Technocracy !!

[crims]

I'm very surprised that Technocracy has NEVER been mentioned on this board! For a science forum, I would have thought you would have already seen this. I was hoping to discuss your own prospects about Technocracy, but I guess I'll have to be the first to introduce you all to this scientific design for society.

 

 

Some helpful websites:

 

http://www.technocracy.org

http://www.technocracy.ca

 

 

Beginners' articles:

 

Beginner's Page (old)

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm

 

Why Technocracy

http://technocracy.org/?p=/documents/briefs/b28

 

Energy Accounting

http://technocracy.org/?p=/documents/briefs/b29

 

Scientific Government

http://technocracy.org/?p=/documents/briefs/b63

 

Environment

http://technocracy.org/?p=/documents/briefs/b73

 

Technocracy: Technological Continental Design

http://technocracy.org/?p=/documents/ttcd/

 

 

Discussion forum:

 

http://technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=index

 

 

In-depth study guide:

 

http://technocracy.org/?p=/documents/tsc/

 

 

Wikipedia on Technocracy

 

This entry is actually quite dissappointing. It doesn't explain the concepts as well as I hoped it would, and the "opposition" section is skewed against it (these non-issues are addressed in-depth on the Technocracy websites.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocratic_movement

 

After a look at the discussion behind the wikipedia, I learn that the "opposition" section was written by a Libertarian...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocratic_movement

 

Which explains the

"Control of career choices by a biased and only-human technocratic leadership is a tyranny over the lives of the populace."

[Pangloss]

K.

 

How would you distinguish between "meritocracy" and "technocracy"?

 

Not asking how you feel these terms are distinguished in the literature. I'm asking for your opinion here.

 

 

(By the way, stating that the Wikipedia is wrong about a subject says more about you than it says about the Wikipedia entry in question. The Wikipedia is an open system -- anybody can change it. So if you're saying that it's wrong, what you're really saying is that you're unable to change it because you are biased. If you were to change it to read the way you want it to read, then others would declare your changes to be biased, and change them back to a more fair/objective state. What you've done above is suggest to me that the entry in the Wikipedia is extremely fair and balanced, and I thank you for making that clear.)

[crims]

How would you distinguish between "meritocracy" and "technocracy"?

 

Not asking how you feel these terms are distinguished in the literature. I'm asking for your opinion here.

Meritocracy is an abstract system where people recieve according to their merits.

 

Technocracy is a specific system where people recieve according to their needs.

 

This is not an opinion. This is fact. As a scientist, I try to be as objective and impartial as I can, so I try to avoid opinions.

 

 

(By the way, stating that the Wikipedia is wrong about a subject says more about you than it says about the Wikipedia entry in question. The Wikipedia is an open system -- anybody can change it.

I have no experience editting the Wikipedia, and I have no interest.

 

 

So if you're saying that it's wrong, what you're really saying is that you're unable to change it because you are biased. If you were to change it to read the way you want it to read, then others would declare your changes to be biased, and change them back to a more fair/objective state.

No, you didn't understand me. I said the problems expressed in the Wikipedia were NON-issues, because they were already addressed. I had the problem because the comments were posted by someone who did not understand the subject.

 

Take this for example:

Some people would argue that the movement is too closely related to communism

I find this to be biased. Instead of focusing on real arguments, it attacks a superficiality. Communism is a philosophy, but Technocracy was dictated directly by science (it is covered extensively in the Study Guide I linked to).

 

Yes, I do realize that these comments represent what the opposition believes are valid issues, but I'm saying that if you read about Technocracy you would see how it all fits together.

[Pangloss]

Yes, I do realize that these comments represent what the opposition believes are valid issues, but I'm saying that if you read about Technocracy you would see how it all fits together.

 

Hmm. I find it interesting that you, a scientist, said "...you would see how it all fits together" rather than "...you would find their response to those criticisms." I dislike the implications of this, and it does not encourage me to pursue a dialogue with you on the subject.

 

As a scientist, are you interested in learning what others have to say, or are you only interested in convincing us of the superiority of technocracy? Because if you, a scientist, think that technocracy is so far above reproach, then it doesn't sound like you, a scientist, have an open mind about it.

 

I don't mean to give offense, I'm just saying that I don't want to invest my time bouncing any criticisms I might have off a solid brick wall. I can read a book as well as the next guy. I come to discussion boards to participate in critical discussion, not to receive partisan advocacy.

 

As a scientist, you can understand what I'm saying, can you not?

 

 

As a scientist, I try to be as objective and impartial as I can, so I try to avoid opinions.

 

Then you are very much in the wrong place, I'm afraid.

[Mokele]

I have no experience editting the Wikipedia, and I have no interest.

