Technocracy and the state - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The solving of mankind’s problems and abolition of government via technological solutions alone.

Moderator: Kolzene

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14821878
Right forum, wrong post, so I just split it into its own topic.

To answer your question though, I suppose that depends on what exactly you mean by state. I can tell you that Technocracy is an economic system that does not require a political government. There is a technical administration, but it has no political power.
#14444979
Kolzene wrote:I can tell you that Technocracy is an economic system that does not require a political government.


How so? Even your guy Howard Scott (in your signature) defined technocracy as governance by technical decision making. Most definitions of technocracy mean a government run by technical experts. Even if you say that a technocratic economic system doesn't need a traditional political government to manage it, that new technocratic system becomes the new political governance of the people.

Kolzene wrote:There is a technical administration, but it has no political power.


So then what does that technical administration, administer, if not politics? If it's running the economic system that society is managed by, then they're most definitely administering the politics of said society. I don't understand why technocrats like to pretend that they're not a part of politics and governance when they clearly are. Sure, you may be different than traditional politics, but you're still dealing with a very political venture. Perhaps even a hyper political venture, depending on which technocrat you talk to.
#14444998
Thanks for putting this into a new thread for me.

I've tried looking into Technocracy on the web, including on Tech Inc. own website, but the info is sparse. I can understand why it's unnecessary to produce a blueprint if you like; I'd imagine something like this would unfold organically, people figuring it out as they went in relation to new tech, and the needs of the time, but that does make it quite difficult to intellectually support, except in a vague, lets be patient kind of way. Probably that's better than rigid dogma.

Anyway, I'm curious how to avoid politicization of the state - even the kind you mention - when people have access to say the police, or militia or army? After all presumably you could have a technocracy or a post scarcity society whilst still being a political entity? Being an expert in a certain field doesn't preclude the will to dominate? How does one remove politics - i.e. power - from the equation? Are we talking about some kind of bottom-up administration where experts can be removed? It might be hard to remove a head of police.

Also from what I gather from reading this forum post-scarcity and Technocracy seem to be interchangeable terms. I always thought PS was seeking a moneyless society? When you speak of Tech economy are you simply referring to a system of distribution or do you mean the circulation of hard cash?

Apologies if some of these queries come over childish, I'm just trying to get a handle on what it actually entails, as far as it's been delineated.
#14445021
Kolzene wrote:Right forum, wrong post, so I just split it into its own topic.

To answer your question though, I suppose that depends on what exactly you mean by state. I can tell you that Technocracy is an economic system that does not require a political government. There is a technical administration, but it has no political power.

If that is the case why is it not called Techeconomics, Techenomics or something. -cracy means power as in political power: soldiery. Who is in charge of the soldiery?
#14821880
Solastalgia wrote:How so? Even your guy Howard Scott (in your signature) defined technocracy as governance by technical decision making.


"Governance" doesn't have to mean political government, it simply means control, and can apply to any kind of administration. A "speed governor" controls the speed of a vehicle without the use of politics.

Solastalgia wrote:Most definitions of technocracy mean a government run by technical experts.


Most definitions of technocracy are not talking about the system devised by the Technical Alliance, but something else altogether. I make the distinction by calling the former "economic technocracy" and the latter "political technocracy". The latter simply involves putting technical experts (or even just people who like to use technology in their governance) in political power. Whether or not they choose to use science isn't a requirement, and is debatable as to whether you even can in politics anyway (separate discussion). The former puts those people in charge of the economy, who use science in their job to get things done. The best way that science has come up with to do that so far was called "technocracy" by the people who invented it. Many people since then have used the term to mean something else, and hence why the confusion today.

Solastalgia wrote:Even if you say that a technocratic economic system doesn't need a traditional political government to manage it


It's not just me, it's in the official literature: Technocracy: Technological Continental Design, 2007, p. 61:
Technocracy wrote:
What would become of political government in Technocracy?
It would cease to exist.


Solastalgia wrote:So then what does that technical administration, administer, if not politics? If it's running the economic system that society is managed by, then they're most definitely administering the politics of said society.


The economic system is run by science, not politics. It's run by facts, not opinions, philosophies, or ideology. It's run by the people best shown to do the job, not by popularity contests and maneuvering. As to what it is administering specifically? The economy! Not money and banks, the physical economy: power plants, mining, factories, distribution, etc. Western societies tend to only delve into these things by making laws to govern the companies that are really doing the work (unless they are state-run companies). In Technocracy, these things are directly controlled by the administration.

Solastalgia wrote:I don't understand why technocrats like to pretend that they're not a part of politics and governance when they clearly are. Sure, you may be different than traditional politics, but you're still dealing with a very political venture. Perhaps even a hyper political venture, depending on which technocrat you talk to.


Just because that is the only way things have ever been done does not mean that that is the only way they can be done. You say that they are clearly part of politics and governance but there is nothing in the design about that, so I think what you are doing is just filling in the gaps of your knowledge of technocracy with your previous knowledge about how things have always worked, and that's quite fine and natural, most people do it, but it doesn't give you an accurate picture about how it actually works (or is proposed to work). The design makes those things obsolete, unnecessary.

Perhaps this will help clear things up: The design of Technocracy only deals with objective, technical issues, those based on measurable facts and can be dealt with by science. Politics on the other hand deals primarily with subjective, non-technical issues, people's opinions, philosophies, etc. Those things mostly just get in the way of a technical administration. The only place for subjective issues in a Technate is to tell it what they want. Think of it like ordering in a restaurant. The people decide what they want to eat, the technical administration just decides what is the most efficient way to get it to them. It's the only system to clearly divide the objective from the subjective, and you need to keep that in mind to see how that works. I hope that helps.

Gassho wrote:I've tried looking into Technocracy on the web, including on Tech Inc. own website, but the info is sparse.


Have you tried this web site: Technocracy.ca?


Gassho wrote:I can understand why it's unnecessary to produce a blueprint if you like; I'd imagine something like this would unfold organically, people figuring it out as they went in relation to new tech, and the needs of the time, but that does make it quite difficult to intellectually support, except in a vague, lets be patient kind of way.


It does make it harder to promote the idea yes, but it need not make it more difficult to intellectually support. Consider this: You know you are going to fight a battle in the future, but you don't know where the battle will be fought, with who, or even when, and in that last case you won't know the state of your own forces or even economic condition if you don't know when. So how exactly can you start figuring out where to put the tanks and planes, let alone how many you will need? You can run projections and scenarios sure, but like any forecast the farther in the future you try to predict, the less accurate they will be, and that happens very quickly. All you can do is to try to keep your options open and amass whatever resources you can (including trying to be ready for as many possible scenarios as possible) to help for when the day comes. Flexibility is the key.


Gassho wrote:Anyway, I'm curious how to avoid politicization of the state - even the kind you mention - when people have access to say the police, or militia or army? After all presumably you could have a technocracy or a post scarcity society whilst still being a political entity?


No you can't. Politics, and indeed any subjective applications would only interfere. For example, think of a person who operates a subway train. They have to be at certain places at certain times in order to provide optimum service. If they "decide" for whatever subjective reason to change that, then the passengers are not getting the best service, it is easily detectable, and hence dealt with. That is how the entire technical administration of Technocracy works.

Gassho wrote:Being an expert in a certain field doesn't preclude the will to dominate?


