[The Nathan]

Why are you apologising? So you acknowledge that your post was very negatively inflammatory? You think my posts are rehtoric, I think your post and almost all the posts supportive of technocracy are rehtoric, because they refuse to go into rational intellectual debate through unemotional reasoning. Your entire post is either emotionally charged, irrelevant, or out of context. It seems as if you typed this post in a haste out of angry emotional reaction to my intellectual exposing of the massive amounts of flaws in technocracy and technology itself.

Actually you haven't given anything but merry-go-round rhetoric to every single point we've brought up, instead of properly discussing and providing substantial evidence for your outlandish claims, you instead go round and round in circles repeating the same things, hoping it'll somehow stick.

You haven't discussed how your society will remain stable, how you will survive a war with industrialized countries, how you will gather medicines from far-off areas, how you can maintain a populace large enough for your grand solution: Throwing more people at a project, how the movement can survive on a grand scale due to lack of organziation, how you will produce weapons to fight industrialized countries, how you will make people abandon said industrialized weapons if you've even won, how only advanced tehcnology is bad, how you only consider advanced technology to even be technology, or how you can maintain order in such a decentralized system.

Repeatedly, when these points have been brought up by myself and others, you hop on the merry-go-round and take us for a spin, somehow managing to not answer everything.

[immortallove]

All personal attacks have been removed from my above post.
However, in reading your reply, I did not see any rebuttals which very valid and fully supported except for the genocide one:

immortallove wrote:
You have several times misused the term "genocide". Genocide, by definition, is the systematic and planned termination of an entire national, racial, political or ethnic group.


How does this have anything to do with the topic of this thread? And by the way, genocide in almost all dictionaries is: "the systematic killing of a racial or cultural group." - Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide

That's the most unusual definition of genocide i've read, yet it still does not support your use of the word in your previous posts.

What is "new US", that is an oxymoron. You obviously completely reject the fact that the US is a terrorist cell that is occupying and using the land, labor, and resources of the indigenous peoples of America for their mischievious imperialist and colonialist activities, just like all non-indigenous colonists.

A little extreme, don't you think?
I meant "the new US" as in the sovereign country which had just been formed. I may have gotten boggged down and become unclear, but basically what I intended to say was that the actions of colonists before the actual formation of the sovereign US made them a target for the natives, even long aftter the US became independent. The authorities of the US retaliated, but it was not genocide, as their aim was not to eliminate the entire race, but to defend land.

immortallove wrote:
The killing of Aborigines was the same deal - the action of morally bankrupt individuals and groups who happened to have British nationality.


"Systematically killing of a racial group" does not mean that a state is necessary to prove that it was systematic, you are simply making a repetitive mistake of confusing systematic with state-sponsorship.

No, i am saying that the attempted genocide of the aborigines was not performed by the state of the UK, but by a grou of its citizens. Thus the UK were not involved in genocide.

immortallove wrote:
Hiroshima/Nagasaki requires a little more thought. Try to keep up.


That was an unnecessary arrogant remark, which is very unintellectual of you.

True, I apologise. very arrogant of me.

immortallove wrote:
There are several definitions of technology, none narrow it down to involvement of metals, plastics, chemicals, pollution and destruction.


I never typed that technology is defined by destruction.

True, but you certainly implied that you thought so in your posts.

immortallove wrote:
Impatience and cost-effectiveness drives people to harm the environment when producing an item or resource, but in a technocracy where cost-effectiveness does not exist and completely unharmful methods of production are universally in use this is not a problem.


What about "Impatience", you explained how the "cost-effectiveness" would somehow disappear.

Impatience would not be a factor, as people seeking to produce something would be forced to use the "green" methods available.

Your entire post is either emotionally charged, irrelevant, or out of context. It seems as if you typed this post in a haste out of angry emotional reaction to my intellectual exposing of the massive amounts of flaws in technocracy and technology itself.

My apology for the personal attacks is at the start of this post.
I typed this post in a hast out of angry emotional reaction to your completely roundabout, unreasonable, emotionally charged attack on the principles of those who support technocracy. I felt that you were refusing to debate in an open and intellectual manner, and that is something I cant stand. However, I may have been a little too angry and emotional, you are right.
boohoo...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Where did I ask such a simple question? And money exists in many forms, such as capital (as I have mentioned many times before).

This I take as evidence of either you not understanding something you've read, or not making any attempt to actually learn about the subject you criticize despite numerous attempts to assist you.

If you take that as evidence, then you have scant evidence, because what I meant by capital was property value, such as the machinery would have value, and all such material property that provides livelihood has always been controlled by a minority of society, so logic is against you and technocracy, because based on this fact, technocracy is a lot like utopia, in the sense that it wants to achieve a society that relies on an unprecedented socio-economic set-up.

To say that Technocracy uses money is like saying Marx was a capitalist.

I did not say technocracy uses money, and capital has many definitions, and yes among one of them is "money", however also "property".

But in case you did miss it somehow, I will make it clear:

"Remove money and replace with Energy Accounting"
taken from: How Technocracy Works (simplified).

This is rendered unnecessary, by my first paragraph in this post which is just a paraphrasing/summarizing of what I have always stated all along hitherto.

"Thus, money in any form whatsoever is completely inadequate as a medium of distribution in an economy of abundance with a Price System control."
taken from: Energy Accounting Information Brief Number 29.

I agree that money should be abolished at once, especially in an "economy of abundance", which I think is 100% more potential in collective manual farming with abolition of the cities and towns and use of their populace for 100% labor-force to increase productivity ten-fold. By the way collective labor is much more powerful than individualistic labor, because in collective labor, the labor group can achieve much more as an organized group then can any individual on Earth, I am sure you will agree with this reasoning/logic, though I admit I have a feeling you will not through being influenced by others.

The accompanying links explain the position of the statements rather clearly.

Yes they do.

There would be no "capitalist" class, or any other for that matter.

There will however be a ruling-class, whether it be in the form of technocrats or a racial group. Throughout history, there has always been a ruling-class, the only societies that did not have a ruling-class were those of prehistoric times or around that time.

All citizens receive an equal (although not identical) portion of production of the nation, as measured in the only objectively measurable and non-fluctuating common denominator of all goods and services, energy.

This is a very long sentence to paraphrase and lengthen a rather short statement, please be more succinct through proper clarification thereof. Thank you.

And due to its non-transferability and limited validity, it cannot be saved, hoarded, given to or taken from others in any way whatsoever.

What about food? Food is the most basic necessity for life, there are people that can not stop eating, there is an obesity epidemic in the most industrialist nations, especially America.

Thus it, unlike money cannot be used as a means of "social control" in the form of bribes or wages.

