[Fitzy]

It seems to me that it might be easier to form a technate on the moon then on the earth. I meen, itd be mighty difficult to turn a whole continents worth of nation-states into a technate. Is there even a plan for how that will be acheived? Spreading education and knowledge? You face the same difficulties that the communist and anarchist movements face. Do you expect north america to turn communist or anarchist in the near future? I think a lunar technate is a good alternative. What do you technocrats think?

[Figlio di Moros]

Actually, the new world is luck in that it has very few nations(many states, but few true nations), North America being compse of (anglo-)Americans, Quebecois, and Mexicans(including all Latin and carribean states, most of which were part of the Mexican empire directly after independance from Spain). I suppose "first nationers" could be considered part of an independant, contigous nation, but who cares about indian independance, anyways?

South America, on the other hand, would be comprised of several latin nations, being Andeans, Sudres(Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Uraguay, and parts of southern Brazil), Brazil, and the Guyanas, although I'm not to familar with Latin America and Hose would be a better representation of Latin nations.

[Fitzy]

I wasnt thinking about cultural differences. It would be hard enough to get technocrats in power in one country. You would have to have them have power in all countries for it to work. And even then, the democratic process corrupts, just look at all the social democrats and communist parties like the CPUSA. And even if you could keep hold of your roots, there is bound to be great opposition, especially from capital, capitalism, and the capitalists; money is power, and almost all money is capital.

[Meslocusist]

Well, I think that in the end Mars is more technically feasible than earth, since it has carbon and water, whereas the Moon has neither in significant qualities. Mars is also easier for rockets to get to, although the travel time is longer, in all other respects Mars is easier. The Moon would require constant resupply from Earth, so isn't a feasible location for a Technate. I'll assume Mars for the following post.

Hmmm- I think it might be feasible. You would have to start small, of course. Perhaps a 50 person colony and rather a lot of excess machinery. They might be able to build a Martian space elevator, which would lower costs. Within 50 years, you could probably establish a technate if you have a rather large budget (Perhaps 5 billion a year) and low costs to earth orbit (Low costs meaning ~$100/kilogram to orbit. Currently they run at ~10,000/kilo, but there is some evidence that that could be reduced significantly). Of course, if you go for Mars, you do get the benefit of abolishing those very tenuous and very annoying social structures that exist on earth right from the start.

The thing about Mars is that, on a smaller scale, it will likely be a technate right from the start- and whether it stays that way depends totally on what the colonists decide.

[Figlio di Moros]

I wasnt thinking about cultural differences. It would be hard enough to get technocrats in power in one country. You would have to have them have power in all countries for it to work. And even then, the democratic process corrupts, just look at all the social democrats and communist parties like the CPUSA. And even if you could keep hold of your roots, there is bound to be great opposition, especially from capital, capitalism, and the capitalists; money is power, and almost all money is capital.

Any political change is difficult, and the greater the change the less plausible for it to be employed; however, pan-nationalist authoritians would be the most likely to be able to impliment technocracy. That still leaves many challenges, being that there are several different nations in the proposed "North Ameican technate", half of the area doesn't qualify under two of the three requirements for a technate, and I don't believe we're anywhere near a post-scarcity society.

In the long-term, though, I believe technocrats will provide us with an invaluable service in leading us to a post-scarcity society; many technocratic ideas improve efficiency and productivity, and while technocracy may not work right now, some ideas can. In the short term, a pan-American Empire would be more beneficial, IMO.

[Dr House]

Mexicans(including all Latin and carribean states, most of which were part of the Mexican empire directly after independance from Spain). I suppose "first nationers" could be considered part of an independant, contigous nation, but who cares about indian independance, anyways

The Caribbean is highly Africanized, and most certainly not part of the Mexican nation which is predominantly Mestizo. Central America could be said to be part of Mexico, certainly, except for Belize (which is black) and Panama (which is Colombian). The "First Nations" are conquered nations, and as such part of the host. They are nationals in their respective countries.

South America, on the other hand, would be comprised of several latin nations, being Andeans, Sudres(Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Uraguay, and parts of southern Brazil), Brazil, and the Guyanas, although I'm not to familar with Latin America and Hose would be a better representation of Latin nations.

Paraguay is a lot less white than Argentina, et al. and would not qualify as part of the Southern cone nation. My guess would be that Paraguay along with the Bolivian lowlands and some of Argentina (the hispanophone areas of the Gran Chaco region) would be its own nation. I don't think Chile is part of the Argentine nation (although Uruguay most certainly is), but it is similar enough that it could be annexed. As for the rest you are right on the money, although Colombia and Venezuela are each its own nation.

[Fitzy]

Any political change is difficult, and the greater the change the less plausible for it to be employed; however, pan-nationalist authoritians would be the most likely to be able to impliment technocracy. That still leaves many challenges, being that there are several different nations in the proposed "North Ameican technate", half of the area doesn't qualify under two of the three requirements for a technate, and I don't believe we're anywhere near a post-scarcity society.

In the long-term, though, I believe technocrats will provide us with an invaluable service in leading us to a post-scarcity society; many technocratic ideas improve efficiency and productivity, and while technocracy may not work right now, some ideas can. In the short term, a pan-American Empire would be more beneficial, IMO.

I thought it was capitalism that keeps us in a scarcity society, that it is incapable of abundance, and that technocracy, when implimented would continue development into a society of abundance.

Well, I think that in the end Mars is more technically feasible than earth

Mars is fine with me. Let the issue of which body to colonize be up for discussion at a later date. Anyone can choose which one to consider, or both if you like.