No it doesn't, and Technocracy doesn't claim that it does. After all, there are many "experts" in government today, not to mention big business. What precludes that behaviour is an environment of abundance. The design of Technocracy makes anti-social behaviour either impossible (such as there being no money to steal, so that is impossible), or of no benefit (why steal your neighbor's stuff when you can get it yourself for free anyway?). There is nowhere in the technical administration where a person could easily apply any kind of "power" over other people, and since it is all technical, and hence measurable (like the subway train), it is easily detected and dealt with.


Gassho wrote:Are we talking about some kind of bottom-up administration where experts can be removed? It might be hard to remove a head of police.


Everyone fits in the structure somewhere, and can be removed by their superiors. The only person who can't is the Continental Director, but they can be removed by a majority in the Continental Control. (TTCD p. 56, 61)

Gassho wrote:Also from what I gather from reading this forum post-scarcity and Technocracy seem to be interchangeable terms. I always thought PS was seeking a moneyless society?


Technically no. Technocracy is a specific economic system that can only operate in conditions of post-scarcity. Theoretically there could be other systems that could operate in such conditions, but I haven't seen any as well designed or thought out as this one. And since money is by nature itself scarce, it cannot operate in a post-scarcity society without artificially imposing scarcity on it, thus defeating the point. This is of course exactly what we are doing now, since we have been capable of producing an abundance since the 1920s.

Gassho wrote:When you speak of Tech economy are you simply referring to a system of distribution or do you mean the circulation of hard cash?


Do you mean Technocracy economy? That is an entire economic system that includes a method of distribution called Energy Accounting. There is no money and hence no hard cash in Technocracy. That is a system of exchange, not one of distribution, like Energy Accounting.


Gassho wrote:Apologies if some of these queries come over childish, I'm just trying to get a handle on what it actually entails, as far as it's been delineated.


No need to apologize. Technocracy is a very alien concept to most people and hence they are coming to it (and many of its concepts) for the first time. It is also not a simple idea that can be summed up easily like many political ideologies, which unfortunately does a lot to hinder people's understanding of it, and hence acceptance. I appreciate you taking the time to try to understand it and am happy to help.


taxizen wrote:If that is the case why is it not called Techeconomics, Techenomics or something. -cracy means power as in political power: soldiery. Who is in charge of the soldiery?


I'm afraid I can't speak as to what specifically the inventors of Technocracy had in mind when they chose the term. Perhaps it was a marketing decision, and they thought it'd gain the most traction. Perhaps they couldn't think of anything better. I know I've tried, and haven't thought of anything better. I wish I could so we could ditch all the negative baggage that's been associated with the term thanks to political technocracy. In the mean time I've found it best to make sure people understand the distinction between political and economic technocracy.
#14821881
That may very well be, but that would be the political type of technocracy, and not the kind we usually discuss here. It is also one of the reasons economic technocracy exists, to keep that sort of thing from happening.
#14445357
I think that a kind of technocracy will be the final stage of human social evolution just before human extinction.

At first, engineers, economists, scientists, mathematicians, doctors, and lawyers will displace the capitalists as the ruling class. In later stages, a new kind of revolution will occur. Institutions and organizations will switch roles with humans, in that humans will become the tools that organizations and institutions use to perpetuate and expand themselves rather than the other way around. At this point, inequality among humans will come to an end as everyone will exist solely for the continuation and expansion of the power of society as a system. Eventually, intelligent machines will replace humans, and that will be the end.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a mechanical boot stomping on a human face, fore--- no not forever. Just for a little while.
#14445433
Saeko wrote:
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a mechanical boot stomping on a human face, fore--- no not forever. Just for a little while.



Possibly. Or you could picture a mechanical hand lifting up. Either way things always change, so I try not to get overly caught up in utopian or dystopian ideas.


@Kolzene

Thanks for the web link, it was helpful. Especially the essay on how to convince people . Actually, I rather liked the idea. It's about as sensible and workable as any alternate means of organizing I've come across, and it lacks - to it's benefit - any overt doctrine for people to foam at the mouth over. I remember as a Socialist in my early twenties looking at the urge to kill in peoples eyes when I mentioned that I was actually fond of religion.



The economic system is run by science, not politics. It's run by facts, not opinions, philosophies, or ideology. It's run by the people best shown to do the job, not by popularity contests and maneuvering. As to what it is administering specifically? The economy! Not money and banks, the physical economy: power plants, mining, factories, distribution, etc. Western societies tend to only delve into these things by making laws to govern the companies that are really doing the work (unless they are state-run companies). In Technocracy, these things are directly controlled by the administration.


In theory this is fine, but life isn't theory. Politics is human relations and presumably the two wings - economic and political (website uses term 'democratic') will converge, at least indirectly. The democratic arm still, presumably, holds military and police power. That's still power. The power to influence and force. And people also hold views - political ones - that aren't economic: race, religion, vision for the future. Obviously that's always going to be the case, and in itself is no reason to be dismissive of the Technocracy case, but I don't think it's quite so simple to speak of a pure economy untouched by ideas. Even science - the medium of the experts - is, to a point, opinion.

No it doesn't, and Technocracy doesn't claim that it does. After all, there are many "experts" in government today, not to mention big business. What precludes that behaviour is an environment of abundance.


An environment of abundance would likely decrease the will to dominate; doubtful that it will preclude it. I would imagine the will to power is, in the first instance, born out of unhappy childhoods, and then fetishized. Again, this is not criticism of the Tech case, it's merely an observation. What was the term on the website - Director Controller? Whoever this is surely needs to be answerable to more than just a committee. He - and indeed the whole expert class - need to be answerable to the people in a very real way.


I'm afraid I can't speak as to what specifically the inventors of Technocracy had in mind when they chose the term.


It really is a dreadful name. The Venus Project is much better. That sounds like a positive movement, Technocracy just sounds old and futuristic at the same time. In my humble opinion you really need to change it. But I like the idea. I think something like this will occur eventually; as Capitalism closes in on redundancy, with services mostly free or near free, I think ideas like this will gather pace. Thanks for the info.

Anyway,
#14445648
Kolzene wrote:"Governance" doesn't have to mean political government, it simply means control, and can apply to any kind of administration. A "speed governor" controls the speed of a vehicle without the use of politics.


I never said that the word 'governance' has to mean a traditional political government. Also, the analogy/example of controlling (governing) the speed of a vehicle (w/o politics) doesn't work in this situation. As we're talking about controlling (governing) society (not a car), which makes this political in nature.

"Politics" doesn't have to mean traditional political government, by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a global, civic or individual level. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources within a given community (a hierarchically organized population) as well as the interrelationship(s) between communities.


Technocracy is not above politics. Sure, it can replace the current traditional political governments we see today. But it will only create a new form of governance and politics, itself.

Kolzene wrote:Most definitions of technocracy are not talking about the system devised by the Technical Alliance, but something else altogether. I make the distinction by calling the former "economic technocracy" and the latter "political technocracy". The latter simply involves putting technical experts (or even just people who like to use technology in their governance) in political power. Whether or not they choose to use science isn't a requirement, and is debatable as to whether you even can in politics anyway (separate discussion). The former puts those people in charge of the economy, who use science in their job to get things done. The best way that science has come up with to do that so far was called "technocracy" by the people who invented it. Many people since then have used the term to mean something else, and hence why the confusion today.


