In the interest of making the teachings of Jacque Fresco more easily accesible to the seekers of knowledge, we have decided to use OPEN access Economy (OAE) as the primary term to refer to a resource-based economy(RBE), from now on.
I don’t think a new label which enjoys less search engine optimization improves accessibility. Fragmentation of information causes confusion and perhaps also conflict. But of course, feel free to experiment.
@CyberHerald did you by the way approach TVP for some comments about their newly assumed direction? Maybe there is no need to panic?
Problem is, it’s also used predominantly to describe economies which work on extracting one resource.
There are more details in the article as to why this was chosen.
I’ve gotten back from people that talked to Roxanne.
The direction they are going with is indeed like that, and the entire OAE/RBE stuff will be walled off behind the closed off Jacque Fresco Foundation.
Also, there is a problem with semantic priority.
Resource Based Economy = an economy based on resources.
Open Access Economy = an economy based on open access.
If the priority is adequate resource management, we may use RBE. If the priority is to give people access to resources and not cover adequate management in detail, then we may use OAE.
I recommend using RBE because the original goal was extensive adequate resource management.
It is important to note that words are context dependent, so RBE could mean this extensive RM when writing in the context of alternative economies.
Yes, i realize that.
But when searching for it, or in every day conversation, the mainstream definition dominates.
Yes, but in that case, i’d use Resource-Management Based Economy(RMBE), but no use else uses it, and we already have the digital “infrastructure” and reach for OAE.
I personally would base this kind of reaction on solid information. I don’t know who these people are, maybe they are reliable. But a more official and concrete announcement or action that speaks for itself would be better to act on. I find it hard to believe that TVP would not advocate anymore for the things they are known for. I think there might be a misunderstanding here.
These people that brought it up are pretty well-known members of TVP, but were extremely evasive, but de-factor confirming that’s the direction.
Again, if they wanted that, they could make an official declaration, or state it up front on their site.
Can you share the exact things they said and who they are? You’re of course free to make your own conclusions. But it’s not something to take lightly and it can damage TVP, which is the closest thing to TZM. We shouldn’t start gossips and talk on their behalf. If there is no official statement about a new direction, or a clear difference in how they operate, then maybe we should be cautious about drawing damaging conclusions.
We can use this term to describe the Resource Based Economy:
“Direct scientific systemic economic democracy” or “DSSED”, whereas:
TZM Czech Republic used “direct systemic economic democracy” or “DSED” to refer to RBE:
Some variants of the term RBE that were or are used:
Resource-Based Economic Model (RBEM). Peter Joseph called it that after The Venus Project demanded that TZM not use the original term. Very few people continued using it.
Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy. It is the one used in TZM Defined. It seems correct to me, but it is very long, and not many use it.
Global Resource Based Economy. Apparently, TVP is now naming Fresco’s proposal that way, to differentiate it from the new direction they are taking (Venus Evolution | The Venus Project). I like this term because it would immediately clarify that it does not refer to a single country, nor to self-sustaining villages. Furthermore, it would not imply changing too much the term we have used since 2008.
List of terms that refer to the same concept:
ChatGPT suggested this umbrella term:
And answered to this question “Why it is complicated to make a unified taxonomy for the Resource Based Economy?”:
One of the challenges in creating a unified taxonomy for an RBE is the complexity of the system itself. An RBE is a highly complex system that involves the efficient use of resources, the elimination of waste, and the creation of a sustainable and equitable society. This complexity makes it difficult to create a unified taxonomy that can accurately describe all aspects of the system.
I also asked ChatGPT to rate the complexity of such an economic system from 1 to 10:
The complexity of a Resource Based Economy (RBE) can be rated around 8-9. Implementing an RBE involves a fundamental shift in economic and social systems, requiring comprehensive resource management, advanced technology, global cooperation, and significant changes in human behavior and consumption patterns. It also involves intricate planning, allocation, and distribution of resources to ensure sustainability and meet the needs of the population. The transition to an RBE would require a thorough understanding of various fields such as economics, environmental science, engineering, and sociology, making it a highly complex endeavor.
I also asked for a rating for the infinite growth economy:
The complexity of infinite growth capitalism can be rated as a 6. This system, rooted in the industrial revolution, prioritizes economic expansion and profit generation, often at the expense of social and environmental well-being. While it is not as intricate as a Resource Based Economy, it still involves multifaceted interactions among economic, social, and environmental factors. The pursuit of profit, resource allocation, market dynamics, and the impact on society and the environment contribute to its moderate level of complexity.
Let’s say we change the name, what exactly did we solve? TVP and TZM already split a long time ago. I personally also don’t see any reason to think TVP lost track of its identity. They move on beyond Jacque, that makes sense. If PJ would stop we would also continue. My 2 cents would be to focus on chapter building within TZM 
That will save TZM from extinction.
Changing labels is only doing damage. We will waste time on that and will only cause confusion. The term RBE is perfectly fine and can be mixed with NL/RBE in case there are legal issues with just the RBE term.
Most documents use the primary “RBE” term, even if it’s a polysemantic word. It’s a familiar term and it’s non-mainstream definition can be obtained via context.
If we focus on chapter building, we can prevent changing names, as the second definition will become understood. Additionally, denialists that accusing the movement for using a term that has a mainstream definition and adding a non-mainstream definition is not a valid reason to change labels.
The RBE term is well-known and cannot be confused with different economic systems. This word is polysemantic and context-dependent, which means that people will know what definition to use when describing it. Most TZM people will not use the 2023 definition invented by The Venus Project.
Changing labels creates confusion, and it is not good for people searching an RBE economic system. If we focus on activism and chapter-building, then we will be able to save from extinction and major redefinition.
It’s not just the RBE term. Unfortunately, the term chapter is now also confusing for newcomers since some call it now branches. We should indeed not get occupied with unnecessary paperwork and focus on real action. Mostly within our chapters and not too much focused on central control over other chapters. Setup local ZDays instead of attend or organize one abroad. And of course don’t limit the chapter activity to just ZDays. We’re already an echo of the past. We need to organize in local groups again (aka chapters) and think globally 
I fully agree trying to force a less known term is bad, which is why i at least tried to use one that’s used by other groups in this sphere, and for which the first search results direct to a wiki we can build on long-term.
But in the RBE case, we have not 1, not 2, but 3 definitions.
The mainstream one, which describes a state who’s economy is based on the extraction of one or few resources, the TVP one, which is underdoing mutation, and is likely to also be popular, due to the reach they have, and our one.
So we would not only need to fight against the TVP definition, but also try to make it more popular than the much more embedded resource extraction state meaning.
So it’s an uphill battle.
Let’s say that The Zeitgeist Movement is completely disconnected The Venus Project (or it shall be), and is an independent organization with its own, separate economy.
TZM must use the 2008 definition of a Resource Based Economy and keep supporting it if we don’t want the experience the death phenomena.
The definition is like a constitution that shouldn’t be changed significantly unless there are exceptional cases which make it wrong or obsolete.
Yeah, TZM and TVP split a long time ago already. And the term RBE is well-known. We would hurt ourselves if we would start using different labels for the same thing.
I think it’s also more productive to show how we can do better, rather than pointing at others.
This is not about my renaming proposal, just documenting the scandal that is happening with the russian-speaking group.
And as Kees mentioned, TZM has been separate from TVP for about a decade or more, anyway, so that point is moot.
I’ve moved the conversation of that thread also to this one to keep the conversation centralized.