It can, such as by the ruling-class not providing equal treatment to each racial/intellectual class, such as a race deemed criminal or a large intellectual group deemed "anti-progress". By the way this and the other example cited, such as that of a ruling-class always existing, has much more precedents than does technocracy with its dependence on material things more than on people, all social systems thrive from balancing attention toward people and material property for livelihood, such as in slavery there was the slave, this is why it quickly failed and transitioned into feudalism. Feudalism thrived from balance between land and laborers, feudalism declined when the handicap of it being based on agricultural arable land turned into the springing up of wealthy villages that turned into towns and then into cities, thence capitalism arose. Capitalism thrived from the balance between man and machine, this balance failed miserably by the machine replacing the man, resulting in the most poverty, pollution, unemployment, overpopulation centers, starvation, world wars, and etc, that humanity has ever seen in such an extent (which is extremely unprecedented), this is why the abolition of towns, and cities is important, as is outlined in the communist manifesto as among the 10 measures to be implemented by a victorious communist party. The abolition of capitalism also requires the extermination of the system of money, as feudalism destroyed the system of individual owning another individual on the basis of difference of tribe/race. And as Capitalism replaced feudalism by destroying the feudal ties and power sourced in landed aristocracy, which capitalism replaced with by for the first time since the primitive age of tribalism, the ability of man to be free through their own struggle, however this is still half-like tribalism, because there is still ruling-classes and ruled-classes.

As for "capital", i.e. anything that can gernerate wealth, the very definition of "property" would be different in a Technocracy. No one would be able to "own" for instance a factory, warehouse, or even a means of transportation. All "property" would be in the form of consumable goods, or personal items (clothing, jewelry, etc.)

How is this different from internationalist industrialist communism? Or communo-anarchist syndicalism, such as that preached by the Industrial Workers Organization?

All of this is irrelevant, because it is off topic: technocracy and pollution.

So is genocide, which you seemed to take quite an interest in. But I'm not getting into that.

I will soon make a topic on the immense relation between the modern precedent of conventional use of genocide and machines, that machines have made genocide into a conventional use of doing and gettign away with genocide.

...acid rain and nuclear accidents were inevitable prerequisites to more "Advanced" technology, such as extremely immense amounts of energy from nuclear generators and the massive capitalist want of transportation and factories that produced the air pollution that causes acid rain.

From this can I infer that you agree that it is the abuse of technology that causes these things? If so, as I've pointed out, such "capitalist wants" would not only be absent in a Technocracy, but also the mechanisms by which such "wants" are both executed and encouraged (i.e. rewarded). There would be no motication for any behaviour that was not contributing to the sustainability of the Technate, of which environmental protection and resource conservation are both integral and vital.

I agree with the former statement, though not the latter, because there is no evidence to prove that a technocracy or any automated industrial corporation takes environmental protection to be "integral" and "vital" to anything essential about them.

Technocracy's plan is very thorough, and the original designers would not have put forth this proposal if they did not understand that this goal was indeed technologically possible, even feasible.

What is the meaning of "technologically", like what is the definition of technology that you implyed through your use of "technologically" in that statement?

Yes, but this ignores the main point that I am raising, which is that pollution will only increase from a technocracy, and or that technocracy requires at least some sort of pollution, even if it is minimal in comparison to a non-technocratic system.

Pollution is not inevitable, unless you are defining it as "any interference with the environment whatsoever by humans." In which case, "pollution" would be far within the environment's tolerance limits in a Technocracy.

I wish, however I don't see how it is logically "tolerable" for the environment to sustain pollution, you need to understand evolution, evolution made humans into what we are after millions of years, all this biological progress was possible through a sutained evironment that did not change radically, today the environment/climate that humans live in is much more radically changing then it ever has, according to many scientists. Like haven't you noticed that all of a sudden in this past century and this century hitherto, records of climate temperature have breaken record after record in their extremity, and this is coinciding with earthquakes being more and more common, and with floods being much more wide-spread then they used to be, they used to be rare, and hence taken as a sign of punishment from God or some supernatural thing.

Nothing dramatic would happen, not due to the Technate anyway.

See above.

Environments are changed and shifted by numerous forces all the time, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramtically. These forces can come from the weather, from space, from some species of plant or animal. From what I've read of your posts, and correct me if I'm wrong, you think that anything above an agrarian level of civilization is automatically harmful to the environment.

Not necessarily, however I think a purely agrarian economy with tools made out of agricultural organic products with everyone working, even the leadership, would result in the best society, economy, and polity potential then has ever existed, and this is partly-precedented by attempts at building self-sufficient stateless communes, and most logically possible through evidence and reasoning through pre-capitalist times of feudalism, in which there was feudalism with no trade.

What I am saying is that the environment will barely notice humans being there in a Technate.

The thing is that agriculture is important to help the environment, either the environment is helped or destroyed by humans, it is impossible for humans to do neither.

There have even been numerous agrarian societies that have butchered their environment in deforestation, improper use of farmland, poor waste disposal (such as in Europe during the middle ages), etc.

I agree this is why I think industrial communism is an important prerequisite for agrarian ruralism. Please read the 10 measures of the communist manifesto on communist forum it is among the latest posted, it is authored by me, or you can just read a free on-line version of the communist manifesto through searching for it on google or yahoo or etc.

These practices have the same root as our currently, damaging, "technological" ones, and that is the Price System, which requires continuous growth, expansion, and resource exploitation (including human resources I might add).

You are extremely mistaken, if you think most or all agrarian socieities had a "Price System".

Technocracy was the first to research and understand this fact, and therefor was the first to devise a solution for it. We no longer have to limit ourselves to this way of life, and can instead take what we need from the environment efficiently, cleanly, and return to it (in the form of recycling and proper waste treatment) without adversely affecting the balance of its ordinary functions. I think that Mother Nature would be quite proud.

This is all illusory, because it has no precedent in modern times, especially "proper" waste treatment, by the way treatment means treating the problem, not curing it, just as they say "Cancer treatment", this would in fact be "cancer treatment", abolition of machines, would be like cutting off the cancerous tumor which threats the very existance of humanity.

One article you should read if you have not already is called The Ecology of Man.

I will read it, I don't know if I have read it already or not, because I haven't clicked on the link yet, before typing this post, and because I want to read it thoroughly in one trial.

Would there be unemployment at all? I still can't understand how the capitalist-class can easily have its employing powers and the tyranny that it does with this power be taken away from it without massive genocide of the capitalists and their supporters (religious people). Just give me a direct URL link to a web page that explains this, thank you.

1) No, there would be no unemployment, because there would be no employment, in a Technocracy. Employment is the exchange of work for wages or salary. Since a person's income is independant of their functional contribution to society in a Technate, then this is not employment, and therefor both "work" and "income' need to be looked at separately.

By employment, what is meant is doing work in exchange for livelihood, from someone, which in technocracy would be the technocrats overseeing the "proper" transfer and distribution of "energy".

Would there be people without income? No. Would there be people that did not work? Quite possibly.

So there would be no income, but there would be some people that do not work? This is considered joblessness, and this would be worst then feudalism and capitalism, because the person would have no means of making a livelihood in case if some accident happens to the source of livelihood in the technocracy: the juggernaut of technate machinery. I call it a juggernaut, because the technate would deny people the ability to live from farming or trade, which are the most common forms of "instinctual" social contracts hitherto in human history.

Would there be no opportunities for these people to do work? Absolutely not. Anyone may contribute in any number of ways and the Technate would have at its disposal several mechanisms to assist each and every person in acheiving the most they personally can in any field.

This is an assertion with a promise to support it, it has no statistical or factual evidence to support it, it has a promise to support it because it just uses the word "would" to support itself.

2) The "capitalist class' of any country has it's power dirived from wealth generated by the economy.

