The Venus Flytrap - Guesses & Bluffs

Chapter 3.
Because The Venus Project is based on guesses and bluffs.

3-01 Summary) Jacque Fresco always talks about science and technology, but he never actually cites any specific data about technology and science. It is quite obvious that an engineer wishes to talk about the engineering means he possesses, but he did not provide for such engineering means. As a result, we still do not know whether buildings he wants to construct have steel structure or not.

3-02 In science, responsibility for proof is in people who come up with the new theory, not in those who oppose the theory. It is impossible to prove that there is no technology sufficient for constructing Jacque Fresco's city without knowing specific means he wishes to use. It is very easy to prove existence of a technology. Jacque Fresco is obligated to show this technology. If he cannot do it, there is no reason for us to trust him.

----

3-03 Jacque Fresco says that the earth has abundant resources and there will be no scarcity if we use them according to the plan. It is suspicious as to how much he investigated to make such statement. Despite the fact that success and failure of The Venus Project depends on this, he rarely supported this argument using reliable data.

3-04 If he really had a method of supplying all goods to us without scarcity, he would have introduced the method already. But he did not. Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph produced numerous films including Zeitgeist Addendum where The Venus Project was first introduced and Paradise or Oblivion. It is strange that the most important part of The Venus Project has never been introduced.

3-05 Fresco does have a method about the city. However, we should be aware that it is the only method presented with his resource-based economy. [15] It is not even the most important method. It may be able to slightly increase efficiency of the city. That is all. Fresco only talks about the city all the time.

3-06 Does he really have a method to distribute goods like fiber, merchandises, medicines and luxuries to us without the problem of scarcity? The problem is that he never explained such method. Is there a special reason why he could not explain it to us? Isn't it that such method does not exist after all? Was he unable to explain it to us because it is quite contrary to our expectation?

3-07 In Paradise or Oblivion, Fresco confesses that they practically did not study resources available on earth: "Therefore, a global survey is first needed to assess exactly what we have. This would inventory our physical resources, personnel production centers and the needs of people." He continues, "If you try to do that today, they'd wonder… They would be skeptical, hesitant to give that information so I would say it wouldn't work in today's culture." [16]

3-08 Therefore, Jacque Fresco does not know how to use each resource to sufficiently supply goods in a way that the entire world population cannot feel scarcity. As he said, we cannot devise a plan because we have not yet completed the planet-wise survey of resources and demands. Nevertheless, he is already assuring success of a plan that has not even been devised due to lack of data.

3-09 He does not say that resource is unlimited. He says that The Venus Project is special because resource is limited. We are going to suffer scarcity of resources if we do not adopt resource-based economy. If we do on the contrary, resources will become so abundant that scarcity will disappear. This is a scope so strange that I doubt whether it actually exists. It is quite surprising to see someone without accurate knowledge about resources making such claim.

3-10 Why Fresco came to believe that resources are so plentiful? We can find the reason from his following statement. "At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold. but we did have more than enough resources."

3-11 Of course, this statement only shows Fresco's remarkable ignorance about economics. 90,000 planes were not free. Scarce resources went into producing planes, and as a result, ordinary people's spending had to be reduced as much as the government spent on planes. Statistics show that total output going to the private sector drastically fell during the war years. Real GDP increased only slightly, and even it were not by increased production, buy by the denominator which were distorted because of price controls.

3-12 But Fresco's fallacy is not a new thing. It was created by money-cranks a long time ago. One may curious to know why this fallacy is beneficial to money-cranks. The answer would be clear if he think about what the federal government did to overcome this "lack of money." It neither abolished money nor tried resource-based economy. It just borrowed more money which was created out of thin air from the Fed.

3-13 Fresco's alternative is different from money-cranks'. The problem is that he has same fallacy with them. He does not stop saying we "don't have enough money," but "have enough resources." This argument is not just look similar to money-cranks'. It means exactly same thing. Even Peter Joseph seems not free from this fallacy. See chapter 9, especially 9-136~139.

3-14 But the most fundamental part of Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph's understanding of free market is fallacies which were made by interventionists and more likely, mercantilists. They accepts without a second thought the silliest mercantilist theory which contends that endless consumption, however meaningless the nature of such consumption would be, is needed in order for the free market to survive, and even the most fruitless of behaviors like breaking windows and war can be beneficial to the market.

