[Vivisekt]

Technocracy functions only in conditions of abundance, does it not? Correct me if I'm far off the mark, of course, Kolzene. If so, however, I'd like to know how (generally) does a technocratic system deal with, say, some kind of longstanding natural disaster or war - one that significantly saps abundance? One of the advantages of individualistic capitalist society is that it is compartmentalized, much like a honeycomb, and is as such more resistant to duress than a wide cell; does technocracy run into problems here?

Another question that I've got is regarding the nature of technocratic 'law'. I am familiar with the train-car example, but who decides what is technologically possible and what isn't? Surely social optimums beyond distribution and system operation exist, and surely they'd need to be addressed albeit a generally nonscientific issue. To use an exaggerated example, take the question of prohibiting rape. Were technology significantly advanced, a technicate could - say - equip people with personal shielding or something to simply make rape impossible. But in the absence of this kind of technology to solve the problem, how is the issue addressed? Further, how are creative institutions to be prohibited from designing and implementing technology that maliciously shunts people in some way or another? Meaning, how does a technicate act to prevent the train-maker from arbitrarily excluding some subset of people?

Finally, I'd like to know whether or not it is generally recognized that these are (or seem to be) questions of socio-legal philosophy - which would require some kind of extra-technological 'ideology' to go along with a technicate, would it not? If so, what would this ideology be (in general)?


edit: Also, I seem to have accidentally posted this in the wrong thread. Sorry about that.