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.
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.