[Stretch]

Technocacy is new to me and I am trying to get a better comprehension of what it is and how it works. I have gone to http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/ and read through some of the articles there. There are two things I am having trouble understanding.

1. I don't see how value could be eliminated. Even if you had an abundance of almost everything I still foresee problems.
Even if there were a ludicrous amount of cars that people could "rent" or use, in order to be "equal" all the cars in the society would have to be pretty much the same thus, no car would be more desirable than another. This would therefore blur the idea of value. But what would stop someone who knows how to build cars to build something faster, custom painted and whatever else custom, and therefore making something more desirable and therefore "more valuable".
Even a better example is property. There are places and houses where people don't want to live. Obviously not everyone could live in "desirable" locations. Houses are all shapes and sizes and in a variety of locations, thus making some more desirable and more "valuable" than others.

2. I don't understand the "Energy Certificates". How would they be un-able to be lost or stolen? What would prevent someone from stealing a certificate from someone and using their energy units?

It appears that if there were to be a "Technocarcy" almost everything would have to be standardized, removing creativity and uniqueness. I am not sure that would be a world people would want to live in.

[Stretch]

Thanks for the information Kolzene this has helped me in my understanding of Technocracy (the link explaining Top-down vs. Bottom-up was very helpful). I am still trying to get a better understanding of it and plan to read up on it more. I still see problems with a Technocarcy, maybe it is my lack of understanding.

If someone had a "better" idea for something, they could easily submit their design to the appropriate departments (likely the Continental Research sequence). They would verify that the design was valid, and if it passed then it would be presented to the public for their desire to consume.

Why would someone want to do this? If a garage tinkerer, or a hobbyist, invented a new product, or improved the design of an existing product, what would be the point of bringing their design to the “appropriate departments”? If they did, then their product (if approved) would then be mass-produced. Making their product abundant, which the government would want, but not necessarily the inventor (especially if the inventor was a private citizen). People like having rare things; it helps them to distinguish themselves as an individual. No one wants to walk outside only to see five other people dressed in the exact same clothes they are wearing. People prize uniqueness and rareness. A practical example of this: My friend made at hat for me, this is my most cherished hat, not because it looks the best on me, but because it is unique and because my friend made it (sentimental value).
How would art exist in a Technocarcy? One of the greatest factors that make art desirable (besides it’s natural beauty) is that it is unique and rare.

First of all, energy credits are not "stealable" (for lack of a better term) because they are not transferable, and therefor he could not transfer them to his "account".

If I understand this right, please correct me if I don’t, then all “purchases” could only be made directly from the government. Energy units could only be transferred from the government to the citizen and from the citizen back to the government. Private citizens would not be able to trade or give energy credits to each other.
What if Mr. X decided to take up a new hobby, lets say photography. He gets some training in photography and decides to get a professional quality camera. Now Mr. X already had a point-and-shoot non-professional camera that he acquired, with energy credits, about a year ago. Mr. X no longer has use for his point-and-shoot camera, but maybe his friend, who doesn’t have a camera, does. Mr. X cannot “sell” his point-and-shoot camera to his friend because credits are not transferable. He could give it to his friend for free but then Mr. X would be taking a loss. He could keep it, but he has no use for it. It appears that investing “energy credits” would be impossible since you could not turn around and “sell” anything you “bought”.

Since everyone has an equal and substantial income, the poverty-induced incentive to steal is eliminated.

This is a dangerous assumption, namely that the incentive to steal is “poverty-induced”. Rich people steal all the time, probably more than the poor do. It just looks different, and the crimes are treated differently. Remember the Enron ordeal? People steal in order to have more than others, not to equal the playing field. White-collar crimes happen all the time, but the police generally focus on street crimes.

[Stretch]

Thanks Kolzene, your information has been helpful. There are still some things I don't understand about Technocracy, but that is OK. I am sure I will learn in due time.
I appreciate your time to answer my questions. I am going to read more about Technocracy before I post anymore questions, but there is one thing I am particularly curious about and I have not seen anything on any Technocracy website about it, maybe you could answer.
How is religion handled in a Technocracy? Is their freedom of religion? Does the government control religion? Is religion outlawed?