This is your most fundamental flaw, you fail to realize that wealth (money) is not the only or main thing that the "capitalist class of any country has it's power derived from", the main thing is machinery/mechanical technology, if by wealth you mean abundance of machinery and mechanical technology being in possession of the capitalist-classes, then yes I see what your point is, and I agree that such a system would be better than capitalism at present, but stil I think a technocracy should be just a temporary transitionary stage between capitalism and communism, and thus socialism. Technocracy is a lot like socialism, because it puts all property, machinery, and etc into the hands of society rather than the capitalist-class.

If the economy collapsed, as it most certainly will (many links have already been posted, but here is one again: Why Technocracy?), then their base of power is gone. They will not be able to do much about it. Their only hope is to try and establish a fascistic government to control what little of the population will remain after the collapse. Before then, however, people will not want to simply "give up and die". They will be looking for another alternative to maintain their technologically established standard of living, and only Technocracy will be able to do that. There's not guarnatees that this will happen, but its success will be directly related to how much help we can get to make sure that the public is informed about their choices before this happens.

You fail to realize that capitalism also involves international exploitation, and technocracy would rquire some sort of international trade, whether exploitive or not, to get the resources to maintain the industries and machinery that it depends on.

However, this is topic of transistion, not one of operation, and does not reflect at all the feasibility of an operating Technate.

I agree with such a transition, however I am also "toying" with the idea of violent abolition of all symbols of capitalism, such as: machines (which includes cars, factories, and computers), cities, towns, religion, houses of worship, trade, property rights, morality, law, and racial plurality. You need to take all of these into consideration, I think all of these wil either make or break technocracy, respectively.

The commonly accepted one is "the scientific application of knowledge to a problem." Thus, even mediating a debate which is falling apart is by definition technology, if the ugly debate is a problem.

This is an obvious distortion of the real definition of technology, and you know yourself that you are distorting the definition for your propagandic scheme for whatever purpose.

I know you use a very different definition than the rest of us, but please, if we can't agree on a simply definition this entire conversation is pointless, since we'll be talking about two different things.

You are an extreme contradictor if you agree with his definition of technology, because this would make many of your statements seem stupid, like all of the ones in which you talk about "technologically established standard of living" and talk about "tech"nate and etc. He use this definition for technology:

"the scientific application of knowledge to a problem." Thus, even mediating a debate which is falling apart is by definition technology, if the ugly debate is a problem.

Technocracy is anything but a system that is based on platonism, or is it? I say platonism, because he says that technology is "mediating a debate", which is like philosophic. Please correct me if I am wrong without any isolated explainations, because the purpose of all of this is not just one on one or group versus group competition, the purpose is to learn, right?

You call it a "distortion" for "propaganda". This to me sounds like "projection", i.e. accusing someone else of what you yourself is doing. I'll back this up, shall I?

Main Entry: tech·nol·o·gy
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Greek technologia systematic treatment of an art, from technE art, skill + -o- + -logia -logy
1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : ENGINEERING 2 <medical technology> b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving technology>
2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage>
3 : the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology>
- tech·nol·o·gist /-jist/ noun

taken from: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=technology

...the development and application of tools, machines, materials and processes that help to solve human problems. As a human activity, technology predates both science and engineering.

The term technology thus often characterises inventions and gadgets using recently-discovered scientific principles and processes. However, even very old inventions such as the wheel exemplify technology.

taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology

I agree with this statement that I colored in red, because I agree in the abolition of all of this, like "inventions", "gadgets", wheels, machines, and etc.

Early or prehistoric advances in technology or fundamental tools

Agriculture
Astronomy
Animal husbandry
Cattle breeding
Cooking
Clothing
Fire
Inclined plane
Metal mining
Lever
Pottery
Pulley
Screw
Weaponry
Wedge
Wheel
Writing

taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_technologies

technology [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
(the study and knowledge of) the practical, especially industrial, use of scientific discoveries:

taken from; http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=81654&dict=CALD

tech·nol·o·gy (plural tech·nol·o·gies)
noun
1. application of tools and methods: the study, development, and application of devices, machines, and techniques for manufacturing and productive processes
recent developments in seismographic technology

2. method of applying technical knowledge: a method or methodology that applies technical knowledge or tools
a new technology for accelerating incubation

3. anthropology sum of a society’s or culture’s knowledge: the sum of a society’s or culture’s practical knowledge, especially with reference to its material culture

taken from: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861718738

tech-nol-o-gy

Part of Speech noun
Pronunciation
tehk na lE ji
Inflected Forms technologies
Definition 1. a field of knowledge concerned with the use of industrial arts and applied science to achieve practical objectives.
Definition 2. all of the means available for dealing with practical problems in the material world.

Derived Forms technologist, n.

taken from: http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=technology&matchtype=exact


So, where do you get your definition from?

Ok, I hope all of that definition reproducing was not made as an arrogant action, and rather as one to just humbly help me "get back on track" or "get with the program" by us coming to a common understanding of the root of technocracy, which is the word "technology". I am simply against all forms of material technology made at and after the birth (advent) of capitalism in the form of simple barter-trade, which coincided with the production of the wheel to transport goods and etc.

[immortallove]

Yay, sounds like this little debate is getting on track!
And Nationali, sounds lke you've read some introduction to Technocracy. While I haven't researched it to a major degree yet, I have read several introductory articles and am a huge fan of it in principle.

If you take that as evidence, then you have scant evidence, because what I meant by capital was property value, such as the machinery would have value, and all such material property that provides livelihood has always been controlled by a minority of society, so logic is against you and technocracy, because based on this fact, technocracy is a lot like utopia, in the sense that it wants to achieve a society that relies on an unprecedented socio-economic set-up.

Hmm. That's the reason why many do not support technocracy even after a thorough explanation. Yes, it would require a moderate to major overhaul of the current socio-economic set-up. This is hard to grasp andharder to accept as it involves a very different way of life, but it is important to accept that it will not be painful and will be for the best. Regarding the statement "all such material property that provides livelihood has always been controlled by a minority of society", could you give some examples? I'm assuming you mean as in farmers own all our agricultural equipment and so forth.

By the way collective labor is much more powerful than individualistic labor, because in collective labor, the labor group can achieve much more as an organized group then can any individual on Earth, I am sure you will agree with this reasoning/logic, though I admit I have a feeling you will not through being influenced by others.

I don't agree with this, as I believe that when dozens, hundreds or thousands work together on any individual task or long-term project such as farming, they are marginally less efficient. The reason for this is that in such large numbers, individual achievement is lost through the sheer volume of work produced. Excellent work is not noticed so much, therefore any drive to excel is lost and all individuals do not perform to their fullest potential. I'll admit there has been exceptions, most notably in the form of that miner in the USSR, who mined hundreds of tonnes of coal single-handedly in one day. He was made a national hero, which helped to inspire the other workers. However, I really think that such a performance and subsequent stardom would have little effect on a workforce as a whole, and would not make up for the productivity lost through the lack of accountability.
Thje best system in my belief is the one in place now in capitalist countries, in which units of workers in companies or farms work in relatively small groups towards an overall goal. Here, while there are still perhaps thousands of people in a company working for profit, within small groups such as individual departments or teams within departments, individual excellence is noticed and applauded by coworkers, and sometimes rewarded by the management with a raise or promotion. In a technocracy, this small-unit efficiency and accountability can be recreated in the form of small groups working to produce a product together, earning energy individually but efficiently, or in the form of individuals standingout from the crowd through skill at a task or craft.
I dont really appreciate the suggestion that I or others here are not capable of independent thought - "I admit I have a feeling you will not [agree with the group labour concept] through being influenced by others"

There will however be a ruling-class, whether it be in the form of technocrats or a racial group. Throughout history, there has always been a ruling-class, the only societies that did not have a ruling-class were those of prehistoric times or around that time.