3-15 Of course, this is far from an established fact of economics in any sense. Traditionally what economists like Adam Smith and Say have done is exactly showing that such waste is unnecessary. Frederic Bastiat summarized this fallacy and debunked it more than 150 years ago in his essay named What which is seen and what which is unseen. Readers would be able to refer to this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erJEaFpS9ls

3-16 The fallacy of mercantilists is, though it focuses on a different problem, essentially similar to the fallacy of money-cranks. They may be two sides of the same coin. Bastiat's rebuttal can be applied to Fresco's explanation about America during the war years. 90,000 planes which were produced by the government are what which is seen. Consumption and investment which could be done if the government didn't rob people's wealth through inflation are what which is unseen.

3-17 I don't want to deny that opinions which are similar to these fallacies became one of the schools of economics recently. Keynesians really argue that we have to spend more in order to increase effective demand. They sometimes argue that we don't have enough money. All of these are, though they are not extremely stupid like the fallacies which Fresco accepts uncritically, based on similar understanding of free market.

3-18 Readers can refer Henry Hazlitt's book The failure of the new economics. This book is educative because it introduces not only Keynesian fallacies, but also opinions of real free market economists which Fresco never introduces. Most of the problems of economics which he and Peter Joseph criticized do not actually exist in free market economics. Obsession on consumption, obsession on meaningless figures like GDP, endless bailouts... list goes on.

3-19 Even if we accept the Keynesian theory or the mercantilist theory, the fact that there is no evidence of Fresco's assertion doesn't change. Let's assume that the federal government could supply 90,000 planes for free during the World War II. Obviously this is not true. But if it's true, is it means that we can supply everything we demand for free now? If a free market is wasteful, is it really true that we can construct a world without scarcity by eliminating such waste?

3-20 None of Fresco's descriptions of market economy are his original. Nevertheless few of their real creators could argue that there is no scarcity. It was simply because they were insufficient to show it. Some supporters of The Venus Project seem to believe that the fact there is no scarcity is so obvious that it doesn't need an evidence. But it has not ever been obvious to anyone except them.

3-21 Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph's assertions about resources were, though they are mixed up with a bunch of bluffing, at least based on widespread fallacies. Though they always pretend that they're technical expert, their assertions about technology are worse. Usually they don't provide evidence when they argue something is technologically possible. And when they provide evidence, the evidence turns out to be distorted or misunderstood.

3-22 Peter Joseph says in Zeitgeist Addendum, "In 2006 an MIT report on geothermal energy found that 13,000 zettajoule of power are currently available in the earth with the possibility of 2,000 ZJ being easily tapable with improved technology. The total energy consumption of all the countries on the planet is about half of a zettajoule a Year."

3-23 Here, he seems to be citing a paper titled Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century. You can easily find this paper on Google. It is a very long paper with more than 370 pages. Only by reading the synopsis of this document, what Jacque Fresco promises us becomes clearly untrustworthy.

3-24 "With a modest R&D investment of $1 billion over 15 years... the report estimated that 100 GWe or more could be installed by 2050 in the United States." 100 GWe means we can obtain 100 GJ of electric energy per second. If this is true, we can obtain 3,153,600 TJ of energy per year, which corresponds to about 0.003 zettajoules. This is smaller than 1/20 of annual energy consumption in the United States.

3-25 In its synopsis, this report states the following: "It is likely that 50 GWe or more of coal-fired capacity will need to be retired in the next 15 to 25 years because of environmental concerns. In addition, during that period, 40 GWe or more of nuclear capacity will be beyond even the most generous relicensing procedures and will have to be decommissioned."

3-26 Therefore, the point is simple: Geothermal energy can replace the portion reduced from fossil energy and nuclear energy. There is no statement that geothermal energy can completely replace fossil and nuclear energies. Nowhere is the sentence that 2,000 zettajoules of energy can be 'easily' generated. If anything, this report says the following: With continued investment, we have to wait until 2050 to replace 0.1 percent of fossil energy by geothermal energy.

3-27 It is foolish to argue over the reserve of renewable energy. [17] Think about the reserve of solar energy. What is really important is the installed capacity, but Zeitgeist Addendum does not say a word about this. They have intentionally created an illusion that we can maintain current lifestyle solely by renewable energy if we were to stop the use of fossil fuels.

