Of all society, technocracy is the only workable model for abundant societies. Is it by deliberate effort of corporate powers or the government that technocracy is so badly known, or does it simply take time for such a progressive idea to gain popularity?

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

Any articles at all? Perhaps I stated it too simplistically. I was hoping to learn other things also and I thought this was a good starting point. I guess I might as well ask right here.

How do I contact the technocracy membership in Vancouver, BC? So far I only have postal code. That, and would we still have restaurants and fast-food places with waiters and drive-by service? Not that it affects me, but curious.

Hi, crims! I'm happy to answer your questions, so fire away!



It's funny that you ask that, because I just wrote a post that included information about that and then cut out that part in order to shorten the post. Fortunately, I saved it for later use, which I guess applies right now.

First let me start, since I do not know how much you already know about Technocracy, by saying that it was the largest social movement of the 1930s and '40s. It was immensely well-known and popular, as you can see by looking at some old pictures here, and even this video.

Today however, it is near impossible to find information on Technocracy. History books, even one's dealing with the Great Depression in North America, completely fail to mention it. Encyclopedias most often have no entry for it either, although they did in the past. Newspapers and magazines refuse to publish anything about it, except for the rare and heavily slanted article like that found in American Heritage magazine a couple years back which was filled with misinformation. Likewise it is not even mentioned in schools or universities.

So how could this be if it was so popular and well-known for two decades? There are two primary reasons. One is simply that Technocracy does prescribe a larger amount of change than the "political" alternatives, and given that we are no longer suffering the more obvious effects of the Great Depression, people are less inclined to want this much change. This has made it easier for the second reason, which is simply that the only people that stand to "lose" anything (and even then it is only by their own estimation) are politicians and businesses, since Technocracy proposes the abolition of both. Since these two groups are the ones "in power", naturally Technocracy would not be in their best interests. Actually, if Technocracy was simply some whacked-out theory, it would have been officially disproven and promptly forgotten about; then listed in the history books as one of our "big mistakes". But this didn't happen. Instead, history books (except for a very scant few) are devoid of even any mention of Technocracy, as are most encyclopedias. Those "in power" have been actively suppressing information on Technocracy for one reason: They know it would work. This is confirmed in official testimony of M. King. Hubbert to the US Civil Service Commission, where he describes that agencies in the government (namely the National Resources Planning Board and Works Progress Administration) duplicated his research and came to the same conclusions.

There have been numerous other attempts to "suppress" Technocracy, including the ban of the organization in Canada during WWII, that was repealed two years later without explanation or apology. Meanwhile the RCMP had already confiscated all of Technocracy Inc.'s assets in Canada, and never returned or offered any form of compensation to this day. As you can imagine, this caused membership here to suffer badly.

They have fired people from government positions for being Technocrats, claiming it being either "communist" or "fascist", depending on who was the political bogeyman of the day. This was despite thorough investigations by the FBI (including extensive infiltration) that concluded that Technocracy had no connections whatsoever with either communism or fascism, and was not even a threat to national security. Isn't it amazing how well the various agencies of the government work so well together?

Howard Scott, the founder and Chief Engineer of Technocracy, was even offered a "blank cheque", if he agreed to cease his activities. Not only did he refuse, but instead turned the incident into a public presentation he called "No Platinum Handcuffs."

There are plenty of other examples too, but yes, Technocracy has been suppressed, and as the US becomes ever more fascist itself in the suspension of civil liberties, we can expect it to get worse as time goes on. Hence, we must make the best use of what time is left to us to inform the public of North America about their sole chance for survival.



Do you mean about Technocracy being suppressed, or just about Technocracy at all? If the former, then there isn't much about this I'm afraid. Technocracy is not in the habit of whining about the injustices heaped upon it. The information I've provided has been collected from older Technocrats, historical and government documents, and a few other places.

If you mean the latter, then yes! There is enough material published on Technocracy to keep you reading for years. Instead of wasting so much time reading random literature, however, I could recommend a series of articles and books that would give you the most amount of useful information in the shortest time, customized to your interests of course. If this interests you, please let me know. Otherwise, I can simply point you in the direction of various resources and you can attack them yourself.



The only contact information I have for Vancouver is the mailing address on this page. If you would like to speak with Technocrats in your area, the best idea is to contact CHQ (also on that page), and make this request. They can get someone in your area to contact you, and you can go from there.

Although not as active as it once was, I have been to the Section Headquarters in Aldergrove, and they are quite nice. You may want to give them a visit.



