[Lux]

I think that the problems with technocracy are two-fold. Firstly, we lack empirical evidence of some factors, for example human behavior under a technate, and for the second, we have always lacked a transitionary plan.

NET is investigating the first factor, and has a theory about how to progress to the stage of a technate during a slow, gradual process.

Therefore, I think the technocratic movement as a whole should discuss these issues, since NET cannoyt undertake such efforts on it's own in it's present stage.

[Photonmaton]

I'm personally pretty enthused with the proto-technate concept as a reasonably practical way to get the ball rolling.

I don't think human behavior will be incredibly anatagonistic to a technocratic society, especially with almost all lower crime rates linked with more basic material needs met. The most important factor will be whether people will choose to use their free-time and freedom from material constraints to pursue self-actualization or become lazy and overtly decadent.

As far as the transitonary stage goes it will definitely depend on where the technate is established in regards to natural resources, population, infastructure etc. There will need to be an emphasis on consumer goods during the transition to boost morale and show the real hard-won results of a technocracy and the superiority of it over the price-system. But this of course must be balanced with a large emphasis on heavy industry to produce the vast industrial infastructure needed to produce the urbanates and gain access to vast quanitites of natural resources deemed 'too expensive' for extraction in the current price-system.

My big worry for the technate is once it is established the tech pace of the society will expand much more greatly than the industrial base's ability to keep up with it, thus producing vast quanities of largely obsolete 'junk'.

[Lux]

The technate won't produce what people don't want to have.

[Iceberg Slim]

Who really needs another set of masters that claim to "have all the answers"?

There's a reason why technocracy fell through the cracks the first time: it's simply a delusion of grandeur for a bunch of nerds who got picked on all the time.

It's a quaint little fantasy that places them in the role of master and those big bad Alpha Beta Jocks into the role of servant.

Win the contest, win the girl, win the Greek Council and win your dignity back - Thanks to U.N. Jefferson of course.

No thanks Poindexter, give us something that actually means more to the masses then the 1984 sleeper hit "Revenge of the Nerds".

[Khalq]

Who really needs another set of masters that claim to "have all the answers"?

1. Technocrats never pretended to "have all the answers". But they do have one valid answer to the price system problem.
2. They never intended to become "another set of masters". Just read about technocracy's proposals and technocrats' stance on "power" and you'll understand one of the main outcomes of applied technocracy is the disappearance of any "set of masters" as we know it today.
3. Those who will have anything to do with planning the production and distribution processes will not necessarily be people from "Technocracy Inc." but probably any competent person in any field of activity.
4. If, by technocracy, you mean some bureaucrats operating from within our current type of governments, holding some paper-work sinecure jobs, then you should read a little more about it before posting any further.

There's a reason why technocracy fell through the cracks the first time

What fall? What first time?

[Iceberg Slim]

1. Technocrats never pretended to "have all the answers". But they do have one valid answer to the price system proble

I would hardly call any off their goofy theories as "valid".

2. They never intended to become "another set of masters". Just read about technocracy's proposals and technocrats' stance on "power" and you'll understand one of the main outcomes of applied technocracy is the disappearance of any "set of masters" as we know it today.

Actually that's not true.

When Bill Smyth started the movement he envisioned a "government" made up of scientists and engineers...

In other words new masters...this time ones that have probably never kissed a girl but can quite easily tell you how many hit points an Orc has.

3. Those who will have anything to do with planning the production and distribution processes will not necessarily be people from "Technocracy Inc." but probably any competent person in any field of activity.

Who are being told what to do by this "Technocracy Inc." (geek squad) right?

Between sessions of D&D played out in one of their mother's basements of course.

. If, by technocracy, you mean some bureaucrats operating from within our current type of governments, holding some paper-work sinecure jobs, then you should read a little more about it before posting any further.

I read about this nonsense in grad school back in the early 1990s...just for a good laugh!

What fall? What first time?

Technocracy was "all the rage" with the nerds for about ten years or so starting in the early 1920s.

After that it pretty much fell into obscurity to anyone but the most loyal of nerds.

[Lux]

Who is Bill Smyth?

As far as I'll know, the founder of the Technocratic Movement was Howard Scott. You are a bit trollish, ain't you?

[Lux]

This is probably pointless, but for the interested reader, I could state that all genuine technocratic movements have been based upon "rule over machines" contrary to "government over humans". A technocrat is not an aspergian acne-nerd sitting in a basement, but anyone who is an expert in their field and thus equitable for administration.

Technocracy, constitutionally, means that the experts and engineers, from nurses to physicists, are given full influence over administration of their area, with the exception of production itself. They could decide how things should be produced, but not what should be produced.

That is the responsibility of the people itself through Energy Accounting.

[Iceberg Slim]

who is Bill Smyth

William Smyth is the originator of Technocracy.

As far as I'll know, the founder of the Technocratic Movement was Howard Scott.

That poindexter was the founder of the "movement"; just not the "idea".

You are a bit trollish, ain't you?

Why?

Because I disagree with this crap?

Try a tactic that's not such a cliché as "you don't agree with me so I will call you a troll" - it's so boring.

This is probably pointless, but for the interested reader, I could state that all genuine technocratic movements have been based upon "rule over machines" contrary to "government over humans". .

You're right it is indeed pointless - and deliberately misleading.

Technocrats have always been very forthright about who they think will be "calling the shots": them.

A technocrat is not an aspergian acne-nerd sitting in a basement, but anyone who is an expert in their field and thus equitable for administration

So what happens if you're an acne faced nerd and an "expert in your field".

Wormser was only 15 when he started at Adams college!

They could decide how things should be produced

No thanks.

The last thing we need are more bosses.

