Ideas for a government that allows for a transition to a Technocracy? - 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.
#14741282
Is there a possibility for a form of government for developing countries that allows them to reach an abundance and an easy transition to Technocracy. I personally put alot of thought into this idea and I have thought up the economic side of things quite easily (given that Technocracy is an economic system it's easy to see similarities between it and some economic theories) however in terms of government it was much more harder given that government allows for politics to occur which Technocracy intends to remove all together. At best this means there will some hesitance in transitioning into a Technocracy.

I thought of one form of government which, put bluntly, is a government built on incentive structures. The leader builds incentive structures, aligned with organizational goals, to create conditions inside the system that encourages individuals to participate in a pro-organizational fashion. Perfection is a set of clear and explicit incentives and measures (does not necessarily mean money) that allow the system participants 'to work to plan,' without any oversight. The central assumption is that if the participants understand how they're measured and what's valuable, they can quickly sort their own behaviors and make pro-organizational decisions without consulting a central authority.

You can see where this is going. If the leader in question intends to create a Technocracy, the leader can create incentive structures that direct it towards. If the incentives are well and cleverly designed enough, even after the leader steps down, the incentives structures in place would be nearly unbreakable thus leading the country to Technocracy eventually. However I can't see how the incentives themselves will be designed in a manner that would create a positive effect on Technocracy (I certainly am not clever enough to design them :lol:) and it would need to have the right leader for it. A person that has a deep understanding of Technocracy (so he can create incentives structures to direct the country towards it), must be intelligent, and must not have a thirst for power once he gets to have power.

So I ask you fellows on this forum, what form of government quickly create an abundance and allow for an easy transition to Technocracy?

NOTE: Sorry if my post is, awkward to put it lightly. English isn't my first language.
#14741283
Any form of government (or form of economic organization, if you prefer) too dependent on finding the right leader is already in trouble. It takes a critical mass of population already deeply aligned with your way of thinking, and a set of good leaders as well. The formal Technocracy movement had its heyday in the thirties, and has gone downhill since.

A critical mass can't be a measly 5 or 10%. Libertarians are close to having that, and are still stymied. You have to have a ~25-30% level to begin to make inroads. A mass education and organization effort is the first step. Unless you have that, you will be like the hard left in the US: living on dreams and a belief in history. You have to make your own history.
#14741285
"Any form of government (or form of economic organization, if you prefer) too dependent on finding the right leader is already in trouble. It takes a critical mass of population already deeply aligned with your way of thinking, and a set of good leaders as well. The formal Technocracy movement had its heyday in the thirties, and has gone downhill since."

I am aware. That's why I stated the flaws and at the end of the post asked for you and others ideas for a form of government that allows for a Technocracy to occur in a developing nation. What do you propose as an alternative to my idea?

"A critical mass can't be a measly 5 or 10%. Libertarians are close to having that, and are still stymied. You have to have a ~25-30% level to begin to make inroads. A mass education and organization effort is the first step. Unless you have that, you will be like the hard left in the US: living on dreams and a belief in history. You have to make your own history."

I don't really understand this part well can you clarify please?

Also can you show me how to quote?
#14741370
Oxymandias wrote:Also can you show me how to quote?


On the top right of a person's posts you can see a little quote box, an @, a "like" button, a cog and downward arrow, and two stacked quote boxes. Click on that final quote box. Your post will include their post as quoted material. Let's say this is a post, and each "stuff" could be a sentence or paragraph:

Name of poster wrote:Stuff1 stuff2 stuff3


You can respond in blocks like this:

Code: Select all[quote="Name of poster"]
Stuff1
[/quote]

Your response.

[quote]
stuff2
[/quote]

Your response.

[quote]
stuff3
[/quote]

Your response.
#14741637
IMO economies benefit from a wide distribution of information transfer. This, in principle, is an advantage of market mechanisms - although it should be recognized that markets have designed features as well (and existent setups are weighted in destructive ways). A purely katascopic organization would be sub-optimal.
#14741993
Wow, I did not except such a large amount of replies on this forum particularly from you Kolzene. I thought you were too busy to bother. Anyways, I'll go through the responses one by one.

Bulaba Jones wrote:On the top right of a person's posts you can see a little quote box, an @, a "like" button, a cog and downward arrow, and two stacked quote boxes. Click on that final quote box. Your post will include their post as quoted material. Let's say this is a post, and each "stuff" could be a sentence or paragraph:


Thank you for the information even though you'll probably never see this anyways! But if you're still here, do you have anything to add to this topic? Do you have any of you're own ideas to share?