No problem, curiosity is why I'm here. Whether or not there would be these things would be completely up to the citizens themselves. If there was demand for it, it would be provided. Waiters might be a different case, since Technocracy seeks to automate as much physical labor as possible. Even today McDonald's are becoming more automated, and we will not be far from fully-automated restaurants (in fact we could do it now with the resources and technology available; we simply don't for various "economic" reasons, the same ones that keep us from enjoying all that Technocracy has to offer). Likewise, drive-by service would depend on how much we would still be using cars, but that is another topic entirely.

One fascinating thing that would be easily possible in a Technate would be automated delivery services. For packages of about 1 cubic metre or less (speculating on size here), they could be automatically conveyed to your residence in the same fashion as water and power are now. This could allow for the delivery of items purchased "online" within minutes or hours (depending on where it had to come from). This would be an easy and quick method of grocery shopping (something not many people enjoy), and for people like me, even fully cooked restaurant-style meals could be delivered as well (room service at home!). Given such possibilities, the only reason left for things such as restaurants would be as gathering places for groups of people (larger than would fit into your home), and possibly "themed" places as well, that may offer other services as well such as entertainment, massage, whatever people want. There is a line in the article The Benefits of Urbanates that states: "One might even think of an urbanate (Technocracy's version of a city) as more of a resort that you and everyone you know lives at!"

I just thought that I'd throw those tid-bits in there for fun. Really, once you know enough about Technocracy, one of the most fun things to do is speculate on the kinds of things that will be possible. With Technocratic training, it is not mere day-dreaming or wishing either; it is seeing what is really possible with the technology we have today, kept from us only by our refusal to let go of an outdated economic system that only holds us back.

I only read the booklet and some articles on technocracy.ca, so this is all knew to me. I've only now started reading the study course and some other books.




Yes, very convincing case. The technocratic stance on gaining political power is "we're right, so let's just wait for them to come to us" as opposed to revolutionary approaches. It is good that it makes absolutely no way for government or people to blame them. However, you mentioned popularity has taken a downward trend? What is the technocratic plan for getting attention? Is there a schedule that's followed and a certain point in time where it will become necessary to use other methods?




Just any passing questions I have as I study it. It's very nice to have someone to answer my questions like a teacher to help understand the reading. Here's another question. How would airlines work? How would people get by on planes? The airline industry employs a lot of people to do important jobs, and technocracy would automate many. Would pilots be replaced with reliable technologies or would airlines rely on 'volunteer' pilots?




I would like that very much! Especially about the possible role of a military in technocracy. Along with the study course on technocracy.com I've found a list of "recommended literature" that I keep on my computer, but I fear it's all outdated. I've enthusiastically started devouring books on the subject:
"Life in a Technocracy: What it might be like" by Harold Loeb, The Viking Press 1933;
"The End of Work: The decline of the global labor force and the dawn of the post-market era" by Jeremy Rifkin, G. P. Putnams Sons 1995;
"Transition to Technocracy: The structural origins of the soviet administrative state" by Don K. Rowney, Cornell University Press 1989.




And a shame that it is so badly known. One day people will look back on this all as the proto-history of humankind.

Although I haven't encountered any evidence of some mass attempt to 'supress' technocracy, but there are quite a few uncontested misconceptions floating around out there, one of which comes from the government's Social Security website (although I'm not sure why it's there).

For example, there's the tried-and-true misconception that Technocracy is some rule by scientists/machines or some other kind of similar hierarchy. And then there are those who think that it is just another offshoot of communism or socialism.

But the one that irritates me most comes from the Social Security website, as I said before. Instead of summarizing, I'll post it in its blatantly biased, slanted, and misleading entirety.



I don't mind being called "eccentric", though.

Was that guy really referred to as 1x1809x56? I like my name, I don't want to lose it.

Then it sounds as if you are already on to a great start!



Well, keep in mind that we are not attempting to "gain political power", but rather abolish it altogether. You see, if we were simply "changing who's in power", then we could get lots of help from special interests, because they would know that the fundamental power structure still existed, and thus the path to their own rise to power. Without a political structure in place at all, this cannot happen, and thus really sticks in the craw of all groups that seek political power.



I won't say that there is a "schedule" per se, but we do actively do many things. The primary areas of activity are promotion and education. Promotion is simple raising of awareness of Technocracy. Posters, parades, motorcades, radio programs, symbolization, and more have all been used to get people to notice Technocracy. However, that's only the first step. It is important that they understand what Technocracy is, and that is where education comes in. Part of the promotion process is to invite people to public lectures, study courses, or at the very least to read some of the literature published on Technocracy. Only in this way will people be informed as to what their future holds.

So as you can see, a lot of these activities are similar to that of political campaigns; but by staying out of the political process, we remain free of the entanglements that would suffocate the movement entirely. Plus, it makes a bold statement regarding our stance on the overall uselessness of politics.



