[AFAIK]

Thanks for those posts w-i-p.
Perhaps an internet forum isn't the best place to find Luddite or Amish opinions....

To be clear I am not opposed to technological developments as I consider it to be amoral.
The Chinese used dynamite in fireworks for centuries before transferring the technology to military applications.

My concern is the system of organising society.
Is technocracy the best form of governance?
What are it's weaknesses and shortcomings?

Eran- The free market corrections required to correct the imbalance of supply and demand are often extremely painful. The technocratic solution is very appealing.

[Eran]

Eran- The free market corrections required to correct the imbalance of supply and demand are often extremely painful. The technocratic solution is very appealing.

Not for any good reason. If society wishes to aid those harmed by changes in economic and technological conditions, it may do so without the need for government coercion.

The technocratic is indeed appealing, hence its danger. It tries to create an illusion of a disinterested, professional management of affairs of state. However, that is just that - an illusion.

Technocrats are as subject to personal bias, self-glorification and pursuit of self-interest as are politicians.

Most political disputes centre on policy areas in which there are no experts, or on which so-called experts are split.

[work-in-progress]

The technocratic is indeed appealing, hence its danger. It tries to create an illusion of a disinterested, professional management of affairs of state. However, that is just that - an illusion.

Technocrats are as subject to personal bias, self-glorification and pursuit of self-interest as are politicians.

Gotta agree here!
So far I've focused on the unfounded expectations of technological progress that drive technocracy; but the basic philosophy - that a panel of experts...scientists, engineers, technocrats, should be running government and all public institutions on scientific principles, is flawed from the outset. There is an assumption that the technocrats will be completely logical and rational in their decision-making, and not be swayed by emotions or character flaws. If I recall correctly, Plato was the first to propse a kind of technocracy when he wrote The Republic eons ago....but the Republic was not a techno-optimist utopia, since it was supposed to be set up in an area where the city could be self-sufficient, yet have little of value for trade. Plato seen the major commercial cities of Greece - like Athens, as being irredeemably corrupt because of their dependance on trade and commerce. But the theme of being ruled by experts who use their brilliant, superior minds to create the perfect society, sounds similar to technocracy.

[work-in-progress]

Thanks for those posts w-i-p.
Perhaps an internet forum isn't the best place to find Luddite or Amish opinions....

That's for sure! There are sympathetic treatments of their beliefs and culture online, but they are still written from the outsider's perspective. We have large Mennonite communities in Southern Ontario, and an issue that is not given much cover in the news is that rapid urbanization, rising land taxes and property values are making it increasingly difficult for them to live by the old ways. Many have moved to more remote locations, while others are trying to follow the traditions while switching from farming to making and selling crafts and handmade wood furniture.

To be clear I am not opposed to technological developments as I consider it to be amoral.
The Chinese used dynamite in fireworks for centuries before transferring the technology to military applications.

That sounds similar to an observation about Ancient Greece in p.54 of the previously mentioned book -- Techno-Fix. 40 years ago, when I was in high school...taking mostly shop classes, I chose Ancient History as an elective subject. I recall the teacher mentioning the mystery to historians as to why the Ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians developed most of the scientific knowledge (including the steam engine) that would later be applied at the start of the Industrial Revolution, yet never began that revolution during their time. My teacher gave us the very plausible theory of the expert consensus - that the Greeks had so many slaves, especially in the trading centers like Athens, that there was little economic need to industrialize. But only recently, when I picked up Techno-Fix, did I become aware that there was more to the story:

What is particularly interesting is that the Greeks, despite their great interest in advancing scientific knowledge, did not use science to develop useful technologies, as was done following the Enlightenment in Europe, because this would have clashed with their worldview of universal harmony and balance. As Jacques Ellul writes:

In their golden age of science, the Greeks could have deduced the technical consequences of their scientific activity. But they did not.... The Greeks were suspicious of technical activity because it represented an aspect of brute force and implied a want of moderation.... Here we find the supreme Greek virtue, self control. The rejection of technique was a deliberate, positive activitiy involving self-mastery, recognition of destiny, and the application of a given conception of life..... In Greece, a conscious effort was made to economize on means and to reduce the sphere of influence of technique. No one sought to apply scientific thought technically, because scientific thought corresponded to a conception of life, to wisdom. The great preoccupation of the Greeks was balance, harmony, and moderation, hence they fiercely resisted the unrestrained force inherent in technique, and rejected it because of it potentialities. 171

So, the difference between Ancient Greece and the scientists and philosophers at the start of the Enlightenment had little to do with slavery or their ability to apply knowledge in creating technologies, and using those technologies widely....instead it had more to do with the fact that the Greeks and just about every pre-enlightenment society had a natural aversion to change...at least to changing without trying to think through the consequences of making the changes.