3-28 The report on excellence of geothermal energy is one of few academic data on resource and technology cited by Jacque Fresco or the Zeitgeist series. This report may be the only one cited. The fact that such report is completely distorted from its original intent is not something to be laughed away. Supporters of The Venus Project must seriously ask themselves. How many words of Peter Joseph do they believe without proof?

3-29 In Zeitgeist Addendum, Peter Joshph says introducing resource-based economy. "In a high-technology resource-based economy, it is conservative to say that about 90% of all current occupations could be phased out by machines." In Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, He says again. "75% of the global workforce could be replaced by mechanization tomorrow." Figures and percentages are introduced like these without any evidence.

3-30 Really, there are no studies or researches which support these figures. This becomes clear when we see the context of second quotation. "In fact, if you take a moment to reflect on the jobs which are in existence today which automation could take over right now, if applied, 75% of the global workforce could be replaced by mechanization tomorrow."

3-31 Now, if you really take a moment, you will soon notice that jobs are too various today, and if he doesn't know exactly what skills are needed for each job, even if he has perfect knowledge about mechanization and automation technology, he is never able to figure out something like "how much of the global workforce can be replaced by mechanization tomorrow." Peter Joseph is just saying about his imagination.

3-32 Some experts would know well about various ways to automate remaining labors in the field of tableware production and technological limitations of each. Programmers who are trying hard to make automatic translator would be more conversant about difficulties in automatic translation and their possible solutions than anyone. To say something about automation in these areas, you must either know well about these every subject, or at least search for their studies. What can we do by taking a moment right now!

3-33 Peter Joseph's groundless assertions greatly influenced to supporters of The Venus Project. Many supporters of The Venus Project think that we already have the technology needed to automate most of labor but are not doing so due to interference by the money system. But it seems that even Fresco would not agree with them. In fact, he understands reality at least better than Peter Joseph. Fresco says. "This system will keep installing more and more automation cutting down on the purchasing power of the majority of people."

3-34 As we shell see in chapter 10, the later half of this sentence is wrong. But let's focus on the first half. Fresco really says something right here. If we have a technology to automate something, it would be adopted. Really, there is no reason for enterprisers who pursue profit to not adopt it. This is one of the things that even Jacque Fresco acknowledges.

3-35 The reason why supporters of The Venus Project overestimate current technology is mainly because of Peter Joseph's mention about electric vehicles. However in this case, there existed an industry that was directly damaged by electric vehicles. No industry can be harmed by automation. An entrepreneur who wishes to carry out automation has no reason to worry about unemployment and reduced purchasing power caused by automation. All damages are burdened equally by all entrepreneurs. The first industry to implement automation enjoys its benefits. [18]

3-36 In fact, even Peter Joseph's mention about electric vehicles is far from the truth. Refer to the Wikipedia document at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_battery. The document states, "Rechargeable batteries are usually the most expensive component of BEVs, being about half the retail cost of the car… Costs remain too high and, along with limited range, provide a key barrier to the use of rechargeable batteries in electric vehicles."

3-37 In the important section on battery cost and parity, we can find the following sentence: "The cost of the battery when distributed over the life cycle of the vehicle… easily be more than the cost of the electricity." Especially, this document predicts that plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) will become more economically feasible than current vehicles that use oil if price of battery is reduced to $500/kWh, but this is clearly not true right now.

3-38 Therefore, resource or labor to be purchased to produce and maintain electric vehicles is greater than resource or labor to be purchased to produce and maintain vehicles with the same utility based on existing method. Even if same amount of resource and labor is necessary, the former requires more scarce resource and labor. Expensive cost of something in market economy really means nothing but one of these.

3-39 I can attach thousands of academic papers that show limitations of battery capacity and recharge technology, but it would be boring. Electric vehicles are not being commercialized, simply because production of electric vehicles is not profitable. What does it mean by not profitable? This problem can be discussed later on. Let us make one thing clear. At least, non-commercialization of electric vehicles is not due to some kind of oil cartel.

3-40 One might notice that as far as technology is concerned, I only dealt with Peter Joseph's claims. I rarely dealt with Fresco's claims. But this is really not my fault. Peter Joseph tries to give evidence at least sometimes when he argues that something is possible, though they are always turns out to be poor and incomplete. Fresco never does same thing.

