TechnoFunds - 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.
User avatar
By cyb3rsamurai
#640439
Have you considered using the help of corporations in form of funding to increase public awareness of this concept? I realise that this sounds slightly contradictory, however isit not possible that there are those souls out there who have made it big in the system, aquired wealth, and ARE willing to give it up for a just cause?

The point is that the countdown began long long ago and whilst we're all sitting here discussing and marveling at how amazing it could all be, we've just simultaneously shouted 3... next is 2. Time is of the essence. What exactly are you currently doing?



I just get this sense of helpless frustration when i look at the world, the way it's going straight to hell, and compare it to what I'm doing/can do to save it. I just wanna be able to say that at least I tried. I don't feel that I'd so much as want to spawn a child into this overpopulated mess that's been handed to me by my parents...
By Tangerine
#640443
If we get millionaire members, and if these members are willing to give us the money, then we'll accept. Sure :). As a Technocrat, the least we can expect is scandalously-dressed secreteries serving us hot, fresh, filtered coffee every half an hour. ;) Seriously, financial support from members is a yes, financial support from corporations probably wouldn’t happen. But if it did, why not accept? Of course, we would make it clear we will not be giving any power, decisional or otherwise, to these corporations for their contribution – other than a nod of the head, of course. :)
User avatar
By cyb3rsamurai
#640464
well maybe, as opose to waiting for a miricale, the organisation should actively seek such funding. Send letters/pamphlets to rich people, in order to try and convince them that it's for the good of mankind.

The problems will arise when the first corporations[mostly executives of course] team up together against the revolution, scared of losing their lifestyles. Though the question is what harm they could actually do. Anti-propaganda would be their likely weapon, but any reference to yuor site would only help increase awareness, so in the end it's all good :)

I haven't looked over the pamphlets that are on the site yet, but you must think of a good way of convincing people to join. It's really difficult.

a. because people are naturally lazy.
b. because some people would prefer if technocracy didn't take over [althought this would be a minority]
c. because as good as the promises technocracy has to offer are, people have been decieved by ads too often to be able to trust them any longer
d. because it's difficult to sum up technocracy in a few powerful slogans...

If yuo could get somebody like bill gates to support the cause, you'd have unlimited ca$h and several media networks at your disposal.

The internet maybe free for all, but most who use it don't accidentally stumble onto the site and decide to read all of it.

another way of spreading the idea would be spam-mail. or some worm. or you could try and get funds by hacking banks... o.O :muha2: :muha1:
By Clansman
#640576
I think the best way for technocracy in the EU to get off the ground is to make common cause with the Green movement. In Europe they are a very powerful force and becoming even more powerful as time goes on. They actively advocate moving away from over consumption, and the price system that causes it, as well as the setting up of autarkic regions and moving away from global commerce. What they are missing is a viable alternative to the present economic system. This is why many Greens flirt with the socialists, however this is nothing but flirting as socialism is a fan of heavy industry and a continuation, albeit in a modified form, of the price system. Now some greens, the "Deep Greens", are totally antithetical to technology, but other Greens, the ecologists, who are the overwhelming majority in the movement, are actively after technological solutions to our resource problems.

The most obvious choice for the Greens for an economic system is communism, but this has been shown not to work and it is also a dirty word here so the Greens shun this option. As far as I can see, and I am a rabid environmentalist, the Greens are in need of a credible alternative to capitalism, what is more they are looking for technology to come to the aid of man to live sustainably. In breif I honestly think there is a good chance that the Greens would be open to the concept of technocracy and that they are already far along the path to it even as I write this. If beleivers in technocracy tie themselves to the Greens platform in the EU then Technocracy could really see a surge in support here. However, for the greens to take technocrats seriously they need to get up a decent level of support amongst the citizens of the EU, for that one needs to actively canvas for support in the universities. This is where young minds are being formed and where they are most open to new ideas, its also the breeding ground for the future societies leaders. Something approaching 40% of all young people go to uni in the EU, that's a very large audience. If NET can get its membership up toward the 1 or 2 million mark then the Greens will probably be very interested in making common cause and with their resources and publicity Technocracy really could steal a march in the EU.
By Tangerine
#640632
Clansman, we've been in discussion about that very topic, for months at the forums. We see Greenpeace and other environmental movements as the primary target once the site is off the ground. We’ll also be approaching specific scientists, and other skilled personnel like engineers, and ask for their professional help. We will not be waiting for 2 million members however: we'll be marketing for their membership as soon as the site is up.
By Clansman
#640634
we'll be marketing for their membership as soon as the site is up.



