[SpiderMonkey]

Technocracy strikes me as being a utopian, positivist ideology - and therefore has the potential to be very dangerous.

By promising a future which is, for all intents and purposes, devoid of material suffering, it is very easy for a supporter of technocracy to excuse violations of human rights in order to acheive that aim. After all, from a utilitarian perspective, technocracy will produce so much happiness in the future a little unhappiness now is worth it.

This is a problem shared by other utopian ideals, such as Nazism and Bolshevism. When a concept is considered more important than human life, lives start to get sacrificed for the greater good/proletariat/volk or whatever.

Technocracy doesn't seem to have an answer for this. I would even go as far as saying technocracy denies political reality.

[Attenuated Signal]

Surely that is only the case if strict utilitarian principles are applies to the process of creating a technocracy and a strict positivist attitude is taken. I have only seen the most vocal of the post humanists take this line.

However, it does seem likely that to truly believe in a post humanist technocratic future you'd either need to be a utilitarian or at least a libertarian, also with the definition of technocracy still being wooly it's difficult to talk about it in concrete terms.

If we do get to the point where nanobots or some other system reduces the cost of items to a near zero point then current political reality will no longer apply as the concpets of supply and demand will no longer apply. A post humanist could easilly argue that in a future where everything is practically free and healthcare is universal there is no need for a political system. Although it could equally be argued that in the same situation the current political system could still exist with the prestige and money shifting from those who produce to those who create, with designers, artists and scientists becoming the most powerful members of society.

[Omnist Priest]

Zolzene, you say technocracy does not require any rights to be removed, but again a person can not own anything and so cannot better himself any further than the standard level (which is the minimum level). So what he an learn, what does he get from it, more responsibilities?

In a competitive market those who have more responsibility also have more powers (over people and money), but in technocracy they get no such benefits from promotion. They cannot get more power or income just more difficult work, is this what people have to work toward?

As it is, people see a reliance on government programs or public systems as a weakness (such as having to ride a bus), and yet technocracy seeks to rid the country of all other choices. Choices are what people value, not quality or quantity of any specific choice. If all choices are eliminated other than the most efficient ones, than how can new ones be created?

If a product is not in production how can it be put into production? What power do people have to vote(for new things) if they can only vote for the choices that are placed in front of them?

[Omnist Priest]

How will you be able to customize?

Would you have access to factory controls?

Not everyone likes the same products, you cannot just say that this is the best, so this is all that you can buy.

People like to be in control, people want both rights and responsibilty. Having one without the other is like a sandwich without bread.