Kolzene wrote:There certainly is a possibility, and it is an interesting question. I'm not sure that your model of starting with just a leader interested in Technocracy would be the best, but if that was all you had, then the best that he/she could do would be as quetzalcoatl says, to perform a massive education campaign for the population to learn as much about Technocracy and its benefits as possible. The reason for this is because in order for Technocracy to be enacted and even function, it needs the voluntary participation of the population. Having their participation for the development of the requirements for Technocracy beforehand would thus make things a lot easier.


Of course I considered education heavily when I was designing the hypothetical country for my existing country and the countries surrounding it (my idea is to unify them somehow) since lack of education is the main cause of conflict in my area. One idea I had was adding a class dedicated to explaining both Technocracy (through the Technocracy Study Course which is, of course, translated) and the current government that the student currently inhabit. It is made clear to students that the current government they're in is only temporary and will be replaced after the sufficient requirements of Technocracy is met. I am also aware that Technocracy is voluntary and that's why if a hypothetical leader decides to want Technocracy in my area it would be necessary to teach the educated minority in my area for they are the ones who have the power to change things, at least in a non-violent way.

Kolzene wrote:Once you have that, a katascopically planned economy who's goal is to make Technocracy happen would be your fastest way of achieving it. With a population interested in making that happen, very little work would need to be done by the government in order to help. One thing it could do would be if it could get written into whatever constitution it has that the current government will dissolve upon the empirical achievement of a working Technocracy. This just helps to ensure a peaceful transition. It also helps if the current leaders do not have too much money or power from being in government so there is less incentive to cause problems.


Well, I have told you I have everything related to economics was done! The economy is planned as that's absolutely necessary for a Technocracy to happen quickly anyways. I never thought of the constitution idea though so I should get on that. Making a constitution never occurred to me for some reason even though it's obvious. Wait, but wouldn't having not much money or power cause corruption? Remember this is still a scarcity economy, the rulers could easily change things that may disrupt the country's ability to become a Technocracy for just short-term gains such as an extension of power or an addition of money. I think the best way to do it is to make it voluntary. If the populous is aware of Technocracy and wants to make it happen, they'll volunteer for no money to work full time (don't worry, there's basic income) to make Technocracy a reality.

Kolzene wrote:He's just saying that you'll need a lot more people that actually want Technocracy to happen than a small minority, that's all. Preferably as many as possible.


However the amount of educated people in my area is a minority. There are some countries with a large number of educated people but, compared to the rest of the area, it is a minority. So in order to reach a large number of people, this hypothetical Technocracy favoring leader, would have to educate the educated first (as in, the people with decent education and electricity) and thus form a sort of organization where the newly Technocracy educated people would teach others on Technocracy.

quetzalcoatl wrote:IMO economies benefit from a wide distribution of information transfer. This, in principle, is an advantage of market mechanisms - although it should be recognized that markets have designed features as well (and existent setups are weighted in destructive ways). A purely katascopic organization would be sub-optimal.


I agree with Kolzene on this one, there is no reason why wide information transfer wouldn't be as efficient as a market economy. In fact it could be more efficient in a planned katascopic economy due to pretty much the reasons Kolzene listed above. The only difference would be that information would have to be organized to be accessible for everyone which is still more efficient that market economies!
#14742080
Some interesting ideas here. On the subject of katascopic versus anoscopic, I would have to come down on the side of a hybrid system that combines elements of both. I argue that a distributed system is better than either a pure market or command economy (distributed does not equal pure market, btw). The arguments are complex and difficult but it boils down to the subject of information transfer within a complex adaptive system. In a CAS framework, any kind of static organizational network will fail catastrophically. The organizational structure itself and all its elements must be in a constant state of dynamic re-organization in order to successfully meet unforeseeable challenges.

In the real world, we see that long-term survival rates of economic systems favor those that are the most fluid and adaptable. So far, this is pointing to nations that have implemented some form of market system constrained by purposeful regulation to achieve 'fair' outcomes - although none of them are optimal in terms of achieving the ideal of a post-scarcity society.
#14742385
Kolzene wrote:Why did you think that?


Well in previous discussion you acknowledged your absence on the forums which was due to your job and stated that you wanted to check the forums more often. So I thought, due to your lack of presence, there would be a low chance I would see you here.

Kolzene wrote:Very good. It seems that you have studied Technocracy well.


Thank you! :D

Kolzene wrote:Yes, you're right; corruption is always a danger in scarcity environments. However it is usually the presence of money and power that causes it, not its lack. The rich and powerful will want to abuse it, and the poor will envy it, leading to crime. All you can do is try to minimize the problems as much as possible. How to do that would probably be a whole topic by itself.


I am aware and that's why your idea won't work, because money is still present. Corruption is much more easier to happen if the people controlling the government have very little money because then there is a thirst for gaining more money. The only solutions I can think of is making being in the government the highest paying job in the country or make the entire government simply a voluntary organization like I said.