 

Then you have no right to complain about, and doing so just makes you look whiney.

 

As a scientist, I try to be as objective and impartial as I can, so I try to avoid opinions.

 

So, how exactly can you be a scientist without hypotheses or theories, I mean "opinions". For instance, I am of the *opinion* that molecular phylogenies are nearly useless for any taxonomic group higher than genus. My opinion is based on facts, but there are many ways of looking at those facts. Similarly, I hold with the aquatic origins of snakes, and that is *opinion*. It is scientific, in that it is based on facts, but the facts can *also* lead to the other conclusion (a fossorial origin), and there is no 100% guarantee of which is right. The data is there, but how to interpret it is *opinion* (aka hypothesis).

 

Personally, I'm skeptical of technocracy as a system of government, mostly because it can't stand alone; there must be *some* method of making decisions that are not about facts, technology and science, which is, frankly, most of government. I will admit that I am also turned off by the "More-logical-than-thou" and excessively wordy nature of most sites on it. In my experience, if it's *that* complicated, it's not feasible.

 

Also, the whole "giving people what they need" is a crock. A system *truly* based only on logic and science cannot arrive at that conclusion, because it has underlying assumptions that are non-scientific, such as "suffering and death and starvation are bad". While such things may be obvious, they are *not* scientific statements, and since 'technocracy' obviously takes that as a basis, such a system cannot truly be called scientific. If you want to argue the point, find me a published experiment that determines "goodness" and "badness" of things like war, suffering and death. You can't. Any such system is inevitably based on arbitrary decisions, cultural norms (which are similarly arbitrary), and our instincts (which are both irrational and misplaced, given that we evolved in a drasticly different surroundings than those we now occupy).

 

So, IMHO, while technocratic solutions can be used for *some* problems, attempting to turn it into a fully-functional, stand-alone system of government is both contrary to the very nature of technocracy (as most governmental problems cannot be solved by technocratic means) and probably doomed to failure.

 

Mokele

[-Demosthenes-]

First of all, whereas all other forms of government have their roots in political ideology, philosophy, and opinion, Technocracy has its roots in science.

What's wrong with political ideas? I personally like them, they've worked pretty well, I even have a few favorites: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of the press, and other stuff like that.

The second conclusion of Technocracy is that our current economic and political model, (called the Price System) can no longer function adequately as a method of production and distribution of goods. The invention of power machinery has made it possible to produce a plethora of goods with a relatively small amount of human labor.

Granted three things (1) businesses want money; (2) businesses use less money if they can do more work with less employees, and (3) it is true that we can make a "plethora" of goods with little human labor, then why hasn't anyone started using technology in this way? Either everyone in the world is stupid , or #3 is simply not true.

The final basic conclusion is that a new distributive system must be instituted that is designed to satisfy the special needs of an environment of technological adequacy, and that this system must not in any way be associated with the extent of an individual's functional contribution to society.

People get what they need and they don't have to work if they don't want to? You think that pressures from society will make them work? Bull, if this system was up and I knew I would gain nothing by working that I wasn't already getting I'd read and watch TV all day. They have to make people work and control their lives, this is called totalitarianism.

Democratic controls for all non-technical issues and decisions.

Who decides technical issues? Some kind of technological aristocracy.

Technocracy was dictated directly by science

How is that? How is it not a philosophy?

[Dak]

The final basic conclusion is that a new distributive system must be instituted that is designed to satisfy the special needs of an environment of technological adequacy' date=' and that this system must not in any way be associated with the extent of an individual's functional contribution to society.[/quote']like demo, i read this to mean that all work would be done on a voluntary basis...

 

whilst there are systems which work in such a way -- wikipedia, internet forums, charities, support groups etc -- i am a bit scepticle that a technocratic contry's man power requirements could be satisfied by volunteers, considering that youd need a huge volunteer staff to perform the roles of doctors, firemen, soldures, police, teachers, machine technitians, inventors, and all the other professions that couldnt be carried out by automatons. would that many people volunteer, without the cash incentive?

[crims]

Hmm. I find it interesting that you, a scientist, said "...you would see how it all fits together" rather than "...you would find their response to those criticisms." I dislike the implications of this, and it does not encourage me to pursue a dialogue with you on the subject.

I don't see the problem. You're judging me based on how I worded something?

 

As a scientist, are you interested in learning what others have to say, or are you only interested in convincing us of the superiority of technocracy? Because if you, a scientist, think that technocracy is so far above reproach, then it doesn't sound like you, a scientist, have an open mind about it.

I am interested in what other have to say, so long as they aren't opinions.

 

I don't mean to give offense, I'm just saying that I don't want to invest my time bouncing any criticisms I might have off a solid brick wall. I can read a book as well as the next guy. I come to discussion boards to participate in critical discussion, not to receive partisan advocacy.