[Anarchocommunist]

i'm sorry if this is off topic, but this post kind of triggered a question. how exactly do you prepose that technocracy would come about? a revolution of robots? (sorry for the slight jab, i'm a comedian i can't help it sometimes) but seriosly, will there be a technocratic revolution or do you just expect the producers to start producing so much that their product is worth nothing. and what about hackers? i'm assuming that much of this will be done through digital evolution, and i'm sure that anyone who is knowledgable in computers knows that anything can be hacked (even nature ie bio engineering). i'm not saying these things because i disrespect your beleif, because i envision a world highly integrated with technology, just not dependant on it. which i see as the major flaw of technocracy.

[infestedterran]

because i envision a world highly integrated with technology, just not dependant on it. which i see as the major flaw of technocracy.

Common man, seriously!? Is it really necessary for my fellow Technocrat here Kolzene to go into the statistics of how we actually do need modern technology to survive, and how we are already highly dependent on technology in general. Just think for a second on how much you depend on machines that were invented during the 19th and 20th centuries. So, even if we are not talking about automation and a Technocratic economy, we still rely on technology for basically everything. Communication, travel, entertainment, industrial production, agricultural production, manufacturing, medicine, education, security, etc.

In conclusion, you must be specific on what you mean by "integrated with technology" but "not dependant on it."

As Agent Smith said in The Matrix: "Never send a human to do a machines job." Why? It is a question of efficiency. Technology is a tool, but under our Price System (capitalism and/or communism alike), it is not used and will never be used to its full potential. The potential to replace humans in the work place indefinitely, thus producing full automation. Once this is acheived, man will finally be rid of the need to labor and will be able to concentrate every last brain cell on intellectual development and a more general evolution. This will leave us free to explore every corner of the galaxy and beyond, without having to worry about the funding like any capitalist or communist country would have to.

[CyberDragon]

Well i'm back. I'm interested in how much you believe we depend on technology infestedterran. I do no think we depend on it but we do enjoy its benefits. I have spent a lot of time living in a house where the only "modern" thing about it is the electricity and all this powers is the stove and boiler (a very short time ago these were powered by oil tanks next to the house which had to be regularly refilled). I would say the only modern thing that anyone relies on in the area is cars and if these broke down there are plenty of horses around.

Although you might think that people rely greatly on machines, if all the machines you own were taken away from you i think you would be suprised at how well you would get by. We are infact as Anarchocommunist says, highly integrated with technology because we could survive very easily without it. Afterall, life has for a few million years already.

Also for a machine to fully replace humans in the work place we need the advent of AI. Although you might disagree with this statement, AI covers the area of object recognition and visuospatial skills for robots. The robots which work in factories now do not recognise the objects they are moving about and the robots themselves do not move around the workplace. To give a robot the ability to recognise different objects is one of the goals of the MIT AI lab. They have some of the highest funding in the world for their AI projects and they still haven't been able to get a robot to distinguish a mobile phone from a glasses case.

[infestedterran]

Well i'm back. I'm interested in how much you believe we depend on technology infestedterran. I do no think we depend on it but we do enjoy its benefits. I have spent a lot of time living in a house where the only "modern" thing about it is the electricity and all this powers is the stove and boiler (a very short time ago these were powered by oil tanks next to the house which had to be regularly refilled). I would say the only modern thing that anyone relies on in the area is cars and if these broke down there are plenty of horses around.

Although you might think that people rely greatly on machines, if all the machines you own were taken away from you i think you would be suprised at how well you would get by. We are infact as Anarchocommunist says, highly integrated with technology because we could survive very easily without it. Afterall, life has for a few million years already.

Also for a machine to fully replace humans in the work place we need the advent of AI. Although you might disagree with this statement, AI covers the area of object recognition and visuospatial skills for robots. The robots which work in factories now do not recognise the objects they are moving about and the robots themselves do not move around the workplace. To give a robot the ability to recognise different objects is one of the goals of the MIT AI lab. They have some of the highest funding in the world for their AI projects and they still haven't been able to get a robot to distinguish a mobile phone from a glasses case.

Well if by "we" you mean North America then just look at what Kolzene said above: "Without modern technology, the continent of North America can only sustain a population of approximately 100 million people."

