[Mr. Anderson]

Instead of debating on current examples, which are fairly irrelevant, I shall demonstrate how this would be handled in a technate.

First of all, environmental preservation stems from fear for our own safety. The majority want to save the environment solely so we can save ourselves. The survival of the human species should be a top priority.

In a technocratic society, let us pretend global warming is being researched. It is discovered that in 500 years, global warming will reach a point where the ice caps will melt and put the human race in jeopardy. A technate would care about long-term planning. Research would then be focused on ways to reduce greenhouse emissions and solving the problem. Production might be stepped down to buy extra time. With the MASSIVE amount of resources going into solving the problem, it would eventually be solved.

You see, a technate could concentrate on long-term survival over shortt-term profitability since profitabilty would not exist. There would be no incentive to "rape" the environment and put the human race in jeopardy in the long-run for benefit today.

[Saddam]

Nationali you are now contradicting yourself. On the one hand you describe mining for granite as pollution yet on the other you consider deforestation to not be a form of pollution. Unless you already know this i will make myself clear. Humans creat massive amounts of carbon dioxide, this Co2 is transformed into oxygen by trees ando ther plant life. If we destroy the rainforests we shall be increasing the levels of carbn dioxide in the atmostphere thus polluting our world and increasing the greenhouse effect. In your own words "pollution is negatively changing the environment, by distorting the natural cohesion and process of the environment." In what way does deforestation not achieve this?

Through technological improvements we can reduce overall levels of pollution without going back to the stonage; thus keeping all the other benefits of technology such as medicine, culture, philosophy, education, etc. And most of all - freedom of thought. Under the agrarian system no-one would be alloed to be creative as that would 'advance technology'

Inventions such as wind turbines have the capability of powering the world without (according to your latest statement) making any pollution whatsoever.

THe world has chosen this route because it is the best one for us. If the other system you advocate was so effective it would already be a success. Every case of it (for varying reasons I agree) has failed miserably and I believe so to would any future attempts. To stifle the inventive and creative power of the human race is to take away much of their essence, in a way you would be polluting the human existance.

[Saddam]

Your statement about the feudalism statistics sounds more like a communist party member towing the party line as opposed to a rational comment. Just because the statistics don't fit in with your plan does not mean they have to be propoganda divised up in some devious way by the ruling class.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

In a technocratic society, let us pretend global warming is being researched. It is discovered that in 500 years, global warming will reach a point where the ice caps will melt and put the human race in jeopardy. A technate would care about long-term planning. Research would then be focused on ways to reduce greenhouse emissions and solving the problem. Production might be stepped down to buy extra time. With the MASSIVE amount of resources going into solving the problem, it would eventually be solved.

What resources? Technocracy would massively contaminate all the resources, and (by the way) global warming is a byproduct of technology.

You see, a technate could concentrate on long-term survival over shortt-term profitability since profitabilty would not exist.

Technology created profit, the advancement of tehcnology increases the unemployment epidemic (its an epidemic because people willing to work suffer from not getting the permission to do work from the heavily-armed (armed with advanced technology, like high-powered rifles, thermal energy-seeking helicopters, and etc.) bourgeoisie [capitalist-class]) and all ensuing unemployment gets crushed by the bourgeoisie army (the police), and a radical advancement of technology would only further increase the unemployment epidemic and increase the power of the bourgeoisie to hunt down and massacre all riots. Every race riot is an unemployment riot, every anti-trade riot is an unemployment protest. I use the word riot and protest respectively (in relation to specificity as common terms, like "race riot" and "anti-trade protest").

There would be no incentive to "rape" the environment and put the human race in jeopardy in the long-run for benefit today.

Technology itself is in fact (not in theory) a manifestation of an incentive to "rape the environment and put the human race in jeopardy in the long-run for benefit today". So how can technology possibly stop what it does itself, and how can this be an ideal form of government and system??

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Nationali you are now contradicting yourself. On the one hand you describe mining for granite as pollution yet on the other you consider deforestation to not be a form of pollution. Unless you already know this i will make myself clear. Humans creat massive amounts of carbon dioxide, this Co2 is transformed into oxygen by trees ando ther plant life. If we destroy the rainforests we shall be increasing the levels of carbn dioxide in the atmostphere thus polluting our world and increasing the greenhouse effect. In your own words "pollution is negatively changing the environment, by distorting the natural cohesion and process of the environment." In what way does deforestation not achieve this?

