Like I said, I imagine that the Technate's network architecture will be far more advanced and intelligent than mere "server-client" and "peer to peer". It could, for example, intelligently balance changing traffic loads across the whole network, much in the same way our power grid does now. This could in effect make every node a "peer".
Well, I suppose I can only think of it in terms of those two systems.
The first stage of any engineering design project is to first lay down the requirements. In this case this would include current population and distribution, power requirements based on current equipment, resource requirements for manufacturing, etc. Second is to determine what resources are available. As you are no doubt aware, these two factors (or rather, set of factors) are both changing quite rapidly, and any calculations done based on current numbers would be useless in as little as a year.
I expect a little could be done based on current trends, like people do now.
Also, small details on the small picture could be worked out for things which will not change much or will still have some fundamental things the same. For example, some details to please the environmentalists (on the recycling and energy efficiency would put them ina good frame of mind for the rest of it).
Now this doesn't mean that we can't do a little projectional work to be able to give people a better idea of what to expect. We did this in the 1920s and that's when we came up with the numbers such as the 16 hour work week, etc. But, that is a side project. Our main goal is to make sure that people are getting informed, because as you point out, our time is limited, and we need to do all that we can to make sure that enough people are properly informed about Technocracy so that they can make it happen. If we do not reach this unknown "threshold" number, then I'm afraid that we can say goodbye to our chances at Technocracy for quite a few centuries, at least.
I do not know, but I have always been under the impression that it is easier to gain people's support quickly with small specialised promises rather than describing a whole system to them (which, after all, is quite hard to fit on a banner or put into a slogan).
as we will still be using inefficient technology and cities,
I know, so the time to get off the oil use is the most imperitive to work out to figure out quite how urgent this is.
That stage may take 20 years or more.
In the article I got that from, I must either have misinterpreted what I read, misread it, or both. It comes when you read such documentation late into the night.
What little we can say about Technocratic foreign policy has already been mentioned in places such as the TTCD booklet and the Technocracy FAQ.
I have read everything directly technocracy related on technocracy.ca, and I am half way through technocracy.org, and I am deliberately leaving behemoths like TTCD and TTSC to last.
It occurs to me that, since its conception was long before the concept of global warming was well known, Technocracy Inc. is disadvantaged in this situation, of having to be in a hurry. I think this might be the case because, from what I have read, Technocracy planned to help in building a technate after an economic collapse, where the physical things would still be there, and people would see that, but see that the Price System prevented them from enjoying those resources. However, originally there would have been no plan b for a situation when a serious loss of resources and the ability to use them was looming almost inevitably in just a few decades. Technocracy now finds itself to be no longer in a situation to wait for the Price System's inevitable collapse, because now the Price system will collapse not because of something arcane, but because of something physical in the real world, a situation for which it is unprepared.[/speculation]
Do you know where I might find information on what the Technical Alliance did, what statistics it looked through, in its energy survey, and what things exactly, in detail, would be needed to set up a technate? I am interested because I would like to, based on any statistics on the EU, or the EU plus some neighboring areas, roughly guess as to whether a technate would be feasible in Europe with a better guess than just the assumption of "Yes." I am, after all, a citizen of two European countries (one in the EU), and, I believe (rightly or wrongly) it might be marginally easier to convince people in Europe about technocracy, because I believe (rightly or wrongly) that people in Europe are generally more left wing and that there are more left wingers and communists and I believe (rightly or wrongly) that those on the left are more likely to find technocracy appealing.
The reson I believe that people on the left find technocracy more appealing is this: At my college (high school) I talk sometimes with someone who is a socialist, or identifies himself as such at least. I told him a little about technocracy and he seemed very interested. I told him to check technocracy.ca, considering it has a beginner's page, and he said he would. Today I had another discussion with him, and he had some questions, which I attempted, with some success, to answer (but then he had to go, so he still thinks noone will work if they get an "income" anyway), and he still seemed interested.
Then again, he is studying all three of the sciences...
Given that students (in the UK at least) are the people most likely to join groups which are viewed as "radical", I am interested in what proportion of members who join Technocracy Inc. join when in university, and whether you target any of your efforts of persuasion towards university campuses, especially science departments (since that seems logical).
Political Compass results:
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.08
.
.gif)
- By AFAIK
- By Pants-of-dog