even a documentary from there. We’ll see Nate and Roxanne smoking the peace pipe with representatives of the wisest from every continent. Well, isn’t this the beginning of The Venus Project?

The Venus Project’s first statements

In addition to including the event in an email newsletter, and several social media posts, one of the first podcasts on “Thinking through a Plan for Eden” featured a personal appearance by Nathanael Dinwiddie, who is on The Venus Project’s board of directors.

Yeah, so my name’s Nate Dinwiddie. I’m Vice President of The Venus Project and one of the members of the board.

And The Venus Project, it’s for a long time, I mean, it’s the creation of a guy named JacqueFresco and his companion, Roxanne Meadows. And for a long time, it WAS focused on these sort of ambitious solutions to the global problems primarily in the form of self-contained, self-sufficient, self-sustaining cities of the future. And Fresco had a big vision for a whole world redefined by those cities.

So naturally, Masterminding Eden kind of coincide with that whole vision of the future. It’s offering that ambitious path to these large-scale problems and trying to propose a way forward that addresses it and is a sort of scalable solution and trying to bring people together in a very interdisciplinary way to fulfill this whole vision of what’s possible. So it’s a natural fit for The Venus Project to be interested and want to help in some way. And primarily, we hope to sort of transfer or transmit some of the wisdom of Fresco to the project, a large body of work with many designs, thousands of sketches, and lots of lectures on the topic, and of course, many full designs of cities as well. So we hope to be able to bring some of that thinking and ideas and design work into the brainstorming process of conceiving what the next iteration, the next generation of designs might be. So that’s what we hope to bring to the table.

As it turns out, The Venus Project has been involved in the preparation of this event for over a year, since at least January 2024, and has been one of the leading participants. And the conference itself has already been rescheduled at least once.

A conspiracy alien backstage

The choice of the site for the conference is hardly accidental. Out of thousands of places on the planet, the organizers chose this park. In this “place of power” there is an unusual interweaving of New Age cults with similar stories, which plan to unfold to their maximum by 2030, with the tale of climate catastrophes, the end of the world in this period and the following post-apocalyptic world, where they eventually rebuild the civilization.

Judging by a lot of facts – we’ll end up with something like that with the new The Venus Project.

There’s a reason why The Venus Project is hiding their new program and the new direction being set by their new directors. Remember the notes from Simon Michaux’s podcasts, and that the new city in Peru will be the “Ark”, and after the apocalypse these guys, calling themselves Arcadians, the guardians of wisdom, will restore the entire civilization. Think about a couple of other cults, like AllatRA (Creative Society), and recall the pseudo documentary of all sorts of woo-woo, alternative history and conspiracys. They operate according to the same script logic: catastrophe, revelation, chosen ones, new era.

Jungfrau Park was built by Erich von Daniken, author of Chariots of the Gods: Unsolved Mysteries of the Past. He believed that our technology and knowledge were passed down by aliens, and that religions were based on contact with extraterrestrial civilizations. Different rooms of this park told of different “unexplained artifacts”. The park existed in this form from 2003 to 2006. It reopened in 2009 as a regular amusement park, although retaining some of the original program.

The park itself is designed as an exhibition space, where each pavilion is dedicated to one of the “great mysteries of mankind”. Visitors are shown theories about the Nazca Lines, the Egyptian pyramids, Stonehenge, the Mayan calendar and even ancient Indian “vimanas” – supposedly flying machines described in Vedic texts. Inside the pavilions there is semi-darkness, light shows, holograms and a dramatic voice-over telling us that “we may have been visited in the past.” The central building is a giant sphere with an observation deck that contains exhibits steeped in the spirit of Erich von Daniken. All this creates the feeling of participating in a pseudo-scientific odyssey between ancient civilizations and galactic mysteries.

Ufologists and Jacque Fresco

Fans of flying saucers and contact with extraterrestrial civilizations have surrounded Jacque Fresco since the 1950s, when he was featured in Frank Scully’s book “Behind the flying saucers”, 1950, after giving an interview.

