[nucklepunche]

One thing advocates of technocracy seem to imply is that technocracy is not political or a political ideology of any kind in the same way that communism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, and the like are. Is this true? Is technocracy inherently anti-political? I'm guessing most advocates of technocracy do not actively participate in democratic politics unless they have to since democracy breeds inefficiency.

[CounterChaos]

One thing advocates of technocracy seem to imply is that technocracy is not political or a political ideology of any kind in the same way that communism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, and the like are. Is this true? Is technocracy inherently anti-political? I'm guessing most advocates of technocracy do not actively participate in democratic politics unless they have to since democracy breeds inefficiency.

Well, we could tie it to socialism (like I would like to do) and then it would receive its just political relevance....I'm bias though.....

Alone though? Nope, not political at all in my opinion. Technocracy is nothing more than a tool............

Let's have some fun nucklepunche, you're young and I'm old (we should be able to cover all bases) - let's spend some time designing a Technopia for the future Technopians. What do you say?

[Daktoria]

Technocracy is highly political. Not only does it ignore the fact-value dichotomy on the demand side of the equation, but it also ignores how consumption motivates people to produce.

Technocracy might achieve efficiency, but it doesn't achieve purpose. The ideal technocratic society would be one of von neumann machines.

[CounterChaos]

^^^Those are economic factors not political factors Dak........

[nucklepunche]

Technocracy could be seen as anti-political since it is post-scarcity I guess. I mean those who advocate capitalism and those who advocate socialism seem to be battling along a paradigm of scarcity. One side says, "This my stuff I earned it you lazy bums don't deserve a red cent." The other side says, "No, it was earned unjustly, let's take your surplus and redistribute it." This is inherently a political issue since it involves a conflict that society itself must resolve. Technocracy proposes to resolve this conflict through technology and the abolition of the price system, removing this issue from politics. I was reading some technocratic literature and it proposes that 5% of crime is sociopathic and 95% is money related. Drugs and that sort of stuff would be treated as medical problems etc. Obvious laws would be so few that technocratic administration could deal with the sociopaths. In a sense technocracy proposes rising above politics and cannot be seen as a political ideology so much as a form of government. One can be an advocate of technocracy but being an advocate of technocracy is not the same as being liberal or conservative. Just like you can be an advocate of monarchy or democracy but you couldn't call them political ideologies per se. One could be a liberal or a conservative and advocate either one. Technocracy is not an ideology, it is a form of social structure but it sort of makes all the old ideologies obsolete in theory.

[CounterChaos]

Technocracy could be seen as anti-political since it is post-scarcity I guess. I mean those who advocate capitalism and those who advocate socialism seem to be battling along a paradigm of scarcity. One side says, "This my stuff I earned it you lazy bums don't deserve a red cent." The other side says, "No, it was earned unjustly, let's take your surplus and redistribute it."

That is not correct. We have built our entire system on a non-renewable resource. Look around you, everything you see has been touched by oil. Not only that, we utilize this non-renewable resource as 'income' rather than looking at it as 'natural capital' which it truly is. A non-renewable capital is something you conserve - we are not doing that - we are just raising the price in a laissez-faire attitude. You need stop thinking that technology will bail us out - it will not. Population is growing expeditiously and will overwhelm the energy needs very soon. We need to come up with a system that conserves our remaining natural capital in small pockets of industry for critical use.

Take the time and really study this website, you will see what I mean.

http://dieoff.org/

This is not a new idea either and the movers and shakers are very aware of this as well.

[nucklepunche]

I've studied this whole thing over the past couple days since you first brought it up in an earlier thread and I don't disagree with the premise about oil building our civilization. The trouble is that this website seems to suggest that no energy can ever truly be renewable. This is true with any natural form of energy. Sooner or later we would have a very large population and be unable to produce enough energy for it. However this ignores a few key points.

1. As relative wealth increases fertility rates go down. Without immigration the USA would be losing population. Many European nations are as is Japan. Developing nations have higher fertility rates whereas developed nations have lower. By 2050 our (global) population should stabilize at 9 billion. I don't think everybody is going to be fighting over food because I do not believe food needs to be scarce with technology. The only reason somebody in the USA couldn't get food is not because it is not there but because they don't have money, which is merely pieces of paper. Obesity is a bigger problem than starvation.

