[Comrade Ogilvy]

We are humans, not computers.

That idea will go straight to hell.

[Mark]

I think the name 'technocracy' needs to be changed

[A_Technocrat]

We are humans, not computers.

That idea will go straight to hell.

If you're here to troll (which is what your post looks like)...get lost.

I think the name 'technocracy' needs to be changed

What's wrong with 'Technocracy'? If people are scared off by the 'techno' part then they most likely won't understand the concept anyways.

[Mark]

We are humans, not computers.

That idea will go straight to hell.

If you're here to troll (which is what your post looks like)...get lost.

I think the name 'technocracy' needs to be changed

What's wrong with 'Technocracy'? If people are scared off by the 'techno' part then they most likely won't understand the concept anyways.

Democracy: power to the people

"Technocracy" implies 'power to the technology', which implies rule by computers or algorithm.

Techno-distribution would be better.

[A_Technocrat]

Democracy: power to the people

"Technocracy" implies 'power to the technology', which implies rule by computers or algorithm.

Techno-distribution would be better.

Good point.

The first poster should of posted something like this instead of flamebait.

Anyways, there is nothing inherently wrong with rule by computers. People fear who is ruling the computers (if it applies).

Although, Technocracy's motto is "Control of Technology, not people".

Maybe looking at other labels could be worthwhile, but we have stuck with Technocracy for the past 70 years or so.

[Yoshisinn]

While I like the term Technocracy, I thought I would share a link that shows various meaning of the term from more of dictionary/encyclopedia view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

Maybe this would help the discussion on whether the term Technocracy is still appropriate in a modern context.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Ever seen 2001: A
Space Oddesey?!

[ecks]

Computers could never rule over humans, because all it is is a bunch of light switches going on and off. However many shortcuts r taken to control them(making easier programming languages), there still needs to be someone at the end of the day to control the switches. That's at least my take on it. Technocracy is a great name for me because it implies that technology is the main resource for advancement to a better society, which I agree with.

[Omnist Priest]

Am I the only one who thinks that free time becomes boring after awhile.

Will the suicide rate reach 50% in a technocracy? Working less, and more spending power does not equal happiness.

Technocracy is like living in a large hotel... permanently.

[ZenWilsonian]

Free time only becomes boring if you spend it watching TV.

Go to the pub. It'll be a lot better.

[DeaExMachina]

Some people are oblivious to or exceedingly uncomfortable with the predictability of human behavior. Humans haven't changed in at least 5000 years. That's why human history is so repetative. Human motivations haven't changed, only our toys have. This should make it possible to program a supercomputer with human history and have it calculate the best aproximate path that human rulers can take. The trick would be entering the data without too much bias. This would be the primary obstacle to overcome.

As for baseing my opinions on mediocre Hollywood movies , most of the "Computer Takes Over" movies I've seen involve computers with very human motivations, a very illogical scenario.

[Solidarity]

How would this ever materialize? Is seems to be more a utopian based idea than anything pracitcal. Perhaps in tiny steps, but thats it!

[Mr. Anderson]

http://www.technocracy.ca

Read the "Beginner's Guide." If you have any questions, check the FAQ. Once you feel like you have a decent understanding, go here for some misc. pamphlets.

http://www.technocracy.org

A lot of planning has gone in on how this would be established. It is all available with research. Check it.

[blitzfritz]

We are humans, not computers..

we're not. our successors maybe are... maybe the next step of evolution... would be the biggest step yet, of course.

[zend]

I read through the unofficial Technocracy FAQ, the system sounds nice and such, I think it is quite similiar to socialism, only that one aim to use the workers and another to invent and make use of new technologies, am i right?
Also I think that it is the breeeding ground got dictators and such, and it seems.. hard to achieve..
Oh, and technocracy sounds like Robots taking over the world...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Oh, and technocracy sounds like Robots taking over the world...

I would prefer robots to the politicians that run our countries at this point in time. At least the robots would be logical.

[zend]

Oh, and technocracy sounds like Robots taking over the world...

I would prefer robots to the politicians that run our countries at this point in time. At least the robots would be logical.

LoLz, it depends, if the Robots are programmed to be Corrupted and illogical

[zend]

Hi Zend,

This is really a muddled topic, actually. There are far too many ways to define both socialism and communism so I've found that it is usually best to teach people about Technocracy on its own, without comparing it to other systems.

The key point, as you may already know, is the emphasis on automation to release human beings from the work necessary to produce an abundance of goods and services that high-technology can produce. It is important to keep in mind that Technocracy can only function in a state of technological abundance (where the amount produced reduces the price of goods and services to below profitable amounts), and only Technocracy can function in such a state. Hence, if you do not have this state of abundance, you are free to use whatever scarcity-based (Price) System you like (capitalism, socialism, etc.). But if you do have such a state, then it becomes necessary to operate a Technocracy, or suffer catastrophic consequences.

So, you mean that once in a state where the technologies can be used to produce an abundance of goods/services, it inevitably must be technocrat? Or it'll suffer catastrophic consequences? If so, I think i understand the basics.

But not to sound all doom and gloom; as you've probably seen, the unleashing of the productive potential of modern industry (normally held back in order to produce an artificial scarcity) in an abundance scenario would result in a high standard of living for everyone, along with many other benefits. It is indeed simply a desirable system for virtually everybody.

[/quote]

But, isn't Technocracy just limited to North America? Like what is said in the Unofficial FAQ?? So, it wouldn't be "a desirable system for virtually everybody", as it would need a technogically advanced country to be technocrat...

However, the behaviour of human beings in an abundance environment is quite different from in the scarcity environments we have now. This would make very few people wanting to seek "power" in the manner you describe. Also, the very design of Technocracy makes it virtually impossible to be able to seize such power anyway. Without going into too much detail, the main reason for this is the lack of use of politics and money.

I think we can never be sure, unless it is really tested out.

As for being hard to set up, not really. The entire physical components sufficient to the operation of a basic Technate are already installed, and being operated by trained personnel. All that needs to be changed is the coordination of material, technological, and human resources. This can be accomplished with suitable organization within a year or two. The longest period of work will be in the optimization of the Technate, such as the building of Urbanates and the Continental Hydrology, for example. The biggest obstacle to this entire thing coming about, right now, is the ignorance of the population regarding this option. This is why Technocracy Inc. is primarily an educational organization, to remedy this. Once properly educated about it, people will then be sufficiently informed to be able to make the choice to go ahead with this plan or not, and given the alternatives, I seriously doubt that they will not.

I agree, the biggest obstacle is to get people to know about Technocracy, but still, i think the people will still be ignorant.
Like they say, if it is not broken, why fix it?