Kolzene wrote:For as long as they are not being distracted by other things. I'm not sure where you are from, but in North America there are many people that think that Technocracy would be a good idea, but are too distracted by other things to want to get involved. Of course, it's my opinion that our society is designed exactly to do this.


There will be measures taken to make sure that isn't the case. You are correct in that society is the thing preventing Technocracy from occurring but that's why I mentioned basic income. A majority of the distractions in place come from a lack of money and a need for a consistent gain of money (i.e. the reason for your job) but if the volunteers in the organization have basic income however, there will be a consistent gain of money given to them regardless so the volunteers can continue their quest for Technocracy with an ease of mind. Since we are talking about ideal-driven people (only the most dedicated would chose to join the organization) the worst they can do is simply automate jobs due to feeling "left out" when people get paychecks along with their basic income and even then that's HELPING Technocracy's ability to occur!

Kolzene wrote:Education wasn't that great in the 1930's in the US and Canada either, which is why the Study Course, and indeed all of the Technocracy Movement, was designed the way it was, so as to be accessible to everyone regardless of income, class, or education (although being able to read was a big help). This is why the TSC includes chapters on things like basic science, and how the economy works; basically all the supporting information you need to really understand how Technocracy works. Even the introduction (chapter 1 in newer editions) I've found helpful for basic critical thinking skills, something that can benefit people in all parts of their lives. People would join the local chapters (called Sections), and then attend the study course which was almost more like a study-circle. While it was usually facilitated by a more knowledgeable person, they were basically run by the people themselves, helping teach each other the various topics. And if there was no section in your area, you could always become a organizer yourself. So perhaps a similar membership-driven model, or something like it, might work in your area, I don't know.


Wow, that's great! Fantastic even! Now the Technocracy Study Course is the best thing ever! This'll help my area alot (also for clarification what I mean by area is basically my country and the countries surrounding it which I wish to unite)! Also if I were to make a section in my country I would be considered "an enemy of the state" but I'll just do it anyways because I already did tons of things that would consider me "an enemy of the state" already so why not?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quetzalcoatl wrote:Some interesting ideas here. On the subject of katascopic versus anoscopic, I would have to come down on the side of a hybrid system that combines elements of both. I argue that a distributed system is better than either a pure market or command economy (distributed does not equal pure market, btw). The arguments are complex and difficult but it boils down to the subject of information transfer within a complex adaptive system. In a CAS framework, any kind of static organizational network will fail catastrophically. The organizational structure itself and all its elements must be in a constant state of dynamic re-organization in order to successfully meet unforeseeable challenges.


I agree with everything here but I have one critique and two questions.

For my critique, I think you misunderstood what katascopic and anoscopic mean. From my understanding, katascopic and anoscopic are types of thinking or approaches to problems not types of economic systems. They may be used in economics but they aren't a economic system themselves so what you are discussing is not a combination of katascopic and anoscopic (that would be contradictory anyways) but a combination of a planned or command economy and free market economy.

Now for my questions, may I ask, why in a CAS framework would a static organizational network fail? I agree that a distributed system is better (I read about it) and now I have to revise everything I wrote about in my document related to economics (or a part of it) but I still want to know why.

My question is, what are the arguments present for a distributed system? Even if you can't explain them, can you at least give me some links that discusses it?

quetzalcoatl wrote:In the real world, we see that long-term survival rates of economic systems favor those that are the most fluid and adaptable. So far, this is pointing to nations that have implemented some form of market system constrained by purposeful regulation to achieve 'fair' outcomes - although none of them are optimal in terms of achieving the ideal of a post-scarcity society.


Is the systems present in those economic systems distributed systems? If so, then there is no need for it. My goal is to achieving a post-scarcity society.
#14746056
I think the problem is people are constraining Technocracy in that we assume it requires a model to be followed in the transitory period of getting to a Technocratic state. However the problem with that is it makes another assumption. That is all countries economically are the same/similar in how they progress or even in their structure. This is simply not the case.
#14746058
quetzalcoatl wrote:Any form of government (or form of economic organization, if you prefer) too dependent on finding the right leader is already in trouble. It takes a critical mass of population already deeply aligned with your way of thinking, and a set of good leaders as well. The formal Technocracy movement had its heyday in the thirties, and has gone downhill since.

A critical mass can't be a measly 5 or 10%. Libertarians are close to having that, and are still stymied. You have to have a ~25-30% level to begin to make inroads. A mass education and organization effort is the first step. Unless you have that, you will be like the hard left in the US: living on dreams and a belief in history. You have to make your own history.