Did I give that impression? I felt I was only adhering to scientific dogma.

 

So, how exactly can you be a scientist without hypotheses or theories, I mean "opinions". For instance, I am of the *opinion* that molecular phylogenies are nearly useless for any taxonomic group higher than genus. My opinion is based on facts, but there are many ways of looking at those facts. Similarly, I hold with the aquatic origins of snakes, and that is *opinion*. It is scientific, in that it is based on facts, but the facts can *also* lead to the other conclusion (a fossorial origin), and there is no 100% guarantee of which is right. The data is there, but how to interpret it is *opinion* (aka hypothesis).

Do you understand what I mean by opinion? I make distinction between hypotheses and theories that are subject to the scientific method, and opinions, which are not substantiated with proof or knowledge.

 

Why do I dislike opinion? Because it has 0 use in technical matters. Seriously, how can one learn the truth by relying on opinion?

 

Personally, I'm skeptical of technocracy as a system of government, mostly because it can't stand alone; there must be *some* method of making decisions that are not about facts, technology and science, which is, frankly, most of government. I will admit that I am also turned off by the "More-logical-than-thou" and excessively wordy nature of most sites on it. In my experience, if it's *that* complicated, it's not feasible.

There are two main categories of decisions: democratic, and technical.

 

 

Here are very simple and concise explanations for both:

 

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/democratic.htm

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/technical.htm

 

 

Compare that to our (antiquated) political system:

 

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/politics.htm

 

Also, the whole "giving people what they need" is a crock. A system *truly* based only on logic and science cannot arrive at that conclusion, because it has underlying assumptions that are non-scientific, such as "suffering and death and starvation are bad". While such things may be obvious, they are *not* scientific statements, and since 'technocracy' obviously takes that as a basis, such a system cannot truly be called scientific.

 

Stop, stop, what are you talking about! Technocracy does not say such things as "suffering and death and starvation are bad".

 

Like the website says, "The Goals of a Technocratic government are simply to provide its citizens with the highest possible standard of living while maintaining the ability to do this for the longest possible period."

 

They have no political or economic aims, they just do research and try to find the best solution based on these criteria.

 

Technocracy is simply a technology that we can choose to use, because it is not the imperative of the scientist to force people to do something - no more than it is an imperative of the engineer to force people who use his car to go from A to B.

 

So, IMHO, while technocratic solutions can be used for *some* problems, attempting to turn it into a fully-functional, stand-alone system of government is both contrary to the very nature of technocracy (as most governmental problems cannot be solved by technocratic means) and probably doomed to failure.

There is Technocratic, and there is Technocratic. I think you've confused what I mean with this Technocracy (bureaucratic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29

 

You can read what Technocracy is NOT on the misconceptions page:

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/isnot.htm

 

What's wrong with political ideas? I personally like them, they've worked pretty well, I even have a few favorites: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of the press, and other stuff like that.

 

There's nothing wrong with those. Technocracy will not take away any of your freedoms. But they do not require a political government.

 

Censorship and dictatorship are political ideas too! If anything, political government hurts freedoms.

 

Read about the problems of political government here (it's very short):

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/politics.htm

 

 

Granted three things (1) businesses want money; (2) businesses use less money if they can do more work with less employees, and (3) it is true that we can make a "plethora" of goods with little human labor, then why hasn't anyone started using technology in this way? Either everyone in the world is stupid , or #3 is simply not true.

 

We do make a plethora of goods. Thanks to automation, we do not do back-breaking labour (most of us). But we have a problem because automation displaces jobs and destroys purchasing power.

 

And even then, capitalism artificially enforces a scarcity because abundance is death to free-market economy. You know why companies give razor-blades artificial life-spans? Because if they didn't, people would never need to buy new ones, and the companies would go out of business.

 

Farmers over-produce goods, which leads to competitevely shrinking prices, so government has to subsidize farms to make sure they can make a living. Do you know what that means? It means we could eliminate starvation (if we were so inclined).

 

The fact remains' date=' however, that the inflection point of our industrial growth curve occurred some time around 1915, and since that time, as we have pointed out elsewhere, industrial production has been leveling off. That this leveling off was not due to an inability to increase production is to be seen when one considers the fact that in 1929, the year of an all time peak of physical production, little if any of our productive equipment operated with a load factor of more than 33 1/3 percent.

 

[i']What we mean by load factor is the ratio of the actual production divided by productive capacity at continuous 24-hour-per-day full load operation.[/i]

 

 

People get what they need and they don't have to work if they don't want to? You think that pressures from society will make them work? Bull, if this system was up and I knew I would gain nothing by working that I wasn't already getting I'd read and watch TV all day. They have to make people work and control their lives, this is called totalitarianism.

