Kolzene wrote:Walmart is perhaps a bad example. It is talked about throughout Technocracy literature the benefits of centralization, and in the realm of distribution centers in particular, there is the "Unnecessary Activities" section of both the Technocracy Study Course and the TTCD, where we learn that under Technocracy's proposals, we'd need about 30 times less workers in the distribution field, and about 80 times less actual centers (using figures from 1986). About your other examples you mentioned before, you are right in that such things are under-represented in Technocracy literature, but they are all just modern examples of the basic principles already laid out sufficiently, so it would just be icing on the cake really.
I'm not sure "icing on the cake" is a good way of phrasing it. For instance, in the artical you link how abundance is being undermined isn't being clearly outlined. While it leads the reader through certain trends, holding up a scarcity economy though such methods as planned and percieved obsolecence, diseconomies of scale, tragedy of the commons, and other inneffeciencies such as the lack of a high-speed rail system (for instance, a vac-train), etc. allow people to recieve a firm grip on how
we're kept in a scarcity economy; concrete examples such as that, or the expanse of the secondary and tertiary sectors to prop up employment, are some points that I know help me visualize how this happens. For instance, bringing up WalMart- we've seen how, over the course of my lifetime, technology has revolutionized distribution and the effects WalMart has on local communities/economies.
There's also the issue of facing preconcieved notions, as I'm sure you're aware of. Trying to convince austrians the Great Depression was caused by abundance rather than the Fed will be a hard sell, or for Keynesians and perhaps even for Fischer-Minsky types (pointing to deflation skyrocketing debt-to-GDP ratios and the Financial Instability Hypothesis). Certainly, those with preconcieved notions of what happened are less willing to listen fairly and intentively, and need more examples to ply to recognition of these points.
Kolzene wrote:New technology? What about old technology? You'd think that 16 hour work-weeks, with 2.5 months paid vacation a year, from ages 25-45, in any field you like (with full health and education benefits from birth to death) would be more than enough incentive to at least look at Technocracy (this is what was possible in the 1930s). Obviously we could do much better with today's technology, but again, it's icing on the cake. It's the system that needs to change, not the implementation of any specific technology/technologies.
I can't speak on 1930's technology, but another problem is that such an idea does seem "too good to be true". I remember seeing a TedTalk video recently on lying; most of us tend to tell very small lies, and a lot, for two reasons- one, being easier to not get caught, and two, we're naturally very skeptical. I don't think the idea that we could have such a good, easy life itself is offputting; however, how many times have you had to rehash basic arguments on this subforum?
Also, I think focusing on new technology really does help people get a firm grip on how the system works. For one, we're simply not in the 1930's; what's possible today is not merely icing on the cake, but rather makes what was possible then look like 70/30 by comparison. We've witnessed a man leap from space, have more processing power in our pocket than the Apollo Missions, and new gadgets that we only recently thought impossible. It's not just how much easier life could be, or wealthier, but how much further we could go as well.
Kolzene wrote:That sucks...
Yes. It's one of the many mistakes we hope to change with the Technocracy Katascopic Project.
Katascopic project? Sounds interesting, what's that?
Kolzene wrote:You can't put Technocracy into place piecemeal as you suggest. To try to do that would only cause the existing economy to falter more, and no one wants that, and thus wouldn't let it happen. Technocracy needs to be put in place all at once in order to minimize the problems that would occur otherwise. Yes, I realize this makes it harder to accept/promote, but there's no way around it I'm afraid. What's holding back the abundance is that fact that we are using a scarcity-based economy. If you try to create an abundance within one, well, we tried that in the 1920s and look what happened. So you have to get rid of the whole system first.
I dunno, there is single-payer healthcare in much of the world, and China's doing a damn good job of implementing new technologies. I understand there could be some associated problems with it ("WalMart" scenerios), but I doubt it'd turn people into luddites- the shockwaves of labor decompression (sic?) might be necessary to blast away the remants of a decayed system. To allow the corporate-political dynamic to continue unimpeded is conterproductive, in that we're so far behind what we could be and that we recognize the potential being destroyed by the sheer waste of our current system.