I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. Most definitions of technocracy are, in fact, talking about Howard Scott's Technical Alliance. Howard Scott saw technocracy as 'government by technical decision making' [*]. Here are the definitions of technocracy from various dictionaries.

Oxford Dictionaries wrote:The government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts.


TheFreeDictionary.com wrote:a theory or system of society according to which government is controlled by scientists, engineers, and other experts


Merriam Webster wrote:a system in which people with a lot of knowledge about science or technology control a society : government by technicians; specifically : management of society by technical experts


Dictionary.com wrote:1. a theory and movement, prominent about 1932, advocating control of industrial resources, reform of financial institutions, and reorganization of the social system, based on the findings of technologists and engineers.
2. a system of government in which this theory is applied.


You can keep trying to separate politics and economics (which was originally called political economics, btw, before it became just economics) but it's a lot more intertwined then you think. Even if the economy is controlled by scientists (as you advocate), that's still a political proposition. Just as having the economy controlled by state officials, the private sector, or a mixture, is a political proposition. Even Howard Scott, I'm sure, would tell you that technocracy is political in nature. Sure there's a lot of utopian technocrats today, that believe they're somehow beyond politics, but that's just delusional...

Kolzene wrote:It's not just me, it's in the official literature: Technocracy: Technological Continental Design, 2007, p. 61:
What would become of political government in Technocracy?
It would cease to exist.


You omitted the rest of the title of that book, which reads in full, "Technocracy: Technological Continental Design, Functional Governance For North America"

When they say governance in that, they're not referring to someone steering a vehicle (as you compared this to before). They're talking about governing a whole continent, which is most definitely political.

I think when they said that political government would cease to exist in technocracy, they were referring to our current traditional political government. But I'm sure they'd be the first to admit that they're replacing it with a new form of governance and politics, as the title itself implies.

Kolzene wrote:The economic system is run by science, not politics. It's run by facts, not opinions, philosophies, or ideology. It's run by the people best shown to do the job, not by popularity contests and maneuvering. As to what it is administering specifically? The economy! Not money and banks, the physical economy: power plants, mining, factories, distribution, etc. Western societies tend to only delve into these things by making laws to govern the companies that are really doing the work (unless they are state-run companies). In Technocracy, these things are directly controlled by the administration.


Just because the system isn't run (as you say) by popularity contests of elected officials in our current traditional political government model of "democracy". Doesn't mean that the new scientist run system of technocracy, is above politics in general. As you said yourself, in technocracy, everything is directly controlled by the administration. As opposed to controlled by elected officials (who in turn are really controlled by corporate interests currently). That's governance and politics, my friend. So, in the end, just because you get rid of the old political government system/model, you're still creating a new form of political government yourself. Albeit run by scientists and technical experts, instead of elected officials.

Kolzene wrote:Just because that is the only way things have ever been done does not mean that that is the only way they can be done. You say that they are clearly part of politics and governance but there is nothing in the design about that, so I think what you are doing is just filling in the gaps of your knowledge of technocracy with your previous knowledge about how things have always worked, and that's quite fine and natural, most people do it, but it doesn't give you an accurate picture about how it actually works (or is proposed to work). The design makes those things obsolete, unnecessary.


You, yourself, admitted that technocracy is about governance (at the beginning of this post). Now you're saying that there isn't anything "in the design" about it. This is just plain false. You, yourself, said that things are controlled by the administration. Well that's governance my friend. So to now say that there's nothing about governance involved in this, is just ironic and untrue.

I think the issue here, is that you seem to only equate politics and governance with what we see today in our current political governments. Not realizing that what you advocate is merely a new form of politics and governance. You can pretend all you want that what you're pushing for isn't about this, but it clearly is to anyone who understands politics.

Just because science is involved, doesn't mean this isn't political anymore.

Kolzene wrote:Perhaps this will help clear things up: The design of Technocracy only deals with objective, technical issues, those based on measurable facts and can be dealt with by science. Politics on the other hand deals primarily with subjective, non-technical issues, people's opinions, philosophies, etc. Those things mostly just get in the way of a technical administration. The only place for subjective issues in a Technate is to tell it what they want. Think of it like ordering in a restaurant. The people decide what they want to eat, the technical administration just decides what is the most efficient way to get it to them. It's the only system to clearly divide the objective from the subjective, and you need to keep that in mind to see how that works. I hope that helps.


If only the world were this black and white (as you paint it). The gray that you're forgetting, is that "politics" (in it's current manifestation) uses facts and data as well, and deals with a lot of technical issues regarding society. On the other hand, technocracy as an ideology, has a subjective opinion that society/economy is best run by scientists and experts. Just like the subjective opinions of other politicians that believe society/economy is best run by the state, private sector, or a mixture, etc. Also, science isn't entirely objective, as there are subjective choices in tools and methodology, and even deeper subjective assumptions, as documented in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Not to mention that all scientists and technical experts hold their own subjective opinions, which are often embedded in the systems and technologies that they create. The famous philosopher of technology, Jacques Ellul, covers this issue quite well.
#14821882
Gassho wrote:The democratic arm still, presumably, holds military and police power. That's still power.


No, the "democratic arm" does not hold power over the military and police, that is part of the technical administration. The democratic part of the Technate controls things like what is produced. The military and police work under the same strict controls as power plants and factories are. The people can't vote, for instance, to incarcerate all the (random example) French people because they feel like it. Nor can any one person (or group of people) in the military (or any part of the administration) make similar decisions. They don't have that kind of political power.

Gassho wrote:The power to influence and force. And people also hold views - political ones - that aren't economic: race, religion, vision for the future. Obviously that's always going to be the case,


Sure they might have that, but the point is that they have no (or in some cases, very limited) ability to act on those beliefs. It comes down to this, if it interferes with the Technate's operation (its goal), then they can't do it. The structure of the Technate makes it not possible. It would be just like the subway example I used: If the train operator decided they didn't want to let on any (random example) Scottish people, they couldn't do it. If they tried, it would be immediately noticed and dealt with. It would be essentially "against the law" because there is no scientific reason to do so. Perhaps if there was some virus or something that positively affected every single Scottish person that made them a danger to the public, then sure, they probably wouldn't be allowed on any trains, but until there is a scientific reason for it, it couldn't be done. Now if it doesn't interfere in this way, suppose a person has "vision for the future" that cell phones should be flexible instead of rigid, they are free to work on and research this to develop them. If people want them, then great, they are produced. If not, then they are not produced. If however your "vision of the future" is to hang all the (demographic), then you can't do that because that would be contrary to the Technate and its goal.

Gassho wrote:An environment of abundance would likely decrease the will to dominate; doubtful that it will preclude it. I would imagine the will to power is, in the first instance, born out of unhappy childhoods, and then fetishized.


I'm not just talking about people's motivation to do these things (although that is a factor), but also their ability. 95% of all crime committed today would be either impossible (like stealing money or income) or of no benefit (like stealing other people's possessions). The remaining 5% comes from pathological reasons, so sure, that would still exist, and be treated like the medical condition it is. But those people would be weeded out long before they got to a position where they could do a lot of damage, and even if they did, everyone around them (that they work with or for) would either stop them, or at least quickly remove them after, because they are not pathological, and are there because they want the job done right.