What is work? Does it have to be unenjoyable?

 

If people no longer had to work to make a living, would'nt they enjoy making open-source software, pursuing science, filming movies, writing music, writing novels? We don't need anyone to break their backs doing farm work. You must understand that Technocracy aims to automate and eliminate the need for work we are forced to do.

 

Who decides technical issues?

What type of technical decisions? A Technate is organized into different Functional Sequences, each one suited to different areas of expertise. The Directors not only have to make the decisions, but they also have to execute them, each Director in his own Sequence. This necessity, in contrast with present legislative bodies, offers a serious curb upon foolish decisions.

 

Some kind of technological aristocracy.

It is neither democratic, autocratic, nor dictatorial. It is dictated by the requirements of the job that has to be done.

 

How is that? How is it not a philosophy?

Philosophy is not subject to the rigours of the scientific method.

 

whilst there are systems which work in such a way -- wikipedia, internet forums, charities, support groups etc -- i am a bit scepticle that a technocratic contry's man power requirements could be satisfied by volunteers, considering that youd need a huge volunteer staff to perform the roles of doctors, firemen, soldures, police, teachers, machine technitians, inventors, and all the other professions that couldnt be carried out by automatons. would that many people volunteer, without the cash incentive?

 

That is a valid concern. I have read intelligible answers about most of these. These are specifics, but the needs for a lot of jobs will be eliminated (farming, accountants, factory workers, among others.)

 

I do not know about specifics, but I can say that thanks to the free time availible, many people will be able to get the education they need to become doctors, teachers, technitians, and inventors.

 

When all the human beings are properly fed, clothed, housed, and have all their other biological needs adequately cared for, we will create a high standard of health, freeing up hospital rooms, and allowing doctors to find new cures and solutions.

 

Police are a product of the price-system, and many of the crimes that exist today are done for economic reasons (for money, or goods.) Crime is never abolished solely by coercieve measures or moralistic railing, so long as there's a reward to those who commit crime. Many crimes will be eliminated under Technocracy simply because there will be no need to commit them.

 

Archictecture and the educational system will be completely remade. Archictecture will adhere to a new standard, and Urbanates will be planned from top to bottom for maximum safety. Education will no longer rely on the same antiquated, traditional model, but will work on the basis of human conditioning. Thanks to more free time, many more people will be able to pursue higher education at their leisure.

 

Still need more? Perhaps this is not something I can condense into one reply. If you want, you can read this article about human motivation in a Technate: http://technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=22&page=1

[Dak]

I do not know about specifics, but I can say that thanks to the free time now availible, many people will be able to get the education they need to become doctors, teachers, technitians, and inventors.

but, with no cash incentive, will they bother.

Police are a product of the price-system, and many of the crimes that exist today are done for economic reasons (for money, or goods.) Crime is never abolished solely by coercieve measures or moralistic railing, so long as there's a reward to those commit crime. Many crimes will be eliminated under Technocracy simply because there will be no need to commit them.

rape and violence are non-cash motivated, and so would still exist in a technocracy. i suspect that the above account for a significant amount of crime, so police would still be needed (although i admit that the economic tinkering could possibly lower crime rates).

[crims]

but, with no cash incentive, will they bother.

 

Do you want a Yes/No answer?... The answer is Yes, many will enjoy getting higher education. People read books and go on forums for a hobby, right? If they have more free time, doesn't that mean they can study to get the certification they want?

 

Of course, these are just specifics, and I'm not certain about them. The forumites at http://www.technocracy.ca know more than me (if you are interested.)

 

 

rape and violence are non-cash motivated, and so would still exist in a technocracy. i suspect that the above account for a significant amount of crime, so police would still be needed (although i admit that the economic tinkering could possibly lower crime rates).

 

Yes, police will still be needed, but to a lesser extent. Those would-be criminals will be able to find the psychiatric help they need. But even then, Urbanates will have no slums or dark alleys, since they will be designed from top to bottom, so you will be quite safe from degenerates.

[-Demosthenes-]

It sounds like you can own property privately and technology will magically provide everything we need, and everyone can be some kind of scholar. It's a dream, an impossible dream, and a flawed one. It is very communist in the respect that everything is divided equally, this has failed in the past because human nature will be as lazy as it can be, no one will work very much if they don't have to for no reason. This is why this certain kind of government has to be backed up with a dictatorship or a totalitarian government, where they can make the people work. This type of government is generally considered bad, it strives to keep it's population ignorant and poor so they can control them, which is also considered bad. There seems a way around this, have technology do all the work. This does seem a good idea, except that it is impossible, and we are far from making it possible. Another requirement would be faith in the government (the government would be far more powerful in this "technocracy"), and the government would have to be true to this faith (make a document they must always live by guaranteeing the most important rights, a type of Constitution containing the government to protect the people, and contain the majority to protect the minority). This is generally impossible as those in positions of power always abuse it (hence the philosophy of 3 branches of government), and those not in positions of power always distrust those in power (unless they can control it, hence democracy).