And all because Jacque Fresco once worked in the development department of Wright Field, now Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which is closely associated with the famous Area 51. Jacques’ designs are full of saucer-like crafts.

Another notable crossover with ufologists was in the story of the name “The Venus Project,” which Millard Deutsch came up with, as he himself states in the six-page book “Naming the Venus Project: The Way I Remember It.”

Millard Deutsch writes how he knew Jacque and Roxanne through a friend’s recommendation (along with Millard, Roxanne, and Jacque was a member of DIVERSE CITY, an organization registered at The Venus Project address in the early 1990s) – before that, he notes, he was president of the World Brotherhood, a non-profit esoteric ufology organization. He first stayed in their guest house because of hard times, and then became a resident.

Millard was fast at typing on a computer, which pleased Jacque, and so they typed an article for the World Future Seciety magazine. Anyway, he was sitting at the computer one day, and during a break between typing the article, the three of them (Jacque, Roxanne and Millard) started discussing a more appropriate name than “Sociocyberengineering”, which had been used since the 70s. And then Millard suggested “The Venus Project” – and everyone went “Yes! That’s it!”.

But here’s the interesting thing, Millard’s associations were truly from another world, and the city called Venus just put the puzzle together. He cites here a story about an alien from Venus (he truly believes in this) “whose advanced civilization lives in the center of the Venus.” The alien visitor visited the Pentagon, offering technology and abundance in exchange for humans to stop killing each other, but the president and generals refused, referring to the destruction of the economy and the foundations of society. This is described in the book “Stranger at the Pentagon”. And this is exactly what he had in mind when he came up with the name “The Venus Project”.

Jacque Fresco in his speeches sometimes touched on the topic of UFOs and extraterrestrial contacts, sharply joking at the statements of ufologists, conspiracy theorists, and brought to light various esoteric charlatans and pseudo-scientists.

Pseudoscientific energy sources

Simon Michaux, who has taken Jacque Fresco’s place of authority at The Venus Project, has made explicit references to flying saucers in presentations, and that the government is hiding these technologies from us.

Simon believes in vortex engines and all sorts of other pseudo-scientific energy generation concepts that he plans to “independently test with The Venus Project at the new Prometheus Institute” and he even writing a book about these energy sources right now. According to the story, “official science” has been hiding and suppressing this knowledge for decades/hundreds of years in order to preserve the established order.

You can read the outline from Simon’s podcast on the topic of pseudoscientific energy here (podcast #4)

This is also now the new slogan of the revamped “The Venus Project” organization – “unconventional energy sources” is explicitly mentioned. By the way, after our criticism, “unconventional” was changed to “new”.

A slogan from the site’s archives, a year earlier, reflecting the main focus of the new The Venus Project:

The Venus Project explores unconventional energy sources, operating to a new resource management paradigm, to benefit human wellbeing and the environment.

Meanwhile, The Venus Project’s completely revamped website now explicitly includes one of the “global catastrophic risk scenarios” – contact with an extraterrestrial civilization. Yes-yes, in case you’re not aware, they think you and I are doomed. Forget the abundant future society: first comes the apocalypse. A whole set of threatening scenarios awaits us, often with a deep conspiracy overlay, after which humanity will supposedly bounce back in development for a hundred or two hundred years. This is what the current leaders of The Venus Project seem to believe.

And they intend to prepare not for a post- scarcity world, as Jacque Fresco promised, but for the fight for survival. The new slogan speaks directly to this. Instead of a techno-utopia, there is the harsh reality of scarcity, politics, money, and all the beauties of the system that Fresco spent his entire life trying to overcome.

Bonus to those who read this far. Here’s a $7,985 discount on the event

If you do want to attend this event, and you are feeling the price tag of $8,000 is to much to ask for. That is, tickets to this science-educational amusement park start from just $15 for the whole day. You will participate in performances about alien contacts with human civilization, shoot lasers at each other, play on slot machines and ride on bouncy castles, and there is even a small water park. All in all, the most appropriate place on Earth for such an event.