Gassho wrote:What was the term on the website - Director Controller? Whoever this is surely needs to be answerable to more than just a committee. He - and indeed the whole expert class - need to be answerable to the people in a very real way.


I think that you are referring to the Continental Director, and they are. Technocracy is not some lawless, uncontrolled oligarchy. It has a constitution of sorts. It starts from the stated goal of the Technate: To provide all citizens with the highest standard of living possible for the longest time possible. From that everything flows (called katascopically). Every design feature and decision made in the Technate has to fall under that goal. That's what makes it impossible to abuse (or abuse in any significant way). If say some manager of a power plant decides that they want revenge on their ex-spouse by denying them power, that is illegal because it deprives them of the highest standard of living possible. Same thing with the train operator and the Scottish. And the same applies all the way up to the Continental Director. They have no political power to exercise. What they do have is a responsibility to see that what needs to be done is done, and if it isn't, others will see and there are mechanisms to deal with that, including removal from service if deemed necessary.

By the way, I don't think the term "expert class" is appropriate when referring to economic technocracy, as it is a classless society, and anyone can become an "expert". Political technocracy sure.

Gassho wrote:It really is a dreadful name. The Venus Project is much better. That sounds like a positive movement, Technocracy just sounds old and futuristic at the same time. In my humble opinion you really need to change it.


Well, it's subjective. But what is objective is that the confusion over definitions, as well as the baggage from previous defamation efforts, have given it a negative effect on most people, so a new name would be practical, I agree. But the new name has to be better, and the Venus Project is taken. Personally I don't like TVP because while it is pretty, it is not descriptive enough, and could lead to confusion and assumption, such as one could assume that it's a NASA project to send a mission to Venus.


Solastalgia wrote:I never said that the word 'governance' has to mean a traditional political government.


Yeah, I think you did. I said that Technocracy does not require political government. You replied by saying that Howard Scott defined Technocracy as governance by technical experts. Ergo, you are saying that defining Technocracy as "governance" does indeed mean that it requires a political aspect. Perhaps you meant something else, but the rest of your arguments seem to center on the idea that Technocracy is indeed political, so it seems a reasonable conclusion.

Solastalgia wrote:Also, the analogy/example of controlling (governing) the speed of a vehicle (w/o politics) doesn't work in this situation. As we're talking about controlling (governing) society (not a car), which makes this political in nature.


It does work because the issue was whether or not Howard Scott's use of the word "governance" proves that Technocracy is political in nature. I pointed out that the word can apply to non-political cases, therefore it does not automatically mean that every time someone uses the term "governance" it has to be political. Governance covers more situations than political control, but if you'd like more evidence of that then Wiktionary has at least two definitions I can see that fit that do not require a political aspect. The process of governing, an administration, and the people who make up an administration.

But this is all semantics. The point is is that there is no part of the design of Technocracy that includes any political process. In fact it specifically precludes it as a requirement. Instead of pointing to definitions, show me where in the design you see any political processes or characteristics.

Solastalgia wrote:"Politics" doesn't have to mean traditional political government, by the way.


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

I know, and as quoted it is "the practice and theory of influencing other people," which specifically is not part of Technocracy. One of Technocracy's mottos is "The control of technology, not people." In this way it is more like Anarchism if you are familiar with the formal idea of it, instead of the popular idea of people running around doing whatever they want (I only say this to make sure we're on the same page, no implications there). Technocracy is a voluntary system of administration, and in fact needs to be in order to work. And if you want to refer to the bit about the distribution of resources, yes, politics can certainly do it, but it is not the only way to do it.

Solastalgia wrote:I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. Most definitions of technocracy are, in fact, talking about Howard Scott's Technical Alliance.


I'm sorry, but I'm not. Most definitions are either a) referring to a generic idea of technical experts in control, b) current people in governments that embrace technology in some way, or c) yes, referring to Howard Scott's Technocracy, but are incorrect in defining it either from misunderstanding it, which is common, or as an attempt to deliberately misinform people, which was very common for many years (even going so far as to equate Technocracy with both fascism and communism), and itself has helped lead to the others misunderstanding it. Even I misunderstood Technocracy for a long time. It took me over a decade to figure it out, so I perfectly understand why Technocracy looks like one thing to you, even given all this seeming evidence to back it up, when really it is not. I've spent over 20 years researching this, talked extensively with many prominent people in the movement, including people that knew Scott. I know very well what is said about Technocracy and what is true and what is false, and what is just misleading or hard to understand. This is why I have put so much effort into trying to clear up these misunderstandings because I know most people are not going to (or are not even capable of it because many of the people I've talked to are dead now) put in the effort I have into understanding it, or at least don't have to. But the evidence is there if you care to look at the right sources.

Solastalgia wrote:You can keep trying to separate politics and economics (which was originally called political economics, btw, before it became just economics) but it's a lot more intertwined then you think.


Today and throughout history that has been true, but not in the design of Technocracy.

Solastalgia wrote:Even if the economy is controlled by scientists (as you advocate), that's still a political proposition.


No because as I have said politics involves a type of social control that is absent in Technocracy because it is voluntary in nature. Nobody is forced or coerced in any way into working for the Technate. They don't even have their income suspended or interfered with in any way. If you want to participate, you do so entirely at you own doing. And politics does not enter in to any decision making process either because all decisions are either purely technical, like the design of a power plant, or personal, like what to eat for dinner. The closest you'd get to something like politics would be some kind of popular vote on what the flag looks like, but no one is controlled or influenced there, except perhaps that the people who didn't vote for the winning flag now have to live in a country which has adopted that flag, but how much does that really affect their life?

Solastalgia wrote:Even Howard Scott, I'm sure, would tell you that technocracy is political in nature.


And why are you so sure of that? Have you talked to him? Read something he wrote or heard something he said that says this? I have talked to people who've known him (including one of his closest friends) or even just met him. I've read lots of things he's written and listened to taped interviews with him. I've heard nothing of the sort.

Solastalgia wrote:Sure there's a lot of utopian technocrats today, that believe they're somehow beyond politics, but that's just delusional.


Being without politics isn't utopian. Technocracy has never liked that term to refer to itself. Technocracy has never claimed to be a perfect society, just far, far better than we have now. There will still be crime, there will still be people fighting and disagreeing and not liking each other. There will be people disappointed with things, and those that fail to achieve their dreams. There will just be less of all that than in any time in history. Technocracy can't provide everything, just more, and better.

Solastalgia wrote:You omitted the rest of the title of that book, which reads in full, "Technocracy: Technological Continental Design, Functional Governance For North America"


I wouldn't really call that part of the title, so it was hardly an omission. In fact, since I knew the people who made that version of the book I know exactly why they put that phrase in there, why they chose the word "governance". It was because the word "government" didn't fit, because that implied political control, and they couldn't think of a better term for it. They knew it wasn't perfect, but they felt it was better. So really that is evidence against your assertion, not for it.

Solastalgia wrote:I think when they said that political government would cease to exist in technocracy, they were referring to our current traditional political government. But I'm sure they'd be the first to admit that they're replacing it with a new form of governance and politics, as the title itself implies.