3-41 For example, Peter Joseph introduced a technology called Contour Crafting about automation of construction, and introduced a technique called hydroponics about agriculture. This allows us to search the technologies he introduced and criticize him. [19] Fresco never allows same thing. He might introduce some technologies like nanotechnolody which everyone knows and blueprints which are based one these technologies. But there is always a lack of discussions about feasibility in his explanations.

3-42 From the train which can travel at the speed of 6400 km/h to the hydroponics and Contour Crafting, it's not too much to say that almost every specific technical solution we know about The Venus Project or resource-based economy are not introduced by Jacque Fresco himself. He introduces most of them through Peter Joseph in Zeitgeist series. So how can we discuss technical solutions of The Venus Project without deal with Peter Joseph?

3-43 Peter Joseph's confidence becomes weaker when medical treatments are concerned. "Through time, with nano-technology and other highly advanced forms of science it is not far-fetched to see how even complex medical procedures could be performed by machines as well." One might notice that practically this doesn't mean anything. 'Through time' really means nothing but the fact that it will eventually happen one day.

3-44 But it has to be pointed out that the article titled "Robot reinvents bypass surgery" which Peter Joseph showed us is actually irrelevant to the topic of automation. It's true that bypass surgeries which use expensive robots are becoming increasingly popular. But the robots do not operate automatically. It controlled by the doctor. Doctors use it just to do precise operations more precisely.

3-45 In any event, it is easy to prove that current technology is unable to substitute medical practices by machines. Think about the anti-spam code technology of YouTube. There is no computer program that can effectively crack this code yet. A doctor should be careful not to touch irrelevant nerves or cut blood vessels during treatment of patients. You cannot feel secure letting computer, which can't even break the anti-spam code of YouTube, to perform such medical operations.

3-46 I examined every technical solution which Fresco's resource-based economy based on except the train traveling at the speed of 6400 km/h. This is not a joke. These are really everything we know about resource-based economy in terms of technology. Even the most enthusiastic supporters of The Venus Project would not be able to defend Fresco after they see this overwhelming groundlessness.

3-47 Fresco had to provide technical materials until assert that something is possible with current technology. If something is really possible, it is very easy to show evidence that it's possible. The purpose of all research papers in the fields of science and technology is to demonstrate that a specific technology exists. Although academic data and papers can also be used to show limitations of current technology, this is certainly a secondary use.

3-48 Jacque Fresco could cite an academic data directly related to the technology, or he can simply use data provided by the Patent Office. Nevertheless, Jacque Fresco does not attempt any of these. Now instead of Jacque Fresco, people who oppose his claim became responsible for proving his lie. Fresco doesn't even let them know exactly what technical methods will be used to make his cities.

3-49 Jacque Fresco's secrecy becomes remarkable in FAQ page of The Venus Project website. He offers the following short answer to question #36 "From technological point - is the Venus project real?": "Technically The Venus Project is feasible today." He really doesn't think that more detailed explanation is needed as to this important subject.

3-50 Even Fresco himself seems to know that he is too secretive. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTEq1joaTWA. In this noteworthy video, he is asked a question as follows. "Why don't you give your technology away today?" And, not very modestly, he answers. "I'm giving you everything I think they need to make this jump."

3-51 According to this video, the reason why he doesn't "give his ideas away and make them available" is that if he gives it away, it will be "commercial." But why he is concerned about it? Maybe people would have to pay to live in the city. But as long as contracts are made by mutual consent between enterprisers and individuals, it would never harm anyone. Fresco's city is not either a type which harms the outside by environmental pollution or something.

3-52 Fresco's ignorance about scientific method is sometimes amazing. You may not even have to reread chapter 1 for this. Hear what Fresco says carefully. It does not even make sense. When Pasteur, Edison and Tesla hided their technology? They "gave their ideas away" and let everyone who studied their ideas can "answer questions." There is only one thing we can learn from this video. It's that Fresco's assertions about technology fell into a technical mythology which is on the same plane as "Philadelphia Experiment."

3-53 Exactly what does Jacque Fresco use to make people believe in his claim? He uses authority. If he did not have a plausible title of engineer, nobody would have seriously accepted his statements about science and technology. However, claim of Fresco becomes even more suspicious once we understand the methods of science and engineering. Mutual verification is the most important virtue within the academic circle of science and engineering. Which engineering in the world speaks like Jacque Fresco?