And the intergalactic conference with The Venus Project will be in one of the rented spaces, most likely near the food court area. You’re welcome

So if you strip away the bright wrappings, the headlines, and the big promises, and read a little deeper, the difference between what The Venus Project of Jacque Fresco envisioned and what it is becoming under the leadership of Nathanael Dinwiddie and the ideological support of Simon Michaux has become quite shocking. It is not just a change of course; it is a complete U-turn, so abrupt that it boggles the mind of even its most loyal supporters.

We’ve already covered how they almost got involved in The Thorium Network crypto-coin scam with a fake research institute, which was later shut down by the court order, and warned about the Prometheus Nexus (formerly known as Venus Arantas) crowdfunding for a desert city, which has also been delayed for over a year and a half, only because of our heads up. Because of us, The Venus Project has changed the website, albeit technically, just for the sake of formality, introducing you to a new program – while still misleading you, keeping everything secret, acting behind the scenes, not answering questions, and denying everything we observe or hear on podcasts from their key team members. We are trying to preserve some of the reputation of The Venus Project and Jacque Fresco’s ideas, but the exposures themselves are not enough. The Venus Project is not turning off this path. It is on a steady course toward obscurantism, New Age beliefs, conspiracy theories, and the total oblivion of everything Jacque and the original The Venus Project stood for.

What are your thoughts on this? Spread the word to those who would be likely to be interested – there is little open information, and to gather anything at all, you have to do a whole lot of research, listening to hours of meaningless podcasts and researching connections, doing fact checking on claims.

Message me at the contacts below. Sign up for updates and support our initiative.
Thank you!

Update 5 April 2025

Exciting News! (yes, that’s exactly how it’s written on the Masterminding Eden website)

The event titled Masterminding Eden — an esoteric gathering focused on future communities, high-vibration concepts, and etheric energy, with the involvement of The Venus Project — has been postponed once again. The new tentative date is sometime next year, though it’s unclear whether further delays might follow.

It remains to be seen when Roxanne Meadows and Nate Dinwiddie will publicly clarify the direction they’re now pursuing. With the apocalyptic scenarios they’ve referenced still looming, “the Ark” they’ve spoken of appears no closer to completion.

Update 20 April 2025

The Venus Project has made no public announcement regarding the cancellation of the event.
To my knowledge, they promoted it extensively: two newsletter emails, multiple social media posts, and at least two podcast appearances featuring Roxanne and Nate. Ticket prices ranged from $2,500 to $8,000, plus a $120 registration fee.

It’s standard practice — if you actively promote an event, you’re also responsible for informing the public if it’s canceled. Failing to do so, and not explaining how attendees can get a refund, seriously damages trust. At this point, I’m not even sure where The Venus Project’s reputation stands — especially in the English-speaking world, where credibility has been fading for quite a while. Sadly, it’s beginning to blur the line between a struggling movement and something that looks more like a scam.

Yevhen Sliuzko

I have been at the center of all this dirrection for over 13 years and can tell you a lot of things, from detailed explanation of Jacque Fresco’s original proposals, to experience of working with the movement, to little known and insider information.

I have organized the most successful and effective team of The Venus Project movement, now represented by Designing The Future, as well as the 1.5 million subscriber Jacque Fresco channel, small and large events, radio and TV interviews, working with universities and schools, organizing events, running a network of groups in 60 cities with regular meetings, and much more. Exposed and fought fraudulent companies and initiatives to protect The Venus Project’s reputation.

Organized and negotiated the construction of The Venus Project’s smart city, with the then living Jacque Fresco, which was their best chance. This has now evolved into a full-fledged smart city project and test site for the development of the entire industry of smart cities, called “Mission on Earth”, which will be launched soon, late 2024-early 2025, and we’re directly involved.

After the new directors of The Venus Project changed course, I strongly opposed it without hesitation, especially knowing the details of the gamble – taking the side of Jacque Fresco’s original ideas. Whatever the outcomes, I will continue what I have started, with the goal of giving humanity a chance to move toward a resource-based economy, or at least to point society in the right direction. I hope you will join us.

sluzko.com

The post Masterminding Eden: The Venus Project and UFOs. on July 2025 appeared first on Designing The Future.