@s: I see what you're saying, but the rationing is just behind the scenes. The computer allocating wood to the production of table x, y, and z. Rationing will not be apparent to the person asking for these items. Regarding this rationing though, it's my own personal idea of how The Venus Project may work. It's not definitive.

@pb: There are some people fascinated by the stars, believe it or not. These said people will probably find it rewarding to learn more about these objects of fascination. And also, there are some people who realize that no matter what we do, we cannot live on Earth foreve. These people will try and inhabit new worlds for the incentive of survival for Human kind.

Also, just because I said that mass transit would be the primary form of transportation doesn't mean that there will be no personal forms of transportation. There will be cars.

As for why we can't make a car go 4000+ mph, how about you ask an engineer or something? I'm no expert. But if I were to make a guess, it'd be something like this: The theoretical 4000+ mph maglev train can achieve such speeds because it travels along a magnetic rail and it's in a vacuum tunnel. So a "car" under the same conditions would be more like a personal train. And while certainly possible, it'd be an inefficient mess.

This is actually quite an interesting concept. How do we know, though, that the average human is going to really use his/her new-found time doing something productive such as exploring new planets? On my weeks off, sleep and eating are of primary concern, as I no longer think about what each customer needs, as I'm still getting a check and others are taking care of things for me. Isn't that quite similar to what you are exploring? More fat bastards doesn't seem quite so appealing, may just be me.

If all things are abundant in a virtually limitless supply, freely available and free, how do we know there won't be several more drunkards, heroin addicts, killers? (I include these as I imagine people may be quite bored with their endless time, it's a possibility)

How long and difficult would this be? (Sorry if that's explained in the video, I fell asleep for a few minutes as I didn't get to bed on time the last few nights) What would happen to people if they can't see their rewards from their work? I believe there will be several greedy people who would build insanely massive houses while using an extraordinary amount of resources. That could be a problem.

What about land? Will everyone keep their current ground? Or will it be allotted, "diced" for?

What about overpopulation? Since no one would need to worry about the financial cost of raising a child, would be people be allowed to have as many children as they can fit in their house? Or will there be limits?

And, last but not least, what about all the current equipment, currencies, buildings, artificial materials and such from the world's businesses?

Sorry for all the questions. This is a very interesting theory, and please don't think I'm against it at all, I just have a few concerns and questions about it.

Short term: Life would be affected very little

Long term: Life would be drastically changed with limited space and nowhere to put our waste. Even if technology allowed us to extract the resources from our waste material, it wouldn't do shit to space (shrink rays are an exception :O)

That combined with the fact that humans are natural procrastinators (Oh, what damage would it do to take 50 M&M's from this jar filled with them? There's still going to be 6000 left!)) means that our resources would be depleted far too quickly to be enjoyed. Money is just really an object used to standardize all products. Instead of trading six chikens for your goat, I give you twelve gold pieces for your goat. You can then either use your gold pieces to stock up for a horse or just buy the chickens. It's to prevent having to go through multiple trades just to get what you want. It also saves time. Instead of starting to raise thirty chickens, five goats, or any combination of the two (as long as their raw value ends up in 30 chickens) for a horse, you can just trade what you have now and what you've saved (another useful thing about money, it can be saved) for the horse.

Money is a luxury, not a setback.

@Flea1991: Thanks for the inquisitive post. I'll answer your questions to the best of my abilities.

In all honesty, we don't really know for sure how many people would be productive. But ask yourself this: Why do sleep and eat during your days off? Is it because you have zero interest in being productive, or is it because you're tired from having to work? If it's the latter, which I'm guessing it is, then not being forced to work will make some people pursue ways of being productive that interest them, such as writing music or making games.

If, out of the working class, there are people that just have zero interest in being productive in areas of art or science, it's not a big deal. After all, their jobs have been replaced by automation. We don't really need them to do anything. It'd be nice, but our output isn't going to be any less than it is currently.

And also, the people currently conducting scientific research or composing art probably enjoy or care about what they do. Why would they stop?

And another thing. Information would be more readily available. Yeah, the internet currently gives us access to a lot of information. But there is still information held back from some people by price tags. And in addition to this newly free information, people would be freer to travel the world. These factors I believe will enhance our scientific and art output.

It's certainly a possibility. But while some people may turn to drugs out of boredom, I think this will balanced by the fact that people in general will be happier and won't need drugs to escape "harsh reality". Plus, I doubt that any drugs will be produced through automation. So any drugs would have to be acquired by a human. This makes me doubt it'll become too widespread a problem. And the people who do wind up doing drugs will probably be the ones who have zero interest in being productive anyway. And as I previously stated, it doesn't really matter if they waste their time. Regarding killing, it's inescapable. It will happen. Most of the killings would probably be between the non-productive crowd, and while tragic, I don't believe law should govern what anybody can or cannot do. Perhaps said killings will get some of the non-productive individuals to decide to become productive.

How long and difficult would a transition be? My guess is that in today's world, it could probably be accomplished in 100 years. But it would be very difficult. It's where we're headed though, so the transition will either be successful or mankind will suffer a huge setback… If we even survive the failure.

The people who can't see the rewards for their work will either work even harder next time or revert, either temporarily or permanently, to a non-productive individual. I doubt that this will be overly commonplace though, with online communities such as Youtube, Last.fm, deviantArt, etc. There will be plenty of outlets to share your work with the world.

Regarding greedy people building massive houses, perhaps there will be a material limit per person for buildings. For example, perhaps a 1-person house could use a maximum of x lbs of steel. A 2-person house could use 2x lbs of steel, and a 100-person complex could use 100x lbs of steel.

Land, sea, and sky I imagine would be allotted. Perhaps all the habitable land would be split up into individual lots. When constructing a house or complex, a person can pick any free lot. If it is a complex intended to house several people, then the building will expand into the open skylots and, if necessary, accompanying land lots. Same concept with the sea. Also, people may exchange their house and lot at any time for a new one. Of course, land is finite, so we're going to have to optimize our land usage and find new places to inhabit.

No law, no limit except for how much you can handle. ;)

This actually makes me think of another idea. Kids will be able to leave home at a younger age thanks to the lack of financial burdens. The downside to this is that they could wind up accidentally killing themselves, or perhaps wind up attracting an unsavory individual. While horrific and sad, I doubt it'll be too commonplace. Also, I think the upside greatly outweighs the downside. The upside to this is that they can travel the world while they still have a keen imagination, and also make good friends from all over the globe.

Equipment that can be put to use will be put to use. Currencies will be recycled. Buildings, except for notable ones (which will be turned into museums), will be destroyed as lots that they occupy are chosen for habitation. Artificial materials will be put to whatever uses they are useful for. All patents, copyrights, et cetera will be rendered null and void.

Don't be sorry. Your questions were very good, and you asked them mostly without a pessimistic tone. I enjoyed answering them.

@Kaz: Zeitgeist? Never heard of it!

Oh wait. What's that link I have up in my blog? *GASP*