[New Era]

I've examined "Brave New World" or "Heerlijk nieuwe wereld" and I must say this book shows how Technocracy & Totalitarianism can be combined to something beautiful. Do anyone else thinks this way or have I made an uneducated guess. If what I say is true, then the combination of Technocracy & Totalitarianism is far superior to any kind of other goverment.

[Haraldur]

Technocracy, as designed by Technocracy Incorporated and the Technical Alliance has no similarity to totalitarianism, almost the opposite. There is no government in the way we know it, and most things are voluntary. It is similar to anarchism in that it is very libertarian.

[Mr. Anderson]

Yes, and I do distinctly recall that in Brave New World, they purposefully impeded technological progress. That is the antithesis of what would happen in a technocracy.

(And what ever happened to Kolzene? )

[Haraldur]

Mr. Anderson, do you ever visit the forums at technocracy.ca?

[Mr. Anderson]

No, though I have skimmed over them a few times.

[New Era]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't science control the world in a technocratic society. The exact same thing that happens in "Brave New World" ? I wouldn't say that in BNW technological progress is impeded. Technology is what made their perfect world, why should they try to halt it ?

[Luxemburgs_Pastry_Chef]

"Totalitarianism" has existed since time immemorial, where the power lays on one, or a body of people....is makes little difference *absolutely* about the spread of power, it is the relative share of the power that I am concerned about here. Socialism + Technocracy = The Best State Ever is my sum.
To have "Totalitarianism" to me can mean Feudalism, Capitalism, State-Capitalism, every other bastardised Capitalism, Imperialism, Socialism or whatever. How do you mean by "Totalitarianism"? As what I have said already leaves a very vast and open space for different political systems, infact ALL political systems to thrive with Technocracy.

If you were to say socialism, for the democratic ownership of all and the dictatorial repression of those against, as the best conceived government style....this would lead to technocracy anyway, as the application of machinery would not be applied to supplement the means to an end of acquiring hard profits, but rather to shorten the working hours in order not to gain surpluses as the direct target, but to gain needs, and small surpluses as an indirect target, in order to promote population growth and encourage people to work harder, to get a bit more than necessary.

[Mr. Anderson]

In response to the Brave New World issue, I would encourage you to re-read chapter 15. I'll quote a little for you, though:

"They might ask for shorter hours. Technically, it would be perfectly simple to reduce all lower-caste working hours to three or four a day. But would they be any happier for that? No, they wouldn't. The experiment was tried, more than half a century ago. The whole of Ireland was put on the four-hour day. What was the result? Unrest and a large increase in the consumption of soma; that was all. Those three and a half hours of extra leisure were so far from being a source of happiness that people felt constrained to take a holiday from them. The Inventions Office is stuffed with plans for labour-saving processes. Thousands of them." Mustapha Mond made a lavish gesture. "And why don't we put them into execution? For the sake of the labourers; it would be cruelty to afflict them with excess leisure."

That should answer the question about why they would halt the advancement of technology. It also raises some issues about whether people would be happy in a technocracy, but that is another issue for another day. I'll also give you another quote:

"Yes," Mustapha Mond was saying, "that's another item in the cost of stability. It isn't only art that's incompatible with happiness; it's also science. Science is dangerous; we have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled."

"What?" said Helmholtz, in astonishment. "But we're always saying that science is everything. It's a hypnopaedic platitude."

"Three times a week between thirteen and seventeen," put in Bernard.

"And all the science propaganda we do at the College..."

"Yes; but what sort of science?" asked Mustapha Mond sarcastically. "You've had no scientific training, so you can't judge. I was a pretty good physicist in my time. Too good -- good enough to realize that all our science is just a cookery book, with an orthodox theory of cooking that nobody's allowed to question, and a list of recipes that mustn't be added to except by the special permission from the head cook. I'm the head cook now. But I was an inquisitive young scullion once. I started doing a bit of cooking on my own. Unorthodox cooking, illicit cooking. A bit of real science, in fact." He was silent.

That should prove my point about how they stifle science in Brave New World.