IMO using future technologies to enhance what we already have is the best route.

 

Scientists, leave politics to those who know them, we will do the same

[crims]

Whoa, whoa, slow down.

 

First of all, you are saying such things as "that's bad", which is an appeal to emotion. You guys accused me of being un-scientific, so I'll use the same standard.

 

Second of all, break up your message. Organize your ideas into smaller paragraphs so I can address each one separatly.

 

I didn't come here to debate politics. Political debates never end. The only reason I posted this here is because "politics" is the closest approximation of the term "human society".

[-Demosthenes-]

First of all, you are saying such things as "that's bad", which is an appeal to emotion.

This type of government is generally considered bad, it strives to keep it's population ignorant and poor so they can control them, which is also considered bad.

It is bad, negative, undesirable.

I didn't come here to debate politics.

Then why did you put forth a political idea?

[crims]

Then why did you put forth a political idea?

 

Do you understand what I mean by politics? It is the decision making process where opinions, philosophies, and ideologies are in control of society.

 

Why do I dislike politics? Becuase it is un-scientific and useless in technical matters.

 

Do you see the distinction between politics and Technocracy? Technocracy is a scientific design for society. Tomorrow someone might come and disprove Technocracy, and I would gladly thank them for that because I could stop expounding a worthless idea. Many have tried to do this, and either became frustrated and stopped trying, or have become supporters themselves.

 

 

I'll reply to your previous message anyway, but in the future I won't bother replying to long, unbroken messages.

 

It sounds like you can own property privately and technology will magically provide everything we need, and everyone can be some kind of scholar. It's a dream, an impossible dream, and a flawed one.

What is so unbelievable? We already have the productive capacity to provide everything we need. The current barrier is an antiquated form of government.

 

It is very communist in the respect that everything is divided equally, this has failed in the past because human nature will be as lazy as it can be, no one will work very much if they don't have to for no reason.

Nobody has ever attempted to divide everything equally, even in communist states.

 

But why does this even matter, because this is NOT what Technocracy is about!

 

There seems a way around this, have technology do all the work. This does seem a good idea, except that it is impossible, and we are far from making it possible.

When you say it is impossible, say what type of work and why. Most of the work done today is already done by machines, and people only work to maintain, improve, and use this technology. We won't have such jobs as bureaucrats and accountants anyways, because there will be no need for them.

 

Another requirement would be faith in the government (the government would be far more powerful in this "technocracy"), and the government would have to be true to this faith (make a document they must always live by guaranteeing the most important rights, a type of Constitution containing the government to protect the people, and contain the majority to protect the minority). This is generally impossible as those in positions of power always abuse it (hence the philosophy of 3 branches of government), and those not in positions of power always distrust those in power (unless they can control it, hence democracy).

In Technocracy, the people are the government, because Technocracy is not about controlling people, but technology. Such issues as Constitution, Law, and Order would be resolved through Democratic means.

 

The government of Technocracy would embrace every socially useful function performed on the North American Continent. The political and financial superstructures would serve no use, so they will be disposed of. You have nothing to fear from such a government.

[-Demosthenes-]

Why do I dislike politics? Becuase it is un-scientific and useless in technical matters.

The same is true of science, it's useless in political ideas. Government cannot be bases on ideas based in "technical matters".

Do you see the distinction between politics and Technocracy? Technocracy is a scientific design for society.

I fail to see how it's anymore "scientific" than any other political idea. You don't quite know what science is, and you are not very analytical.

We already have the productive capacity to provide everything we need.

We can make everything we need with 5% emplyment? Bull sh*t.

Nobody has ever attempted to divide everything equally, even in communist states.

That was the main thing that they attempted, only in practice they didn't. In your sites this is exactly what they said that they wanted to do, to split everything up evenly.

In Technocracy, the people are the government, because Technocracy is not about controlling people, but technology. Such issues as Constitution, Law, and Order would be resolved through Democratic means.The government of Technocracy would embrace every socially useful function performed on the North American Continent. The political and financial superstructures would serve no use, so they will be disposed of. You have nothing to fear from such a government.

Why can't you understand? Most of this stuff has been tried, there has been trial and errror over hundreds of years, and some group of scientists (with no history or political learning) decide to move in and take a shot at it, and they're ideas suck. Read some freaking history, and if you are making a political idea (which this most certainly is) then learn what the frick it is, for the love of Moses!