A wise choice, particularly as I was just reading about how green economics would be based on a system of energy credits!!! Ring any bells anyone?
User avatar
By cyb3rsamurai
#640657
i've just talked to a friend who's at uni, he's sending the url around to his mates, even though he strongly oposes the idea. I was quite angry with the way he dismissed it. he laughed it off. i told him not to send the url with neg. publicity.

I'd only given him the starters page [http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm], and he said there wasn't any facts so it's just an opinion. I told him that this page is trying to combine a very large theory into a few points.

Cuold I have a link to the statistics used to form this theory?


I think everybody should be for this project, most of all the weak. With the right publicity it would be possible to directly appeal to envirnomentalists, communists, students, underpaid laborers and all other weak fractions of people.


With the funding, I'm suggesting money transfer without second thoughts. Ie. some rich guy saying, I'm for imrpovnig the world, let's support this noble cause. Not saying it like, i give yuo cash and yuo ad my name to yuor slogan. I'm sure with the right advertisement sent out to enough rich people there'd be a few who say, I'm gonna contribute, even if that contradicts the way I've earned this monety...
By Tangerine
#640666
The best way is to spark their interest. Read all the posts in this forum, and find something you think everyone will be interested in (there are many subjects Kolzene has marvellously brought up), and then argue your point. Provide them with the Technocracy FAQ which is also a dumb-down version of a very large science (not theory).

That reaction is a normal. I would advise you to read the FAQ thoroughly, so if you’re advocating the Technocratic ideal, any question brought up and you’ll have the right knowledge to build their interest more. Technocracy takes time for most people to grasp. It is a paradigm-shift in highest degree.

