[Sapper]

I have always liked the idea of technocracy -- although my version would be far more totalitarian than those usually presented on this forum. However, I have some genuine, rather basic questions, of which I'm sure the more frequent visitors of this forum have answers to, about the technocratic economic system.

1. In "11 Reasons Why Technocracy Works", regarding economic stability (ex. five), the phrase, "Take out money, profit, debt, and interest..." was used. This sounds a little like Communist Russia, where because the output got higher priority than profit, there was no incentive to minimalize the costs. Even if you did do away with paper money, money is really just a symbol of the work and material that went into a product, and so there would still be no incentive to minimize "costs".

2. The "energy card" mentioned in the above article was a particurlarly good idea; I've heard of things like it, but never quite that before! I also liked the "Production would be geared to match Consumption" concept.

3. The idea about rentable trucks/garages seems a little impractical.

4. I think, if we're talking on a global scale, many underdeveloped countries will need to have their people work more than four hours a day (at least ten, more likely 12 or 14) to catch up with the western world within a few decades.

Thanks!

[Mr. Anderson]

Alright, I'll try my best to answer these questions, but I would wait for Kolzene's answer. I have just recently studied technocracy, he has been promoting it for years.

1. This is definitely a question that would be better for Kolzene. He has seriously studied technocracy, and will definitely give a more satisfactory answer. With that said, here is my take on it.

The government of a technate's goal will be to provide for the population of a technate. If there are enough resources that an inefficient process will still be able to provide enough for everyone, then is there even a problem? Would anything have to be made more efficient?

Of course if there were less resources and/or more demand and the government was unable to provide with inefficient processes, then they will be forced to switch to more efficient processes.

Of course, this is assuming that everyone is lazy. I'm sure there would be at least one person who would enjoy the challenge of trying to find a more efficient way to produce something. All it would take is one person coming up with one breakthrough. If there is a more efficient way, why ignore it?

2. That's nice.

3. It isn't impractical at all. The private automobile is one of the least efficient devices in use today. Compared to the amount that a single private automobile could be used, how much is it actually used? The idea here is to increase load factor.

What really helped me understand this concept was thinking about the cars being more like taxis. If you are in need of one, you can just call for it and use it for however long you need to. Then, when you are done, someone else can use it.

Of course due to the construction of the urbanates, vehicles will become less necessary and it will be easy to walk. Although if a vehicle has to be used, it will most likely be a combination of an elevator and a train.

Cars won't be used too much. Also, I don't see why there would be rentable garages.

4. Currently, technocracy is designed for the North American continent. If a global technate is to be established, then most likely technology and machines could easily be imported to these third-world-countries. If they have the same set-up, then, with machines and everything, plus additional help from others who are more developed, it stands to reason that slave labor is not necessary.

Of course situations like this would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Technocracy is a design for how a society would function, not a design for what a society should do.

[Sapper]

Thanks for answering my questions. Some of the answers seemed pretty obvious. *blushes*

Comparing this system to taxis makes them make more sense. And I do agree that cars will, and should, be replaced.

It appears the core of technocracy is efficiency -- a very worthy goal, indeed.

I would classify myself as a "totalitarian technocrat" because while many Americans would enjoy a four hour work day, would enjoy the extra (most likely fattening foods), etc. I consider that "play time" (as Vivisekt put it once). I prefer a more goal-orientated society, that moves as one toward grand goals. A society that does not stop at the four hour work day possibility to lounge around and get fat, but rather continues to strive for great things such as human unification (disputable, but let's not argue it in this thread) and space colonization. I believe that totalitarianism is the best way to do this -- at least for a few generations -- as few Americans could be compelled to make such sacrifices as necessary to obtain a "totalitarian technate".

Yes, I am all for efficiency. But rather what we do with that efficiency is what I'm considered about. The "11 Reasons..." article I cited above seemed to be concerned with comfort, while I (and fellow totalitarians/wholists) are more concerned with progress on a much grander scale.

[Sapper]

You technocrats have a good-sized amount of material available on the Internet, and a nice web sit! I read through the "Human Motivation in a Technate" article, and here are some of my thoughts on the article:

That certain things behave in a certain manner often due to the environment that they are in.

I agree; attitudes are forged by their environments. Humans are like lead! However, as the article says, this may be difficult. I feel it may initially require some force, something only totalitarianism can really provide. In the long-run, values will be changed.