3-54 We should also ask whether he really is an expert about all areas of engineering. An engineer does not know all about engineering. Engineers who study automation of vehicle assembly know well about vehicles, but they do not know much about automation of tableware production. They do not recognize the technological difficulties involved, as well as which parts are already automated and which are not.

3-55 Jacque Fresco may be well-versed in some areas of engineering, but he probably knows nothing about other areas of engineering. He cannot boast that he can automatize all labors based on his experience. At the very least, he must have invited engineers in other areas to investigate what can be automated and what not. Surprisingly, there is no trace of such effort in his films and writings.

3-56 In his film, there is a scene where buildings are assembled like Lego pieces. However, architecture is completely different from Lego assembly. [20] Does he truly understand this difference? Of course, this is a basic question. We can just assume that he can do well since he is an engineer, but why would he not introduce the groundbreaking assembly construction method if there is one?

3-57 Supporters of The Venus Project may demand evidences proving that his claim is wrong in order to criticize him. They do not realize the fact that Fresco is the one who needs to prove, not me. If someone invented a perpetual mobile and does not provide any evidence, nobody will take his claim seriously. Jacque Fresco is not special.

3-58 His claims are not natural. Scholars have different opinions about when machines will be able to replace most of labor. Much less, the claim that we can produce so many goods that we would not feel scarcity using current technology is clearly contrary to most opinions. He is making these claims without providing any evidence.

3-59 Supporters of The Venus Project seem to tend to exaggerate information that supports their thoughts, instead of uncritically believing in it. They need to throw away the habit to believe something as true just because we want to believe. If resources around the world are sufficient enough to produce as many goods as to remove scarcity, it would definitely be great. But what we want does not mean it is true.

3-60 It is important to understand that Jacque Fresco's bluff about resource and technology is nothing new. In 1940, Friedrich Hayek wrote in Road to Serfdom, "That people should wish to be relieved of the bitter choice which hard facts often impose upon them is not surprising…. And they are only too ready to believe that the choice is not really necessary, that it is imposed upon them merely by the particular economic system under which we live."

3-61 He continues, "What they resent is, in truth, that there is an economic problem. In is their wishful belief that there is really no longer an economic problem people have been confirmed by irresponsible talk about potential plenty - which, if it were a fact, would indeed mean that there is no economic problem which makes the choice inevitable."

3-62 However, "Although this snare has served socialism propaganda under various names as long as socialism has existed, it is still as palpably untrue as it was when it was first used over a hundred years ago." Also, "The reader may take it that whoever talks about potential plenty is either dishonest or does not know what he is talking about. Yet it is this false hope as much as anything which drives us along the road to planning."

3-63 Even people who most sincerely believe in Jacque Fresco's argument that we can produce as many goods to remove scarcity without labor using current technology simply by abolishing capitalism would not think that we had such capability in 1940s or 1840s. They will be surprised to know that such argument promising perfect abundance has been used for over 150 years.

3-64 However, we should recognize that such lie did not always come out of ill will but actually came out of good will in many cases. The purpose of people who support planned economy is mostly noble, so it is not surprising to see them use some lies to realize their revolution quicker. None of them would consider that frankly acknowledging their limits is more important than rescuing children drying from famine and war in Africa and Middle East as soon as possible.

3-65 As a result, bluffs and lies are ordinary acts to those who insist on planned economy even before they start the revolution. They might deceive themselves by saying that bluffs and lies are necessary to quickly realize their utopia. They can think that 'temporary' lies are inevitable for acceleration of the revolution, even though they will reveal the truth on their own when the time comes.

3-66 Therefore, the reason why we must seriously question Jacque Fresco's words is not because he is evil. He may really believe that his resource-based economy is the only way to rescue the mankind. However, this does not deny the possibility that he is making up lies to realize his great ideal. Supporters of Fresco are responsible for correcting his errors, but this becomes impossible if they accept his bluffs without filter.

3-67 I saw a supporter of The Venus Project say, "Why operate in division? When unity, honesty could fulfill your dreams and wish in an instant." In an instant! Supporters of The Venus Project surely have some kind of fantasy. It is the belief that we can gain material richness and happiness incomparable to the past, immediately after we start with The Venus Project.