I am not simply encouraging deforestation as it is at present. At present deforestation is being done to increase cities, get wood for luxury houses for the rich, and etc. I am proposing deforestation as an addition to the abolition of "cancerous" things like cities, towns, the rich (private property, not to be confused with the abolition/extermination of the rich people), and etc., and replacing these (among other things) with agrarian communes with collective labor with all property and products of labor being collectively owned and equally distributes. Agriculture involves the growing of plants on a mass-scale and plants breath C02, and if all the land is converted into arable agrarian land then there would be much lesser CO2 then there would be if forests, cities, and private property are not abolished.

Through technological improvements we can reduce overall levels of pollution without going back to the stonage; thus keeping all the other benefits of technology such as medicine, culture, philosophy, education, etc. And most of all - freedom of thought.

How can technology stop the pollution it creates by its mere existance without abolishing itself entirely?

Please give me at least one or two examples.

How are medicine, culture, philosophy, education, and freedom of thought symbiotic to technology?

Better medicine is grown from plants than from chemicals and the technology that mass-produces them, and the byproducts of technology pollutes the air and water that the medicinal plants need to grow healthy.

Culture, philosophy, education, and freedom of thought existed better before technology monopolized them and made them into a convenient luxury for the bourgeoisie (capitalist-class) to use to exploit the masses. Such as, the bourgeoisie use bits and parts of culture to carry out their agendas for mass-profit (like [though not exclusive to) the up-to-date fashions of speech, clothing, and behavior styles); they use bits and parts of philosophy to manipulate the ignorance of the masses (like [though not exlusive to] capitalizing on the fear of the unknown and using this to justify the legalization [through the capital republic] of vigrous preaching of different ways (religions/cults) of getting to heaven/nirvana after dying); they use education to brainwash the masses into thinking that the capitalist mode of living, working, and getting employment is unquestionably stable and that the students should get educated on how to seek employment and learn the skills they need to make skillful propaganda (through language arts subject in schools) for the capitalist employers; they use freedom of thought to legalize the vigorous preaching religion(s)/cult(s) and hence exploiting of the ignorance and fear of the unknown of the working masses.

Under the agrarian system no-one would be alloed to be creative as that would 'advance technology'

How??

Creativity is not exclusive to technology. Creativity of humans existed for all of human history and thus almost entirely without technology. I typed almost entirely without technology because technology was invented only a short while ago in comparison to recorded human history.
An example of creativity without technology in "the agrarian system":

The people making different ways of farming, such as (though not exclusive to) doing mixed farming (this was a recent invention of human creativity which would have been possible without technology).

I could not give more examples because of restriction on time (an invention of capitalism).

Inventions such as wind turbines have the capability of powering the world without (according to your latest statement) making any pollution whatsoever.

It requires "polluting of the landscape" (you said this in your other post when addressing me), such as in mining for and search of (through digging) the metal materials for producing and generating and trasporting the turbines and their energy (respectively, ofcourse [since the wind provides the energy, however the metal materials create the turbines itself]).

THe world has chosen this route because it is the best one for us.

What world has chosen this?

The working masses of the world do not have the power to change "this route", because the bourgeoisie (capitalist-class) have all absolute power (as a collective group ofcourse, not as individuals).

If the other system you advocate was so effective it would already be a success.

The thing is that the other system requires the abolition of the cities, towns, and private property rights that invent and give absolute power to the bourgeoisie and or the ruling-classes (I say and or because the situation is different in different countries).

Every case of it (for varying reasons I agree) has failed miserably and I believe so to would any future attempts.

They failed because of capitalist imperialist military interference and economic embargoes. You should know this since you seem to be and try to portray to be very familiar with history, especially recent history.

To stifle the inventive and creative power of the human race is to take away much of their essence, in a way you would be polluting the human existance.

I have already proved the falsity of that arguement in my aforementioned response in this post.

What do you mean by "polluting human existance"?, that seems like a typo.

[Saddam]

This is becoming tiresome now. Your arguements really do not make sense and thus this is the last post I shall make on this topic.

THe plants produced by farming would not compensate for the plants which would have otherwise been there in their natural state. The land is plowed and planted. Had this not occured grassland, forrests, jungle would be constant. Farming is only seasonal. Please get your facts straight before posting them

Your ideas of better medicine and culture etc are puerly opinion - advances in medicine would never have been possible without technology.
The masses are not being exploited. In fact the masses as you love to call them have more freedom now than they ever did. We live in a meritocratic society in the west where anyone can be successful. THis is not 19th Century Russia where the peasentry were ignorant and exploitable.
Schools do not indoctrinate (at least in Europe anyway) that the capitalist system is unquestionably stable, they allow us to give opinions and construct our own ideas on the subject. This would not happen in your ideology becuase either there would be no education or what there would be would not alllow the possible destabilization of the system.