I know you think that, and you have made it clear why you think that, and the reason for it is because your sources of information are both insufficient and flawed. There's nothing wrong with that. Good information on Technocracy is hard to find, while the misleading stuff is far easier. But as I've said, I've read the accurate stuff, talked to the people involved. Once you look at the design itself, instead of some dictionary definitions of it, you can see that politics is not involved, and instead very much excluded.

Solastalgia wrote:Just because the system isn't run (as you say) by popularity contests of elected officials in our current traditional political government model of "democracy". Doesn't mean that the new scientist run system of technocracy, is above politics in general.


You're right, it doesn't. But what I said was a statement of conclusion, not of proof, so I was not using it to explain why that was so, only that that is the conclusion one reaches upon seeing the evidence.

Solastalgia wrote:As you said yourself, in technocracy, everything is directly controlled by the administration. As opposed to controlled by elected officials (who in turn are really controlled by corporate interests currently). That's governance and politics, my friend.


Governance sure, but as I've shown that doesn't have to mean politics. When an engineer is designing a bridge, is that politics? No, they have been given a goal of allowing a certain amount of traffic to overcome a certain geological obstacle, and that is done entirely scientifically. If politics interferes with that design in any way, then you will fail to get the best design. Now that goal might have been given to them for political or even financial reasons, sure, that kind of subjectivity is part of Technocracy, and that is in it's goal: To give people the highest standard of living possible for the longest period possible. Why that goal? Because that is what people, subjectively, want, and that was determined scientifically. So that is how Technocracy works, to scientifically figure out what people want subjectively, and then scientifically find the best way to give it to them. That is the role of the engineer and why they do not need politics to do it.

Solastalgia wrote:You, yourself, admitted that technocracy is about governance (at the beginning of this post). Now you're saying that there isn't anything "in the design" about it. This is just plain false. You, yourself, said that things are controlled by the administration. Well that's governance my friend. So to now say that there's nothing about governance involved in this, is just ironic and untrue.


Actually, to be specific, I did not say that at the beginning of the post. Later on sure, but initially I was simply showing how your Howard Scott quote did not support your assertion. Given my position that governance does not necessarily have to involve politics, my position has not changed at all, and there is nothing contradictory about it. Like I said, we are both mired in a game of semantics, where we are meaning something different by that one word. But the bulk of my evidence for my assertion that Technocracy does not involve politics is in the design itself, as published by the people who created it. It is there that you should be looking to, not less reliable sources and definitions.

Solastalgia wrote:I think the issue here, is that you seem to only equate politics and governance with what we see today in our current political governments. Not realizing that what you advocate is merely a new form of politics and governance. You can pretend all you want that what you're pushing for isn't about this, but it clearly is to anyone who understands politics.


I know you think that, because you are working with the information you have, which quite naturally leads to that conclusion, so I can't fault you on that. However the point I am trying to make is that there is other, far more reliable evidence for this, much of which is still available to you if you choose to look at it, that contradicts much of what you think you know. Your choice now is whether to ignore that evidence and continue believing what you like, or not, and find out for yourself if what I am saying has any real merit or not.

Solastalgia wrote:If only the world were this black and white (as you paint it). The gray that you're forgetting, is that "politics" (in it's current manifestation) uses facts and data as well, and deals with a lot of technical issues regarding society.


I'm afraid that that is a faulty conclusion. Just because politics may sometime use facts and data (and even science!) does not mean that one has to use politics when using these things. It's like saying that because politicians use cars, that if I use a car, then I am a politician.

Solastalgia wrote:On the other hand, technocracy as an ideology, has a subjective opinion that society/economy is best run by scientists and experts.


I've already addressed this, but I'll say it again here to be clear and because it is a tricky point that needs to be clear. Technocracy is not based on the opinion that scientists and experts are better to run things. Technocracy was developed because scientists and engineers used science to try and figure out what it was that people want, and then used it again to figure out how to best get it to them. The result was Technocracy. If it turned out that all people really wanted to live alone, farming, or living in caves, then Technocracy would not have been the result of that research. But what people do want, subjectively, is a higher standard of living, and the freedom to use it as they wish, so that is what Technocracy provides. That "desire" of people is the subjective component. That technical and objective problems are best dealt with by using science and engineering is a matter of proven fact. You can see this yourself in your own home if you wish. Suppose you want to watch a DVD, what do you do? Do you try to persuade your DVD player into doing this for you? So you intimidate it, threaten it with destruction, bribe it, embarrass it, seduce it? No, because these things, "influence" and "politics" don't work on machines, which are technical things. Playing a DVD is an objective, technical problem that requires a technical, objective solution. You must put the DVD in the tray and close it. You must press play. The machine must have power, and it must be connected to a working television. Now, what DVD you decide to play, that's a completely subjective decision, you can play whatever you like, your player doesn't care. This is why Technocracy works so well, because it does not conflate subjective with objective issues, like we do today. It knows how to handle both, and how they work best together.

Solastalgia wrote:Also, science isn't entirely objective, as there are subjective choices in tools and methodology, and even deeper subjective assumptions, as documented in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.


It is objective when it's being done right. What you are talking about is either in cases where lack of knowledge about something forces someone to make a subjective choice (such as what tools to use), or the fact that scientists are humans and do sometimes let subjectivity interfere with their objectivity, but that is a complicated mess. But pure science doesn't have as much at stake when it comes to getting things wrong. Let me tell you were that happens far less often: in engineering, because if you aren't being objective enough, you don't come up with the right answer, and then the thing you're making doesn't work right, and sometimes that means someone gets hurt. If you don't get your measurements and calculations and conclusions exactly right when making that bridge, then it will not work right, it'll collapse, and someone gets hurt. All the times you read of or hear stories of machines failing, that was because subjectivity was interfering. Usually in our society this is due to politics and money, which is why Technocracy specifically precludes them in its design. Will everything in the Technate be designed perfectly, without flaw, forever? Of course not, like I said, it is not utopian. But we have a measure of assurance in our technology today that allows us to rely on it, and ridding ourselves of politics and money will only mean less subjective interferences in that technology, and hence it will work better, far better than today, giving us all much better lives.

Solastalgia wrote:Not to mention that all scientists and technical experts hold their own subjective opinions, which are often embedded in the systems and technologies that they create. The famous philosopher of technology, Jacques Ellul, covers this issue quite well.


Sure there is a subjective component in all engineering and technology, that's part of what engineering is. Engineering is the use of science to solve society's problems. In other words, if there was no subjective impetus for it, engineering would have no use. A machine that solves no problem is a useless machine. So of course there has to be a reason behind it. And I have already specified where that element lies in Technocracy, in its goal, just like with any machine or engineering project. Take a computer program; it could be designed to look for viruses on your computer and clean them out, or it could be designed to make money. I think we all know that the latter program is not going to do as well at fighting viruses because the programmer will be focusing on better ways to make money. By the same token the first program is not going to make money as well as the second. That is the role of the "goal" of any engineering project like Technocracy, and Technocracy's goal is something that precludes any other subjective interferences, so you needn't worry about those, because if they were allowed to interfere with the design, then like a faulty bridge, it won't work. But we know we can make it work because we know we can make engineering designs that work. We do it all the time.
#14821885
quetzalcoatl wrote:The really glaring deficiency I see here is that "technical experts" cannot be relied upon to administer their duties in a neutral way.