[crims]

The same is true of science, it's useless in political ideas. Government cannot be bases on ideas based in "technical matters".

Could you give an example?

 

 

I fail to see how it's anymore "scientific" than any other political idea. You don't quite know what science is, and you are not very analytical.

Okay, can you actually explain what Technocracy is?

 

 

We can make everything we need with 5% emplyment? Bull sh*t.

No, of course not, one can't just say "Let's go!" and make Technocracy work. There's still a continental infrastructure that needs to be built to facilitate the Technocratic apparatus. It's all described in the websites I gave.

 

 

That was the main thing that they attempted, only in practice they didn't. In your sites this is exactly what they said that they wanted to do, to split everything up evenly.

That's wishful thinking on your part.

 

 

Why can't you understand? Most of this stuff has been tried, there has been trial and errror over hundreds of years, and some group of scientists (with no history or political learning) decide to move in and take a shot at it, and they're ideas suck. Read some freaking history, and if you are making a political idea (which this most certainly is) then learn what the frick it is, for the love of Moses!

What stuff are you refering to? Technocracy borrows ideas from systems that already exist today that work well (e.g., the Bell telephone network).

 

Technocracy might suck, but it's the most conclusive research project to date.

 

Technocracy had its inception in 1919 in New York City in an organization known as the Technical Alliance of North America. This group included in its ranks such people as Thorstein Veblen, a distinguished educator in the field of social science, sometimes called the "stormy petrel of American economics;" Charles Steinmetz of the General Electric Company, often referred to as "the wizard of Schenectady;" consulting engineer and mathematician, Bassett Jones; physics professor, Richard Tolman; consulting architect, Frederick L. Ackerman; and Stuart Chase, popular economist and author. (More on these people in question 3.3.) Heading the group as chief engineer was Howard Scott, outstanding consulting and industrial engineer.

 

The primary aim of the Technical Alliance was to ascertain the possibility of applying the achievements of science to social and industrial affairs. With this in mind, they set about to make a survey of the energy and natural resources of the North American Continent -- all the territory included between the Panama Canal and the North Pole. In addition, they studied the industrial evolution that had taken place therein. They showed graphically the operating characteristics of the present industrial system with all its waste and inefficiency and worked out a tentative design of a completely coordinated system of production and distribution. Of course they always kept in mind their aim, which was to provide a better standard of living for the people living on the continental area with the least possible waste of non-renewable resources.

 

After nearly 14 years of research, analysis and synthesis, the Alliance's work, as such, was nearing completion when an enterprising newspaper reporter heard that something of more than usual interest was taking place at Columbia University. He spilled the story somewhat prematurely to his New York daily that gave it banner-line front-page coverage; and from there it spread rapidly across the Continent, receiving front-page headlines in all major newspapers.

 

Unfortunately, much of the information contained in these newspaper stories was incorrect and misleading, so it was apparent to the members of the Technical Alliance that the publicity measures they had planned for their findings would have to be implemented immediately rather than at the later date they had originally intended. These measures involved the disbandment of the purely research-oriented Technical Alliance and the formation of a new organization that would continue this important research and would also conduct a program of education to correctly inform North Americans of the findings and conclusions of the original group. The new organization would be called Technocracy Incorporated, the initial word being derived from Greek language roots to convey the overall concept of government by science. In the spring of 1933, the organization was incorporated under the laws of the State of New York as a non-sectarian, educational-research membership organization. The training of public speakers and the formation of study classes on a Continental scale quickly followed.

 

http://technocrat.phpwebhosting.com/simp/Technocracy_FAQ_1.x.htm#3.1

As for your comments about my understanding of history, I think you should take them back. I was born in the USSR and I have seen history from both sides. I believe this gives me a fuller understanding of history than anyone could have from just one viewpoint.

[brave_new_world]

okay, the main problem with technocracy is that it is a scientific idea.

 

You cannot control a nation of people through technocracy. Techocracy relies on ideal communisitic principles. (everyone is equal in power)

 

Technocracy will not work because people hunger for power.

Those who have the connections in a technocratic country will slowly gain more power, find ways to acquire a surplus of goods for themselves, and it will decay into an oppressive gonverment.

 

There are many other reasons it won't work that have been previousely mentioned , but you have to remember humans each have their own will and you can't control them with technology and also have freedom. (especially when they are not being worn out by work everday.)

[Pangloss]

Prove it.

 

 

I'm a little disappointed in the quality of responses Crim's been getting here. He's asked for a scientific/objective challenge, not one based on opinions and assumptions. We ought to be able to handle his request.