Creativity is the whole basis technology exists. People need to be more creative than mixing up their crops

Your idea of the Bourgeoise is completely outdated. In the west, the masses ae the capitalist class not the evil minority. The masses control themselves.

The only reason why the West increased its military build up was in responce to the miliarist expansionist ideas of the communist states such as the USSR. - Don't try to pass the blame onto the capitalist countries. Do you really believe that had Russia not built up its military to such an extent the West would have invaded, or indeed had a cold war - NO!!

[Mr. Anderson]

In a technocratic society, let us pretend global warming is being researched. It is discovered that in 500 years, global warming will reach a point where the ice caps will melt and put the human race in jeopardy. A technate would care about long-term planning. Research would then be focused on ways to reduce greenhouse emissions and solving the problem. Production might be stepped down to buy extra time. With the MASSIVE amount of resources going into solving the problem, it would eventually be solved.

What resources? Technocracy would massively contaminate all the resources, and (by the way) global warming is a byproduct of technology.

The main resource used to solve the situation would be manpower. People would be working out a solution. Technocracy does not contaminate people. Energy would be necessary for computers and such, I suppose, but that energy can be provided through solar power, wind power, nuclear fusion, or a process like that.

I would also like to say that all technology does not cause environmental problems. It is ignorant to say this. Only certain technologies do. Do speers create pollution? Do mortars and pestles create pollution? All technology does not create pollution!

Non-polluting ways could easily be adapted! Wind power, solar power, all of that! This energy could be used to recycle resources we already have. Environmental destruction would not necessarily be stopped, but it would be managed to ensure environment destruction would not go too far to the point where we would be endangered.

You see, a technate could concentrate on long-term survival over shortt-term profitability since profitabilty would not exist.

Technology created profit, the advancement of tehcnology increases the unemployment epidemic (its an epidemic because people willing to work suffer from not getting the permission to do work from the heavily-armed (armed with advanced technology, like high-powered rifles, thermal energy-seeking helicopters, and etc.) bourgeoisie [capitalist-class]) and all ensuing unemployment gets crushed by the bourgeoisie army (the police), and a radical advancement of technology would only further increase the unemployment epidemic and increase the power of the bourgeoisie to hunt down and massacre all riots. Every race riot is an unemployment riot, every anti-trade riot is an unemployment protest. I use the word riot and protest respectively (in relation to specificity as common terms, like "race riot" and "anti-trade protest").

Have you done any research on technocracy? From this quote, I would doubt you have. Allow me to put this clearly for you: THERE IS NO MONETARY PROFIT IN A TECHNOCRACY! THERE IS NO CAPITALIST CLASS IN A TECHNOCRACY! THERE IS NO FORCED UNEMPLOYMENT IN A TECHNOCRACY!

I cannot argue against ignorance. You have done minimal research on technocracy, and it shows. Here are some places you can go to learn more.

Basic Info
http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm
http://www.technocracyinc.org/start.html

Environmental Issues
http://www.technocracyinc.org/periodica ... /doll.html
http://www.technocracyinc.org/periodica ... /doll.html
http://www.technocracyinc.org/periodica ... cheel.html
http://www.technocracyinc.org/periodica ... /doll.html

http://www.technocracyinc.org/periodica ... /doll.html

There would be no incentive to "rape" the environment and put the human race in jeopardy in the long-run for benefit today.

Technology itself is in fact (not in theory) a manifestation of an incentive to "rape the environment and put the human race in jeopardy in the long-run for benefit today". So how can technology possibly stop what it does itself, and how can this be an ideal form of government and system??[/quote]

Stop making wild claims. Technology is the application of science in order to acheive a goal. It is not to rape the environment and put the human race in jeopardy in the long-run.

Let us say for a moment this was true. How can you advocate going back to small farming communities? There was still technology then! This either makes you a fool, intentionally advocating we destroy ourselves, or a hypocrite. Either way, it is illogical and makes little sense.

You have just presented unfounded assumptions. To claim all technology is bad is a fallacy of the highest degree. Yes, it takes resources to utilize virtually all technology. But taking a single rock and making a mortar and pestle isn't going to instantly destroy the environment. It is overdoing this which destroys the environment. But doesn't overdoing virtually anything have a negative result? All I am saying is a technocracy could prevent environmental destruction from getting out of hand.