But if by "we" you mean humans in general, then I have to say that this really is a question of culture. If you were raised playing video games since elementary school like I was, then you may know what Im talking about. Ofcourse humans have the awesome capacity to adapt, but this is only when speaking of survival (Ex: you cant drop a Jew in a Muslim[or vice versa] country and expect him/her to live happily ever after). I myself have been living with technology since I was very young, and this technological culture is the only culture that I claim to be apart of. But this is a bias that I have, and one that I will continue to have untill a unified Earth government establishes something that I like to call, Universal Culture. This will allow every human on Earth to be PROUD of every culture that exist or that ever has existed on our planet developed by all the individual civilizations throughout history. Untill a Unified Earth government exist Nationalism will NEVER die. Untill Universal Culture exist Racism will NEVER die. But I have studied world history very thoroughly, and that is why I allow myself to make such a radical claim.

Also, simply living in a Technocratic society doesnt mean that everything will be all Star Wars or Star Treky. I myself enjoy the country life aswell(but only for a couple of months at the most ). We can preserve chunks of land so that people who desire to live or vacation like they did in the olden days actually can. So if you wanna give cars the boot and ride horses everywhere you can, and if you wanna live without electric stoves or boilers you can to, but obviously you will have to be regulated for environmental purposes.

[Stretch]

…man will finally be rid of the need to labor and will be able to concentrate every last brain cell on intellectual development and a more general evolution.

I am not so sure that would happen infestedterran. I may be sailing in this boat all by myself (but I don’t really care if I am).

As a general trend in history I don’t see man becoming more “evolved” at all, especially when it comes to how man relates to technology. For example the average attention span was much higher many years ago than it was today. Why? Because people were not watching as much TV and playing as many video games as we do now. TV and video games give us constant action and the need to think during these activities is minimal. We are being coming accustomed to being entertained all the time, holding someone’s attention for more than five minuets is becoming a daunting task.

Look at education. A fifth grade education 100 years ago is probably equivalent to a High School education today. The educational standard is being flushed down the toilet. High School diplomas today a practically worthless, and I can only wonder how long it will be before B.S. and B.A. degrees will be worthless.

The general population is not getting smarter; we are not “evolving” one bit. We are getting worse. We are going from order to disorder.

Where are the great thinkers of today? Where are the Nietzsche’s, Socrates, Blaise Pascal's, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen’s and Shakespeare's of today?

[infestedterran]

…man will finally be rid of the need to labor and will be able to concentrate every last brain cell on intellectual development and a more general evolution.

I am not so sure that would happen infestedterran. I may be sailing in this boat all by myself (but I don’t really care if I am).

As a general trend in history I don’t see man becoming more “evolved” at all, especially when it comes to how man relates to technology. For example the average attention span was much higher many years ago than it was today. Why? Because people were not watching as much TV and playing as many video games as we do now. TV and video games give us constant action and the need to think during these activities is minimal. We are being coming accustomed to being entertained all the time, holding someone’s attention for more than five minuets is becoming a daunting task.

Anything can become perverted if you allow yourself to become obsessed by it; Sports, Religion, Politics, Sex, Drugs, Alcohol, you name it. But I hope you are not implying that censorship is in order. Intellectuals have the capability to control themselves, so the answer is in education not censorship. I for one only watch TV for about 1 hour a week. Besides, people have had things to obsess over long before modern entertainment, just look at my examples above.

Look at education. A fifth grade education 100 years ago is probably equivalent to a High School education today. The educational standard is being flushed down the toilet. High School diplomas today a practically worthless, and I can only wonder how long it will be before B.S. and B.A. degrees will be worthless.

The general population is not getting smarter; we are not “evolving” one bit. We are getting worse. We are going from order to disorder.

Where are the great thinkers of today? Where are the Nietzsche’s, Socrates, Blaise Pascal's, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen’s and Shakespeare's of today?

I agree completely with you here. This is exactly why we need Technocracy and scientific leadership.

[Slip, Freudian]

The general population is not getting smarter; we are not ?evolving? one bit. We are getting worse. We are going from order to disorder.

Where are the great thinkers of today? Where are the Nietzsche?s, Socrates, Blaise Pascal's, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen?s and Shakespeare's of today?

Actually, in Finland at least, people are getting smarter all the time. Since all Finnish men go to the army(it's the law) and they are tested for cognitive skills etc., there are massive amounts of data on this(only on men though, although voluntary service is possible for women). The army has to make the tests more difficult year by year. This development is not as strong as it was in the 70s and the 80s though, so maybe humanity has reached a some sort maxim? TV is more popular than ever in Finland nowadays though. Damn reality shows.