Paul Elvere DELSART compared to other visionary thinkers and social engineers – Jacques FRESCO, Buckminster FULLER y Pierre RABHI

1 – Comparative analysis between Paul Elvere DELSART and Jacques FRESCO (1916–2017) 

Paul Elvere DELSART and Jacques FRESCO share a common ambition: to profoundly transform global society. Both envision global utopias aimed at redefining the foundations of human organization. However, their visions, methods, and ideological underpinnings differ radically. Paul Elvere DELSART advocates for a new society based on international cooperation, spirituality, ecology, social engineering, and a gentle approach to geoengineering. Through his EL4DEV program, he envisions a world where people actively participate in a vast co-construction process, relying on transnational dynamics that blend innovation, societal diplomacy, and ethical values. His approach incorporates both physical and symbolic initiatives such as the LE PAPILLON SOURCE-labeled educational and ecological cities, as well as Vegetal Calderas—vertical plant-based structures that emit beneficial waves, designed to revitalize ecosystems and transform landscapes in a poetic and regenerative way. A central element of his method lies in the evolutionary management of societal change through a global information system: the EL4DEV Big Smart Data. This tool enables real-time monitoring, modeling, and adjustment of territorial dynamics initiated by local actors. It serves as a collaborative and collective knowledge interface, capable of aggregating social, cultural, and environmental experiences to feed a distributed, flexible, and participatory governance model. In contrast, Jacques FRESCO advocates for a society freed from all money, politics, or spirituality, entirely governed by science and rationality. His Venus Project is based on the systematic planning of human needs through advanced technologies and automated cities. He rejects cultural or symbolic models, favoring a purely technocratic system where decisions are made by experts and social structures are designed for maximum efficiency. Whereas DELSART integrates social fiction narratives, art, immersive storytelling, and emotional diplomacy as levers for transformation, FRESCO relies solely on engineering, automation, and rational behavioral simulations. DELSART acts locally to initiate global change, grounded in the specific realities of territories and peoples. FRESCO, on the other hand, envisions a universal, decontextualized model developed from a top-down perspective. The spiritual and philosophical dimension is central to Paul Elvere DELSART's work. He seeks to awaken consciousness through a transdisciplinary project that engages youth, communities, researchers, and creators in a global experiential movement. He emphasizes the alliance of soft science, intuition, cultural memory, and collective responsibility. Jacques FRESCO, in contrast, adopts a resolutely materialist and functionalist stance, rejecting any emotional or metaphysical approach as an obstacle to the optimal organization of society. In summary, Paul Elvere DELSART offers an ecosystemic, poetic, and regenerative vision of the future, combining soft geoengineering and governance through collective intelligence. Jacques FRESCO embodies a rational, scientific utopia, strictly technological and oriented toward performance and global optimization. Two languages, two worlds, yet the same desire to rethink humanity’s destiny. 

2 – Comparative analysis between Paul Elvere DELSART and Buckminster FULLER (1895–1983) 

Global Vision and Purpose: Paul Elvere DELSART and Buckminster FULLER share a common ambition: to radically transform the functioning of human societies. Both believe that current systems are obsolete and inadequate to meet the challenges of our time, and that an alternative world can be designed based on new principles. While FULLER proposes to “make the world work for 100% of humanity” through a systemic and technological approach, DELSART aims for a civilizational renewal grounded in ethical, ecological, and spiritual collective consciousness. Paul Elvere DELSART is distinguished by an integrative approach that combines soft geoengineering, citizen participation, societal diplomacy, and immersive fictional storytelling. Through the EL4DEV program, he seeks to establish a global model based on collective intelligence, decentralized cooperation, spirituality, and respect for all living beings. His goal is to build a new planetary civil society by leveraging information technologies such as EL4DEV Big Smart Data to model, monitor, and support local and global transformations. Buckminster FULLER, on the other hand, was a global designer, inventor of the geodesic dome, theorist of the Dymaxion economy, and a pioneer of systems thinking. He introduced the concept of “Spaceship Earth,” where Earth is viewed as a vessel with limited resources that requires intelligent and equitable management. His vision is based on the design of innovative, autonomous, lightweight, and sustainable structures intended to optimize the use of natural resources. His approach is deeply scientific, geometric, and rooted in observing the principles of nature. Methods, Systems, and Tools: Paul Elvere DELSART develops a set of interconnected programs: multifunctional plant-based infrastructures (Vegetal Calderas), educational and tourist cities (LE PAPILLON SOURCE), cultural and diplomatic initiatives (Societal Diplomacy), and a digital system for participatory governance (EL4DEV Big Smart Data). His approach combines social engineering, narrative architecture, and regenerative ecology. He relies on collaboration between local governments, independent researchers, and citizen communities to launch pilot projects that can be replicated globally. Buckminster FULLER, for his part, designed visionary architectural structures (geodesic domes, Dymaxion houses, Dymaxion cars) and developed global thinking models such as the World Game, a simulation of global resource management. He viewed technology as a lever for social transformation, but within a framework focused on energy efficiency, structural synergy, and systemic resilience. Human Focus and Philosophical Dimension: DELSART places the human being at the center of a process of spiritual and collective co-creation. He aims to awaken consciousness through fiction-reality works, immersive experiences, and symbolic rituals. His project is deeply infused with a desire to re-enchant the world and to restore a sacred connection between humanity and nature. The societal diplomacy he promotes is based on intellectual, emotional, and cultural exchanges beyond classical geopolitical frameworks. FULLER adopts a more cosmic and universalist perspective. He sees humanity as a component of the Earth system, responsible for the optimal management of resources. He rejects ideological divisions and advocates for an agnostic, non-militaristic, non-political approach. His language is often technical and rigorous, yet profoundly humanist. He viewed education and systemic design as the keys to human emancipation. Fundamental Differences: Where Paul Elvere DELSART initiates concrete social dynamics from specific territories (such as the Mediterranean region or small municipalities), FULLER takes a more abstract and global approach, operating on a planetary scale from the outset. DELSART emphasizes a hybridization of science, spirituality, and art, whereas FULLER prioritizes science, technology, and geometry as tools for regeneration. DELSART’s model is strongly embodied in physical and social infrastructures, conceived as spaces for cultural and educational transformation. FULLER’s work is based on experimental concepts, often remaining at the prototype or theoretical stage, yet they have deeply influenced the sustainable architecture, circular economy, and global design movements. Conclusion: Paul Elvere DELSART and Buckminster FULLER represent two complementary figures of global alternative thought. Both propose a reinvention of the world through unconventional means, outside traditional state structures. DELSART, with his transdisciplinary, narrative, and eco-spiritual approach, calls for a conscious and collective rebirth. FULLER, with his perspective as a poetic engineer of Earth, urges a systemic reinvention of global operations through precision and innovation. The former creates an immersive world where every citizen becomes an agent of sensitive, tangible, and symbolic change. The latter imagines a world in which well-designed systems free humans to focus on what truly matters: creativity and the intelligent survival of the species. 