Edit: You will have to wait for Kolzene for the statistics and scientific formulas or whatever, I believe there's a large PDF document somewhere, by Technocracy Inc.
By Haraldur
#640735
Clansman, it is good to see you here. You might like to ask Technospheretic at technocracy.ca about his attempts to attract people of the Green persuasion.
By eldiablo
#670643
An idea ocurred to me recently that may provide dramatic public awareness of these ideas, and at the same time test the efficacy of a technate.... or at least at the very basic level, the urbanate.
One way to spark interest on a global level may be to build a pilot urbanate, based on private funding. The said urbanate could be the epitomy of the technate - using energy credits, employing scientific urban design, terra forming, etc. Since it would not rely on money, and since it would have a supposed unlimited capacity to produce (Although I acknowledge here that mineral resource acquisition may be problematic), the urbanate could function internally under technocratic principles, and in it's external dealing (With the outside price system world) with money, for practical purposes and for the acquisiton of said material resources not available to the urbanate. Similarly, the amount of revenue such an urbanate could potentially generate would serve a dual (and temporary) purpose to (a) Justify to the investor the initial outlay for the urbanate, and (b) show to the world the superiority of having such a system to manage material production. The pilot could be made of individuals from across the globe, although they would have to be prepared to sacrifice a bit to live in the urbanate.
And off the top of my head, I can think of someone (cough, Ingvar Kamprad) and a potentially suitable place in which the government is sufficiently progressive (central or northern Europe) to allow such a project to occur.
What do you think? The idea is far from perfection, although perhaps it's a positive step towards the number 2....
By eldiablo
#671475
Thanks for your criticisms Kolzene, indeed it is positive at the very least to see a (semi) scientific approach to Technocracy planning. I agree with your criticisms, that the pilot would be but a far cry from the abilities of the urbanate within a Technate, and indeed supply would be problematic. However, as I do not prescribe wholly to the North American ideals of technocracy, I see things slightly different.
I'd like to take a scientific approach to the pilot urbanate, to test it's efficiency and to demonstrate the superiority of such a process in the management and distribution of products. As it appears that your Technocracy organisation seeks to raise awareness, this would be a good method. One may envision the 'pilot urbanate' as a means test for the efficiency of technocratic processes over political and economic rule. Thus, although it would not live up to the potential that it could under a technate, presumably it would demonstrate the superiority of such a system. And such a grand project is sure to grab the attention of the media, and thus the public.
The purpose would be to demonstrate the superior production efficiency, the superior functioning of the urbanate compared to the city given scientific planning, the workability of energy credits, and the benefits of automation. One area I depart from your North American model is on the self-sufficient capabilities of the urbanate; I believe that the urbanate should be at least self-sufficient in the basic necessities, with the significant aid of technology (e.g. hydroponic farms, centralized energy distribution, etc). [Just as an aside - I think that excessive inter-dependence within the technate between urbanates may be counter-productive, particularly if said inter-dependence is threatened by natural disasters and other phenomena that is difficult to control for]. Within this pilot urbanate, the processes of technocracy would apply - energy credits, automation, use of technology to reduce the burden of labour, etc. Since the urbanate is using energy credits, any monetary revenue generated by the urbanate could be used to gather material resources not available to the urbanate by virtue of geography.
I believe that the only thing that is problematic about such a design is the acquisition of material resources for the purposes of production (That would presumably be easily acquired if the urbanate was within a technate). Similarly, it appears in some sense to be a betrayal to some extent of technocratic values - with a sponsor (particularly a wealthy sponsor), there would be the issue of providing some kind of revenue to justify the outlay of the sponsor (Which, given superior production capacity and the appropriate and efficient use of technology, should not be a problem). If we invoke the principle of beneficence, we can see that this is not really a problem after all. The revenue generated by said production would be enourmous, given that the urbanate itself would not operate under the price system per se within. The impression given to the outside world would be invaluable, and could be used as a giant education centre as to the benefits of technocracy. If planned and implemented correctly, I beleive it would stun the world.
By eldiablo
#672603
A virtual technate, you say?
Certainly, this would be a very positive way to test the technate. But, what about human behaviour? Even the best experts in artificial intelligence and programming working in tandem to simulate human individual and social behaviours would take millenia to factor this into such a simulation. And that is based on the current knowledge of human behaviour, which is impoverished to say the least.
Human behaviour is problematic in technocratic design - not because it cannot be scientifically measured or managed, but because it is quite conveniently swept under the carpet. The price system and use of money as a rate of exchange is artificial, but human behaviour is not. Indeed, human behaviour (as long as humans exist) will be able to operate independent of economics and money. It seems to me that Technocracy makes the assumption that if provided with an abundance, and adequately educated, pathological behaviour will cease to exist. As a scientist, how can you make such an assumption? Have you tested this idea before?
Although I was aware of the problems outlined by Kolzene in the prior post in the implementation of the 'pilot urbanate', the main reason I suggested it is due to the problem of accounting for human behaviour in such a system. Although I note in many posts you have made in many forums, that Technocracy is an engineering design and not concerned with human behaviour, it seems also that Technocracy delves into this area. For example, the Social Relations Sequence and points from the FAQ relating to culture, religion and women (to name a few). So it seems, technocracy takes at the very least a pseudo-scientific approach to human behaviour that may hinder or improve the engineering design of the technate.
Lastly, just to clarify this position, I am not advocating the "governance" of people, but rather the management of (mostly pathological) social behaviours. Codified laws, morals and ethics have done this since the birth of civilization. I acknowledge the issues and problems raised by such ideas, and as thus I am working on a comprehensive outline of said issues and scientific approaches to solving them, which I aim to contribute to Technocracy (as an idea at the very least). It is not something that can be solved as yet by debate on a technocratic forum.
By jdlech
#676421
Not so impoverished as to make a simulation completely invalid. Our understanding of sociology and group psychology is enough to form basic models of complex systems involving humans now.

Don't laugh, but have you heard of SimCity? It incorporates basic assumptions about individual behavior when confronted with the common problems of urban life. It then incorporates their behavior enmasse into the simulation. So even a game can become a very complex model of human behavior based upon a few assumptions.

Base the assumptions upon psycological fact. Run the simulation for a sufficient number of simulated people, and then add into it a few assumptions about group behavior based upon sociological fact, and you end up with suprisingly accurate predictions about our sociological behavior.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]