Why is Technocracy desirable? - 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.
#14820448
Setting aside for the moment whether or not Technocracy is even possible (we can talk about that in another thread(s)), given what Technocracy proposes is possible, which I will outline in this post, I want to ask people if this is the kind of society they would like to live in, again, assuming for the moment that it is indeed possible. My theory is that Technocracy can appeal to anyone, whatever their political orientation, that it is just not obvious to many that this is so.

So what makes Technocracy desirable?

Personal benefits:
High standard of living for every citizen
Free, top-quality health care whenever you need it
Free, top-quality education whenever you want it
Wide range of high quality products for consumption
No low-quality strategies normally used to increase profits, like planned obsolescence
Products automatically delivered directly into your home using Utilities Distribution Planning
Wide range of foods available, either as ingredients or cooked meals, delivered into your home or to public eating areas (equivalent of restaurants)
Clean, comfortable homes for everyone, that are fireproof, sound proof, and pest proof
All amenities within walking distance for normally abled people, and for others, automatic transportation in the form of elevators, moving sidewalks, etc.
Economic security because income guaranteed as right of citizenship
Income more than you can consume, so no worries about budgeting or running out
Free transportation anywhere on in the Technate, that is fast and comfortable
Nearly unlimited range of recreation opportunities (travel, parks, hobbies, common interest groups, etc.)
All media consumption free with no worries of copyright infringement
Opportunities for career limited only by your innate abilities
No time wasted on legal entanglements and contracts, property management, taxes, finances, etc.
Greater amount of free time than found for most people today, to spend on hobbies, entertainment, self-improvement, life-goals, travel, and relationships
No need for bargain hunting, coupon clipping, or comparison shopping
No loyalty or rewards cards
No credit cards, debit cards, cheques, or any other banking needed
No need to be jealous of another's material possessions
No need to define yourself by your possessions
No need for hoarding or stocking up
Food made as healthy as possible (no harmful pesticides, growth hormones, etc.)
No traffic jams, parking problems, or other automobile hassles
A lot of the sources of modern-day stress eliminated (as above)


Benefits for society:
No pollution
No poverty, homelessness, or people lacking education or food
95% reduction in crime compared to today
No political fighting or other troubles in administration
No economic fluctuations like inflation, recessions, or depression
No economic need to go to war (war for oil, other resources, etc.)
No economic meddling in other country's affairs (IMF, WTO, etc.)
Best defence capabilities on the planet
No censorship, discrimination (racial, sexual, or otherwise), or other restrictions on human rights
Standardization means no problems with competing and closed standards or formats (computers, media, electronics, etc.)
No annoying and intrusive advertising everywhere
No corporate or political influence of public opinion
No financial or political interferences in news reporting
Everything possible is recyclable and environmentally friendly
Sustainable economy
So does this sound good?
I'll add more if I think of any, or if anyone else has ideas to add.
#14820450
RhetoricThug wrote:This is borderline advertisement, who taught you such philosophy?


What philosophy? As I see it, there are two main questions regarding Technocracy: 1) Is it desirable, and 2) Is it possible? For most people, there is not much point in trying to answer the second question (except perhaps academic interest) without first answering the first. Technocracy is a big topic, and people need a reason to spend the time it takes to learn it. I'm just trying to establish if indeed there is a reason, which I believe there is.


RhetoricThug wrote:Did you discover Technocracy on your own terms?


Yes, why?

RhetoricThug wrote:I think human nature will destroy your dream


On the contrary, there is a good amount of science that backs Technocracy up on this. However, like I said in the original post, this is not a topic for discussing whether or not Technocracy is possible, only if it is desirable. If it turns out that people think it is, we can move on to the other discussion. If they don't, then what's the point?


RhetoricThug wrote:of utopia. Utopia=dystopia, you can never satisfy all men.


Technocracy not a utopia, it does not claim to be perfect, only far better than the alternatives.


RhetoricThug wrote:You need to be some hardline fascist for this to occur.


For Technocracy to occur? Not at all. It is an entirely volunteer organization; it can't work any other way.