[jdlech]

That's very interesting. However, remember that brave new world is a work of fiction, not science. The author took a bit of literary license with science.
First, consider that technocracy intends to give as many people as much free time as possible. If you want to know what happens, look to the ultra rich families of the world. They have no need to choose careers - but they do. They have no need to be active - but they are. They have no need to contribute to society - but they do. Some of the most ambitious people on earth were born wealthy enough that they need do nothing at all - but ambitious they still are. The idea that people will become miserable or unambitious ignores the actions of the already wealthy.

The rich need do nothing all their lives and still they are no more miserable than the average working joe. Happiness depends as much upon personal temperamant as on external factors. A wealthy man can be miserable and a poor man can be happy. Money has less to do with this than you may think.

Second, I noticed the quote mentioned a caste system. Technocracy as it is designed has no social classes. In fact, by making all things equally available to all people, it discourages social classes. However, it does preserve the 'Pecking order' in that the corporate hierarchy is used as a model for the internal workings of it's sequences. But outside the job, there is no caste system unless one is artificially imposed by the people.

Art incompatible with happiness? Under Technocracy, everyone I've talked to predicts a renaissance in the liberal arts. I think this is one of those literary licenses with sociology that I previously mentioned.

Technocracy, the design that Technocracy Inc. uses, is no more totalitarian than the corporation is today. Indeed, it is less totalitarian in many ways than the corporation. Technocracy wants people to work less - not the corporation. Technocracy intends to operate without profit - not the corporation. Technocracy controls the environment around people - the corporation controls people first, and the environment second. Technocracy provides for people - coporations have people serving them.

So even though the design is the same, the master becomes the slave and vice versa.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I think the main reason people confuse Technocracy with totalitarianism is that most people do not realize how much greater an impact the workplace has on their lives than the government.

People are concerned about the tyrannt of the leaders, or the tyranny of the majority, that they do not consider the tyranny of the economy.

Since Technocracy consolidates the means of social and economic control, people see a net increase in the amount of control-- even as Technocracy reduces the amount of interference that either the government, the workplace, or simple economic reality has in anyone's life.

[Bence]

Brave New World is an Anti-Utopia.
I don't think we want our world to be like that...I personally don't.
I can'T see why is it beautiful...

[Howie]

^ Completely agree.

Born with freedom I would rather be unhappy and free.

Born into the civilisation I would see the appeal but thats because of the way they bring up the children.

I persoanlly feel 'Brave New World' is anything but beautiful.

[clearthought]

I would think technocracy would entitle anarchy more than it would totalitarianism — which is an authoritarian hold on a state versus the [nearly] non-existent state in a theoretical technocracy.

[Lux]

The process towards more anarchistic influences within the technocratic movement[s] remain clear. Just look at www.technocracyeurope.eu

[Alfsigr]

Wait, you read Brave New World, one of the finest works of dystopian fiction ever, and you want to EMULATE it?

[Lux]

Well, individuals are different.

[nanite1018]

Technocracy does not have democratic election of the people who would be controlling the economy for the benefit of all. It may very well be true that the foreseen design would enable far more efficient use of resources and a far better standard of living. But when undemocratically elected individuals or groups control production and distribution, would that not hand them absolute control over the people? It would seem like it would be prone, enormously prone, to abuse. Whenever a group of people has been given absolute control, they abuse it. Is it possible for good people to control the technocracy? Of course they could. But eventually, it seems like the technocrats would overstep their bounds.

So how does Technocracy actually prevent the Technocrats from eliminating any sort of freedom by using their control over the economy?

[Lux]

It is not a wholly planned economy, but an interactive economy. The consumers are granted an energy share of the total consumption capacity which they could consume what they want for. Their consumption is tracked when they are using the energy credits (which cease to exist upon usage) and then, the technate adapt's it's production after the input from the consumers.

[El Gilroy]

I fail to comprehend how Technocracy is to be totalitarian in nature.

Totalitarianism is a term employed by political scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.