Not necessarily a ruling-class, but a faction of society whose particular method of earning energy credit is the maintenance of the Energy Accounting system. They would have no power above that of any other citizen.

Kolzene wrote:

And due to its non-transferability and limited validity, it cannot be saved, hoarded, given to or taken from others in any way whatsoever.

What about food? Food is the most basic necessity for life, there are people that can not stop eating, there is an obesity epidemic in the most industrialist nations, especially America.

Well, there is no way that someone could eat more than they have earned through expenditure of energy unless someone else gives them food that they have earned, which would be rather stupid unless the recipient was the child or dependant of the donating party.

Kolzene wrote:
Thus it, unlike money cannot be used as a means of "social control" in the form of bribes or wages.


It can, such as by the ruling-class not providing equal treatment to each racial/intellectual class, such as a race deemed criminal or a large intellectual group deemed "anti-progress".

See above regarding the "ruling class" of which you speak.

I will soon make a topic on the immense relation between the modern precedent of conventional use of genocide and machines, that machines have made genocide into a conventional use of doing and gettign away with genocide.

Now that would be interesting...

...there is no evidence to prove that a technocracy or any automated industrial corporation takes environmental protection to be "integral" and "vital" to anything essential about them.

It's up to those who create the technate to ensure that all methods of production which are available are "green" and then to ensure that these methods are adequate. The citizenry would thereafter have to versy slowly add to this capability as demand for energy and other resources increases.

Kolzene wrote:

Yes, but this ignores the main point that I am raising, which is that pollution will only increase from a technocracy, and or that technocracy requires at least some sort of pollution, even if it is minimal in comparison to a non-technocratic system.

Pollution is not inevitable, unless you are defining it as "any interference with the environment whatsoever by humans." In which case, "pollution" would be far within the environment's tolerance limits in a Technocracy.

I wish, however I don't see how it is logically "tolerable" for the environment to sustain pollution, you need to understand evolution, evolution made humans into what we are after millions of years, all this biological progress was possible through a sutained evironment that did not change radically, today the environment/climate that humans live in is much more radically changing then it ever has, according to many scientists. Like haven't you noticed that all of a sudden in this past century and this century hitherto, records of climate temperature have breaken record after record in their extremity, and this is coinciding with earthquakes being more and more common, and with floods being much more wide-spread then they used to be, they used to be rare, and hence taken as a sign of punishment from God or some supernatural thing

In a properly created technate, where environmentally friendly methods of production and disposal are abundant, any pollution would be quite minimal and mainly down to some careless or criminally stupid individuals either accidentally or deliberately failing to make use of the above. The environment's various natural methods of cleaning itself would ensure it is not harmed permanently. I am no mathematician or ecological expert, but if someone would like to post regarding the limits of the Earths ability to protect itself then please do.

Kolzene wrote:

Environments are changed and shifted by numerous forces all the time, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramtically. These forces can come from the weather, from space, from some species of plant or animal. From what I've read of your posts, and correct me if I'm wrong, you think that anything above an agrarian level of civilization is automatically harmful to the environment.

Not necessarily, however I think a purely agrarian economy with tools made out of agricultural organic products with everyone working, even the leadership, would result in the best society, economy, and polity potential then has ever existed, and this is partly-precedented by attempts at building self-sufficient stateless communes, and most logically possible through evidence and reasoning through pre-capitalist times of feudalism, in which there was feudalism with no trade.

I agree with your view of a completely natural existence, but that involves such a loss of comfort that noone would accept it. The same results are easily achievable in a technate with an increasre in the quality of life for all.

By employment, what is meant is doing work in exchange for livelihood, from someone, which in technocracy would be the technocrats overseeing the "proper" transfer and distribution of "energy".

No "technocrats". See above.

You fail to realize that capitalism also involves international exploitation, and technocracy would rquire some sort of international trade, whether exploitive or not, to get the resources to maintain the industries and machinery that it depends on.

Which is why the ideal circumstance is that the whole world becomes a single technate, eliminating international exploitation by eliminating nations.

Technocracy is anything but a system that is based on platonism, or is it? I say platonism, because he says that technology is "mediating a debate", which is like philosophic. Please correct me if I am wrong without any isolated explainations, because the purpose of all of this is not just one on one or group versus group competition, the purpose is to learn, right?

Mediating a debate is an example of technology without the involvement of production of a physical thing or use of physical machinery. If one uses psychological and sociological knowledge bring a debate to a successful resolution, then they are applying scientific knowledge to solve a problem, i.e. using technology.
I know that you do not use the definition of technology which I use, but having read several dictionary definitions, the definition I use is the only definition used in almost all dictionary entries. I dont have a pile of dictionaries next to me, but if one were to do a trawl through online dictionaries and/or physical ones, one would find that all definitions share the basic meaning "using knowledge/science/scientific knowledge to solve a problem/produce something".

Ok, I hope all of that definition reproducing was not made as an arrogant action, and rather as one to just humbly help me "get back on track" or "get with the program" by us coming to a common understanding of the root of technocracy, which is the word "technology". I am simply against all forms of material technology made at and after the birth (advent) of capitalism in the form of simple barter-trade, which coincided with the production of the wheel to transport goods and etc.

I dont agree with your wish to abolish "all forms of material technology made at and after the birth (advent) of capitalism in the form of simple barter-trade, which coincided with the production of the wheel to transport goods and etc". As I have said before, these technologies have increased the comfort and productivity of society exponentially over the centuries, and all can be produced and used in environmentally friendly ways now, with the help of modern - you guessed it - technology. For that is the principleof Technocracy - to sove all rpoblems using technology. That includes problems for Mother Earth as well as for the master species.


This is quite a stimulating debate, I'm only new here but having already insulted someone, apologised, and bitten into a good, meaty debate, I'm feeling right at home

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I dont agree with your wish to abolish "all forms of material technology made at and after the birth (advent) of capitalism in the form of simple barter-trade, which coincided with the production of the wheel to transport goods and etc". As I have said before, these technologies have increased the comfort and productivity of society exponentially over the centuries,

They lessen the productivity of society, by giving the task of productivity to a lesser percentage of society and replacing man with machine, thus causing unemployment and ensuing poverty. "These technologies" just increase comfort though much more for the minority of parasitic ruling-class elite, otherwise known as bourgeoisie, and in some societies are socialist intellectuals and technocrats in technocracy.

and all can be produced and used in environmentally friendly ways now, with the help of modern - you guessed it - technology.

That is false, because "these technologies" (machines), require pollution, thus anything but friendliness toward the environment. Its almost as if machines are worst than the devil, because they cause all the man-made pollution that creates global warming and ensuing series of record-breaking cold weather in winter and record-breaking heat in summer and other "acts of God".