I sympathize in regards to your first point on dependancy. However you are assuming Techncracy is dependant upon a single people. Even if your counter that with "but they are an elite group of people". That still doesn't constitute a single elite individual or dictator. Secondly it is the purpose of a technocrat to be entirely scientific in his/her approach in the appartment or area they were assigned to manage. Whence any failure that occurs will purely be a human and accidental one, not one forged out of geniune corruption.
#14746070
Aragon412 wrote:I think the problem is people are constraining Technocracy in that we assume it requires a model to be followed in the transitory period of getting to a Technocratic state. However the problem with that is it makes another assumption. That is all countries economically are the same/similar in how they progress or even in their structure. This is simply not the case.


I am aware and what I am actually looking for is basically a framework that can be flexible and fit the needs of that specific country and allow it to achieve Technocracy. Maybe you have an idea?

Aragon412 wrote:I sympathize in regards to your first point on dependancy. However you are assuming Techncracy is dependant upon a single people. Even if your counter that with "but they are an elite group of people". That still doesn't constitute a single elite individual or dictator. Secondly it is the purpose of a technocrat to be entirely scientific in his/her approach in the appartment or area they were assigned to manage. Whence any failure that occurs will purely be a human and accidental one, not one forged out of geniune corruption.


I understand what you are saying here. Can you clarify?
#14746085
Oxymandias wrote:I am aware and what I am actually looking for is basically a framework that can be flexible and fit the needs of that specific country and allow it to achieve Technocracy. Maybe you have an idea?



I understand what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

To your first point I think right now the official Technocracy movement is in the process of discussing this. Here is the link to this: http://www.technocracyinc.org/student-i ... ideo-2016/
Personally how I see the process, let me take the example of Norway as a means of contextualising how I envision the transitory period. Norway is rich in natural gas and oil. In terms of getting to the "post-scarcity" economic scenario. Norway could invest entirely in lets say Solar energy in order for Norwegians to essentially have free electricity or atleast very very cheap electricity. This would obviously and naturally met with hostility by the TNCs and energy companies but I think it comes down to having to nationalise the energy sector and letting the government implement this. For Norway this is perfect, considering the start-up costs for solar energy implementation is relatively expensive, however in the long-term it pays off. Since Norway can sell off surplus energy. India just recently just spent $650 million dollars on the largest Solar plant in the world, it powers 2.5 million homes. Norway's population is 5 million, give or take. It would only require $1.3 billion dollars of investment to make the country entirely dependant on free and renewable energy. Simultaneously selling off surplus energy in order to generate revenue, both to sustain the solar plant and making it "financially" viable(basically profitable for the national economy).

In terms of achieving self-sufficieny in regards to the problem of food scarcity, I find it a simple one yet I suppose it also has one constraint. Intial startup costs that sometimes both the public and private sector are reluctant to engage in. For me I would find the level of food consumption in Norway and then match that by setting up vertical farms in large towers. The towers can be old or newly and specifically constructed for the sake of the vertical farm. I'd also want to invest in Aquaponic, which is "Aquaponics is the marriage of Aquaculture (farming fish) and hydroponics (growing plants in a soil-less medium). While both of these systems are efficient they have some major drawbacks. By taking the best of each type of farming, aquaponics solves the problems associated of each." The positive thing with this is that, vertical farms are an entirely artificial enviroment. Whence they can be controlled for whatever specific food commodity you wish to produce.
#14746086
Oxymandias wrote:I am aware and what I am actually looking for is basically a framework that can be flexible and fit the needs of that specific country and allow it to achieve Technocracy. Maybe you have an idea?



I understand what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

In regards to your second point. All I mean is that a Technocrat ideally will not have self-interest or atleast there will be checks and balances that ensure self-interest doesn't get in the way of his/her job within a Techncoratic state.
#14746095
Thank you, I'll watch it at a later time! But my country or the countries surrounding my country in which I wish to unite need a completely new government than the ones they currently have. Also I believe that a Continent is need for a Technocracy to occur or that maybe an example. Maybe Norway can join forces and form a sort of union with other countries with the same ideal?

I understand and I agree. Thank you.
#14746098
Oxymandias wrote:Thank you, I'll watch it at a later time! But my country or the countries surrounding my country in which I wish to unite need a completely new government than the ones they currently have. Also I believe that a Continent is need for a Technocracy to occur or that maybe an example. Maybe Norway can join forces and form a sort of union with other countries with the same ideal?

I understand and I agree. Thank you.

Yeh well that is the problem aswell. The reality is, YES Technocracy per say is an economic and not a political system. However the reality is the economics may need to inter-connect with the politics. Why? Well simply put the dominating economic ideology in the globe right now is Neo-Liberalism, that is essentially capitalism and globalism fused together. The Neo-Liberals who typically tend to be bought off by large trans-national coporations, cannot implement such radical change as we Technocrats suggest.

An ill wind blows someone good... The way this v[…]

There have been reports about people suddenly coll[…]

I have a feeling that deep down Tainari is an eth[…]

Election 2020

Everyone wants that and always have. Stupid wi[…]