Then that is the best way to do it (short of actually attending a study course, that is; but that's not possible for everyone). I only mention this because it is a common misconception on forums such as this one that people can learn about Technocracy solely from a forum. I would have to ask them: "How easy is it to learn geology over a forum? Or electronics?" While there is no need to learn as much when studying Technocracy, is is different from learning about political and economic ideologies, since it is neither, but rather a technology. A forum is best used as you are using it, as a supplement to self-study, to "fill in the gaps", and make sure that you are understanding the material. So good job!



Like all details about Technocracy, we can only speculate on the specifics, since the best design will have to be determined at the time Technocracy is implemented. Based on what we know now, we can say a few things however. One is that automation, like in every other industry, would be far more extensively used. Now people at this point always think and worry about planes with no pilots, but what they seldom think about is the hundreds of people employed as part of the airline infrastructure that puts people on those planes and keeps them in the air: ticket taking, baggage handlers, technicians, stewards, retail workers in the shops, etc. Most of these activities and services could be automated and/or streamlined requiring a small fraction of the people we use today.

As for the pilots, many people don't realize that most places are heavily automated already, and that the pilots are there mostly for emergencies. We have been able to automate aircraft from runway to runway since the 1960s, when computers were relatively new. So it should be easy to imagine how much better we would be at this sort of thing 50 years later. Also remember that the Soviet space shuttle Buran launched itself into orbit, and landed safely again, with no people on board at all, twice.

This biggest change of course would be the integration of air travel into an single, united transportation sequence, again vastly increasing efficiency, which reduces waste, and therefor cost, and therefore allows a much higher standard of living of the citizens. You would be able to travel by plane virtually as often as you liked, although likely they would only be used when speed is essential, as high-speed trains would make a lot of short and medium range flights a bit of a waste, since it would be far "cheaper". Still, it would completely up to you how you'd like to travel, and demand for each type would automatically adjust the supply of it, through Energy Accounting.



Well, since you're at the stage of reading the Study Course, a lot of the other literature becomes redundant. But there are still some that expand on certain topics that would increase you're knowledge. One's I'd recommend (in general) are The Ecology of Man, Man-Hours and Distribution, History and Purpose of Technocracy, and M. King Hubbert on the Nature of Growth (warning, some of these get pretty heady!). These can all be found at www.technocracy.org. There are some good articles on www.technocracy.ca as well, but since you've said that you've already read some, I'll wait until I see which ones you've read.

As for the military, I don't think that I have encountered much in terms of an entire article on the subject. Normally I would simply use the search engine on www.technocracy.org, but since the site is in the middle of being updated and transferred to a new server, the search engine is not available at the moment. I can say this on the subject however. Most countries say that the role of their military is strictly "defencive". However, as history teaches us this has seldom been the case. Technocracy teaches that when a Price System reaches the final stage of it's life cycle (for all Price Systems have a life cycle of birth, growth, decline, death, and rebirth as something new), it has two choices. It can either continue its decline until social instability increases to the point of producing a revolution, or it can "extend" its lifespan by exploiting the resources outside of its area. Sometimes this can be done with peaceful (although seldom fair) trade. Often though, the swiftest and most effective way is through force, and hence the reason for virtually every war ever known. "Defence" then takes on the meaning of "defending the survival of our nation through the acquisition of vital resources by any and all means necessary", even if this leads to invading otherwise peaceful countries.

Technocracy, on the other hand, has the requirement of being self-sufficient; therefore it would be impossible to have this motivation for aggressive action. Since this is the primary motivation for most, if not all wars, then Technocracy would indeed have a military that would in fact be purely for the defence of its citizens.

Another issue that you should well know already is automation. By automating war as much as possible (both production and the actual fighting), you not only make your military more efficient, but also suffer far fewer casualties than a Price System country would. Also consider this: Suppose a war broke out with a significant enemy and the Technate was threatened. Suppose also that the previously calculated 16-hour work week was being used (although it would likely be even shorter today). By just increasing that work week to 20 hours (still half of full-time today), you have just increased the overall production of the nation by 25%. Now assuming that the military consumes only a small fraction of that overall production, this could mean a potential increase of military multiplying of military production by 300% or better. And since most of it is automated anyway, you are not limited by manpower shortages, as any "conventional" army would be (since they rely on numbers of soldiers). Still not enough? how about a 24 hour week? Now you have 600%+ increase, of the most efficient and likely most technologically advanced military on Earth. From this one can easily conclude that a fully operational Technate would be fairly safe from potential aggressors.