[-Demosthenes-]

The same is true of science; it's useless in political ideas. Government cannot be bases on ideas based in "technical matters".[/quote']Could you give an example?

 

Can you give me an example of how technology can be used to form a government? It's like asking if you can use geometry to make a pie.

 

Okay, can you actually explain what Technocracy is?

 

Magically technology provides everything that we need (with 5% employment ), and we split it all up evenly. Sounds great, but I've already exlained why parts of it are impossible and other's inpractible.

 

No, of course not, one can't just say "Let's go!" and make Technocracy work. There's still a continental infrastructure that needs to be built to facilitate the Technocratic apparatus. It's all described in the websites I gave.

 

They explained a world where only 5% of people work and it provides everything for everyone. You think that a change in continental infrastructure would make this possible? Again more bull @%$#.

 

That was the main thing that they attempted, only in practice they didn't. In your sites this is exactly what they said that they wanted to do, to split everything up evenly. [/quote']That's wishful thinking on your part.

 

I really don't know what you mean by this. The sites say specifically that everything will be split up evenly (as I have shown earlier in this post). Governments like this in the past have failed. Using the scientific method (as a "scientist" I would have thought you would know this) we know that governments like this are doomed to be failures, the only fix that is put forth in "technocracy" is that technology will somehow provide everything for us, which is impossible. Why do you continue to bring the same subjects up over and over?

 

Why can't you understand? Most of this stuff has been tried, there has been trial and errror over hundreds of years...[/quote']What stuff are you refering to? Technocracy borrows ideas from systems that already exist today that work well...

 

Like I said earlier:

 

The sites say specifically that everything will be split up evenly (as I have shown earlier in this post). Governments like this in the past have failed. Using the scientific method (as a "scientist" I would have thought you would know this) we know that governments like this are doomed to be failures...

 

And before:

 

It is very communist in the respect that everything is divided equally, this has failed in the past because human nature will be as lazy as it can be, no one will work very much if they don't have to for no reason. This is why this certain kind of government has to be backed up with a dictatorship or a totalitarian government, where they can make the people work. This type of government is generally considered bad, it strives to keep it's population ignorant and poor so they can control them, which is also considered bad.

 

As for your comments about my understanding of history, I think you should take them back. I was born in the USSR and I have seen history from both sides. I believe this gives me a fuller understanding of history than anyone could have from just one viewpoint.

 

I couldn't possibly see history from both sides, I'm from the US. Nice stereotyping buddy.

 

Prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a little disappointed in the quality of responses Crim's been getting here. He's asked for a scientific/objective challenge' date=' not one based on opinions and assumptions. We ought to be able to handle his request.[/font']

 

 

Prove it? How? It's not science! These are political ideas, all we can do is see what has happened in the past. Communism and any type of government related to it have always resulted in an oppressive and totalitarian government. It's not conclusive evidence (nothing is this realm of ideas has conclusive evidence), but there is no reason the think that it won't happen exactly the way has happened before.

[crims]

okay, the main problem with technocracy is that it is a scientific idea.

 

You cannot control a nation of people through technocracy. Techocracy relies on ideal communisitic principles. (everyone is equal in power)

 

[...]

 

I really don't know what you mean by this. The sites say specifically that everything will be split up evenly (as I have shown earlier in this post).

 

Please point me to ANY instance of such doctrine in Technocracy. ANY at all.

 

Why can't you see that it is USA that is egalitarian? You recognize that "it is self-evident that all men are created equal." But what evidence do you have to prove this? In every instance man has made hierarchal society. What is self-evident is that one person always dominates other. It is biological nature of human-animal to have those with higher status and those with lower.

 

Technocracy merely takes this principle to mean that any hierarchal structure must acknowledge this natural order and not perverse it. Current economic model perverses this natural order - talented people work for ignorant managers, managers use their power to hire their unqualified friends, unqualified people make decisions for the company that affect the lives of many hardworking people, etc. Under Technocracy, those who are most qualified to make those decisions will be in charge.

 

 

Technocracy will not work because people hunger for power.

Those who have the connections in a technocratic country will slowly gain more power, find ways to acquire a surplus of goods for themselves, and it will decay into an oppressive gonverment.

 

Sort of like is happening right now in the USA?

 

Look - corruption can only happen when there are large organizations with power (corporations, mafia, political party, etc.)

 

How would individual people get power under Technocracy? They certainly can't bribe people because energy-credits are non-transferable (only one person can use them).

 

So how would an oligarchy exist under Technocracy? Even if you don't believe corporate interests control your government, you must at least admit that an oligarchy under the current goverment would have a feasible control mechanism (corporate funding).

 

 

There are many other reasons it won't work that have been previousely mentioned , but you have to remember humans each have their own will and you can't control them with technology and also have freedom. (especially when they are not being worn out by work everday.)