And yet they do so all the time even today. It can be seen whenever technology does not fail us, like all the planes that do not fall out of the sky. And they do this despite the fact that there are economic and political pressures constantly trying to interfere in their operation.

quetzalcoatl wrote:If they are appointed by a commission of some sort and are truly independent of political interference, then that commission (or body, agency, whatever) will over time gradually accrue power to itself, and will act in ways to maintain that power.


What power? They have no political power to accrue. Political power typically comes from the law, and there is no law in Technocracy that would afford anyone political power. The only other possibilities at that point are things like blackmail and violence. But like I said, any small interferences will be detected and dealt with. Any interference big enough to get away with it would destroy the very operation of the Technate, because in order to maintain any kind of political power you would need to force people to do something, at which point you no longer have a voluntary organization, and you lose all the benefits of Technocracy. So is it impossible? No. But it would a) be a lot harder to do than today, and b) have no benefit, unless your goal truly is to turn your country into a military dictatorship, one that has far less economic and even military power than it previously did, so again, there's not much to gain from it. Better to try in some other country.

quetzalcoatl wrote:If these technical experts are appointed subject to review from the political wing


There is no political wing. Everyone who works in the technical administration gets to their position this way:
Technocracy wrote:
How would a technocratic society select its leaders? How long would these leaders hold office?
Leaders would be selected in much the same way that industry now selects its supervisory staff in the technical phases. This is called the vertical alignment method of promotion and involves recommendation from below and appointment from above with competence being the predominant factor in the choice.
In the Technate, supervisory personnel would ascend through their respective Functional Sequences on the basis of demonstrated competence, reaching whatever plateaus of accomplishment their abilities allowed. The most competent would become Sequence Directors and would represent their Sequences on the Continental Board where they would coordinate the work of all Sequences to achieve maximum efficiency. Their chairman would be the Continental Director, elected by them to that position because there would be no one higher to appoint him or her to the role.
These leaders would hold office until retirement (at predetermined age) or until replaced by someone else within their Sequences for sufficient reason. The Continental Director, elected by a two-thirds majority vote of the Continental Board, would serve in that capacity until retirement unless earlier removed by the Board through a similar vote.

I hope that clears things up.

quetzalcoatl wrote:All decisions must reflect some set of values based upon a world-view or ideology.


And they already do, as I've described in my previous post. They are encoded into the central goal of the Technate, from which all law comes from.

quetzalcoatl wrote:The horrendous danger of this delusion is currently exemplified by neo-classical economists in Western governments who genuinely regard themselves as neutral, but who in fact act upon very deep and broad assumptions that benefit a particular class.


That's because they are working in politics, which is subjective and nebulous. Those working in the technical administration of the Technate would be working in an environment of objectivity, which means that their performance (as measured in terms of how well it serves the main goal) is measurable. That means anyone with enough knowledge to understand any particular set of data can confirm whether or not a person is doing their job correctly or not. You can't look at any example of government today or in the past to use as a comparison. The only comparison that works are to look at the engineering and technical branches of companies, once things like political and financial interferences from their superiors have been factored out. So it is not a delusion. It is a conclusion based on information you have not seen yet. I know it all seems counter-intuitive, even crazy, but so did the automobile or airplane to those who didn't understand how they worked, and had yet to see one work. So if you want to understand Technocracy, you have to look at all its parts and see how they work together, just like any machine. Otherwise you will fill in the gaps in your knowledge with inaccurate knowledge from other sources, leading you to the wrong ideas about it.

Gassho wrote:This is my concern as well. As far as I can tell the only in-built preventative measure against wrong-doing is the efficiency of the system in relation to its expressed goals.


I hope I answered this already above. It's in how the whole thing operates. All operations are metrical, and therefore you can tell whether they are within the established limits set out for achieving the main goal. It's exactly like the train operator again, if they don't get that train to the right stops at the right times, then something is wrong, it is detected, investigated, and the reason for it dealt with.


Gassho wrote:What if, for example, mental health experts decided that compelling scientific data existed to show that religion was a delusion and bad for mental health? After all, we already have men of science like Richard Dawkins - liberal; easy-going; seemingly very nice - openly arguing for the abolition of religion.


If this was true there would likely already be compelling evidence for it. And the only way this would happen in a Technate would be if there was compelling evidence for it. As it stands, Technocracy has already stated that it does not deal with what people believe, only in how they act, because the former is subjective, and the latter is objective, which are the only matters that Technocracy deals with.

Gassho wrote:What if the Continental Director and the Committee under him held the same view?


It doesn't matter what they believe, it has to be provable. Like, evolution level of evidence. If there is compelling enough evidence, there will be scientific consensus because anyone competent enough will be able to confirm the results. If there is not, then there is not good enough reason to act on something like this.


Gassho wrote:What if it was also shown that a certain religious group were in some way disrupting the efficiency of the system? Would a purge be considered wrong from a purely technical point of view?


Technocracy does not deal in modes of belief, only modes of action. If people were disrupting the system, they would be dealt with like anyone else, regardless of their beliefs. Where those beliefs might come in is when they are receiving counselling, but they'd still get the same level of treatment nonetheless. At worst a public education campaign might come about warning about certain beliefs that seem to regularly lead to negative behaviour, but it'd have to be a pretty high percentage of people doing that to be able to make that generalization. Of course, this is just me speculating on the specifics here. The short answer is no, no one is going to be purged, or proactively arrested for their beliefs.


Gassho wrote:Or what if they merely felt a religious group required therapy?


Then that therapy would have to be voluntary unless they committed some crime of sufficient level. A lot like it is today.


Gassho wrote:Basically it would depend entirely on the outlook of experts.


Not the "outlook of scientists", but based on the evidence.


Gassho wrote:Would the greater good and greater efficiency of the system stand above human rights?


How can you deliver "the highest standard of living" to people without sufficient human rights?


Gassho wrote:What if they decided a smaller population was required?


Wow, you're big with the hypotheticals right now aren't you? Answer me this, what if your government today decided that? What then? Would it be any better? Are you looking for Technocracy to be a flawless system, perfect? I already said it wasn't, just far better than we have now. But I'll tackle this one anyway, because speculating is fun for me.

There wouldn't be purges or anything like that, they'd do what they always do, start with a public education campaign on how they can solve the problem themselves (lowering the birth rate) given available methods. And of course they'd work on better methods of birth control all the time. Pretty much everything is a technical problem after all.


Gassho wrote:It's fine to talk about post-scarcity providing A) there are no unforeseen snags


Of course there's going to be unforeseen snags. The question is, is that enough reason to not try and go ahead with it anyway, given what we have now and where we are going? I know something this strange can be a little scary to some, which is why I keep telling them to read and learn as much about it as possible, then it won't seem as strange and they can begin to see for themselves how all these hypothetical problems could be solved.


Gassho wrote:B) providing experts don't politically determine to change the expressed goals.


What, you mean like the President deciding to change the Constitution? Unlikely. Even if someone did, the people would be against it, and stop them. Technocracy is a voluntary organization after all, and people won't work for it if it changes direction like you suppose. And they'll have a lot better grasp of that direction than they do today.


Gassho wrote:I really like the idea, and think it's the best vision of something workable so far, but for me to really get on board with it, I want to know how specifically these concerns are minimalized.