For that is the principleof Technocracy - to sove all rpoblems using technology. That includes problems for Mother Earth as well as for the master species.

What did you mean by master species, like what was your implication, was it that in technocracy there is lesser reliance on other species other than man? If it was, I wanted to point out that in National Communism of Cambodia, there was reliance on man, not machines, not animals, nor women.

This is quite a stimulating debate, I'm only new here but having already insulted someone, apologised, and bitten into a good, meaty debate, I'm feeling right at home

You should talk more about this in the forum titled "the lobby", like make your own topic about yourself.

[immortallove]

They lessen the productivity of society, by giving the task of productivity to a lesser percentage of society and replacing man with machine, thus causing unemployment and ensuing poverty. "These technologies" just increase comfort though much more for the minority of parasitic ruling-class elite, otherwise known as bourgeoisie, and in some societies are socialist intellectuals and technocrats in technocracy.

One machine can do the mental work of perhaps thousands of men, and the physical work of dozens. By requiring only one man to maintain each one (actually less, but i'm erring on your side here to emphasise my point) machines can multiply the productivity of the planet's physical workers by several dozen, or indeed hundred. This means that with only 1/12th of the population at work, the same can be achieved as if the the whole planet were working simultaneously.

Also, I'd like to see how successful a farmer you were without crop rotation, or how enlightened you were without printing, or how productive you were without medicines or ergonomics, or how much time you wasted walking to your area of work, or how secure you were when you had no modern weapons to defend yourselffrom wild animals and could not be sure where your next meal would come from because you couldn't simply go to a store and be sure of finding some there and certainly couldn't trade for some because that would be capitalist. I've gone a little bit off-topic there but I really feel it's important that you have some recognition of the benefits of technology.

These technologies, as you admit, also increase comfort, but not just for the rich or "bourgeoisie". Almost the entire population is aided in at least a small part by these technologies. Even the most poverty-stricken, the inhabitants of the poorer parts of the African continent, benefit from water pumping, sewage of some kind, sometimes modern medicine, almost all from at least a piece of corrugated steel for a shelter, modern insulative fabrics, modern farming techniques even using ancient instruments, etc...

And as stated before, THERE ARE NO TECHNOCRATS in technocracy!

immortallove wrote:

and all can be produced and used in environmentally friendly ways now, with the help of modern - you guessed it - technology.

That is false, because "these technologies" (machines), require pollution, thus anything but friendliness toward the environment. Its almost as if machines are worst than the devil, because they cause all the man-made pollution that creates global warming and ensuing series of record-breaking cold weather in winter and record-breaking heat in summer and other "acts of God".

Grr... we've argued over this before. Abuse of technology causes these horrible things. Wind Power, tidal power, solar power, nuclear power (when correctly run), proper, thorough waste disposal which involves complete breakdown of waste material into biodegradeable or natural materials/elements, electric transport, chemical rather than combustion-based conversin of materials for industrial use, etc do not harm the environment. In a technocracy, these things are all provided in abundance to the citizenry, thus negating the need for un-environmentally friendly methods (which wouldn't be tolerated by the rest of the population anyway if someone was stupid/impatient/evil enough to try to use those methods). So forget about pollution - technocracy is the earth's best friend

immortallove wrote:

For that is the principleof Technocracy - to sove all rpoblems using technology. That includes problems for Mother Earth as well as for the master species.

What did you mean by master species, like what was your implication, was it that in technocracy there is lesser reliance on other species other than man? If it was, I wanted to point out that in National Communism of Cambodia, there was reliance on man, not machines, not animals, nor women.

I meant us. We are the master speciesof this planet. Therefore the above sentence could be read as:"...as well as for humans." There was no implication that animals would not be used. You read quite a lot into that, man

In a technate, I suppose someone who farmed would need to have animals just the same as in any other state (except that National Communism of Cambodia, which I find rather insensible. I mean, when animals can be used to help with work rather than machines, what principle dictates that they should not?). And we still need milk, cheese, eggs, meat, etc.

You should talk more about this in the forum titled "the lobby", like make your own topic about yourself.

I already have, the above was just a little bit of musing. Sorry if it offended you somehow...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

They lessen the productivity of society, by giving the task of productivity to a lesser percentage of society and replacing man with machine, thus causing unemployment and ensuing poverty. "These technologies" just increase comfort though much more for the minority of parasitic ruling-class elite, otherwise known as bourgeoisie, and in some societies are socialist intellectuals and technocrats in technocracy.

One machine can do the mental work of perhaps thousands of men,

Mental work is not only unnecessary, it is parasitic toward physical work.

and the physical work of dozens.

The problem is that machines require metal, and metal comes from other countries, to acquire that metal, some sort of exploitation is necessary.

By requiring only one man to maintain each one (actually less, but i'm erring on your side here to emphasise my point) machines can multiply the productivity of the planet's physical workers by several dozen, or indeed hundred.

This is a delusion, which does not take account nor consideration of the negative requirements of machines, which is constant maintenance with raw materials from foreign countries, supply of cheap labor, and pollution.

This means that with only 1/12th of the population at work, the same can be achieved as if the the whole planet were working simultaneously.

This is an obvious illusion.

Also, I'd like to see how successful a farmer you were without crop rotation, or how enlightened you were without printing, or how productive you were without medicines or ergonomics, or how much time you wasted walking to your area of work, or how secure you were when you had no modern weapons to defend yourselffrom wild animals and could not be sure where your next meal would come from because you couldn't simply go to a store and be sure of finding some there and certainly couldn't trade for some because that would be capitalist.

The thing is that your whole mentality is based on the presumption that collective work is either impossible and or not trustworthy. Such as, together humans can do anything, and one would not have to do as much hard labor when they are working collectively with others.

I've gone a little bit off-topic there but I really feel it's important that you have some recognition of the benefits of technology.

This is it? If that is the best you can come up with, then technology is very counter-productive and beneficial in long-term to only the minority of ruling-class elite.

These technologies, as you admit, also increase comfort, but not just for the rich or "bourgeoisie". Almost the entire population is aided in at least a small part by these technologies.

The thing is that the comfort that these technologies bring is rendered worthless in comparison to the amount of handicap they bring upon the potential and ability of the masses in being self-sufficient and free from the starvation, clothelessness, homelessness, and lack of medicines that the bourgeoisie impose upon them, at least in Feudalism food, clothing, shelter, and medicines are not monopolized by the ruling-class.

Even the most poverty-stricken, the inhabitants of the poorer parts of the African continent, benefit from water pumping, sewage of some kind, sometimes modern medicine, almost all from at least a piece of corrugated steel for a shelter, modern insulative fabrics, modern farming techniques even using ancient instruments, etc...

These are all counter-productive luxuries that ignore the fact that it is in man's nature to be self-sufficient, hence civilizations grew where there was water, not where water came through some dependent water supply that needs constant repair and maintenance through massive exploitation of the masses!

And as stated before, THERE ARE NO TECHNOCRATS in technocracy!

You wish, this is just propaganda, the bourgeoisie said this at the start of the french revolution, and look at what happend.

immortallove wrote:

and all can be produced and used in environmentally friendly ways now, with the help of modern - you guessed it - technology.

