I like the first definition of cult: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. Scientific or religious, Technocracy is a belief system. Hence the special name (Technical Alliance), a special website, a special message. Your belief system isn't necessarily 'unhealthy,' but at the end of the day, it's a dogmatic set of beliefs.
You seem to know next to nothing about Technocracy. Technocracy does not worship technology nor anything in particular. Furthermore it does not believe in anything either. It is a tool, it is something to be applied in only certain instances. In this case, Technocracy is a tool to be used when a society achieves post-scarcity. I have stated this in my previous post and I have explained why Technocracy isn't a belief system within my points as well yet you have blatantly ignored them.
If Technocracy is a belief system simply because it has its own name, website, and message then every scientific theory made in the 21st century is apparently a belief system regardless of whether it expresses any beliefs in the first place.
[quote]Personally, I think all human societies must be technocratic in nature. You can make a value judgment, and get a group of like-minded individuals to embrace those values, but Technocracy as a concept looks like any other 'cracy' or 'ism' to the average person. Ultimately, If technology is an extension of human biology, we'll sink or swim together. Economics is a technological system, put in place to organize or enhance biological communication. We need a better way of communicating, and forming a group with a 'ism' or 'cracy' in its name will inspire division instead of unification. People need to understand how interconnected everything is, so they can understand what is at stake (hint- our biological survival). [\quote]
You are right about many things. You are right that Technocracy will never change society the way its trying to change society now. Technocracy as it is will remain a fringe movement, unknown to most or will become political if it gets big enough, which may skew Technocracy to fit the poor association who grew popular enough's interests.
It is my opinion that Technocracy will, to the shock and disgust of many Technocrats, come naturally. Technocracy is hard to comprehend even to many of its adherents and it will become even harder to implement in the current political climate.
In order for Technocracy to succeed it the conditions must be put into place to make it viable not just viable for a majority of the population but the most obvious path of social development.
This, as you have said, must be through careful incentives which can push society along that path. Every small detail, every action, every event no matter how insignificant can push society into some radical changes in the future.
The issue of course, is that such things are both impossible to plan and organize which makes any attempt at artificially producing Technocracy to be a moot point.
Bankers and merchants arose through very specific socioeconomic circumstances that were in turn built up by series of events and random occurances that created the conditions which allowed bankers and merchants to survive.