RhetoricThug wrote:I can't agree with you. I do not desire your farce.


Do you not desire it because you believe it is a farce? Then that is off topic. The topic is, assuming (hypothetically) it is possible, is it desirable?


RhetoricThug wrote:I dream of sustainable agriculture


Technocracy provides that (I'll add it to the list).


RhetoricThug wrote:death for all men to maintain equality


I'm afraid that I don't understand this. You want to kill off all men?


RhetoricThug wrote:intrinsic equilibrium after the homo-sapiens


You mean you want to kill off all people period? I must be really misunderstanding you.


RhetoricThug wrote:and most importantly- surprises. Your technocracy kills all desire.


No it doesn't. People will desire all sorts of things, better relationships, learning about the world and the universe, travelling to experience new places, the desire to create, explore, discover, contribute, educate, heal... the list goes on. Technocracy does nothing to these desires except make them possible for everyone. I really don't know how you came to your conclusion.


RhetoricThug  wrote:High standard of living for every citizen
Wrong


Why do you list these things as "wrong"? I'm asking if they are desirable or not, not if they are right or wrong. Please stay on topic.
#14820451
Alright guys, if you're not going to stay on topic then don't post. And did most of you forget the rule about one line posts?

This is the last I'm going to say about this in this thread, if you want to continue discussing it, make a new thread! Technocracy is not utopian, because it does not claim to solve all problems. There will still be crime, there will still be disease, there will still be dissension, and fighting, and accidents, and disagreements, and heartbreak, and people hating each other, and possibly even war. The point is that there will just be less of that stuff, and more of what most people consider the good stuff. I know it may seem "fanciful" to many, because the claims are so big, but that does not make it utopian, or perfect. And your estimations on how fanciful or unlikely it may be is, as I've said in the first post, another topic! So let that be the last of it here. If you don't want to participate in this topic, then don't.

As for claims of "advertising", are you going to tell me that the relative merits of one system over another is not discussed here, or even worthy of discussion?

And RT, you are violating so many forum rules. You should know better.
#14449132
This is borderline advertisement, who taught you such philosophy? Did you discover Technocracy on your own terms?

I think human nature will destroy your dream of utopia. Utopia=dystopia, you can never satisfy all men.

You need to be some hardline fascist for this to occur.

You are one hell of a dreamer.

I can't agree with you. I do not desire your farce. I dream of sustainable agriculture, death for all men to maintain equality, intrinsic equilibrium after the homo-sapiens, and most importantly- surprises. Your technocracy kills all desire. I hope your idea of technological dominion burns in the metaphoric fire called hell.


Personal benefits:
I hope so

High standard of living for every citizen
Wrong
Free, top-quality health care whenever you need it
Wrong
Free, top-quality education whenever you want it
Wrong
Wide range of high quality products for consumption
Wrong
No low-quality strategies normally used to increase profits, like planned obsolescence
Wrong
Products automatically delivered directly into your home using Utilities Distribution Planning
Wrong
Wide range of foods available, either as ingredients or cooked meals, delivered into your home or to public eating areas (equivalent of restaurants)
Wrong
Clean, comfortable homes for everyone, that are fireproof, sound proof, and pest proof
Wrong
All amenities within walking distance for normally abled people, and for others, automatic transportation in the form of elevators, moving sidewalks, etc.
Economic security because income guaranteed as right of citizenship
Wrong
Income more than you can consume, so no worries about budgeting or running out
Wrong
Free transportation anywhere on in the Technate, that is fast and comfortable
Wrong
Nearly unlimited range of recreation opportunities (travel, parks, hobbies, common interest groups, etc.)
Wrong
All media consumption free with no worries of copyright infringement
Wrong
Opportunities for career limited only by your innate abilities
Wrong
No time wasted on legal entanglements and contracts, property management, taxes, finances, etc.
Wrong
Greater amount of free time than found for most people today, to spend on hobbies, entertainment, self-improvement, life-goals, travel, and relationships
No need for bargain hunting, coupon clipping, or comparison shopping
No loyalty or rewards cards
Wrong
No credit cards, debit cards, cheques, or any other banking needed
Wrong
No need to be jealous of another's material possessions
Wrong
No need to define yourself by your possessions
Wrong
No need for hoarding or stocking up
Wrong
Food made as healthy as possible (no harmful pesticides, growth hormones, etc.)
Wrong
No traffic jams, parking problems, or other automobile hassles
Wrong
A lot of the sources of modern-day stress eliminated (as above)
Wrong