Then read more about it. Like I said it took me over a decade to really understand it. I don't expect it will take you that long, but more than a few forum posts certainly.

Gassho wrote:Simply saying experts are cut off from politics isn't enough.


Really? Is that all I am doing here? Have my posts not been long and explicit enough? Have I not made my point time and again that the real evidence, if you want it, is elsewhere? I can't teach you everything you need to know about Technocracy in a forum, I can only answer questions and help guide you to the answers so that it takes less time and effort on your part. But if you are going to trivialize my efforts with that summation, I guess my efforts were in vain.
#14445836
The really glaring deficiency I see here is that "technical experts" cannot be relied upon to administer their duties in a neutral way. If they are appointed by a commission of some sort and are truly independent of political interference, then that commission (or body, agency, whatever) will over time gradually accrue power to itself, and will act in ways to maintain that power. If these technical experts are appointed subject to review from the political wing (a la federal judges in the current system), then the technical experts will act in such a way as to benefit the ideology of the dominant political group that appoints them.

The very notion of non-political governance is dangerous. All decisions must reflect some set of values based upon a world-view or ideology. The horrendous danger of this delusion is currently exemplified by neo-classical economists in Western governments who genuinely regard themselves as neutral, but who in fact act upon very deep and broad assumptions that benefit a particular class.
#14445845
quetzalcoatl wrote:The really glaring deficiency I see here is that "technical experts" cannot be relied upon to administer their duties in a neutral way. If they are appointed by a commission of some sort and are truly independent of political interference, then that commission (or body, agency, whatever) will over time gradually accrue power to itself, and will act in ways to maintain that power. If these technical experts are appointed subject to review from the political wing (a la federal judges in the current system), then the technical experts will act in such a way as to benefit the ideology of the dominant political group that appoints them.

The very notion of non-political governance is dangerous. All decisions must reflect some set of values based upon a world-view or ideology. The horrendous danger of this delusion is currently exemplified by neo-classical economists in Western governments who genuinely regard themselves as neutral, but who in fact act upon very deep and broad assumptions that benefit a particular class.


This is my concern as well. As far as I can tell the only in-built preventative measure against wrong-doing is the efficiency of the system in relation to its expressed goals. But efficiency and goal are purely the preserve of the experts, who also hold police and military power. What if, for example, mental health experts decided that compelling scientific data existed to show that religion was a delusion and bad for mental health? After all, we already have men of science like Richard Dawkins - liberal; easy-going; seemingly very nice - openly arguing for the abolition of religion. What if the Continental Director and the Committee under him held the same view? What if it was also shown that a certain religious group were in some way disrupting the efficiency of the system? Would a purge be considered wrong from a purely technical point of view? Or what if they merely felt a religious group required therapy? Basically it would depend entirely on the outlook of experts. Would the greater good and greater efficiency of the system stand above human rights? What if they decided a smaller population was required? It's fine to talk about post-scarcity providing A) there are no unforeseen snags in implementing it, and B) providing experts don't politically determine to change the expressed goals. I really like the idea, and think it's the best vision of something workable so far, but for me to really get on board with it, I want to know how specifically these concerns are minimalized. Simply saying experts are cut off from politics isn't enough.
#14446043
If this was true there would likely already be compelling evidence for it. And the only way this would happen in a Technate would be if there was compelling evidence for it. As it stands, Technocracy has already stated that it does deal with what people believe, only in how they act, because the former is subjective, and the latter is objective, which are the only matters that Technocracy deals with.


I get your point, but compelling evidence is still quite a subjective thing. It depends on selected criteria. If you spoke to Dawkins he'd tell you compelling evidence existed that religion is a deluded evil. If you spoke to a Creationist he'd tell you that evolution was a myth and he'd dig out compelling evidence to show it. Personally, I'd trust people to judge wisely and fairly, but you can't categorically rule out misuse of evidence. The Nuremburg Laws were prejudiced and yet composed by respected lawyers and based on the evidence of respected eugenicists. I'm just allowing for the possibility.


How can you deliver "the highest standard of living" to people without sufficient human rights?


It depends on whether 'standard of living' means society or individual. For the greater good of society, individuals can be harmed. We've seen that occur countless times in history. Besides Technocracy is a system of abundance, not a system of laws, right? I'm allowing for the possibility that abundance can be provided on one hand, whilst non material human rights trampled on the other. It's possible?


Wow, you're big with the hypotheticals right now aren't you? Answer me this, what if your government today decided that? What then? Would it be any better? Are you looking for Technocracy to be a flawless system, perfect? I already said it wasn't, just far better than we have now. But I'll tackle this one anyway, because speculating is fun for me.


Of course I agree with you here. Any system could do these things. I'd also acknowledge that a workable system for abundance would be more likely to live up to it's vision than go massively astray. I can't ask you to prove a tyrant won't ruin your system. Obviously my hypotheticals are because this idea is new and so far in human history new systems seem to go hand in hand with tyrants ruining your system. But that's circular and I'm not expecting you to answer something that there isn't a answer for.


Really? Is that all I am doing here? Have my posts not been long and explicit enough? Have I not made my point time and again that the real evidence, if you want it, is elsewhere? I can't teach you everything you need to know about Technocracy in a forum, I can only answer questions and help guide you to the answers so that it takes less time and effort on your part. But if you are going to trivialize my efforts with that summation, I guess my efforts were in vain.


No, I wasn't trying to trivialize; probably I should have ended the previous post with a genuine thank you, because I have appreciated your time and careful answers. I think all I was trying to get was a concession that the only motive forces preventing misuse is success of system and noble character. Respectfully, and without wanting to sound like a broken record, there is room for misuse?

Anyway, what I forgot last time - thanks
#14821886
I get your point, but compelling evidence is still quite a subjective thing. It depends on selected criteria. If you spoke to Dawkins he'd tell you compelling evidence existed that religion is a deluded evil. If you spoke to a Creationist he'd tell you that evolution was a myth and he'd dig out compelling evidence to show it. Personally, I'd trust people to judge wisely and fairly, but you can't categorically rule out misuse of evidence. The Nuremburg Laws were prejudiced and yet composed by respected lawyers and based on the evidence of respected eugenicists. I'm just allowing for the possibility.


Yes, evidence does get misused, and yes of course it is possible in a Technate as well. But Dawkins is not an organized group of scientists and the majority of the time today we tend to get things right, even with so many subjective interferences inherent in the system. Even if it's only 60% of the time today, our knowledge does march on. And given the design of Technocracy there is every reason to believe that this will only improve. So I guess what I am saying is that while mistakes will be made, they will be fewer enough that a huge mistake like ruling all of one race or other demographic worthy of purging or even internment would be very unlikely. The Technocracy movement, by the way, was calling for full equality for both women and race long before they became popular decades later.

Oh, and compelling evidence is not a subjective thing. Yes, many people are compelled to believe things that are not true, thinking that the evidence is compelling, but any good scientist knows what constitutes compelling scientific evidence, and what does not. Individuals make mistakes, which is why good science requires things like repeatability.

It depends on whether 'standard of living' means society or individual. For the greater good of society, individuals can be harmed. We've seen that occur countless times in history. Besides Technocracy is a system of abundance, not a system of laws, right? I'm allowing for the possibility that abundance can be provided on one hand, whilst non material human rights trampled on the other. It's possible?


