[Omnist Priest]

There will always be those who simply oppose all forms of work. A doctor of medicine may enjoy his job in a competitive market, but in a technate he may be discouraged to see those around him working simple jobs, for the same energy credit.

There will be a shoratge of those who desire difficult jobs. If one becomes a medical doctor or chooses another field of equal difficulty, should he not recieve a kind of bonus or break? What will stop a generation of lazy workers from choosing only simple jobs. I know that self-fulfillment is not enough to propell one through medical school.

In a technate the jobs that are the most difficult are given shorter hours and less days per year. If this is true occupations like medical doctors will require many to work in order to supply service to citizens 24 hours per day, and 365 days per year. Sure there are those who choose difficult jobs because they enjoy the field, but the harder the job is, the more people there will need to be to work them. A doctor may only need o work 4 hours per day, 165 days per year. Whereas a simple job may require 6 hours per day and 200 days per year.

Most will choose simpler jobs whether it requires a longer work week or not. The average person wants a job that requires little or no thinking. Technocracy needs to solve this problem. Does not technocracy lack the same incentive as communism?

[infestedterran]

There will always be those who simply oppose all forms of work. A doctor of medicine may enjoy his job in a competitive market, but in a technate he may be discouraged to see those around him working simple jobs, for the same energy credit.

There will be a shoratge of those who desire difficult jobs. If one becomes a medical doctor or chooses another field of equal difficulty, should he not recieve a kind of bonus or break? What will stop a generation of lazy workers from choosing only simple jobs. I know that self-fulfillment is not enough to propell one through medical school.

In a technate the jobs that are the most difficult are given shorter hours and less days per year. If this is true occupations like medical doctors will require many to work in order to supply service to citizens 24 hours per day, and 365 days per year. Sure there are those who choose difficult jobs because they enjoy the field, but the harder the job is, the more people there will need to be to work them. A doctor may only need o work 4 hours per day, 165 days per year. Whereas a simple job may require 6 hours per day and 200 days per year.

Most will choose simpler jobs whether it requires a longer work week or not. The average person wants a job that requires little or no thinking. Technocracy needs to solve this problem. Does not technocracy lack the same incentive as communism?

If it were not for modern technology I would agree with you to a certain extent, that Technocracy "lacks incentive". But the best way to solve yet another problem, such as people preferring to do simple jobs as you state, is ounce again with the use of technology. To understand this you must understand Technocracy's position on automation. In short, automation is, as much as the available technology can allow, replacing men with machines. This means for example, that not only will it be inefficient to allow human farmers to still work in the fields when agriculture can be 100% automated, but it would also be pretty dumb if you think about it. I mean, how many people do you see using horses now a days instead of using a car? Sure a small minority still do it, but that minority doesnt necessarily concern itself with just transportation now does it? They more than likely concern themselves with things like fun, sport, culture, tradition, etc.

So in conclusion, a Technocratic government would not allow for jobs that can be completely automated by machines to still be done by humans on a wide scale. A Technocracy would limit such activities that hold a noneconomic purpose. That isnt to say that a Technocracy would not let you have a horse, but it is saying that a Technocracy would not let you be a farmer all of you life if there was a machine that could do your job. That is, unless you wanted to be a farmer on your own free time, then I seriously doubt and I believe it highly unlikely that a Technocracy would disapprove. Because Technology advocates the control of technology not people, what you do in your own free time is you choice. Free time which you would have lots of in a Technocracy, to pursue whatever education you wish, for free and at whatever pace you desire. A Technocracy would never force results out of you like the old USSR government did to their scientist, quite simply because in a Technocracy a large percentage of the population are scientist and engineers, and if you dont do invent or come up with something it is highly probable that someone else will and thus take credit for something you tried to achieve, but didnt because lack of dedication.

So as you can easily imagine, incentive is not necessarily removed, just the incentive of attaining more material objects. Which brings me to another thing you must understand of Technocracy's position. The fact that Technocracy destroys value by eliminating scarcity economics. The opposite of scarcity is abundance, and an abundance is only possible when you have 2 things: The technology to produce the abundance, and The natural resources needed to fuel the technology that will produce that abundance.