Also add in that North America (at least) is the most defensible continent on Earth. People in Europe and Asia do not have the advantage of being surrounded all sides by ocean.



Loeb's book I have read, a long time ago, but I do remember enjoying it. However, while I can no longer speak from memory on specifics (I did not really know how Technocracy worked when I had read it), that this work is entirely unsupported by Technocracy. Howard Scott was asked to comment on Loeb's book, and this is what was said:



This comes from "History and Purpose of Technocracy." I may have to give Loeb's book a look again myself and give a review on it in more detail.

Rifkin gives an excellent look into the problem of technological disemployment (60's years late, but still). Of course his recommended solutions are useless, but how could one person possibly develop on his own what it took 17 of the nation's leading experts in a dozen fields over 14 years to develop? We can't blame Rifkin for that, but rather thank him for making this problem more well-known. Perhaps it will make our job as Technocrats a little bit easier.

I have not heard of the last one, but I would caution you to look at it with a critical eye. There have been few, if any, factual books written about Technocracy (even just the word) that were not published by Technocracy Inc. The case of the Soviet Union was indeed a interesting one, and if you are interested in that we have an "insider's scoop" on the technocracy.ca forums that blew me away.



Actually, there is a fair bit in there that is factual, which of course makes it all the easier to slip by the lies. One is: " where it claimed half a million members in 1934." Not only was Technocracy only founded in 1933, so this number would be doubtful, it is Technocracy policy not to release membership data to anyone outside of the organization, even a simple total number. This is right in the Bylaws, so this statement is ridiculous. " Founded in 1918 by a California patent attorney" Scott was an engineer, plain and simple. Such was his education at Columbia University, so were his jobs after that. " it would briefly flare as a serious intellectual movement centered around Columbia University;" Two decades is "briefly"?

"A speaker at one California rally was introduced only as 1x1809x56!"

I have no information on the validity of the statement, but given all my knowledge of Technocracy, there is no plans, proposed or otherwise to refer to people by numbers. Even this example is meaningless, as it obviously does not even pertain to known Technocracy numbering systems, such as Region Divisions. If there be any truth to this at all, it was at most a badly misinterpreted joke.

Josh: This is a relatively mild example. If I ever get the time to properly OCR and edit the documents on the Hubbert hearings, I can show you what blatant misleading (by the US government no less) really is!



You have nothing to fear. Technocracy will no doubt make use of some sort of identification number, but it would be used only in a manner similar to your current SSN or SIN. You can keep you name. Or get a new one. The Technate doesn't care about this stuff, remember?

Is there a plan for putting technocratic apparatus in operation without use of political power? Or does this mostly depend on conditions?

Necessity of technocracy aside, I think some people would not wholly embrace technocracy, and technocracy would not have total consent of population. Would they just have to keep quiet, like voters whose candidate lost election? How would reactionary elemenets be dealt with?




The articles on technocracy.ca (is it safe to assume you run the website?) are good quick reads. I'll read all of them.




Yes, I noticed while reading. The last book is describing something more like http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/elite.htm.




Yes, he calls himself "General" Vladimir Georgievich Frolov, and claims to have some relation to the physicist Pyotr Nikolaevich Lebedev. I did brief research and he is nuisance in some American political-history forums. But he regularly visits technocracy.ca and seems peaceful.

"Technocrats" will not install a Technocracy. Instead, it must be installed by the people themselves, by reorganizing themselves into the structure set forth by Technocracy. The only time a political device would be used would be in the form of a referendum so that the population can confirm for themselves their own collective consent to make the transition. At that point, whatever remains of the "political" government would exist in a custodial fashion only, for as long as it was useful during the transition. Thereafter all concepts of political "power" will have been dispensed with. Any more detail than that, yes, depends on conditions.



Of course not; no idea will ever gain universal acceptance. We currently live in a "democracy" and so people should be used to the idea of occasionally not getting what they want. Of course it is very likely that some of these people will not "keep quiet" about it, and cause problems for other people. This means that the higher the majority that "votes" for Technocracy, the better chance we have of minimizing trouble. This makes our current campaign of education even more vital.

Because the way it appears to me, it does not matter what your political leanings or objectives in life are, Technocracy can satisfy them all. This I think is an important point in our education campaign, because if we can show the anarchists and libertarians that they can get all the freedom they want, and the collectivists that they can get all the economic stability and security they want, and all the socialists that they can get all the economic support they want, then I think we'd have a pretty good chance at uniting humanity towards the one goal that will allow technological civilization to continue. United we stand... and all that.

