[Interviewer] ... there's not enough feeling and emotion in

in what Jacque says or something.

- That's true, there isn't.

But if you are emotionally attached to something,

it means you're subjective.

There are people that nail a piece of wood together, then they kiss it.

Before that (chuckles), they don't kiss it,

until you nail it, so it looks like a cross, then you kiss it.

You know what I mean?

So, what was it the day before it was a cross?

Two pieces of wood,

or some copper that wasn't cast in the form of a cross.

And a cross is a crucifix,

which was - long before people wore it -

it was to crucify people.

So it's a symbolic,

depending on what culture you come from.

That's why I can't accept anything except the sciences;

the shape of an airplane wing is designed for a certain lift,

the shape of the plane is designed for certain conditions.

So, you can't-...

when I say you can't exceed your environment,

that means you can't exceed what you've been exposed to.

You can't, if somebody gave you a brand new microscope,

and you said the objective lenses are insufficient,

if you're a cannibal. Do you know what I mean?

If you give a cannibal a watch,

he doesn't look at it and say

"The gears are not precise; they're 1/10,000th of an inch off."

He can't say that.

That's what I mean by a person can't exceed their environment.

If you got in an airplane,

if you're able to, 2,000 years from now,

a guy might look at our plane and say

"I'll never get into that crate!"

Our airplanes would come through as a crate, or something else.

But certainly, if you're born 2,000 years from now,

you couldn't have the same values, and survive.

The nation that can't exceed its own environment

will be surpassed.

Do you know what that means? Another country will surpass us.

If China can't get past where they're at,

if they stop, and just take in manufacturing and don't

go into automation and modification, they will remain.

There are many nations out there that are so primitive,

they do things the way they did a thousand years ago,

and that's up the Amazon River.

The natives build rafts

the same way they did a thousand years ago, no change.

They bond bundled reed together, tie it all together,

because that's all they ever see; they never leave the area.

So, if you say "They're stupid," no they're not;

they live in a fixed environment,

where things are fairly uniform, and not enough change.

They don't have visitors from other tribes

that bring them other things.

Otherwise, they might be brought up to hate other tribes,

or they might be brought up to trade.

The nations that trade undergo change,

because they meet people that are different,

and they get things that are different.

No nation all developed a vase.

If a nation developed a vase, and your nation didn't,

and they show you how they carry water or orange juice around in it,

you don't have any means of doing it except this way,

so you undergo change!

The more nations that meet and share ideas - not just meet -

if they share ideas they undergo modification.

But if my people undergo too much modification,

I can't control them.

So I put a fence around my country

and keep out foreign ideologies.

Or if books come into my country that change people

so I can't control them,

I forbid pornography or whatever it is ... I forbid.

Am I right? Am I wrong? All nations wish to survive.

They can't if people read different kinds of books,

different kinds of characters, different kinds of social systems;

you can't control your people that way.

You say "I believe in democracy," nobody believes in democracy!

They believe in what they've been conditioned to believe in.

They can't believe in democracy, otherwise,

they go hear communism, socialism,

free love and all. They'd say

"I don't know enough about them to make up my mind which is right."

They'd speak like that: "I don't know enough about them."

Do you understand what I'm saying?

I'm upsetting the apple cart, so that there are no values,

except the values that preserve nature, man,

and his relationship to his fellow man and nature.

This are the only laws I know of.

Or if we don't take care of the forests,

we let them burn and die, we will suffer.

If we pollute the oceans, we will suffer.

Those are things I accept. I don't know any other system.

Will they do that in the future? I think they'll control things in the future:

weather, hurricanes, earthquakes, everything.

Man will learn to control things, in his behalf.

The other organisms that he keeps alive would be supportive

to that culture, do you understand that?

That's why it would be very difficult to deal with people that came

from another planet, with a different gravitational field,

different lighting systems.

If they develop, they don't have to look like us.

Whatever they develop, they'd be reflecting their culture.

So a guy says "I'd like to share ideas with you."

Well only if they lived here, and they

had all kinds of methods of evaluation.

But they wouldn't want to associate with us,

because we're too limited, if they've been around longer.

So, I can't say that Fresco tells the truth.

I can only say that Fresco's world is based upon survey,

related to man and his relationship to the environment.

That's what I mean by mechanistic.

I asked once a writer of a scientific book

"Do you think man is a machine?"

He said "That's the old mechanistic point of view, that man is a machine."

He didn't say "What do you mean by machine?"

There was no semantics at the time ...

to know what a man is talking about.

By machine, I mean that the eyes cannot move to that position

unless there's a muscle that pulls it there,

unless there's a mechanism in the brain,

that-... or a bright light causes the eye to look at it.

So I want to make little dolls,

and there are little magnets in their heads you don't see.

If I hold a magnet there, the eyes will focus on it,

if I move it, but not really.

Normal people will think "Gee! The machine is looking at

wherever you hold that." I can simulate that.

You can make a machine to have facial expressions in sympathy.

You say "I bought a new car and I lost it.

I forgot to put the brakes on, it went over."

The machine's eyebrows change,

it says "My god, I'm sorry to hear that."

But it won't feel anything; it'll react as though it felt something.

A machine can't feel bad or good about you,

it can only react to the way its circuits are built.

Do you understand that?

That's why a machine will never say "I'm going to take over,"

because it doesn't have ambition.

It doesn't say "Your wife is prettier than mine"

or "That machine looks nicer than the other machine."

It has no such reaction, nor can it be given that.

No matter how you circuit a machine, you can say that

that machine is rusting, and it's going to disintegrate,

and it can even cry, but it won't feel anything.

It's like a movie, of an actor doing,

and you know that he didn't lose his wife, and he didn't get shot.

Although he got shot in the movie, the movie can't feel.

It can simulate feeling, and that's when a person says

"He's a good actor," meaning he can get you to cry,

or she can get you to cry, if they're good actors.

And sometimes people use that in marrying a rich man.

A girl might say "You're so wonderful, I love you,"

and the rich man feels flattered, and he marries her.

Then she spends a lot of money on a lot of things.

That's simulating love. Do you know what I mean?

A prostitute that says "You're a lousy lay," after the day is over,

you won't come back.

[Instead] she says "I really enjoyed that sexually."

After all there are people that simulate

good and bad, right and wrong.

Knowing the difference is difficult, if they're good at it.

A salesman who sells you something simulates being your friend.

"Let me advise you that the Ford car is better built than any car today.

Believe me, I'm doing you a favor."

Is he a car salesman, or a fireman? You know, what is he?

If he's a salesman and a churchgoer and believes in God,