[Tine Patschull]

Albert Einstein, winner of the Nobelprize for physics, once said that it isn't allowed to think everything that is possible. There are limits of legitimate thinking, e.g. the Atomic Bomb - that has been enabled through Einstein's research results. Einstein says, Natural Scientists shouldn't develop everything that is possible, but that they just serve Politics and carry a political responsibility that sets the limits of aloud thinking. His theory of E=mc2 enabled the Atomic Bomb - and he regreted! After Einstein natural Scientists can never rule, but have to serve good politics.

Hans Magnus Enzensberger, a German philosopher, said that after the event of the 'Titanic' engineers and their technics will have to loose against nature. The Titanic has been 'the biggest and best ship of the world, a ship of dreams, the best possible solution etc'. But it failed on his first trip, sank colliding with a natural rock out of ice. Enzensberger concluded: No matter what you think and develop and build, nature is stronger! And if you build against nature, nature will fight back - and destroy.

[Sungazer]

So...because one scientist felt guilty about allowing his masters to melt a few hundred thousand Japanese and menace the world, and a philosopher enjoyed his Schadenfreude about a ship sinking, that says what exactly about technocracy?

[Tine Patschull]

Technology simply isn't allowed to dominate, and engineers simply aren't allowed to dominate.

[Wolfman]

So, because two people said that no one person can know everything, Technocracy is what... doomed to failure?

[Khalq]

Technocracy is about the control of technology, not people, and your Einstein example is precisely about the abuse of technology in the aim of controlling people. We've been running into that possibility since we're been rubbing and striking flint stones together you know?

As for the Titanic, it wasn't the best ship of its time since other ships did not suffer the unfortunate fate of sinking.
One cause of the catastrophe was human error, and the errors surely weren't all made by scientists.
The good thing is that we now have new technologies (well well) that prevent many accidents from happening and our best minds will come up with more technological solutions to prevent further accidents.

Luddism is just as bad as blindly following scientists like they were god-like sect gurus and technologies like they were magical potions.

[Tine Patschull]

Technocracy is a bad reality!
It's good to be conscious about.
Technical experts who go into politics to lobby do not have a democratic education, e.g. medicine.
Politics modells, decision make modells on computer, the phrase 'Human Ressouces' are the result.
Or wisedoms like 'AIDS will solve the population growth'.
Generalists, generally educated people are needed to represent or rule.
That's my opinion. It's moral, stupid.

[Wolfman]

What the hell are you rambling about?

[Sungazer]

I'd like to oppose OP's argument, but it'd feel like picking on small kids.

Where'd you learn English?

[Tine Patschull]

Yeah, I like your country much better than mine. I don't find anyone to discuss with anymore in my region. Authoritarian fighters for their material progress.

[Sungazer]

Is it a bot? is it a troll?

Is it someone from an obscure country no-one ever heard of?

[Tine Patschull]

I've been too loud with this new thread, isn't it.
I don't know what a bot and a troll is. You explain ?

[Khalq]

Your original points - which are partly off-topic - have already been addressed. Your next posts are incomprehensible.
In other words, you weren't making much sense to start with and now you're not making any sense at all.

[U184]

Technology simply isn't allowed to dominate, and engineers simply aren't allowed to dominate.

Technology is a the ultimate weapon and a tool. Engineers and scientists are highly regarded and though they themselves do not dominate their dreams and realities matter more than most.

Einstein's regrets will fuel the path to the stars and teaches us many lessons, while Hans reminds of those lesson.

I think sometimes that people thank the stove, instead of the cook, and I find that to be sad. Technocracy is a state of mind and as such, holds dominance over just the individual. The power the OP talks about is seen in the words definition, yet it seems unlikely that such a reality will happen anytime soon.

Technocracy is a form of government where technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields. Engineers, scientists, health professionals, and those who have knowledge, expertise or skills would compose the governing body. In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.

Technical and leadership skills would be selected through bureaucratic processes on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than democratic election by those without such knowledge or skill deemed necessary. Some forms of technocracy are envisioned as a form of meritocracy, a system where the "most qualified" and those who decide the validity of qualifications are the same people. Other forms have been described as not being an oligarchic human group of controllers, but rather an administration by science without the influence of special interest groups.

However, technocracy is also an apt description of the current age of mankind. Engineers and Scientists effect the world in myriad and mired ways, both the above lessons should be remembered because the fire that creates, also destroys.

[Tine Patschull]

An Example: Water. The natural ressource 'Water'.

Not long ago, water management has been a women's discipline. It has been the women who cared and fought for it:
Walked up till 20 miles per day for to fetch it - from the next source to her tent.
Nowadays the mangement of 'water' is an engineering discipline:
Expensive pipelines, dangerous damns and complicated computer models saying where to dig for it.
We need lots of technical experts for a glas of drinking water.
Sometimes there's not enough for all or there's is too much. Sometimes it's too dirty or there will be social unrest because of it.

What happens for example in a city like L.A. when those problems accour?
Who will solve the drougth?
- will the technical water management experts fix it?
- or Adam Smith's invisible hand of market regulation?
- can Arni Schwarzenegger govern them?

QUESTION

[Sungazer]

Maybe the solution is to have women walk 20 miles to carry it back to the tent?

Modern water troubles aren't an effect of applied engineering, but of simple overpopulation.

[Tine Patschull]

Please excuse if I'm taking this topic too serious.

In the north there aren't too many people, - in the south there are....
But where is the water ? In the North !
What do German Engineers think ?
Trade the water to the South.

And it's the peoples' fault ?
No. It's nature's fault, a natural process.

[Tezelian_Imperialist]

Nevertheless a technocratic leader is well informed and educated compared to a typical democratic leader.