The biggest downside of uncontrolled use of technology is that technological solutions detach the observer from the consequences of their actions. So today, we have all sorts of technologies exploiting stored carbon in an almost completely uncontrolled manner, and most of the changes that will result from dumping sequestered carbon into the atmosphere will be felt by future generations after we're gone. People who aren't even born yet provide more detachment from the consequences of our actions than smokestacks polluting the air thousands of miles away from us.

Other examples of how technology allows people to do great evil when they do not have to see its consequences would be:
Third world sweatshop labour, such as the textile mills in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka...where western consumers feel no qualms about buying a $10.00 shirt at Walmart, because they do not see the misery of thousands of women working 14 hour days under abusive conditions worse than the worst sweatshops of England at the start of the Industrial Revolution....out of sight....out of mind to the average consumer!

Another good example is that most westerners...and a growing number of people in developing nations eat high (too high) quantities of meat and dairy products. These would be too expensive if produced by the old farming methods previous to WWII, but thanks to modern mechanized factory farming - where thousands of animals are born and live out brief, miserable lives in ghastly conditions, once again consumers feel nothing about the steaks, ham, milk products, chicken etc. that they buy at the local supermarket...except to bitch about the prices going up. If the consumer had to watch how their animal products were produced (just a thought -- let's see if moralizing Republicans insisting that women seeking abortions view their sonograms want to apply the same method to consumers of factory farmed products), that might motivate a lot of people to make some changes to their diets....especially those who have already been advised by their doctors to cut their meat consumption for health reasons.

And then we have warfare! Remote weapons...starting with the first muskets, allowed soldiers to kill remotely...although in the early days, a soldier would only be able to get off one shot unless there was a significant lull in the battle...so that bayonet had to be put to use as the battle raged on. Once we get to tanks, heavy artillery, airplanes....war allows greater acts of evil to be committed because of the detachment provided. I'm reminded on this of a former U.S. Senator - Bob Carey, who did several tours in Vietnam and was a strong critic of pro-war policy, that he sensed a difference among Nam veterans dividing the Grunts who had to do the dirty work, and the flyboys who did the bombing runs. Most of the warhawk Vietnam veterans have tended to be the flyboys like John McCain - who has never seen a weapon or a war that he didn't advocate for. The difference in perspective of having to fight on the ground and from 10,000 feet above, likely plays a big part in their different attitudes after the War. And then we get to drones! The ultimate in remote warfare! Wait until drones can be completely computer-controlled and remotely guided, and see what future warfare unleashes.

[Serzat]

The technocratic is indeed appealing, hence its danger. It tries to create an illusion of a disinterested, professional management of affairs of state. However, that is just that - an illusion.

The appeal of the 'technocratic solution' to the energy problem posed earlier on is that unlike relying on market forces to compel society to adjust its source of energy, technocrats actually do it.

Your projection of the market restoring supply and demand following the depletion of a resource through inducing investment in a new resource is abstract and divorced from the physical reality on the ground, whilst technocrats would directly concern themselves with the raw infrastructural changes needing to be made. Herein lies its comparative appeal - all superfluousness and delays are engineered out of the system.

Technocrats are as subject to personal bias, self-glorification and pursuit of self-interest as are politicians.

One of the main features of Technocracy is its institution of a functional governance whereby 'state' control would be restricted to the minimum required in the operation of a technological complex. The kind of conduct you believe technocrats to be as susceptible to as politicians are is precluded by that very definition and would imply at governmental powers in excess of the functional, and therefore in violation with the program Technocracy proposes.

Such anti-social behaviour as 'pursuit of self-interest', 'self-glorification' and 'personal bias' are specific to an environment favoring, or even entailing the control of humans(politics) and allowing for some kind of (material) gain. Since the Technate as an institution is concerned with the control of technology rather than humans, and goods and services would be readily available in abundance to any citizen as much as members of the Technate, it is simply impossible for such defects to potentially manifest in the system.

[KlassWar]

Technocracy has a main, insurmountable problem: Not every political decision is a technical/economic one. Policy decisions wrt social issues are inherently ideological.

[Serzat]

Technocracy has a main, insurmountable problem: Not every political decision is a technical/economic one. Policy decisions wrt social issues are inherently ideological.

Firstly, technical decisions preclude the involvement of politics. Opinion is irrelevant to solving an engineering problem, and this holds true whether there be a Technocracy or not.

Secondly, the very enabling condition of non-political management over resources, production and allocation is the ability to provide an abundance in goods and services. Now, what economics addresses is how to make optimal use ('economize') of a scarcity in these goods and services, leading to subjective assumptions regarding such optimization and opinion on how wealth should be divided amongst people - enter politics. In the absence of scarcity, there is no economization and therefore no need for economic decisions. In the strictest sense, the production and distribution of an abundance of goods and services does not constitute an economic system.