That is false, because "these technologies" (machines), require pollution, thus anything but friendliness toward the environment. Its almost as if machines are worst than the devil, because they cause all the man-made pollution that creates global warming and ensuing series of record-breaking cold weather in winter and record-breaking heat in summer and other "acts of God".

Grr... we've argued over this before. Abuse of technology causes these horrible things. Wind Power, tidal power, solar power, nuclear power (when correctly run), proper, thorough waste disposal which involves complete breakdown of waste material into biodegradeable or natural materials/elements, electric transport, chemical rather than combustion-based conversin of materials for industrial use, etc do not harm the environment.

You confuse what is more important: the fittest survival of the masses at all times or the luxury of the few and etc.

In a technocracy, these things are all provided in abundance to the citizenry, thus negating the need for un-environmentally friendly methods (which wouldn't be tolerated by the rest of the population anyway if someone was stupid/impatient/evil enough to try to use those methods).

See above.

So forget about pollution - technocracy is the earth's best friend

This is all bourgeoisie propaganda.

immortallove wrote:

For that is the principleof Technocracy - to sove all rpoblems using technology. That includes problems for Mother Earth as well as for the master species.

What did you mean by master species, like what was your implication, was it that in technocracy there is lesser reliance on other species other than man? If it was, I wanted to point out that in National Communism of Cambodia, there was reliance on man, not machines, not animals, nor women.

I meant us. We are the master speciesof this planet. Therefore the above sentence could be read as:"...as well as for humans." There was no implication that animals would not be used. You read quite a lot into that, man

I did not read a lot into it, the thing is that you did not exercise your intellect to be included in that vague statement, such as there was no purpose for you to use such a phrase if it did not have some larger meaning, because the meaning of the phrase and message behind it is readily understandable in simpleton talk and is also widely agreeable.

In a technate, I suppose someone who farmed would need to have animals just the same as in any other state (except that National Communism of Cambodia, which I find rather insensible. I mean, when animals can be used to help with work rather than machines, what principle dictates that they should not?).

The principle of autarky, which is one of the core values and purposes of the Pol Pot regime, in order to strengthen and liberate Cambodia from the foreign imperialist yoke of capitalist exploitation through trade and aid.

And we still need milk, cheese, eggs, meat, etc.

Correction: We don't need milk, cheese, eggs, mean, etc.; these things are wants, not needs, there is a huge difference.

You should talk more about this in the forum titled "the lobby", like make your own topic about yourself.

I already have, the above was just a little bit of musing. Sorry if it offended you somehow...

No it did not offend me at all, thank you anyways for your instinctive apologies, I highly regard that sort of mannerism, especially when kept intact in intellectual debates on internet forums, such as this one.

[Mr. Anderson]

Give me a theoretical blow-by-blow description of how a group of people can become part of the ruling elite in a technate. Just create a hypothetical scenario.

[immortallove]

We will obviously never agree, we have both been living to long under the influence of what we would both refer to as propoganda/rhetoric. Both of us have little to no time for the other's politcal beliefs on this matter.

But please, out of interest, post what you believe will happen under a technate, from start to rock bottom in your opinion.

A number of rebuttals:

Mental work is not only unnecessary, it is parasitic toward physical work.

Explain

The problem is that machines require metal, and metal comes from other countries, to acquire that metal, some sort of exploitation is necessary.

As mentioned before, the ideal is that technocracy be adopted across the planet, thus eliminating nations and therefore international exploitation. Also, because one can only recieve what they have earned through work (the energy accounting system in action) there are no exchange rates (no money), cheap labour, differences in price of resources (the "price" is whatever amount of energy was required to mine/produce it and transport it). All trade is even and completely just.

"Metal comes from other countries" - Well, i'm living in ireland, there are others here from all over the world, so surely everyone does not say metal comes from other countries, it must come from somewhere...

This is a delusion, which does not take account nor consideration of the negative requirements of machines, which is constant maintenance with raw materials from foreign countries, supply of cheap labor...

See above

...and pollution

I covered this issue in the paragraph below:

Grr... we've argued over this before. Abuse of technology causes these horrible things. Wind Power, tidal power, solar power, nuclear power (when correctly run), proper, thorough waste disposal which involves complete breakdown of waste material into biodegradeable or natural materials/elements, electric transport, chemical rather than combustion-based conversin of materials for industrial use, etc do not harm the environment.

And you replied:

You confuse what is more important: the fittest survival of the masses at all times or the luxury of the few and etc.

Explain how that is remotely relevant to my statement above?

immortallove wrote:

And as stated before, THERE ARE NO TECHNOCRATS in technocracy!

You wish, this is just propaganda, the bourgeoisie said this at the start of the french revolution, and look at what happend.

But if there were some ruling class, then it would not be technocracy. The problem of corruption or power-grabbing is not an issue in this thread, as we are debating the viability of actual technocracy here.

immortallove wrote:

This means that with only 1/12th of the population at work, the same can be achieved as if the the whole planet were working simultaneously.

This is an obvious illusion.

If the entire population of planet Earth were to go to work with sickles, harvesting wheat from a field the size of the planet, would they be faster than a fleet of combine harvester machines, one for every twelve people? I doubt it...

The thing is that your whole mentality is based on the presumption that collective work is either impossible and or not trustworthy. Such as, together humans can do anything, and one would not have to do as much hard labor when they are working collectively with others.

Not a presumption, a fairly solid train of thought, which you do not agree with. As for "one would not have to do as much hard labor when they are working collectively with others", that only makes my point in an earlier post about the inefficiency of collective labour stronger! Labourers in collective labour tend to slack off as they feel the rest of the group will take up the slack, but a) they all have this thought and b)taking up the slack, if anyone was working hard enough to do so, which they wont due to point a, reduces the productivity of the group as a whole.

This is it? If that is the best you can come up with, then technology is very counter-productive and beneficial in long-term to only the minority of ruling-class elite.

Only in your way of thinking, which appears to be at a tangent to mine and a lot of others here, in fact I think the majority of PoFo.

These are all counter-productive luxuries that ignore the fact that it is in man's nature to be self-sufficient, hence civilizations grew where there was water, not where water came through some dependent water supply that needs constant repair and maintenance through massive exploitation of the masses!

Support the comment about the nature of man. Is it fact? I would have thought that the nature of man would be to invent ways of making his existence easier - hence the existence of invention and modern technology.

"...where water came through some dependent water supply that needs constant repair and maintenance through massive exploitation of the masses!"
should read as:
"where water came through some dependent water supply that needs occasional or at worst moderately infrequent repair through voluntary work (often communal) by those who depend on the pump." in my opinion.

immortallove wrote:

So forget about pollution - technocracy is the earth's best friend

This is all bourgeoisie propaganda

No, this is all my personal belief, supported by strong logic. I am not being influenced by any "propaganda".

I did not read a lot into it, the thing is that you did not exercise your intellect to be included in that vague statement, such as there was no purpose for you to use such a phrase if it did not have some larger meaning, because the meaning of the phrase and message behind it is readily understandable in simpleton talk and is also widely agreeable.

There's nothing vague about that statement, the only thing which could have been unclear to anyone, and certainly not someone who would frequent this forum, is the replacement of the word "human" with the term "master species". It may be worth note that I intended to type "That includes problems for Mother Earth as well as for her master species." I felt it was a little more aesthetic, which sometimes slips into my language due to my fondness for writing songs, short stories, reviews of videogames etc. "the master species" was a typo.