[Figlio di Moros]

I thought it was capitalism that keeps us in a scarcity society, that it is incapable of abundance, and that technocracy, when implimented would continue development into a society of abundance.

The technological advancements of the last two centuries and the productivity and capital with it are precisely because of capitalism; free association will be a necessary compenent in moving us towards a technocracy, as well as an important part of it once we get there.

[Figlio di Moros]

Looking at the amount of change as the only factor, yes, you are right. However Technocracy is different in that it is not only very desirable compared to other systems (if we can assume for the moment that it works), but also necessary. If we do not end up choosing it, the consequences will be very dire indeed. (I am of course only speaking of areas that can produce a technological abundance here; in areas that can't, Technocracy just isn't even possible. Technocracy is solely a tool for a post-scarcity society.)

yes, but that doesn't change the fact that mass support for the system isn't present and is quite difficult to achieve.

I suppose that an authoritarian regime would be slightly easier to make Technocracy happen in that they can just decide to do so, but there are two problems with that. One is that Technocracy is in essence, a volunteer-driven society. You can't really make it work in an authoritarian way. Second, and partly because of this, political power is disposed of in a Technate, so there would be no more authoritarian regime, or power base of any sort for these authoritarians to keep in power. This makes it very unlikely that they would ever give up this power, and instead prefer most likely a technologically advanced industrial-slave society. But this wouldn't gain the benefits of Technocracy. A Technate is about as free socially as it gets, without going to pure anarchism perhaps.

Authoritive doesn't annotate an autacracy; it annotates a katascopic society, or any political state with strong leadership and broad range of powers. We have several different theories on political structuring, but a few of us believe in a restricted-franchise republic; the implication of restricting the franchise to a minimum IQ of 115 or 120 is that the electorate would be compsed of those most likely to have a range of technical knowledge, and constructed in such a way as to minimized political bickerings. Since this electorate would be the ones most likely to understand technocracy and would be in charge of it's maintainance(as I've heard, anyways), this would plausibly be the best pre-technocratic society to implement it.

Also, a key factor was the establishment of pan-nationalist states; the North American Technate currently has 22 seperate states, not daring to count the number of island-states in the lesser antilles, and some of those states aren't even soveirgn within it(the danes, brits, french, and brazilians controlling som territory). However, within the same territory there are only 13-15 ethnic nations in the area, which could easily be reduced further to 5 by through "consolidation", and the four outside of US territory would be much easier to work with for the establishment of a technate.

[Figlio di Moros]

But combined we would be. But Mexico and those areas are really as essential to making Technocracy happen. Really we could probably get by with just the US and Canada. Having the other nations of the proposed Technate would benefit us though in terms of natural resources and perhaps defensibility.

I doubt it... you're discussing vast areas with no infrastructure, and the number of skilled technicians is almost soley concentrated in the US; not to mention, our own lack of proper infrastructure these days. I would argue that a generation or two of properly applied eugenics, we could have enough people w/ high enough IQ for it to be practical...

We're only not there because we continue to use a scarcity-based economic system that severely limits our ability to produce and more-so distribute abundance. But the physical capacity is there. It's been there since the 1930s! However if we keep up our wasteful resource depletion, we'll lose that vital first requirement, and then we won't be able to make Technocracy happen for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Sounds alarmist, but overall, I'm not convinced. Like I said, though, we ought to utilyze the components of technocracy and move towards it, regardless if it's applicable to today's society.

Remember that most of Technocracy's ideas came from ideas to "improve efficiency and productivity" already existing in society. The only difference is that Technocracy has applied them to the national/continental scale instead of only on a project/company scale. Thus the only thing we need to do to get Technocracy is to start applying those well-known ideas to the larger scale, the whole rather than just the parts.

I most certainly concur, sir.

Capitalism is hardly the end-all-be-all of scientific advance. The Soviet Union (and to a certain extent, Nazi Germany) saw far more technological development in its time than any capitalist nation did. This is because technology is best developed under a centralized, katascopic (top-down) way. The reason we don't use this type of system today is because it is a poor way of managing people, as you can tell by the horrible atrocities and lack of liberties in both those states. We prefer to let people do what they want (within reason), which makes them happier (called anascopic), but is a very poor and inefficient way of handling technology. So how about rather than doing it all one way or another, we instead let the people live anascopically (bottom up, decentralized, democratic/anarchic), while maintaining the technology katascopically? That way could gain the benefits of both. But how do we do that? That's exactly how Technocracy works! The best of both worlds. (If that doesn't make sense, you can get a more clear explanation of this in this article.)

While it's true that the Soviet Union saw greater improvement, that had to do with the fact it was over a century behind the west; playing catch-up distorts the statistics. While they did have a good economy, they're an anomaly over the course of the last couple hundred years; the best economies today are directed-dapitalist nations, such as the east-asian tigers; it's only common sense, that providing an over-view and ensuring the highest rates of effienciecy while allowing for free association and personal innovation would provide the greatest economical advantages.

Besides, who are the best producers of technological innovation in any "capitalist" nation? Why, big, centralized companies, of course! Now just imagine how much better this would be if a) all those companies were working together towards common goals instead of against each other in wasteful competition, and b) that common goal was the betterment of humanity rather than profit? It would be incredible!

Only in a few fields; the biggest driver in technological innovation today are the multitude of small, decentralized companies in Silicon valley. The driving force in Microsoft's success, for instance, has been input from smaller software developers it outsources to, and it's been proposed that the big 3 would gain a tactical advantage over Japanese manufacturers if they followed a similar business-plan.