There are obvious exceptions to this, the main ones being pathological in nature (homicide, pyromania, etc.), and parasitism, or the need to gain at the expense of others. It is concluded that this sort of behaviour is learned and will not arise to any appreciable degree while the Technate it operating, therefor the greatest danger of it comes from those who benefited from Price System parasitism the most (politicians and businessmen).

However, if our education campaign fails to "reach" them, and the majority of the population formally chooses Technocracy, and this minority still refuses to accept it, Technocracy will do nothing to keep them here if they don't like it. They will very likely get a nice first-class, one-way ticket to the Price System country of their choice, with probably a nice "getting started in your new life" package so that they are not immediately destitute upon their arrival. It's the least we can do for these poor souls, unless someone can think of something better. I doubt that "reservations" would go over very well.



Feel free to let me know what you think of them. I know the author pretty well ( ) and he likes to get feedback. And yes, I do run the site.



Ah, I thought so. (sigh) Although I would be quite surprised, it would not be unwelcome to read an objective, and informed piece for a change.



Yes, he is quite a passionate man, but he certainly does seem to know his stuff.

They're good technically, but if they're intros to technocracy you might have to dumb it down.

This is a bit much to take in one sentence:
"Due to the fact that money is a species of debt, and hence cumulative,
the amount would have to be continuously increased, which,
in conjunction with its property of being negotiable,
would lead inevitably to concentration of control in a few hands,
and to general disruption of the distribution system which was supposed to be maintained."

I think term like "social mechanism" has feeling attached and might lead to belief that it's totalitarian or really a rule of the elite.

Still, I really don't know how to make it better without nit-picking. If person really wants to learn it will stimulate interest in technocracy.

oops.

I am about to reveal my complete ignorance here.
How are strategic decisions taken in a technocracy and who takes them?

Questions are what forums are for.

What do you mean by "strategic decisions" exactly?

One of the biggest differences between Technocracy and all other forms of government (collectively called the Price System), is that there is a separation of all decisions into two catagories: the objective/technical, and the subjective. The former are what is handled by the technical administration; qualified experts whose results can be measured against set goals for the benefit of society. The latter is handled completely democratically, usually with some form of electronic voting system. Today both these decisions are made by the government, whether it be democratic, autocratic, or otherwise.

A quick demonstration of this would be in decisions about electrical power. How much power to produce would be decided by people directly in how much they consume. The best means of producing and distributing that power, when compared to the national goals of producing the highest standard of living possible for the least impact on the environment, can be objectively measured and calculated, as for example one type of cable will be more efficient than another. In technical decisions, there is always one, best answer. In subjective ones, there never is, hence the choice goes to the citizens.

Other quick examples of this can be found here, here, and here (top portion).

Remember the massive blackout from a few years ago, which left almost all of Canada and a great deal of the United States in the dark? (Sorry for the pun, I couldn't help myself.) It serves as an example of how the Price System is not the best for the job. The blackout, which was all blamed on a single branch hitting a power line (I don't know how people bought that), occurred in the middle of a very large heat wave, which meant that more and more people were using more and more electricity, which in turn caused the system to essentially "freak out". However, it didn't fail because it couldn't handle the demand- far from it. It failed because it was running at the best efficiency it ever had. (I'm not making this up- the man who was head of the electric company at the time, whose name I can't remember, stated this in the documentary "End of Suburbia".)

I realize I'm not explaining this to it's full potential, so I recommend watching the documentary "End of Suburbia", which explains this and more.

Yeah, I remember that incident. If it had happened during the winter millions of people would have died. Not a good thing to slip up on. Of course there was the usual finger pointing matches, but ultimately it comes down to a crumbling system, much as what happened in Asimov's Foundation books. Actually it's kinda scary how well those book parallel our society...

So, if I'm reading this right, the people set the overall goals of society through direct democracy, while the administration figures out and implements the most best solution to fulfill those goals. I would call the goal setting the strategic decisions. Sounds to me a bit like Switzerland but with the democratic process confined to the strategic/subjective level. An immediate, and somewhat practical follow up question is who has power of initiation? Who poses the strategic questions to the electorate? If the technical administration does this then surely they are nothing but an unelected government. They may not be able to force strategic decisions on to the population against their will, but they would be able to deny the population certain strategic options, this would seem to skew the political decision making process at the strategic level. Were it to be the people of the technate who had this right of initiation, then it is very difficult to see how this would work and who would take responsibility for it in the society except for some form of representative council, presumably elected, which again would be a government, though here it would at least be representative. It may of course be something of a mix with the technical administration able to table motions, which the people could then discuss and perhaps add options and amendments to through a process of petitioning, before voting on them. What is the standard model for a technate in terms of how "subjective" motions are tabled to the people?