The end of scarcity economics was never discussed previously by Adam Smith or Karl Marx. Why? Because only the technology developed in the 20th century can destroy value and produce an abundance for all. This is why Technocracy is Evolution not Revolution.

But, because I need to sleep, explaining Technocracy's position on scarcity economics any further will have to wait. Untill tomorrow, or untill some other Technocrat explains it first.

[Omnist Priest]

That is not what I meant...

I mean in a technate there will most likely be a list of all work available.
The list might say that there needs to be an increase in doctors by 5%, and a 7% increase in florists.

If I was there I would press "Florist" and then "Choose this job."

Florists cannot be replaced with machines because it requires an artistic mind. Machines cannot replace art forms, like medicine.

Most mothers say: "Honey when you grow up, you should be a doctor so that you can be rich and live in a mansion."

Even with such an incentive, only those who are determined to become doctors, or those who are obsessed with money, become doctors.

In a technate, a mother might say," Honey do not become a doctor, the work is very hard and doctors live with a lot of stress, become a florist (or whatever else) instead."

Without the money incentive, I would not expect anyone to choose a difficult job, which requires years of education.

[infestedterran]

Self-interest is not the only incentive. Even if someone wanted to become a doctor in our system as it exist today simply because that someone wanted to be rich, he or she would still have to pay for the 8 to 10 years of college education required. If that does not conflict with the self-interest incentive I dont know what does. I mean, do you really think that someone will have that one thought of being rich all the way through the 8 to 10 years? It would take some other incentive to help convince that person that being a doctor is helpful to society or something else. Also, what type of people can usually afford that type of education in our system? By making education free, as a Technocracy would, the amount of doctors would actually increase not decrease.

Another thing, you must realize that Technocrats are empiricist, and therefore do not believe that humans are naturally self interested animals. If you speak of human nature outside the field of phychology than you are a philosopher not a scientist. Humans believe what they are taught to believe.

To believe that society would not work simply because we remove the self-interest factor is a paradox, because self-interest is a product of all economic systems based on scarcity economics, like capitalism and communism. In other words, someone who believes humanity cannot function without self-interest is the perfect product of the system as it exist today. The system has produced you and made you believe something that it needs you to believe for it to function.

[Omnist Priest]

I see. Initiative is an equal substitute for incentive...Like nutrasweet.

Anyway, I did have one more thing to ask...

If all private ownership is abolished, then how is large scale entertainment organized, without investors or government...Like movies, theme parks, etc...?

And what of television...?

I cannot see an entire nation being entertained by community parks and video games.

[infestedterran]

I see. Initiative is an equal substitute for incentive...Like nutrasweet.

Anyway, I did have one more thing to ask...

If all private ownership is abolished, then how is large scale entertainment organized, without investors or government...Like movies, theme parks, etc...?

And what of television...?

I cannot see an entire nation being entertained by community parks and video games.

While Technocracy has not yet officially covered the issue of entertainment as well as art in general, I can give you a pretty good idea of how it would be set up. First of all, a Technocracy would never ever centralize the means of communication like Marx suggested in the Manifesto(just in case you were wondering this). The very idea of having control of the media or of any form of communication is scientifically preposterous. The free exchange of information is a major part in the advancement of science.

But what about art? An Academy of the Arts would be built in which many of the worlds top artist could organize the production of the most expensive types of art such as the cinema and architecture. While some of the decision making would be done by individuals who hold degrees and have university educations in art, the public will also participate through the use of direct democracy and touch screen voting. We would all vote for what movies we wanted to see produced. The Academy artist would also vote, but they would always have second pick after the people.

I mean really, I cant imagine anyone preferring the way movies are produced now, other than the clueless movie executives that produce them. One of my friends knows "the biz" well, and lets just say that he tells me more about the movie industry than I would like to know; and than theres the fact that I live 30 minutes away from Hollywood. He knows about film since it got started with Edison, although I know it wasnt actually him that started it.

Can you imagine movies being about actual artistic expression rather than just about money as they are now, and pretty much always have been. Although, at least they had great actors in the old days unlike today.