Benefits for society:

LIE

No pollution
Wrong
No poverty, homelessness, or people lacking education or food
Wrong
95% reduction in crime compared to today
Wrong
No political fighting or other troubles in administration
Wrong
No economic fluctuations like inflation, recessions, or depression
Wrong
No economic need to go to war (war for oil, other resources, etc.)
Wrong
No economic meddling in other country's affairs (IMF, WTO, etc.)
Wrong
Best defence capabilities on the planet
Wrong
No censorship, discrimination (racial, sexual, or otherwise), or other restrictions on human rights
Wrong
Standardization means no problems with competing and closed standards or formats (computers, media, electronics, etc.)
Wrong
No annoying and intrusive advertising everywhere
Wrong
No corporate or political influence of public opinion
Wrong
No financial or political interferences in news reporting
Wrong
Everything possible is recyclable and environmentally friendly
Wrong

So does this sound good?
No.
I'll add more if I think of any, or if anyone else has ideas to add.
Please stop



Finally, http://politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=156474
Welcome to the fascist digital society, brought to you by people like OP
#14449142
You think an automated system built by man for man will cure all woe. You follow in the steps of all utopian writers. Believe me, I'm a big fan of utopia literature, but this is brilliant. I have a case study here, you truly believe technology is the answer. It is cute how you quote all my off-handed comments, cute. Hey, so you think human progress will destroy the dissent, humans who find themselves against technocracy, what shall you do with them? Turn them toward federal concentration/treatment centers, right?


Look, your whole techno-bias is despicable, it doesn't include the evolutionary process humans undergo. You essentially want to force evolution to stop its process. Good job, you malevolent dreamer, you. I'm so proud, you wish to destroy the current production model, trying to stop the wastage supplied by economics. I get it, you're afraid of change. Can you allow this planet to fulfill its destiny, if it exists, allow itself to destruct? Jesus, you're obsessed with being "better," more like abscess, haha. Waiting to explode and prove humanity wrong.

How old are you, 18? I mean, Sweet Jesus, you seem like a newbie, the human condition isn't changing, dreamer.

Setting aside for the moment whether or not Technocracy is even possible
Impressive

Hey, get this, who's the fake? I or I, or I, or I... I mean you?

Man fuck it, doesn't matter, we are both wrong, we are degenerative manipulators. Don't allow us to tell you how to live your life, okay?

I'm going to take an edit break and say- I murdered your idea.
#14449145
RT, what if we drop the dream of curing all men's ills entirely, and go for something much more modest?

    Freedom from privation.
    Adequate medical care.
    Freedom from wage slavery.

It wouldn't be a perfect world, just one better than what we have.

The irony is that these are within our grasp, but it is much easier to suffer the indignity of known evils than the horror of an unknown future.
#14449159
No financial or political interferences in news reporting


What exactly would there even be to report in this utopia?

Headline:

Experts Say Everything Still Absolutely Perfect, 6983 Days In a Row.

Local Man Responds: "Hooray."
#14449161
I agree, modest responsibility is within human grasp. I wish more people could retrieve such a world view.

What really holds us back, over population, not the cliche notion, real overpopulation. See, if 8 people exist, culture is easily maintained. 120 million, culture is no longer pure. For man must control cultural Influence (not just affluence), so naturally, if man can not control culture due to populace influx, he must invent manipulative culture, so someone will listen, so he is in control. We must be in control, hence your suggestion, Kolzene.