---

Overall, I feel you are very uninformed about technocracy. Just referring to profit and the capitalist class demonstrates it. Do serious research before you come here, making unfounded assumptions. It is impossible to properly debate someone who believes in lies.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Creativity is the whole basis technology exists. People need to be more creative than mixing up their crops

That creativity (mixed cropping) solved the problem of pests, I know it might seem too simple a solution to the problem of pests, the only reason why pesticide is still used in farming is greed and or laziness, both of which spring from capitalism and its technology, which permits and allows egotism and greed and laziness to be heavily-armed against the importance of the well-being of society.

The masses control themselves.

In what sense?

The masses are not allowed to do as they please in capitalism or even technocracy, because both depend on the repetitive and concentrative labor of the masses, as opposed to farming, in which the human mind does as it pleases for its own survival, and the person farms through understanding that what he or she is farming will go directly into its mouth (food) and directly clothe it (organic clothing) and directly shelter it (mud houses/brick (dry clay) houses).

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The main resource used to solve the situation would be manpower. People would be working out a solution. Technocracy does not contaminate people.

Technocracy might not contaminate people but technology through its chronic use of chemicals, plastics, and toxins does contaminate people.

Energy would be necessary for computers and such, I suppose, but that energy can be provided through solar power, wind power, nuclear fusion, or a process like that.

All of these things need metal to transfer the power, like a conductor, like metal wires. And where does metal come from? It comes from underground. And many metals cause diseases, like (though not exclusive to) lead and mercury, lead and mercury used to be used profusely in things that have direct contact with the food that we eat and our bodies, like mercury used to be used conventionally in detistry until it was discovered to be poisonous, and the conventional use of mercury for such direct contact with humans stopped just a few decades ago. And lead used to be or is still: used conventionally in sealing drinking water pipes, cans that store food, bullets (even touching the bullet over long periods of time [like {though not exclusive to} people in the military do and peopel that wear them in necklaces]), and etc. etc. etc.

I would also like to say that all technology does not cause environmental problems. It is ignorant to say this. Only certain technologies do. Do speers create pollution?

They do not create pollution but to get the materials to make them causes pollution.

Do mortars and pestles create pollution?

Ancient mortars and pestles did not, however modern mortars do and to get the materials to make pestles (and mortars) causes pollution.

All technology does not create pollution!

It does, you are just distorting what technology is and is not.

THERE IS NO MONETARY PROFIT IN A TECHNOCRACY!

How does a technocracy do away with money without getting into a fight with capitalists? Or do you mean that technocracy will come about through the "inevitable advancement of technology" that will unconsciously end the ability for monetary profit to exist? Would money exist in a technocracy?

THERE IS NO CAPITALIST CLASS IN A TECHNOCRACY!

Because the capitalists become technocrats? How can the capitalist class be done away with without invoking a violent revolution to overthrow the capitalist class?

THERE IS NO FORCED UNEMPLOYMENT IN A TECHNOCRACY!

Would there be unemployment at all? I still can't understand how the capitalist-class can easily have its employing powers and the tyranny that it does with this power be taken away from it without massive genocide of the capitalists and their supporters (religious people). Just give me a direct URL link to a web page that explains this, thank you.

Stop making wild claims.

Prove that anything in my post is a wild claim. The thing is that technology is wild, it is the root of all acid rain, unemployment, world wars, nuclear accidents, mass-genocide, anti-social behavior, anti-social culture, and the atomic bombings of millions of civilians in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Technology is the application of science in order to acheive a goal.

Technology is the application of industrial and mechanical science, not all science, and humanity can do much more better progress without these sciences: Industrial science, mechanical science.

It is not to rape the environment and put the human race in jeopardy in the long-run.

It is because technology requires the constant rape of the environment for it to function, and this is putting the human race and all other living things on earth in jeopardy in the long-run, ofcourse. Why do you refuse to accept this fact?

Let us say for a moment this was true. How can you advocate going back to small farming communities?

Where in my post did I advocate going back to "small" farming communities?

There was still technology then!

Then? where?

This either makes you a fool, intentionally advocating we destroy ourselves, or a hypocrite.

You are obviously unconcsiously revealing your ignorant conviction and faith in technology and its omnipotency, through emotionalism as all people with convictions and faith in any type of thing do.

Either way, it is illogical and makes little sense.

How? Prove your baseless assertion.

You have just presented unfounded assumptions. To claim all technology is bad is a fallacy of the highest degree.

How was in an "unfounded" assumption?

How was it a mere assumption?

Yes, it takes resources to utilize virtually all technology.

In your vocabulary, "resources" is exclusively "manpower", this is illustrated through the first sentence of the first quote of your post in this post of mine.

But taking a single rock and making a mortar and pestle isn't going to instantly destroy the environment.