Alright, let me requote the goal in full again then: To provide the highest standard of living to each citizen for the longest period possible. So that seems to me to mean the individual. But since you brought it up, there has always been an ethical dilemma in balancing the "greater good" with those of the individual. Take the case of Coventry in WWII. If you don't know the story already, the Allies had broken the German Enigma code and from that learned of a plan to bomb the town of Coventry. However, if they evacuated the town, the Germans would know that their code was broken and switch codes, meaning that the Allies would lose valuable intelligence needed to win the war. So Churchill decided not to evacuate, and Coventry was destroyed with all the people still in it. What is the answer to that dilemma? The only way out I can see is to try and anticipate ahead of time situations like this and plan for ways around them if possible. But my point is it is impossible to say that this sort of situation won't happen, given bad enough circumstances. But at least the Allies knew for certain that Coventry was going to be attacked. Far worse are the situations where you aren't sure if the disaster will come, then are the drastic measures worth it? It's a classic Scylla and Charybdis dilemma.

Of course I agree with you here. Any system could do these things. I'd also acknowledge that a workable system for abundance would be more likely to live up to it's vision than go massively astray. I can't ask you to prove a tyrant won't ruin your system. Obviously my hypotheticals are because this idea is new and so far in human history new systems seem to go hand in hand with tyrants ruining your system. But that's circular and I'm not expecting you to answer something that there isn't a answer for.


There does seem to be a life cycle to Price Systems that tend to end in power being concentrated in the hands of a few, ending in some sort of dictatorship, then revolution, or a war which is lost. Then it all starts up again. Looking at that pattern I think Technocracy would be the way out of it.


No, I wasn't trying to trivialize; probably I should have ended the previous post with a genuine thank you, because I have appreciated your time and careful answers. I think all I was trying to get was a concession that the only motive forces preventing misuse is success of system and noble character. Respectfully, and without wanting to sound like a broken record, there is room for misuse?


Alright, I know I was being a little touchy there, but I couldn't think of another response, sorry. Like I've said before in this post, sure, there is always going to be a little room for misuse, Technocracy doesn't claim to be perfect. To put it another way however, the reason why so many bad things happen in our society today is because the economic (and even political) environment encourages it. Those who steal money successfully get rewarded, with that very money. They become rich, so of course there are always going to be people who try. Those who are best at achieving political power are rewarded with that very power. Howard Scott said that you can't blame the louse for thriving in lousy conditions. So the Technocratic solution to that is to change that environment, change the rules of the game. Stealing in a Technocratic nation no longer benefits the thief, and there is no political power to be taken. I'll take a moment here to share an analogy I like to use, that of the cruise liner. The passengers decide what they want to eat, what entertainment they want, and collectively where they want the ship to go. Meanwhile it is the crew's responsibility, by law, to provide that for them. So how can one take power here? On a small scale they could steal someone's meal, but since they themselves can eat for free and the victim can easily order another, the only effect is that you delay them from eating for a few minutes. On a larger scale, someone might try to take control of the ship by taking the helm and steering it somewhere else, but the rest of the crew would stop them pretty quickly. Plus the fact that they'd have to be patient enough to rise through the ranks enough to even get to the bridge. So what corruption can really occur? Using your example of scientists declaring some group for mandatory therapy or whatever, remember than anyone in the Technate can become a scientist with the free, high-quality education, so there will be an awful lot of them, and you'd have to convince pretty much all of them of anything that might involve suspending someone's rights, because the whole country would be concerned about that. Given what I know about Technocracy I can't really see any room for large-scale problems like that. Maybe if something completely new was being researched, and the possibility of something terrible caused a scare of some sort that caused some error in the research and action was required quickly (I'm talking about on the scale of the LHC black-hole scare here, or maybe an asteroid going to hit the earth), maybe then large mistakes are more likely. But otherwise I see the Technate researching the heck out of anything remotely important enough first before taking any drastic action. But if we get into a classic Scylla and Charibdis, who's to say what would happen?
#14821887
I'd have to disagree with you there. I can see how one can look upon all of history and come to the conclusion about how innate the 'drive for power' is, because it has always been there, so it is reasonable to conclude that it always will be. However, upon closer examination I find two things. One is that given the right environment, this drive for power that some people have can be easily channelled into far more productive (or at least less harmful) activities. It happens regularly even today, if you know what to look for. And second, the environment created by abundance (post-scarcity) like Technocracy does not foster and reward such negative behaviour in the same way that scarcity environments do, mainly because people can find far more socially acceptable ways of channelling such instincts much easier. Not to mention the fact that trying to subvert the Technate would be so very much harder, one could far more easily find similar if not better satisfaction doing other things.

So in short this behaviour has always been seen because we've only ever seen scarcity-based societies. With one of abundance, much of human behaviour would be changed automatically. It's like if you lived before people could create really hot fires, and were asked what lead was like and only ever knew it as something hard and dull, because that's the only way it has ever been seen by everyone throughout history, you'd think that that was all it ever could be, and that would be a perfectly reasonable conclusion. You certainly can't change that with your bare hands, and even with tools you can't change it much. That is just its nature. But if you change its environment by heating it up enough, its behaviour changes dramatically, by becoming soft, liquid, and even glowing red, very different than thousands of years of observation. So too is it with human beings. Change their environment enough and in the right way, and their behaviour changes automatically.
#14446375
In the long-term future I see some sort of technocracy mediated by advanced automation (or even molecular manufacturing) as inevitable. I sincerely doubt it will be anything at all like the technate described by Kolzene. The drive towards power is innate in the human species, and no technical arrangement, however ingenious, can long control this drive. There will be a way to subvert the technate, and power hungry individuals will find it and exploit it.
#14446523
'To answer your question though, I suppose that depends on what exactly you mean by state. I can tell you that Technocracy is an economic system that does not require a political government. There is a technical administration, but it has no political power.'
Technocracy is a science based social design. It uses a conventional form of government minus a pricing system and minus the usual political rigamarole.
It is not democratic. There is no separation of 'political' and social. It does control the entire social template.
It basically does not allow for moralistic views that are voted on or arbitrary social contract views.
For more information this is the best group around on the subject but there are several http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2 ... 391&v=wall
Technocracy ideas are a kind of standard type of political organization just not the used to ones.
#14446610
Kolzene wrote:One is that given the right environment, this drive for power that some people have can be easily channelled into far more productive (or at least less harmful) activities.


Well, it is certainly not easy, but it can (and should) be attempted. This is a necessary but not sufficient step in controlling the drive towards power.

So in short this behaviour has always been seen because we've only ever seen scarcity-based societies. With one of abundance, much of human behaviour would be changed automatically.


Scarcity is a political phenomenon much more than an economic one. The system is structured to automatically cut back production to induce a necessary level of unemployment. The threat of privation is deemed a necessary feature, not a fault to be corrected. It is perilous to assume that half of millennium of capitalist social evolution could be overturned with a few technical changes.

So too is it with human beings. Change their environment enough and in the right way, and their behaviour changes automatically.


Only up to a point. Human behavior is malleable, but only within proscribed limits. These limits are determined by our evolutionary development. The Soviet experiment shows that massive changes (as opposed to incremental ones) can only be imposed by violent force. Even then, such changes will not survive if they fall significantly outside the limits of human social evolution.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]