Also, is it just me or are we not kind of sliding into technocracy anyway. Governments rely heavily on the scientific advisors on all matters technical, though technical decisions are still meddeled in by politicians. Surely such reliance just deepens as we progress as a global society?

There may be some similarities, but remember that there are also a lot of differences as well. The Technical portion of the administration employs no form of politics whatsoever, and this is one of the vital differences between Technocracy and all other forms of government.



Well, in some ways it's a lot simpler than that, and in other ways it's more complicated.

It is hard to say "who" has the "power of initiation", although I do know what you mean. I struggled with this one for a while myself, until I realized that overall there is no "initiation", the process is pretty much cyclical, and the "beginning" is more or less arbitrary.

Now in specific circumstances this may differ, but it balances out in the end. Here we need specific examples. For instance, the most common form of "democratic/subjective" decision that would be made would be "what is produced". This would handled mostly in the form of the Energy Accounting system, which tracks what people buy, how much and where, so that new supplies are made and shipped to those areas. In the case of new items ideas and designs would float about the various media channels (t.v., radio, Internet, or their equivalents), and people would provide input on what new products they would like made. There are a variety of mechanisms that could be used here, but if one had to decide, I'd say that this part was "consumer" initiated.

Now suppose we have an issue such as one of international trade. Suppose another nation contacts the Technate with a trade proposal. The members of the Sequence of Foreign Relations would handle this, as long as it was merely a technical issue. They would compare the proposal to the physical needs already established and determine if it meets the requirements. If so, it is accepted; if not then it is not. The "public" don't really need to get involved at all, although I doubt that something like that would need to be kept secret.

Now lets look at a combination one. Suppose scientists in the Sequence of Continental Research develop a new method energy generation that can be implemented in one of several ways. The best of these ways have been compared and have been found to show no appreciable advantage over the others. Normally, only one design would stand out and it would be chosen for use. But in this case, with no clear "technical" winner, the ony remaining decision is subjective, and therefor left to the citizens.

Also remember that all the people in the Technical administration are also citizens who decide some things democratically. And some citizens who's jobs may not be "technical" in nature will likely still operate within that framework for various advantages. Suppose a writer completes a script for a movie. He would need resources to put it together. So he contacts the Sequence of Entertainment with his proposal, and they either set him up with what is available, or perhaps put him in touch with others that may be interested in helping out. Again, there are different ways of going about this. My point is that overall, the technical side is merely a reactive "organ", practically a machine, responding to the demands of the population, and who's only responsibility is to be technically qualified to do that.

I'm not sure if that clears up your question for you, but if not let me know. Perhaps a specific example that would could come up with might help. In any case, I'm happy to take more questions.



Not even close, I'm afraid. Our society is on a collision course, a rapid downward acceleration of self-destruction that not only will fail to continue itself, but soon after make impossible our ability to enact a Technocracy. Wealth and political power are being concentrated in fewer hands. Debt is skyrocketing out of control. Resources are being depleted and ever increasing rates, and wars loom ever closer. Science and technology are only being used in the pursuit of profit and power, with any regard for people or the environment playing a secondary, if any, role. Even those few who are able to avoid doing so are only able to due to lack of competition, but as the economies of the world get worse, and resources (particularly petroleum) become more scarce, they will be forced to pursue profit and power, else they will cease to function. These are the "rules of the game", and make both inevitable and unavoidable this fate, I'm afraid.

According to our projections, things do not look good, and the future of North America is that it will most likely degenerate into a corporate-run fascist state, with dwindling resources and rampant "-isms" causing the deaths of millions of people, both domestically and abroad. Recent events are only bearing this out. It is part of the ordinary life-cycle of the Price System, and it's happened to every society before us. Our only hope to break out of this cycle of destructive re-birth (since this time will be worse than any other in history) is Technocracy. We must abandon politics and scarcity economics and take responsibility for our technological power. It is as Einstein said:


If you are interested in the life-cycle Price System economies I can point you to some resources about it, or other topics as you wish.

For a civilization to 'slide' into Technocracy, it would need to be a Communist state, or something similar, and probably rimmed with mega-intellectual, non-power-hungry leaders. Allegedly the USSR was awfully close to this ‘transition’ from a Communism to a Technocracy prior to its collapse. For us in Europe to slide into a Technocracy we would first require a united Europe, perhaps Middle East, Northern Africa, and Russia - for an abundance of resources. Quite clearly this is not just going to happen within the next 100 years under the price-system; and any way, in 100 years this civilization would’ve collapsed, and we would either be under a police state, or growing our own crops - or dead, of course.