3-68 The truth is as follows. Whether we can obtain as many goods to remove scarcity is absolutely uncertain. Even if we assume it is true, it's nonsense to think that we can enjoy such richness as soon as we start the revolution. Solar heat or geothermal power plant believed to make it possible has not yet been constructed, and automated production machines are yet to be made. If anything, we would have to be engaged in heavier labor than before for some time to prepare for these.

3-69 Even if Jacque Fresco's bluffs were true, we will be forced for some time to endure lower quality of life. If we were to start a worldwide revolution, it is clear that we need to yield significant portion of our share to people in underdeveloped regions in order to create equal society. Productivity of the society cannot grow by a factor of two in an instant. To citizens of developed nations, this means that we have to endure half the current living standard for a while.

3-70 These are what we have to experience when Jacque Fresco's claims are true. If he added any exaggeration, the situation becomes even worse. But in my view, there is little possibility that Jacque Fresco's claims do not include any bluff. Are supporters of The Venus Project really determined to withstand hardships they will inevitably experience in the future? Do they even recognize such hardships?

3-71 Jacque Fresco is responsible for such dreamlike attitude by supporters of The Venus Project. He must frankly acknowledge his own limitations and limitations of The Venus Project. If he really wants to communicate, he should not deceive his supporters. Jacque Fresco must be brave enough to say that at least for 5 years after the revolution, quality of our life can be degenerated and that we must withstand it to create a better society.

3-72 We cannot dramatically change our lives at once. We must endure pain in order to make a change, whether the change is good or bad. Jacque Fresco will eventually have to make a choice when the revolution he has long been waiting for actually happens. He is going to acknowledge the fact that many things promised by The Venus Project were bluffs and lies. I doubt whether he has that much courage.

3-73 In this case, the opposite can happen easily. He would probably try to remove people's complaints by exaggerating even more about the perfect abundance coming in the future. The more his promises are revealed to be lies, more absurd promises he needs to make. His bluffs will be inflated so much that they cannot be distinguished from religion. It is well known that exactly same things happened in communism, which promised to provide perfect abundance. [21]

----

[15] Jacque Fresco of course has an alternative about the problem of education and food. This becomes clear by looking at The Venus Project website (http://www.thevenusproject.com/). However, his alternative about education problem is only consisted of obvious declarations that it is impossible to think that it has any meaning. It is more of a pledge than alternative. Jacque Fresco's alternative about food problem will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

[16] Most nations are already investigating the amount and distribution of resources and population. It is not difficult to find statistics about them. We can obtain more detailed data investigated by individuals using paper search function on Google. The claim that nations will prohibit private survey of resources and disclosure of relevant data because of invasion threats is absurd. They have already been disclosed.

[17] In fact, "13,000 ZJ" is not the amount of geothermal energy available on earth. This report says that the amount of geothermal energy in the United States is 13,000 ZJ. This information of course is advantageous to Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph. They could put this story in the clip they made. Nonetheless, they clearly referred to this as the amount of geothermal energy on earth. There is no room for doubt about the fact that they did not even read this report.

[18] However, it would be a lie to say that the current money system will never prevent automation. Such thing can actually occur for a more complex reason. For example, some legal measures for protecting laborers from layoff can prevent automation by blocking corporate restructuring. But the effect of such factors is not as large as you think. For instance, they are not applied to corporations making a fresh start.

[19] Of course these techniques have many possibilities. The problem is that Peter Joseph described their every future possibility as if they are attainable in the condition of current technology level. He makes an illusion that these techniques were not adopted; not because of their own limitation, but because of the system. His explanation is hard to be justified. The technology for Contour Crafting is still in the stage of development. As of 2013, 6 ft concrete walls seem the most complex structures which could be made through this technology. Saying about hydroponics, it's already widely being used in many farms. Even its automatic control systems are not new things. But, at least in the condition of current technology level, it's not that considerably greater than soil cultivation.

[20] The law of physics is not symmetrical with size. While maximum load physically withstood by a construction machine is proportional to square of size, load of a structure is proportional to cube of size. There is no reason to think that something shown as possible in a small model experiment will also be possible in large building. Similar error is the thought that small insects that can lift objects much heavier than their body weight will have enormous strength when their size is increased to the size of human beings.

[21] I didn't deal with one important subject about which we must contemplate in this chapter: if something is technologically possible, and if we have enough resources to do it, can we say that it's feasible? Although this subject is difficult, it has enough value to be analyzed in a separated chapter. See Appendix A.