(Wikipedia)

I can see neither public nor private behavior being deliberately influenced by a technocratic system, so...by this definition, not totalitarian.

[skip sievert]

Technocracy : Check your sources, not all are valid.
Technocracy offers an alternative to the Price System. - Here is a link that is sponsored by TechnocracyWash. It claims that the Technocracy Study Course is no longer available to the public Technocracy Inc. People are directed then to TechnocracyCa, to be educated, then directed on the Techca site to 'take' the Technocracy Study Course given by Kolzene, Bill DesJardin, proprieter of TechnocracyCa. site. The information he teaches is based on the incorrect and discredited Faq`s material and Ttcd. That information is NOT based on the Technocracy Study Course, but on dumbed down material from the 1970`s. The link above, posted on the Internet, if one googles TechWa., reads like a laundry list of disinformation specialists, such as Mansel Ismay, Enrique Lescure a self confessed 'autodidact' (read wikipedia), Pedrag Popovic, Andrew Wallace, Fredrik Jonsson, Blake Haydn, Igor Srdoc, Joseph Wong, Ross Murphy, Tsudico/Steve W. , Henrik Rydberg, Sebastian Fors-(spazz), and others from N.E.T. and other groups that are unconnected to actual Technocracy ideas. The actual core of those groups, thus were given specious information, and now they attract other -social engineers for Church building in a Technate, -constructing a throwback to Special Interest influence of a Judiciary in a Technate, -Referendum voting in a Technate, what they refer to as 'Democratic control' of non technical areas, (that allows for Special Interests of Belief and or Politics to infringe on the liberty of citizens, thus it is NOT a component of Technate design, and never was. That concept was made up by Bill DesJardin and friends. There is no splitting in two of Technate management, there is not a Technical branch and a 'Democratic' branch.) . Voting is not, and never was a component of the Design. Howard Scott mentioned Technocrats would welcome a plebiscite to usher in a Technate, but the design is not what is referred to as 'democratic'. Finally, -Private contracts in a Technate etc. or rather not a Technate , but what is referred to here as a pseudo, or proto/technate , their term, which they want to control with money on the outside, and what they call 'energy accounting' , (a term stolen from Technocracy Design), on the inside. That is the N.E.T. (Network of European Technocrats) immediate goal. They plan to cater to whatever Special Interest groups of Belief/Political Systems want, ('democracy') by separating the Design idea, which is scientific, into a bastardized form using belief system criteria. They have a special blend of moralizing and preaching as to human conduct. That destroys the very premise of Technocracy ideas. In other words high tech slavery to belief system Special Interests. Moralistic blathering. If it was not all very laughable, it might be serious. It is all Price System thinking. Only. The most intelligent thing these groups could do is disband, and do something useful, like making the actual plan of Technocracy known, so that the resource base of the world will not be destroyed. The webmaster on Techca helped to brainwash that whole bunch with false info. Ha ha. Even after having had this explained to them a couple of times, they still do not get it. Of course that person who, pours from the empty into the void, is also under the Price System spell. Here is a place to read the Study Course.Beyond The Cloak Of Deception | About That is the same document that has been taken off the market by some. Google Base: Technocracy Study Course. original.-- Also, Beyond the Cloak of Deception -Book- Skip Sievert. Here is another link for a copy of the Study Course. The last couple chapters are the Design of the Technate for North America, and that my friends is what Technocracy is. Other groups claiming to be Technocrats, say for instance in Europe, like the N.E.T. group are not connected in anyway with Technocracy Incorporated, except by false and misleading information that crystallized in their brains from people who did not know what they were talking about. Then they added a strong dose of egoistic blathering. For people who are just now hearing about Technocracy concepts, this brief recent history I hope is not boring. It may give some reference point for the current context of discussion. That which ceases to function ceases to exist, and this information is mostly for historical purpose, and for people that desire a clear look at the recent past. Unless our program is presented as it is, everyone loses. Technocracy can not be 'sold'. The brilliant design ideas are made to a purpose. If they are watered down in an attempt to make them palatable for those who do not understand them, they are just another Price System construct.