Enough control, more freedom. Take the progressive enlightenment, destroy tiers of technology and humans will learn to cope with each individual. If the bozos rooting for technocracy want to bring the purge forth, let em. The real intellect will benefit our cause, which is population deduction. You see, mass production, industrialization is one sociological response to population increase. We must make the mass content so the rich can be content. Of course, the rich can scoff, cough, and diss, fuck em. They need the plebeians for their wealth.

This post industrial technocratic psycho wants to give the rich institutional strength, fuck that. We can let the capitalist system deduce itself and ride it out. After we rebuild. If we go for technocratic systems, we are inviting oppression. Cmon, bitch, bring on the technocratic piss, what a joke.
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 09 Aug 2014 05:03, edited 2 times in total.
#14449163
Kolzene,

How can you honestly sit here and say, that what you originally wrote, is not utopian?
#14449179
Solastalgia wrote:Kolzene,

How can you honestly sit here and say, that what you originally wrote, is not utopian?


It's not utopian, he's right about that. It's merely advertising. Unlike actual plans for utopias, there is absolutely no content in the OP that can be rationally considered at all.
#14449226
Calling the OP advertising is being kind. Advertising is when Tesco tells you on TV that their tins of beans are half price this weekend only, the chances are that is somewhat true. The OP is what happens when the Communist Manifesto, Jim Jetson and a snake oil salesman get filthy drunk together, fall asleep in Jeff Goldblum's teleportation chamber and wake to find themselves genetically re-combined into a Frankensteinian horror.
#14820452
Saeko wrote:If you wanted an honest discussion on the topic, what you should have done is first define the term "technocracy", and then explained how technocracy will lead to some of the bulleted points.


Um, no, because there are already plenty of threads in this forum discussing the topic of how technocracy works (and how it is defined), but more importantly I already framed this topic as not having to do with that. If I take "substantiating" this list out of the topic, then why am I supposed to be substantiating it? If you want it substantiated, how hard is it to start a new thread? What you're talking about is changing the subject. Ok, I can see how it might be confusing to some that the topic title is worded differently than the rest of it, so would it help if I changed the topic title to "Is Technocracy desirable?" Would that make you happy? Or is it that you just don't like this topic at all? If that's the case then open a new thread anyway and criticize to your heart's content. All this metadiscussion is off topic and disruptive to anyone who may actually want to participate in it. If it turns out that no one does, then there will be no replies, no big deal, the thread dies, just like many before it.


Saeko wrote:Your whole thread reads like this: "Is x the correct answer? Suppose that x is the correct answer. Is x still the correct answer?"


I don't see where you get the word "correct" from. The way I see it is this, I asked: "Why is x desirable?" Then "This is why it could be desirable: (list of points)" Then "I would like to know if you find these things desirable, assuming they were possible." Does that help you see where I am coming from?

By the way, while I may not really agree with you on this so far, and think that this discussion belongs in another thread, I do appreciate your far more helpful response than most of what has been posted here.
#14449347
Thumbs up, long live technicism, thats should and will be the future.

* Instead of Technocracy i prefer to name it Technicism, because technocracy is a form of goverment (like democracy, theocracy, autocracy, ect) and may fall in strawman.
#14449359
Kolzene wrote:Alright guys, if you're not going to stay on topic then don't post. And did most of you forget the rule about one line posts?

This is the last I'm going to say about this in this thread, if you want to continue discussing it, make a new thread! Technocracy is not utopian, because it does not claim to solve all problems. There will still be crime, there will still be disease, there will still be dissension, and fighting, and accidents, and disagreements, and heartbreak, and people hating each other, and possibly even war. The point is that there will just be less of that stuff, and more of what most people consider the good stuff. I know it may seem "fanciful" to many, because the claims are so big, but that does not make it utopian, or perfect. And your estimations on how fanciful or unlikely it may be is, as I've said in the first post, another topic! So let that be the last of it here. If you don't want to participate in this topic, then don't.

As for claims of "advertising", are you going to tell me that the relative merits of one system over another is not discussed here, or even worthy of discussion?

And RT, you are violating so many forum rules. You should know better.


