[Bosnjak]

When could Technocracy become technologically possible?

My bet is the Year 2030.

[MB.]

Modern technocracy became technologically feasible in the 1920s, but I would hazard to suggest that it may have been implementable even earlier (ever read; The Difference Engine, for example?)

It is a testament to the success of capitalist brainwashing that one would believe that technocracy is something that will only become possible in the distant future.

[Khalq]

Without a proper Energy Survey, it's hard to say. But technological development is way more advanced in most parts of the world than it was in the thirties of the past century.

I guess with the right reforms (that will never happen) or a revolution (that technocrats are staunchly opposed to), Technocracy *could* very well be implemented today in most of America and Eurasia.

[El Gilroy]

Ignoring, for now, the past: Right now, and globally.

All we lack is the right software, and an adequate mentality in most people (which is to say, the lack is *large*). But purely technologically, and if differences in standards of living were normalised across the globe, it's already possible.

[Zerogouki]

Technocracy will never be possible because it's as realistic as a perpetual motion machine

[MB.]

Technocracy is an organizational structure that supports a governing apparatus. Legislated public policy is designed to maximize human happiness as understood from a materialist perspective. Technocratic societies favor efficient- not rampant- material consumption through the use of energy accounting. Classical technocracy was created in the 1930s following the perceived demise of the west's classical economy & the success of the socialized economies in Russia (notably the NEP). Technocracy was theorized as a means to solve the problems inherent in unregulated capitalism and dictatorial materialism through energy accounting rather than scarcity economics based on dollars valued at gold or pounds sterling. At the present, the advanced economies are moving into a post-service and increasingly energy demanding transitional phase (possible singularity on the Kardashev scale) towards which technocracy may yet become the ideal, if it already has not.

Technocracy has many advantages. An energy accounting system would help curb global warming, desertification, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, ozone destruction and so on. Armies created by technates could be indefinitely invincible. A functioning technate would suffer less corruption from exploitation by lobbyists from megacorporations and cartels. Technates would have less difficulty supporting the Gerontocracy than a liberal democratic government.

[Zerogouki]

Like this?

[MB.]

I don't see your point.

[Khalq]

I might be wrong, but I suspect there is none. I guess it's another reiteration of the "perpetual motion machine" argument from above, whatever that was supposed to mean...
Some people just like to troll when they don't agree with something/someone.

[Zerogouki]

It's based more on the fact that no matter how much I read about Technocracy, I still fail to find any evidence that it's supposed to operate on anything other than pixie dust and wishful thinking.

[Tribbles]

With my personal definition of technocracy, technocracy has always been possible.

Medieval-style technocracy would just mean that the experts who rule would have different skills and know-hows.

This form of technocracy does involve trade and money though - the various market-place activities where items change hands. I have stilled not understood this thing with energy-based currency - it sounds unnecessary radical to me. Whats wrong with normal money?

[Zulfiqar]

Whats wrong with normal money?

As I have understood it, our current technology allows us to produce goods and services to an abundant degree, with the effect that they lose their monetary value. Money is thus simply unnecessary in a post-scarcity environment. A classic example used by Kolzene is one's refusal to 'buy' (a canister of) air because of its natural abundancy, unless this abundancy is not present(in a lift for example), when it suddenly has monetary value. Comparably, the reaction of the current price system has been to impose restrictions on the rate of production(artificial scarcity).

Medieval-style technocracy would just mean that the experts who rule would have different skills and know-hows. This form of technocracy does involve trade and money though

As far as I know, the abolishment of the price system is practiced by all technocrats, but the idea is not inherent to technocracy itself. The essence of technocracy is the resolving of problems and the determining of policies through logical thinking(objective) instead of ideological notions(subjective). This will leave any kind of decision-making apparatus in the hands of people whose area of expertise is relevant to the issues concerned. The failure of the price system is a problem encountered in the field of economics, and the solution offered by Technocracy was simply created through logical, technocratic means.

Personally, I am yet to see why technocracy is favorable to meritocracy. Both systems are essentially the same, but technocracy seems to put the sole emphasis on decision making by people associated with beta sciences(the 'medieval' technocracy hypothesised by you would thus be very restricted if not non-existant). I know that individuals specialised in beta-sciences are the first and main necessity for running a Technate, but they will not cover all fields of government. For instance, I cannot see boffins being in charge of things like cultural events.