3 – Comparative analysis between Paul Elvere DELSART and Pierre RABHI (1938–2021) 

Worldview and Core Intentions: Paul Elvere DELSART and Pierre RABHI share a critical perspective on the modern world: they both see the current civilizational trajectory as unsustainable for both humanity and the planet. They each seek to establish a new societal model based on simplicity, harmony with nature, social justice, and a deep transformation of human values. For Pierre RABHI, the answer to the global crisis lies in “happy sobriety”—a form of voluntary and ethical simplicity in harmony with all living beings. He advocates for an inner revolution and a return to the land as the foundation for a post-materialistic model. He emphasizes local rootedness, agroecology, voluntary simplicity, and spirituality. Paul Elvere DELSART, meanwhile, proposes a participatory global reconfiguration through the EL4DEV program, which combines natural geoengineering, information technologies, immersive fictions, and decentralized cooperation. His approach is more systemic, technological, and large-scale. He aims to transform not only individual practices but also collective structures through innovative projects such as Vegetal Calderas and the educational cities LE PAPILLON SOURCE. Methods and Tools for Transformation: Pierre RABHI relies on oral transmission, reflective writing, educational farms, and local exemplarity. His primary tool is agroecological practice—viewed as both a philosophical and agricultural act. He founded initiatives such as the Colibris movement, which encourages each person to “do their part.” Paul Elvere DELSART operates within a much more complex and technological framework: he proposes a societal model based on social economic interest groups, a global participatory information system (EL4DEV Big Smart Data), societal diplomacy, and narrative immersion where the line between fiction and reality is intentionally blurred. His action is structured across multiple layers (local, national, continental) in the spirit of a civilizational role-playing game. Relationship to Nature and Spirituality: For Pierre RABHI, nature is sacred. He adopts a radical eco-spiritual approach, closely aligned with rural traditions and a mystical connection to the Earth. He speaks of “Mother Earth” and promotes a direct, emotional, and respectful bond with life. His spirituality is intimate, quiet, stripped-down, often drawn from a syncretism of Sufi, Christian, and Indigenous wisdoms. In Paul Elvere DELSART’s work, spirituality is embedded within a systemic approach, infused with esotericism, symbolism, and reinvented mythology. It is embodied in both material and symbolic structures—such as the plant-based commanderies of the Green Empire of the East and the West—and in an augmented eco-spiritual transhumanist vision. His relationship with nature involves soft technology, which amplifies the biosphere’s regenerative capacities while staying in harmony with living cycles. Territorial Anchoring and Scale of Action: Pierre RABHI operates mainly on a local, human scale. He advocates for small farms, relocalization, and autonomous grassroots initiatives. He believes that transformation begins in the intimacy of simple acts, guided by a logic of community resilience. Paul Elvere DELSART initiates his projects at the local level but with a transnational ambition. Small municipalities serve as the foundation of a globally interconnected system, designed to be modeled, replicated, and expanded across the planet. The goal is not to retreat from the world but to structurally reshape it by integrating social, ecological, cultural, and technological dimensions. Language and Public Stance: RABHI uses simple, accessible, poetic language, filled with popular wisdom. He speaks of human humility before creation, of the importance of slowing down, and of reconnecting with what truly matters. DELSART employs a conceptual, multidimensional, and hybrid language that blends technical, philosophical, geopolitical, and narrative terms. He addresses a diverse audience but engages with high intellectual and symbolic density, making his work a kind of avant-garde mythology. Conclusion: Pierre RABHI and Paul Elvere DELSART represent two divergent yet complementary paths of resistance to the dominant model: one through voluntary withdrawal, the other through strategic reconstruction. One invites us to simplify, to return to a sober and inner life. The other encourages us to lucidly embrace complexity, to build new social structures through collective creation, technology, and transnational engagement. Both, however, remind us that world transformation begins with a shift in consciousness, and that nature, ethics, cooperation, and spirituality must be its cornerstones.