Here is what you did wrong. You asked a question in the thread title, and then, instead of offering a substantive attempt to answer it, you all but answered it in the affirmative using a gigantic list of unbelievable yet completely unsubstantiated claims. Your whole thread reads like this: "Is x the correct answer? Suppose that x is the correct answer. Is x still the correct answer?" What is anybody supposed to say to something like this, other than what RhetoricThug said, and called bullshit on everything?

If you wanted an honest discussion on the topic, what you should have done is first define the term "technocracy", and then explained how technocracy will lead to some of the bulleted points.
#14449464
Kolzene, you have fused in your mind all these utopian outcomes with your technocracy thing as if they automagically arise from it. You can just about entertain the idea that people might not want utopian outcomes and you can just about entertain the notion that utopian outcomes might not be possible but you don't see that the question for sensible people is would these outcomes really come about from an actual implementation of the technocracy design. Technocracy is just scientific totalitarian communism with an energy based rationing protocol. Utopian claims have been made for scientific communism before and the results were basically pretty awful, you can't blame people for being skeptical. Another thing is you aren't presenting any costs or cons with it, which is an instant invitation for suspicion. If someone tells me they will make all my wishes come true then I want to know what is the catch, the cost, the con.
#14449542
Kolzene wrote:Um, no, because there are already plenty of threads in this forum discussing the topic of how technocracy works (and how it is defined), but more importantly I already framed this topic as not having to do with that. If I take "substantiating" this list out of the topic, then why am I supposed to be substantiating it? If you want it substantiated, how hard is it to start a new thread? What you're talking about is changing the subject. Ok, I can see how it might be confusing to some that the topic title is worded differently than the rest of it, so would it help if I changed the topic title to "Is Technocracy desirable?" Would that make you happy? Or is it that you just don't like this topic at all? If that's the case then open a new thread anyway and criticize to your heart's content. All this metadiscussion is off topic and disruptive to anyone who may actually want to participate in it. If it turns out that no one does, then there will be no replies, no big deal, the thread dies, just like many before it.

I don't see where you get the word "correct" from. The way I see it is this, I asked: "Why is x desirable?" Then "This is why it could be desirable: (list of points)" Then "I would like to know if you find these things desirable, assuming they were possible." Does that help you see where I am coming from?

By the way, while I may not really agree with you on this so far, and think that this discussion belongs in another thread, I do appreciate your far more helpful response than most of what has been posted here.


I'm not criticizing how you went about presenting the subject, but rather your poor choice of subject. Your OP preempted any possibility of rational discussion by skipping over all possible points of contention, specifically, what is technocracy?, how does it work?, is it possible?, will it deliver on the promise?, how can we achieve it?, etc. Instead of addressing these important questions, you skipped right to the end of the debate by essentially asking, "are desirable things desirable?". No one in their right mind is going to say that they want to be impoverished, or homeless, etc. So, to be honest, the reason that the responses to your thread have been so overwhelmingly negative, is because the whole thing feels like an insult to the intelligence of pretty much everyone. I don't think you intended it to come off that way, but that is, nonetheless, how it came across.
#14449648
Kolzene wrote:taxizen, please stop trolling. I've told you before, Technocracy is not utopian, and it is not totalitarian. It seems like you who are unable to "entertain" these ideas.

My intention is not to troll but to debate.

utopian - modeled on or aiming for a state in which everything is perfect; idealistic.


Totalitarianism or totalitarian state is a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.


It looks totalitarian and utopian to me.

Kolzene wrote:And as for this: "you don't see that the question for sensible people is would these outcomes really come about from an actual implementation of the technocracy design." Really? I've only been discussing this very question with people online for 12 years now, and longer than that offline, so you really think I am unable to see that that is a sensible question? But that is not the only question. If you want to discuss the feasibility of Technocracy then go ahead, I'm not stopping you. There are hundreds of topic threads here to choose from, or you can easily make your own. But this thread is not about that question, it's about another one. Talking about something different does not in anyway mean that I do not or can not talk about that. Saying such is ridiculous.