The principle of autarky, which is one of the core values and purposes of the Pol Pot regime, in order to strengthen and liberate Cambodia from the foreign imperialist yoke of capitalist exploitation through trade and aid.

Interesting. And not using animals for labour "liberates Cambodia from the foreign imperialist yoke of capitalist exploitation through trade and aid" how?

They are readily available and versatile sources of the most important nutrients for our health. We don't need them, but certainly should have a bloody good reason to do without them.

No it did not offend me at all, thank you anyways for your instinctive apologies, I highly regard that sort of mannerism, especially when kept intact in intellectual debates on internet forums, such as this one.

Thanks [/quote]

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Mental work is not only unnecessary, it is parasitic toward physical work.

Explain

All of it or a part of it? If part of it, then which part: former or latter?

Former: Mental work is unnecessary.

Latter: Mental work is parasitic toward physical work.

The problem is that machines require metal, and metal comes from other countries, to acquire that metal, some sort of exploitation is necessary.

As mentioned before, the ideal is that technocracy be adopted across the planet, thus eliminating nations and therefore international exploitation.

This is an impossible dream, not even capitalism has established itself in every part of the world. Communists tried very hard to make communism "be adopted across the planet, thus eliminating nations and therefore international exploitations."

"Metal comes from other countries" - Well, i'm living in ireland, there are others here from all over the world, so surely everyone does not say metal comes from other countries, it must come from somewhere...

So you are indirectly implying that there is an abundance of metal in Ireland?

Even if this is the case, there are other things that is required for machinery, other than metal, such as oil and other chemicals.

This is a delusion, which does not take account nor consideration of the negative requirements of machines, which is constant maintenance with raw materials from foreign countries, supply of cheap labor...

See above

...and pollution

I covered this issue in the paragraph below:

Grr... we've argued over this before. Abuse of technology causes these horrible things. Wind Power, tidal power, solar power, nuclear power (when correctly run), proper, thorough waste disposal which involves complete breakdown of waste material into biodegradeable or natural materials/elements, electric transport, chemical rather than combustion-based conversin of materials for industrial use, etc do not harm the environment.

And you replied:

You confuse what is more important: the fittest survival of the masses at all times or the luxury of the few and etc.

Explain how that is remotely relevant to my statement above?

immortallove wrote:

And as stated before, THERE ARE NO TECHNOCRATS in technocracy!

You wish, this is just propaganda, the bourgeoisie said this at the start of the french revolution, and look at what happend. [/quote]

But if there were some ruling class, then it would not be technocracy. The problem of corruption or power-grabbing is not an issue in this thread, as we are debating the viability of actual technocracy here.[/quote]

This is the same argument raised by utopian socialists, the thing is that utopian socialism like utopian technocracy, never gets put into action, only a tyrannical form of it does or a compromising one that is not totalitarian.

immortallove wrote:

This means that with only 1/12th of the population at work, the same can be achieved as if the the whole planet were working simultaneously.

This is an obvious illusion.

If the entire population of planet Earth were to go to work with sickles, harvesting wheat from a field the size of the planet, would they be faster than a fleet of combine harvester machines, one for every twelve people? I doubt it...

Your doubts are understandable, since you are a city dweller/town dweller. City dwellers and town dwellers have never witnessed the full physical power of the ability of human labor, until they go deep into the countryside, especially in a third world country, and see the vigorous cultivation of land by peasants. Have you ever seen third world country peasants? Third world country peasants are so muscular that they look like lions/animals in comparison to the city dwellers/town dwellers of the those third world countries, whom are usually skinnier than the average homeless person in the industrialized western world.

The thing is that your whole mentality is based on the presumption that collective work is either impossible and or not trustworthy. Such as, together humans can do anything, and one would not have to do as much hard labor when they are working collectively with others.

Not a presumption, a fairly solid train of thought, which you do not agree with. As for "one would not have to do as much hard labor when they are working collectively with others", that only makes my point in an earlier post about the inefficiency of collective labour stronger! Labourers in collective labour tend to slack off as they feel the rest of the group will take up the slack, but a) they all have this thought and b)taking up the slack, if anyone was working hard enough to do so, which they wont due to point a, reduces the productivity of the group as a whole.

It seems that you fail to understand the great distinction between farm labor and insutrial labor, in farm labor, especially of the peasants, there is much more labor even when the laborer is exhausted, because the person's livelihood is within the things that he is working (tilling).

This is it? If that is the best you can come up with, then technology is very counter-productive and beneficial in long-term to only the minority of ruling-class elite.

Only in your way of thinking, which appears to be at a tangent to mine and a lot of others here, in fact I think the majority of PoFo.

And? So? Is that supposed to mean that I am less intelligent/realistic just because a certain amount of people vote that I am less intelligent/realistic?

These are all counter-productive luxuries that ignore the fact that it is in man's nature to be self-sufficient, hence civilizations grew where there was water, not where water came through some dependent water supply that needs constant repair and maintenance through massive exploitation of the masses!

Support the comment about the nature of man. Is it fact? I would have thought that the nature of man would be to invent ways of making his existence easier - hence the existence of invention and modern technology.

Those were not inventions of the common man, they were inventions of the privileged few; for their profit-making ventures.

"...where water came through some dependent water supply that needs constant repair and maintenance through massive exploitation of the masses!"
should read as:
"where water came through some dependent water supply that needs occasional or at worst moderately infrequent repair through voluntary work (often communal) by those who depend on the pump." in my opinion.

rtallove"]

immortallove wrote:

So forget about pollution - technocracy is the earth's best friend

This is all bourgeoisie propaganda

No, this is all my personal belief, supported by strong logic.

I admit that this personal belief of yours is supported by strong logic in comparison to others, however not by a combination of reason and intellect, because you lack the confidence in reasoning and using intellect rather than repetitive emotional rhetoric to support your logic.

I am not being influenced by any "propaganda".

"Thats what they all say."

The principle of autarky, which is one of the core values and purposes of the Pol Pot regime, in order to strengthen and liberate Cambodia from the foreign imperialist yoke of capitalist exploitation through trade and aid.

Interesting. And not using animals for labour "liberates Cambodia from the foreign imperialist yoke of capitalist exploitation through trade and aid" how?

The main thing is not the lack of use of animals, the emphasis was on machines, as we are "talking" of machines on this forum and thread, are we not?

They are readily available and versatile sources of the most important nutrients for our health. We don't need them, but certainly should have a bloody good reason to do without them.

This is all modernist bull shit, because it is just a stupid attachment to animals out of an inferiority complex of loosing the confidence to challenge the cultural norms imposed by the bourgeoisie culture of indulgence in such luxuries, hence they hire even the man of science to make an intellectual argument out of an impulsive emotional plea of the bourgeoisie appetite for meat (which is costly) in order to get paid by the bourgeoisie in the process of keeping intact the bourgeoisie life-style of parasitism toward humanity and society.

No it did not offend me at all, thank you anyways for your instinctive apologies, I highly regard that sort of mannerism, especially when kept intact in intellectual debates on internet forums, such as this one.