The failure on the part of the USSR and western social programs to motivate people indeed did provide a lack of incentive through their guaranteed incomes for people to work. The reason for this is because for the most part, the work that they were either assigned or given a choice of was, frankly, unappealing.

"Z will happen/be produced when Y desires it out of necessity." However, what if Y does not desire Z, but Z would be eminently more beneficial to them than what Y desires now? Well, than Z (what is not desired, but extremely beneficial) will not occur. This is the very core of the problem.

While automation may eliminate many tedious jobs, we cannot have everyone becoming an artist, or everyone becoming this and that (even though it is unlikely to happen IRL). Eventually, we will have enough of these jobs. I envision a regimentized military-like Earth, with many people assigned to military duty (which will eventually ascend into something like atronaut/space-duty).

[Sapper]

There are more people today that understand that something is fundimentally wrong with the system than there has been since WWII, and they are looking for anwsers.

Perhaps the number of fringe groups (such as technocracy, libertarian party, and the totalitarian movement) have been growing, but they still constitute a very, very small fragment of America. Fewer and fewer people are voting these days (I believe I heard on the news it was something like 50 million eligable voters did not vote in 2000). Despite the existence of third parties, few of them even get elected -- let alone widely elected to federal positions -- to effect change. (EDIT: See this thread: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=26436)

What Technocracy needs to do is show these people that Technocracy embraces all these causes, and that we must become unified in our efforts for change.

The movement's been around for several decades. I never heard of technocracy the way you're speaking of it until I visited this forum.

IOW, as things worsen, people will be more inclined to consider a big change. The trick will be to make sure that our message gets heard amidst all the "noise" created by all the social-reformist and Hitler-wannabes that will try to take advantage of the situation.

As myself and Starman have proved in other threads -- several of them are still on the front page of the "Platonism & Dictatorship" forum -- totalitarianism/wholism is our future. There are several possible scenarios, each of them highly as likely as the next. In fact, you have brought up evidence in past technocracy threads to support our automation scenario!

The only problem with "Z" not being desired (because it will always be desirable) is with people being distracted by "X' "Q" and "W".

I think you misunderstood me, although the above quote is correct. Wholism gives the State the power to focus on "Z", and largely takes away the ability to be distracted by "X".

I'd like to know what you see as the benefit of such as social structure. How would it be good for society? How would it benefit the individual?

First of all, I don't believe that law-making, politics, etc. can ever really be destroyed, as technocracy wishes.

So, I believe that wholism is the ultimate government. A meritocratic system will ensure the most intelligent rise to the top -- at the apex of the pyramid would be something like a "Grand Council" composed of fifteen or so individuals from various backgrounds, all of who worked their way up to this point, advised by smaller, more technical councils, who make all of the decisions.

Wholism is preferable to democracy because of its ability to get important things done. If the voters under democracy cared more for important things than bubble gum, sex, cars, etc. and realized their cars were harming the environment, etc. then there would be no problem. However, a wholist government is necessary to do that for the individuals, and make us focus on "Z" as we said earlier.

The idea that the masses can be persuaded is very naive. Indira Gandhi lost her election when she tried to enforce a population control policy, while although such a policy is not quite effective in China, it is still amazing that a country can boast about such a policy. The people continue to buy gas guzzlers, and obescity is at appalling levels.

Although it may cause discomfort -- and even elimination -- for some individuals, several generations down the line, it will be beneficial for individuals to have a wholist government.

As Starman brilliantly put it, "What use advanced space technology when it can scarely be utilized in a society where the bulk of wealth is blown on fast cars, bubble gm and people in the last year or so of their lives?" Values must be changed, and I don't see the libertarian-minded technocracy capable of doing it. Wholism will be able to make this transition within four or five generations.

I think technocracy will eventually lead to total stagnation of society. People don't have to work, why not worry about their pleasures? When Louis 15th ascended to the throne, he no longer had to worry about people pressuring him into studying and discipline, he was king. He thus turned to his pleasures, leading to a horrible rule, and was carried on by an even worse ruler -- his son, Louis 16th.

[Mr. Anderson]

Technocracy's government actually is a non-elected meritocracy. They deal with technical issues that require special skills.

It is only things which require no special skills, like flag design and moral issues, that are decided by the democratic process.

[Sapper]

It is only things which require no special skills, like flag design and moral issues, that are decided by the democratic process.