I meant that in the context of your OP. In the OP you said to paraphrase: leaving aside if technocracy is possible, is it desirable to have these automagically derived outcomes? Basically as Saeko points out you are just asking "are desirable things desirable?".
#14820453
Saeko: I see what you are saying now. Ok, so how to fix this. If I said "This is what Technocracy claims is possible:" then let people ask about how that is, would that be better? That could be tricky though. Some things in Technocracy are hard to "prove" on a forum, and require reading outside material. Well I guess I just do what I've always done and reference people to what they need. So how does that sound?

taxizen: You posted in that thread where we talk about whether Technocracy is political or not, or government or not, but I can't tell if you read the rest of it, since your post was early on. If not then I'm sorry. The point is that it is not dictatorial in the least, it's not even a government! There is no political power for people to abuse. If you'd like references to that you can find them on page two of the Technocracy and the State thread.

But you did see my post on Technocracy not being utopian, so why do you continue to say that it is? That's not a "debate". I'll repeat what I said here:

Kolzene wrote:Technocracy is not utopian, because it does not claim to solve all problems. There will still be crime, there will still be disease, there will still be dissension, and fighting, and accidents, and disagreements, and heartbreak, and people hating each other, and possibly even war. The point is that there will just be less of that stuff, and more of what most people consider the good stuff. I know it may seem "fanciful" to many, because the claims are so big, but that does not make it utopian, or perfect.


That goes against your stated definition here of everything being perfect. Agreed?
#14820456
Ok, here we go again. Technocracy is not totalitarian. It is not political, it is not even a government. It is an economic system that works without a political government. It is by its very nature a voluntary organization because it has to be, otherwise it wouldn't work. If you tried to force Technocracy on people, all you'd get is some kind of dictatorship with none of the benefits of Technocracy.



RhetoricThug wrote:So please, straight from the horse's mouth, do tell, how a society which is free can automate systems, group some voluntary collective, and offer everything which is desired, without complete control over its populace and culture.


The key is abundance. North America, and possibly some other places in the world, have the capacity to produce goods and services high enough to produce a much higher standard of living than the average westerner has today. Once you have this environment of abundance, decouple income from work done, and use a system of distribution instead of a system of exchange (like money), that's when all this good stuff happens. How specifically would take a while to explain, probably longer than is feasible on a forum. That's why there are books written about it, so people can see for themselves exactly how Technocracy works and then make an informed decision about its feasibility rather than making assumptions based on partial knowledge and coming to the wrong conclusions, like Technocracy being totalitarian.



RhetoricThug wrote:You do realize, the technical elite who erect such a whimsical government will have to come from a post capitalist market, possibly some socialist one (if Marx is correct). Whereas to say, all their wealth and power be derived from everything Technocracy wishes to abolish. So, hypothetically, the technocratic elite will be products of capital greed, and any post capital system or transition toward socialism will be under their guide.


Those in the highest positions will not be financial or business managers, or even politicians. They will be those that have proven themselves the most competent in the technical fields in which they work.


RhetoricThug wrote:You have no real method of implementation.


Technocracy will happen most likely after a referendum vote by the population shows that the majority of people consent to such a system. Then they themselves will make it happen. How exactly is difficult to say because it will depend on the conditions at that particular time.


RhetoricThug wrote:You use this forum as a think tank, where you can mentally masturbate considering Technocracy.


I use this forum to educate people about Technocracy, because most people don't know anything about it, and most of those that do have little to no accurate information. Technocracy can't happen unless and until people know about it, and they need the right information otherwise they won't be able to make it happen.


RhetoricThug wrote:Man, are you brainwashed by this idea, this technocracy?


Nonsense. If this very thread proves anything, it is that I can change my mind about things, when there is good reason and I am spoken to reasonably.


RhetoricThug wrote:So, if this thread is to promote the desirability of Technocracy then I consider it a poor outlet for critical discussion. Ergo one failed thread.


Oh I agree, it failed, and it was my fault. I'm ready to move on.

Dangerous terrorists who are such a threat that t[…]

Schizophrenia

I don't believe there really is such a thing as &q[…]

There's ''productive'' in the sense of; ''got to […]

Election 2020

The illegal immigration issue is a classic exampl[…]