I’m glad you have taken time to read something on Technocracy, Clansman. Be sure to argue your point and ask questions: the world, the ecosystem; and mankind’s happiness, fulfilment, and potential depend on it. Sadly, time is not on our hands, either.

Kolzene, say that the education system needs a revamp in the Technate, or even suppose that there is an international incident where a decision needs to be taken whether or not to get involved in it, another Darfur or something. Now the decisions on both questions should of course be informed by a rational and technical appreciation of the circumstances and options, but at the end of the day parents want to have the final say how their children are to be educated and they also want those making important international decisions to be accountable. For both these questions I would have thought that the final decision would have to be taken by the people of the technate directly. Not all questions are amenable to the laws of supply and demand. Now whilst I can imagine the technical administration responsible for education would be legitimately involved in putting the question of educational reform to the people as it would be they that identify the best options, the question of who sponsors the plebicite on the issue of Darfur is a more difficult one to resolve. Of course there would be a branch of the technical administration responsible for the efficient dispersal of aid, etc but the question being asked is not about what is the best way of aiding Darfur, the question is should we do this at all. We seem to come to a point where Hume's injunction that one cannot reason from an is to an ought. There are a host of such moral questions that a technate would be faced with where the question isn't just what is the best way of doing something but is rather what is the best thing to do, there are no "right" as in scientifically assessable answers to such questions. Now it would be just such questions one would expect the people of the technate to answer through direct democracy, but for them to do that someone would have to form the questions and put the questions to them. As it is not the business of the technical admin to engage in moralising one finds it hard to see who it would be who would be responsible for putting these questions to the people of the Technate.



Tangerine I found this very interesting because it almost precisely tracks another train of thought that I have been following recently. I was concerned about how to marry three dispirate problems into one solution for the EU, wealth generation, good social conditions, and sustainability. The global market clearly undermines the last two in favour of the first. The solution I identified as being the only one with a chance of working was for the EU to form an autarky. By autarky I mean a self contained economy that does not trade at all with the rest of the world. The idea was actually very simple, the internal market would be exactly like the present world market in terms of how it functioned. Comercial actors, capitalists, would compete against each other for market share and profits, some of which would be reinvested thus driving economic growth and so wealth creation. However, as EU law would apply across the system the parameters for the competing actors could be set universally without fear that one part of the system could environmental, wage or social dump to gain a competitive edge and so undercut other parts of the system. The EU would be able to define a set of minimum social, wage and environmental conditions across the system.

Where is the big difference compared to what we have now? Well just now as the EU is part of the global market it is competeing with countries that have much lower environmental, social and wage levels. These countries are systematically undercutting the EU and so forcing it to dump on all three agendas. The beauty of the autarky is that because it was not trading with the rest of the world it would be immune from such undercutting. Also as an autarky is entirely dependent upon the resources in its territory, it would have a much keener interest in being sustainable. The list of positives I found to be long and substantial. It would also be relatively easy to evolve into, all one would have to do is raise stepwise the EU's tariffs on imports and exports. Eventually they reach a limit where it is no longer profitable to trade into or out of the EU and so trade would cease and the economy would be self contained, the stepwise movement would have allowed the commercial actors to evolve into their new role of servicing the domestic market only.

The only fly in the soup that I found was due to the EU only having access to the resources in its territory, as we are over consuming at the moment this would require a substantial reduction in our levels and diversity of consumption. However, the larger the autarky, both in terms of population but also in terms of area, the less this is a problem. I can very definitely envisage an EU involving all the CoE states plus Belarus being a reality before 2050. That EU would include Russia and the Caucusses, cover a land mass the size of the continent of Africa and contain nearly 900m people. Put another way it would contain nearly 15% of the worlds population and cover well over 20% of the worlds surface. That EU could form a viable and very comfortable autarky. What struck me by your comment Tangerine is that such an autarky would also be very fertile ground for a technocracy.

How likely is all this? Well I'm pretty sure that the EU will not stop expanding until it includes all the states of the CoE plus Belarus and I think it will manage that before 2050. It may even expand further than that. So I think the criterion of size will almost certainly be met. As China and India expand their economies the EU and America will either have to raise tariffs or allow themselves to be impoverished over the next 40 years or so, so I can well see tariffs going up in the EU. The question then is will people at some stage decide that a self contained economy is the way to go. Bare in mind that after the expansion has reached Russia some 200 odd million EU citizens will have had experience of the USSR autarky so the idea will not be foreign to EU citizens. Add to this a convergence of a couple of other factors. The internal market encourages trade between members rather than to non-members, any country that joins the EU tends to realign its trade away from the outside world, and green issues are likely to become much more topical and Green politics much more central in the EU over the next 50 years due to global warming (EU cooling), demand outstripping supply in oil, etc, etc and Greens openly advocate autarkic policies. If there is an economic shock to the global system 30-40 years from now, Africa booming like Asia has or something like that, then the convergence of these factors maybe sufficient to push the EU electorate to opt for autarky, particularly as once Russia is in the EU it will be big enough to do this without significantly jeopardising living standards. So, whilst I would never say that an autarkic EU is a safe bet for the future I can realistically envisage circumstances where it could come about in the next 50-60 years or so.