And which things get more money. I believe I read something from the Technocracy.ca website that people would vote via a computer directly from their homes for things like how many dresses should be produced, etc. People could simply squandor all of the earth's resources on consumable things, rather than long-term investment, such as space exploration, which would yeild nearly unlimited resources. Abundances are not forever.

A highly informed, highly intelligent, elite group of people should decide things like moral issues and allocation of funds. I, of course, have no problem with specizlized engineers and whatnot running the engineering. As I said before, highly specialized councils will work below the Grand Council to advise.

Technocracy also demonstrates how meritocracy is far more benefical than democracy. Rather than lifting economic laws, highly specialized people try to limit the amount of eco-damage occurs. This is, of course, admirable from a wholistic point of view.

[Mr. Anderson]

And which things get more money. I believe I read something from the Technocracy.ca website that people would vote via a computer directly from their homes for things like how many dresses should be produced, etc.

People would "vote" based on what they consume and how much of it they consume. If people get lots of dresses, then production of that dress will increase to match the demand. That is how they vote, not through an arcane "What do you wnat us to produce?" way.

People could simply squandor all of the earth's resources on consumable things, rather than long-term investment, such as space exploration, which would yeild nearly unlimited resources. Abundances are not forever.

Abundances could be forever through advanced recycling technology. Matter nor energy is created or destroyed. Theoretically it would be possible to maintain an abundance forever by recycling energy and matter.

Of course that may not happen. Of course recycling will be carried out on the next level and we will use up less resources than before. Assuming we are not able to create a 100% efficient recycling system, then that it true that abundance will not last forever. But there are some safeguards.

First, the energy credit. As an abundance is eliminated, the amount of energy credits would be decreased. People would have limits, and would be unable to consume more than the society could provide for. The energy credit is dynamic. There is no difference in your idea. Both governments would care about longetivity.

Second, technocracy is not a static idea. The government of a technate could take whatever measures it would deem necessary to ensure there is an abundance, whether that be in the guise space colonization or developing more efficient recycling technologies. There is no course of action that the government of a technate would be compelled to take, except the best one. There is no difference here in the results of what you propose.

Longetivity is important. With a short-term profit motivation gone, why would people doom themselves? A technate would work to ensure its continued existence.

A highly informed, highly intelligent, elite group of people should decide things like moral issues and allocation of funds.

Allocation of funds requires special skills. This is why they would decide on issues like that. Of course there would be no money in a technate, and thus no funds to allocate. But that point is moot in this particular scenario. These highly informed and highly intelligent elite group: Why should they be able to decide moral issues? What qualifications do they have above everyone else?

If the general populace has the knowledge to make a valid decision, isn't it preferable to have them decide than an elite council?

I would also be worried about this elite group. As the old maxim goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is little harm in letting people decide what is moral and not moral as long as the rights of the minority are protected.

I, of course, have no problem with specizlized engineers and whatnot running the engineering. As I said before, highly specialized councils will work below the Grand Council to advise.

Why would they ADVISE the Grand Council? These people clearly know better than the Grand Council. Why not let the people with the skills decide, not the people in the Grand Council? A certain degree of coordination is required, sure. But this Grand Council does not necessarily need the technical skills to coordinate everything.

Why should they have absolute power when they do not have the skills to make all the decisions?

Technocracy also demonstrates how meritocracy is far more benefical than democracy. Rather than lifting economic laws, highly specialized people try to limit the amount of eco-damage occurs. This is, of course, admirable from a wholistic point of view.

The government set out by Technocracy, Inc. fulfills this purpose as well. With short-term profitability out of the picture, there is incentive to prevent ecological damage. The incentive? Continued existence of the human race.

[Sapper]

Hmm... this is all rather mind-blowing. Every time I write a response (and I have written about a dozen of them to each rebuttal), I keep remembering, "Oh wait, they don't use money."

Give me a few days, and I'll start a new thread.

Thanks, guys!

[Sapper]

(Walking to the bathroom always gives me good ideas... hmm...)

Do technocrats have any specific scenarios for how technocracy could come about?

Myself and other wholists have always theorized that after a massive militarization, resulting in the unification of the world and virtually perpetual peace and stability, a great era of prosperity, massive demilitarization, exploration, etc. would take place, much like the Pax Romana.

Perhaps one could say that in the end, wholism results in a technocratic-like world? Maybe I'm still not getting it?

[Mr. Anderson]

Basically, we realize that implementation depends on the specific situation, and thus it is impossible to come up with one sure-fire implementation. At the moment, Technocracy Inc. is trying to educate as many people as possible.