 

[...]

 

Can you give me an example of how technology can be used to form a government? It's like asking if you can use geometry to make a pie.

 

That's right, technology cannot be used to control every aspect of society, that is why Technocracy uses Democracy to make decisions concerning the Constitution, Laws, and Order - the issues that matter most to the people.

 

Science is applied to objective problems that involve technical matters (e.g., the best way to construct a building, the most efficient way to make a car, etc.)

 

 

They explained a world where only 5% of people work and it provides everything for everyone. You think that a change in in continental infrastructure would make this possible? Again more bull @%$#.

 

Perhaps you could actually read the Study Guide to see arguments for yourself. I don't know where the "5%" figure comes from, though. I didn't come up with these numbers, the Libertarian did. I don't know how he would know such specifics without any working model of the actual Technate. I don't know what else I can say.

 

 

 

I couldn't possibly see history from both sides, I'm from the US. Nice stereotyping buddy.

 

Ok, tell me what you know about history from the other side. Can you tell me anything about America's intervention in the Russian revolution, or the Civil War of 1993, or whos pockets the USAID money filled, or what ethnic group currently controls Russia's economy? I just think it's unusual for the average American to know these things (since I never see them being talked about).

[-Demosthenes-]

Perhaps you could actually read the Study Guide to see arguments for yourself. I don't know where the "5%" figure comes from' date=' though. I didn't come up with these numbers, the Libertarian did. I don't know how he would know such specifics without any working model of the actual Technate. I don't know what else I can say.

[/quote']

Reguardless, it claims stuff like "When man did 98% of the work he did not have enough goods and services; now, when he does only 2% of the work, technology produces so much he doesn't know what to do with it" and "Manpower does so little of the work..." It claims that technology can provide for us whatever we need with little man power, and I had no reason not to believe this "Liberatarian" and his figure.

 

The rest in your post is repeated stuff I've responded to before, and don't care to do so again. We're moving in circles.

[crims]

Reguardless, it claims stuff like "When man did 98% of the work he did not have enough goods and services; now, when he does only 2% of the work, technology produces so much he doesn't know what to do with it" and "Manpower does so little of the work..."

Most of the stuff in the briefs is based on the Study Guide, which uses statistics from the US Department of Labour itself (you can read these references at the end of each chapter).

 

In official testimony of M. King. Hubbert to the US Civil Service Commission, he described that agencies in the government (namely the National Resources Planning Board and Works Progress Administration) duplicated his research and came to the same conclusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._King_Hubbert).

 

If Technocracy was simply some whacked-out theory, it would have been officially disproven and promptly forgotten about; then listed in the history books as one of our "big mistakes". But this didn't happen. Instead, history books (except for a very scant few) are devoid of even any mention of Technocracy, as are most encyclopedias. Those "in power" have been actively suppressing information on Technocracy for one reason: They know it would work.

 

(Borrowed from Kolzene: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38733)

[-Demosthenes-]

If Technocracy was simply some whacked-out theory, it would have been officially disproven and promptly forgotten about; then listed in the history books as one of our "big mistakes".

If it's just a "whacked-out theory" then it's not going to be one of out "big mistakes". Millions of poeple everyday come out with "whacked-out theories" but they don't go down in history books for no apparant reason as some "big" thing.

[crims]

Technocracy was the largest social movement of the 1930s and '40s. It was immensely well-known and popular, as you can see by looking at some old pictures here: http://www.technocracy.ca/gallery/historical, and even this video: http://www.technocracy.org/?p=/multimedia/videos/.

 

Today however, it is near impossible to find information on Technocracy. History books, even one's dealing with the Great Depression in North America, completely fail to mention it. Encyclopedias most often have no entry for it either, although they did in the past. Newspapers and magazines refuse to publish anything about it, except for the rare and heavily slanted article like that found in American Heritage magazine a couple years back which was filled with misinformation. Likewise it is not even mentioned in schools or universities.

 

(Borrowed from Kolzene: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38733)

 

(Unfortunatly the video file is too large for me to attach it here. You might have to wait a little while for it to fully load: http://www.technocracy.org/media/video/OperationColumbiaSM.mov)

[-Demosthenes-]

A little embelished, but true to an extent. There were many similar movements in the 30's. Nearly everyone one was poor and many of these ideas surfaced, Marxism or communism and it's ideas seeped into the minds of Americans, and to a larger extent socialism. This was not much acted upon in government (except to elect a liberal president), but the ideas were there. These were large movements, technocracy was a run of the mill idea that lots of people come up in the 30's, there were scores of others just like it.

(I am talking about in the U.S., which if you aren't then tell me)