As for your last point, that is a correct observation. Hence, Technocracy proposes that society itself is to resolve issues to which there may not be an objective solution. Exactly what institutional mechanism will be used to achieve that is a matter of crossing that bridge when we come to it, but under no circumstances would the technocratic administration exercise control over areas that are outside of its function, which is purely to produce and provide goods and services. There would be no reason nor the empowerment for them to do so in the first place.

[Eran]

The appeal of the 'technocratic solution' to the energy problem posed earlier on is that unlike relying on market forces to compel society to adjust its source of energy, technocrats actually do it.

Did any technocrats actually solve any energy problem without my noticing?

Or do you, by "actually do it" mean institute a range of policies without regard to their popularity, effectiveness, efficiency or utility? Like banning incandescent lights or mandating energy consumption disclosure on microwaves?

Market forces actually do work. In the 1970s, for example, Americans have substantially reduced the size (and petrol consumption) of the cars they drove in response to rising petrol prices.

Your projection of the market restoring supply and demand following the depletion of a resource through inducing investment in a new resource is abstract and divorced from the physical reality on the ground, whilst technocrats would directly concern themselves with the raw infrastructural changes needing to be made. Herein lies its comparative appeal - all superfluousness and delays are engineered out of the system.

Physical reality on the ground is precisely consonant with my projection. Supply and demand are in fact balanced out in commodity markets every single day. When prices go up, more resources are devoted to research and development. In fact, use of fracking is an excellent example of the result of such investments.

What did technocrats give us? Ethanol mandates? Ugly and expensive wind farms? Bike lanes?

One of the main features of Technocracy is its institution of a functional governance whereby 'state' control would be restricted to the minimum required in the operation of a technological complex. The kind of conduct you believe technocrats to be as susceptible to as politicians are is precluded by that very definition and would imply at governmental powers in excess of the functional, and therefore in violation with the program Technocracy proposes.

Who determines what is minimum required? Given the huge success of private enterprises in initiating, constructing and operating vast technological complexes (such as the global food production and distribution system), one can plausibly argue that the "minimum required" government presence is exactly zero.

Such anti-social behaviour as 'pursuit of self-interest', 'self-glorification' and 'personal bias' are specific to an environment favoring, or even entailing the control of humans(politics) and allowing for some kind of (material) gain. Since the Technate as an institution is concerned with the control of technology rather than humans, and goods and services would be readily available in abundance to any citizen as much as members of the Technate, it is simply impossible for such defects to potentially manifest in the system.

Technology is nothing without humans. Goods and services do not just produce themselves. Their production always requires:
1. The initiative, judgement and labour of humans, and
2. The use of scarce resources with alternative uses, i.e. prioritization of the use of resources.

Those two necessarily require control over humans, not just technology.

[TechnocracyTNAT]

"It is a scientific design, not a philosophy, so one cannot argue against it. One can argue against a philosophy, such as communism or fascism, but one just cannot argue against science. The only offensive action to be taken against Technocracy is to call its leaders names. But that is not so hot either, because most Technocrats have not achieved outstanding success under the chiseling practices of the Price System, and so their names are not well enough known. It might do some good, however, if there was some agreement as to what names to call them. But, when some call them fascists and others call them communists, it gets to be ridiculous; obviously, they cannot be two opposite things at the same time.

We merely point this out to show what a tough bunch they are to deal with. Furthermore, they have no financial investments or hopes under the Price System, so we cannot bring economic pressure to bear on them. The only thing that can be done against Technocracy is to keep silent about it. It is, therefore, verboten for any newspaper. magazine, or radio to mention Technocracy. Only twice has this ban been lifted, as I mentioned, in an effort to smash Technocracy: but both time; Technocracy gained more from it than it lost."

https://archive.org/details/TheTechnocrat-August1943

[mikema63]

Did any technocrats actually solve any energy problem without my noticing?

I didn't realize we had instituted a technocracy to even make the attempt.

[TechnocracyTNAT]

"It is a scientific design, not a philosophy, so one cannot argue against it. One can argue against a philosophy, such as communism or fascism, but one just cannot argue against science. The only offensive action to be taken against Technocracy is to call its leaders names. But that is not so hot either, because most Technocrats have not achieved outstanding success under the chiseling practices of the Price System, and so their names are not well enough known. It might do some good, however, if there was some agreement as to what names to call them. But, when some call them fascists and others call them communists, it gets to be ridiculous; obviously, they cannot be two opposite things at the same time.

We merely point this out to show what a tough bunch they are to deal with. Furthermore, they have no financial investments or hopes under the Price System, so we cannot bring economic pressure to bear on them. The only thing that can be done against Technocracy is to keep silent about it. It is, therefore, verboten for any newspaper. magazine, or radio to mention Technocracy. Only twice has this ban been lifted, as I mentioned, in an effort to smash Technocracy: but both time; Technocracy gained more from it than it lost."

https://archive.org/details/TheTechnocrat-August1943