2. Yes we are going to run out of oil. It was one of the co-founders of technocracy, M. King Hubbert, who came up with peak oil theory in the first place! That being said there are some sources of energy which are indeed renewable in the real sense. Nuclear fission and cold fusion, which may very well come about in the future. Once we get there energy will no longer be scarce.

3. Peak oil must be confronted, I am totally 110% on board with you there. I tend to think that we have different focuses. You seem more focused on this. My main focus is automation replacing workers.

4. When I say post-scarcity what I mean is that we can have housing, health care, food, etc. for everybody. I never suggest it can all be based on oil. It would ludicrous to say this. It would be just as ludicrous to say that we can all build houses out of solid diamond. The issue is that once we get to a post-scarcity level it will no longer be reasonable to rely on a scarcity based economic model, the price system. Doing so would be more or less saying to a huge chunk of the populace, "We have all the resources to give you guys housing, health care, food, and a decent life in general but we just aren't going to do it just because." Maybe third world countries don't have the technology to develop their resources to this point and many areas simply will not have the resources to move to such a system now but the point is that on the North American continent we absolutely positively have these resources and the adequate technology at this very moment and indeed the survey that Howard Scott and others set out of concluded we had this capacity back in the 1920s but the price system was keeping us from it.

5. Those are my points of disagreement with that website. It does mention that democracy may be the path to the new society. It may very well be, but in the end a technocratic society would make all the traditional political ideologies obsolete.

[CounterChaos]

You seem more focused on this. My main focus is automation replacing workers.

This right here is our major difference. I do not believe it is wise for automation to replace workers, rather that technology be used to enhance the worker and technicians environment. I am not for large scale industry either - agrarian with very small pockets of critical need industry. Industry that supports satellite launches, military readiness, standardized housing, appliances, automobiles, trinkets etc. The energy cost saving in just standardizing would be enormous. I am for the small town cobbler over the Nike factory. I am for the small town artist, the small town barber, the small town meat and veggie market etc.

We have the technology to create a green paradise for all - a Technopia. We simple do not have the will. Do not hold your faith in unproven chaotic adventures such as superconductivity and fusion power. That is nothing but a social get-a-way for an intellectual few.

She once famously called NASA a sheltered workshop for people with autism and Asperger Syndrome.

http://www.yourlittleprofessor.com/benefits.html

Barbarian Philosophy 101

Lesson 1.

An intellect needs to feed; once it has mastered our natural world, all that is left to temper the intellect is chaos. Chaos has a beginning, but it does not have an end - the perfect realm for the insane.

[nucklepunche]

I think we find ourselves at a crossroads as a society. We have three choices.

1. Accept the march of technology and do nothing about the fact that many employees will become obsolete.

2. Preserve employment by restricting technology but forsaking future and spillover benefits of new technology.

3. Embrace technology but adapt a new economic system that recognizes that a work based society is no longer feasible. In other words technology may replace workers but this doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, but under capitalism it inevitably will be a bad thing.

[CounterChaos]

3. Embrace technology but adapt a new economic system that recognizes that a work based society is no longer feasible. In other words technology may replace workers but this doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, but under capitalism it inevitably will be a bad thing.

This would be my choice. There is no room for greed in any society in my opinion, especially when 'natural capital' is running out................

[zarus]

Technocracy would frown upon many features of political ideology, such as poorly defined terminology, emotionalism, and distortion of facts.

[Poelmo]

Is technocracy inherently anti-political?

No, if today things like gay rights, pot and climate change are part of politics then a technocracy basing its laws and values on science and reason (as is to be expected) would mean that technocracy does pick a side in politics as it is defined today. Any technocracy would reject arguments based on religion and would therefore not discriminate against gay people, it would also reject arguments based on tradition so it would handle drugs differently and of course it would not have any doubts about climate change.

[Poelmo]

Technocracy uses only science, which is objective. The two are neatly separated and Technocracy does not involve itself in the subjective lives of its citizens. It is therefore non-political.

The outcomes of which will definitely change society and notions of what is and what isn't permissible. I don't think it's useful to play word games here: not getting involved in the subjective lives of citizens has the same effect as social liberalism. If technocracy ever takes off we will see technocratic supporters vote with social liberals in legislative bodies around the world. There will also be definite politicking over for example questions of war and to what extend current energy generation should be ramped up at the cost of the environment or resource reserves that could benefit future generations, science will never answer those questions.