Thanks

I hope you remember this whenever I might have mistakenly typed harsh words out of temporal reactions to particular parts of your post that I might find irrelevant and/or otherwise.

[Mr. Anderson]

Give me a theoretical blow-by-blow description of how a group of people can become part of the ruling elite in a technate. Just create a hypothetical scenario.

[immortallove]

So you are indirectly implying that there is an abundance of metal in Ireland?

Even if this is the case, there are other things that is required for machinery, other than metal, such as oil and other chemicals.

Not exactly, it's just that you were speaking from an American perspective. We do have a reasonable capability of production of several resources including steel, natural gas, coal etc. My statement was intended to point out that this is an international forum, and posts should not really be specific to a region unless appropriate.

This is the same argument raised by utopian socialists, the thing is that utopian socialism like utopian technocracy, never gets put into action, only a tyrannical form of it does or a compromising one that is not totalitarian.

It will be adopted in totalitarian form if we follow the path described by Kolzene above.

Your doubts are understandable, since you are a city dweller/town dweller. City dwellers and town dwellers have never witnessed the full physical power of the ability of human labor, until they go deep into the countryside, especially in a third world country, and see the vigorous cultivation of land by peasants. Have you ever seen third world country peasants? Third world country peasants are so muscular that they look like lions/animals in comparison to the city dwellers/town dwellers of the those third world countries, whom are usually skinnier than the average homeless person in the industrialized western world.

I am a country dweller, surrounded by farms, and the son of a farmer's daughter. I have seen the power of human labour, but it is used only because a machine is not available to do the specific task due to lack of funds or because the machine has not been specifically invented yet. Even in 1960's Ireland, when we were essentially a developing country (second world, if you will) all work that could be done by a machine was done by a machine unless the family could not afford the machine in question. With the inevitable economic equality of a world full of technates, all farmers could certainly afford all machinery required, essentially removing humans (and human error) from the equation, and producing more product from less land faster.

It seems that you fail to understand the great distinction between farm labor and insutrial labor, in farm labor, especially of the peasants, there is much more labor even when the laborer is exhausted, because the person's livelihood is within the things that he is working (tilling).

So you advocate forcing people to work to exhaustion and beyond to support themselves? That seems undesirable to say the least...

And? So? Is that supposed to mean that I am less intelligent/realistic just because a certain amount of people vote that I am less intelligent/realistic?

Not at all, it is supposed to mean that you think in a way that is different to the way I think. You are not necessarily wrong, who knows you may prove to be completely right, assuming I, Kolzene, Technocracy Inc and the Technocratic community are not thinking through Technocracy in the correct logical manner. The "majority of PoFo" statement was a little harsh, how do I know how the other several thousand people on this forum think?

I admit that this personal belief of yours is supported by strong logic in comparison to others, however not by a combination of reason and intellect, because you lack the confidence in reasoning and using intellect rather than repetitive emotional rhetoric to support your logic.

I resent this statement, except the first part. I am using my intellect to think through every part of every one of your posts, and am completely objective in doing so. I am not simply looking for a strong rebuttal to everything you say, as this is not a competitive debate but an educational one. I just happen to disagree, as I have a different view of the world, a heavily scientific one against your back-to-basics one. I hope you are not implying that I am some pathetically insecure teen hiding behind "rhetoric" to avoid a head-to-head battle of intellect. I believe that much of what you are saying is "repetitive rhetoric", it is a matter of opinion. I am not using rhetoric, I am using my own judgement, a bit of simple maths and some historical scenarios to back up my logic. Your above statement above is stating your opinion of me and my approach to this debate as fact, which is not acceptable in any reasonable and mature debate.

immortallove wrote:

I am not being influenced by any "propaganda".

"Thats what they all say."

good point. However, having been exposed to no pro-Technocracy material or opinions outside of the internet, and not a lot within either, and assuming that the logic which I am using throughout this debate is my own, I am fairly sure that I'm not being influenced in any way.

This is all modernist bull shit, because it is just a stupid attachment to animals out of an inferiority complex of loosing the confidence to challenge the cultural norms imposed by the bourgeoisie culture of indulgence in such luxuries, hence they hire even the man of science to make an intellectual argument out of an impulsive emotional plea of the bourgeoisie appetite for meat (which is costly) in order to get paid by the bourgeoisie in the process of keeping intact the bourgeoisie life-style of parasitism toward humanity and society.

A mite cynical in my view. It is fact that meat and other animal products are high in many nutrients which make a major contribution to our health and fitness in general. You say that the "men of science" have been "bought" and that this is not true or that it is not relevant? It's certainly true, with a bit of secondary school science it can be proved. and it is certainly relevant, as these products come from an essentially renewable resource, which is available all year round, unlike crops which are seasonal. I will ignore all of the bourgoisie talk as it is not supported by any fact or logic.

You are actually mistaken here, immortallove. Technocracy was designed for North America originally which was at that time determined to be nearly perfectly capable of being self-reliant, but only with Technocracy's plan. With the considerably less waste of resources, and almost pure recycling of everything that can be, we would certainly not need more metals or other materials than we have for quite some time, at which point we will be able to easily extract them from nearby extraterrestrial sources. NDS's assessment is based solely on Price System operation, which requires continuous growth and exploitation. This is of course understandable since that is all he's ever known.

Also, as technology advances, resource requirements actually become less, not more, as new and more efficient materials are discovered and produced. This is what will allow other areas with less resources than North America to eventually form their own Technates.

I agree with most of this, but if Technocracy could be adopted planetwide in one stroke, abolishing all existing government and forming one technate, then wouldn't it be completely self-sufficient and more helpful to all? We know that the world is self-sufficient, as in there is enough of everything to go around. If the world was a single technate, then all resources would be shared equally among the population and the planet would be completely stable?

I hate to say it, but he's got a point, immortallove. You can't use a "majority rules" side in a logical debate, esp. if you're advocating Technocracy (else we'd never be right! )

I know, has been corrected above. You're right.

Mr. Anderson wrote:
Give me a theoretical blow-by-blow description of how a group of people can become part of the ruling elite in a technate. Just create a hypothetical scenario.

Yes please! That would be interesting. GO on, NDS, we really want to see your broader view of technocracy.

[immortallove]

Imagine the possibilities... is there any intention to merge all other technates once the entire world as transited, or to add each new region to the North American technate once they are ready?
Each new expansion of the technate would make it more self-sufficient and bring complete justice to more of the planet. A grand vision.

[immortallove]

Oh i see, technates may only include a small area that has the correct balanceof resources, population etc?
Dude, post as many links as you can be bothered to, I need to read more on Technocracy.

[Mr. Anderson]

http://www.technocracy.ca - Kolzene's site.
http://www.technocracy.org - Official Technocracy Site.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Creativity is the whole basis technology exists.

Much better technology was created in ancient times without devastating pollution, and arguable the most human creativity took place in ancient times, so much that even peoples of today admire the technological superiority and creative superiority of the ancient peoples (our ancestors); such as in their building of the pyramids, irrigation networks, underground sewers, brain surgery, eye surgery, and etc.

People need to be more creative than mixing up their crops

They don't need to be, they want to be. And it is half of humanity (women) whom usually take interest in creativity, and the only men that ever crave creativity are the privileged wealthy.