Especially ones that don't have the good sense to buy pants with legs that make it past the calf.

[Lux]

You are not trollish because you are misleading, but because you are insulting, refuse to cite sources, and generally trollish.

Here is the wiki entry on the movement. As far as I'll see, Smyth just coined the phrase but never was any kind of a leader or an intellectual head-figure.

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

The idea which for example modern Tech.Inc and NET is referring to is mostly akin to Energy Accounting.

[Iceberg Slim]

You are not trollish because you are misleading, but because you are insulting, refuse to cite sources, and generally trollish.

You're confused.

Never have I "mislead" anyone.

Never have I "refused to cite sources".

Therefore I suspect my original assertion that you're calling me a "troll" just because I disagree with this teeny-bopper nonsense was entirely correct.

Here is the wiki entry on the movement. As far as I'll see, Smyth just coined the phrase but never was any kind of a leader or an intellectual head-figure.

Which part of my statement:

That poindexter was the founder of the "movement"; just not the "idea".

didn't you understand?

Thanks for the link to Wikipedia entry for Bill Smyth but I don't really need it.

I already know that he's the originator of Technocracy.

In any case, I wouldn't call any of the other nerds involved with this crapola as being "leaders" or "head figures" of anything- aside from Star Trek fan clubs of course.

[jdlech]

A technocrat is not an aspergian acne-nerd sitting in a basement, but anyone who is an expert in their field and thus equitable for administration

Do we really need to be tossing around such juvenile insults?

In other words new masters...this time ones that have probably never kissed a girl but can quite easily tell you how many hit points an Orc has.

Is this why you have such contempt for technically minded people? This statement makes you look positively luddite. Such exaggerations are not conducive to mature conversation.

I don't understand the problem, Iceberg Slim. The continental design does specify a different "set of masters" and never claimed to get rid of leadership. In fact, it supports what is known as, in deliberately non technical terms for the laymans understanding, "the pecking order".

But you already live in a pecking order and already have a "set of masters". I take it you have not heard the old adage that the geeks you picked on in school tend to become your boss later on? So why are you so concerned over a simple change in faces from politicians (who have no meritorious prequalifications beyond popularity) to engineers and scientists? Even this is a misnomer as not everyone 'in charge' need be engineers or scientists? They need only be competent managers. Why are you so enamored with the current economic-political system? Are you at all interested in solving some of the more intractable problems we, as a society, face today? We're certainly not going to further solve any of them under the currenly irrational price $y$tem.

As for the lack of empirical evidence for the way a person would behave in a Technocratic society, you would have to study the past 20 years of psychological and sociological research and extrapolate from there. I would suggest you concentrate on what is known as "game theory" as it pertains to microeconomics. You will find that nearly every study conducted in the past 20 years supports many claims Howard Scott and the Technical Alliance made back in the 1920s. People do change behavior under differing socio-economic conditions in a predictable way. It is also the current economic system that causes us to act in an economically irrational manner - according to its "rules".

For instance, nearly every professional investor will tell you that you are supposed to unload losing investments and keep the winners. But they will also tell you that the average investor does precisely the opposite - they sell the winners to gain short term profits and keep the losers in the hopes that they will turn around. The current investment system runs counter to our loss adversive psychology. In order to be rational using the current system, you have to behave in a manner counter to your own psychology. This is just one instance of a myriad number of irrational situations the current economic system imposes upon you; all of which would be eliminated. Not only by a change in the system of economics, but also through changes in education and training.

The same can be said of the current crisis in the housing industry. It would be rational to sell a house at a loss if you can no longer afford to make the payments. But a lot of homeowners are chosing to lose their house to forclosure rather than to sell it at a loss; thus further exacerbating the crisis.

The model of Technocracy is fully supported by both Freudian and Adlerian psychology.

And BTW, I am a 40 year old industrial worker with a wife and two children. I enjoy hunting and football - nothing like the "pimply faced geek" of your previous allusions.

Returning to the "Set of Masters" problem; I've also given that same thing some thought. What I propose is not a part of the Technological Design, but I would replace the management of the economic system with computers whenever possible. Eventually, management of the whole system could be automated too. That would at least take economics as a tool of social control out of the hands of the "masters". It's not going to eliminate all the 'masters', but it's a start. Of all economic systems this could only happen under a Technocracy as it requires a highly automated system of production and distribution. Much higher automation than our currently irrational system allows

[Iceberg Slim]

Is this why you have such contempt for technically minded people? This statement makes you look positively luddite.

It appears someone found the thesaurus...

Such exaggerations are not conducive to mature conversation.

There's nothing "mature" about any discussion involving technocracy.

The continental design does specify a different "set of masters"

Sure it does.

and never claimed to get rid of leadership.

Of course they don't intend to get rid of "leadership" - how would they then get to become the new "leaders and "stick it" to all those Alpha Beta Jocks?

In fact, it supports what is known as, in deliberately non technical terms for the laymans understanding, "the pecking order".

A "pecking order" that we wish to get rid of; not replace.

So why are you so concerned over a simple change in faces from politicians (who have no meritorious prequalifications beyond popularity) to engineers and scientists?

Because I am a Communist.

I would suggest you concentrate on what is known as "game theory" as it pertains to microeconomics.

I have a graduate degree in political science and spent a year at LSE as part of my graduate programme - save your breath.

And BTW, I am a 40 year old industrial worker with a wife and two children. I enjoy hunting and football - nothing like the "pimply faced geek" of your previous allusions.

Do you want a prize or something?

And BTW, I'm a forty year old business man with no wife and no children. I enjoy booze, drugs and women - nothing at all like you.

but I would replace the management of the economic system with computers whenever possible.

I would replace the "economic system" with nothing.

We don't need it. [/quote]