Put all this together with an increasing use of direct democracy in the EU, we are seemingly all moving toward the Swiss model, and one has come quite a long way toward implenting a technocracy. Isn't it wonderful how following a rational train of argument can lead you to new and wonderful insights, possibilities, and connexions. I have come so far in my reasoning toward technocracy, my prefered future for the EU could almost be seen as a stepping stone to a technocratic EU, dare I take the extra step?

An aside question, where does the impetus for creative design come from in a single centralised distribution system? In the present system companies try and out do each other in both innovation, to be first to market a new product, and consumer grooming, to create markets for such new products. This competition supposedly feuls creativity and technological advancement, what plays the same role in a technocracy?

Yes, these are thoughts I experienced also, and I commend you on your ability to describe them so fluently .



I'll start by saying this is more than a fly in the soup - think more of a soup made out of flies. As long as we’re in the price-system, no matter how large our territory, we’ll collapse, eventually. We are over-consuming for one simple reason: money. Companies retract fully exploiting the technology and resources we have at present, to be able to re-release slightly updated versions years, sometimes months, later. They are incredibly inefficient in their design, as they are working for efficiency in cost rather than efficiency in resources - and I’ll leave the rest for your train of thought, as I’m sure you’ll continue on your own path after I light this little flame. Basically a Technocracy can last forever, at a standard of living many times higher than today's.

Take a look, for example, at a razor blade. Gillette forces us to procure new blades at least once a week, at prices heavily inflated in comparison to the cost of the resources. The cost of the resources of the packet, razor blade and plastic? Maybe 3 pence.. Cost of product is perhaps £5.99. This isn’t shocking until you realise it’s possible for us to create a razor that will last 90 years and maintain its sharpness during that time. In a Technate, you shall be provided with such a razor blade. In a price-system you shall not, as it’ll see the end of Gillette for 90 years. So they continue to pump and pump resources out of this Earth, and keep selling it to us, and we keep throwing it away - this is completely unnecessary, and the reason why we are over-consuming; however, without this little business trick, there would be Great Depressions every few years, as everyone would have what they need.

Now, imagine all the computer engineers coming together from all over Europe, and designing a super-computer the size of a laptop, and providing it to everybody in a Technate, in the colour and shape they desire. This is what is possible. Not just with this, but with every product, they shall be designed efficiently and for durability, etc. In a Technocracy, since we are efficient in terms of energy, we shall have more than enough resources for many a millennia on this plant - by then, we'll be off to Mars, Pluto or even further, possibly.

Production will be at 100% (nowadays, production is not at 100%, due to the fact that companies need to keep a demand for the product, to keep the price high) so things like space colonization will be extremely easy. Cars, for example, are not being produce 24 hours a day, if they were cars would cost a FRACTION of the cost they are today.

Scientists, teachers, doctors, anything, YOU, will have unlimited resources and unlimited potential to learn; so the advance in intellectual pursuits, culture, music, art, ANYTHING will be staggering in comparison to today’s, or any day’s, in the EU.

In the price-system, full automation in terms of production is fought off, as there would be no jobs. In a Technocracy, full automation is what we're going to have, so no more mundane working for you. Only free time and unlimited resources to pursue your interests. Human development and achievement will be inconceivable, as everyone in a Technate will be brought up as millionaires - with the education, nutrition, environment, etc. that comes with such a status. Imagine a nation with hundreds of Einsteins.

By the way when I said we may need Russia, the Middle East and North Africa, I should’ve said we’re expecting to need these regions. In truth we’re going to be undertaking a European Survey, which will evaluate the preferred size of the Technate (it will be as small as possible to begin with), among other interesting things. So we may be OK with a Technate slightly larger than current-day EU.

Any questions? I’m still sort of a newbie to a lot of subjects concerning Technocracy, there is a lot to know afterall. Kolzene is much more knowledgeable than I, in these subjects - I’m sure he’ll add his own bit in time.

By the way Kolzene is a member of the North American Technate, I am a member of NET. Which stands for Network of European Technocrats. I am a member of the European/Eurasian/Caucasian Technocracy. NET was only founded a year or so ago I believe, we are at the very, very early stages of a transition in Europe.