Technology is made of or produced by metals, plastics, and chemicals. Taking a rock on a mountain and making a weapon from it using another rock to shape it is obviously not polluting, however taking a rock from underground is polluting.

It is overdoing this which destroys the environment.

The environment gets damaged by technolgy not destroyed. Your use of the word destroy is improper.

But doesn't overdoing virtually anything have a negative result?

This does not apply to the works of technology, for technology in itself is an overdoing.

All I am saying is a technocracy could prevent environmental destruction from getting out of hand.

How can something that causes environmental destruction from its mere existance be used as a preferable alternative to "prevent" environmental destruction from "getting out of hand". That is extremely absurd and beyond stupidity and it enters the realm of psychosis.

Overall, I feel you are very uninformed about technocracy.

Please, give me the web link that I requested above in this post. Thank you.

It is impossible to properly debate someone who believes in lies.

So now you are going to being calling it lies?

What was a lie?

Technology being a preferable and safe alternative to "raw human labor" is the biggest lie humanity has ever heard, and this lie is and will cause the self-destruction of humanity and the massive pollution of the earth as it has already begun, that is unless it is abolished as soon as possible. Every day that goes by with the existance of technology is causing permanent damage to the earth and its atmosphere and is causing many humans to starve, die from cancer, and die from bullets and bombs, which are all inventions of technology, and technology is an invention of early capitalists.

[Saddam]

Thank you Mr Anderson, finally someone with a reasonable arguement enters the fray. There are too many "wild claims" and "unfounded assumptions" being thrown around here. I warn you though don't bother arguing with Nationali. Your arguement will go round in circles just as mine did due to the above formentioned reasons. You can't argue with someone who has such a blinkered one tracked view. So far Nationali is yet to disprove any of my statements and consistently throws ideologically based unfounded assumptions back at me which can neither be proved nor disproved.

I as of yet have not disclosed my own ideology, rather I have (tried) to base my arguement only on fact; however it has not been recipricated.

Good Luck

[Mr. Anderson]

I had a wealth of articles for you to look at in the first post, including ones which would invoke basic understanding. Here are some resources to look at:

Technocracy for Beginners
Goals of a Technocracy
How a Technocracy Works (Simplified)
Money! Money? money...
Human Motivation to Work in a Technate

For more, there are two sites.

http://www.technocracy.ca
http://www.technocracy.org

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I as of yet have not disclosed my own ideology, rather I have (tried) to base my arguement only on fact; however it has not been recipricated.

What fact have you ever mentioned in any of your posts on this entire thread?

[The Nathan]

I as of yet have not disclosed my own ideology, rather I have (tried) to base my arguement only on fact; however it has not been recipricated.

What fact have you ever mentioned in any of your posts on this entire thread?

You should probably be asking yourself the same question. You have stated very little "fact" in this thread, and a whole lot of lies and rhetoric.

[Omnist Priest]

All of this depends on your definition of pollution.

If you believe that smoke is pollution than you believe that volcanoes are natural smokestack industries.

If you believe that deforestation is pollution than you believe that lightning is the worst enemy of forests.

People do not destroy the planet, they just alter the current environment.

If the goal of technocracy is to stop pollution, then this is not possible however, technocracy can greatly reduce the amount of pollution that people cause. But pollution occurs without people, we can accually use so called technology to prevent environmental changes.

If what people call the environment is endangered do they mean forests, mountains, deserts, ice caps, or plains?

Any of these environments can be created artificially. Greenhouse gases are released during the production of solar panels, does this mean that we are saving the environment?

The technate would create a world where people can control the environment more easily. However the rest of the world would still pollute as much or more than it does today.

If the entire world became a technate than the technology would be used in such a way to prevent the next ice age. Even though pollution would still occur, it would be less and toward helping the environment and the people, rather than just the people.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

All of this depends on your definition of pollution.

We are talking of human-caused pollution, ofcourse.

If what people call the environment is endangered do they mean forests, mountains, deserts, ice caps, or plains?

Any of these environments can be created artificially. Greenhouse gases are released during the production of solar panels, does this mean that we are saving the environment?

I am against such production, and other machines that cause human-made pollution. Are you?

The technate would create a world where people can control the environment more easily.

How? Please give an example or two, or more.

If the entire world became a technate than the technology would be used in such a way to prevent the next ice age.

How is this possible, I am sure this is impossible and just your creative imagination without the acknowledgement of the handicaps of reality.

Even though pollution would still occur, it would be less and toward helping the environment and the people, rather than just the people.

Most if not all of the pollution of world is caused by machines, which would thrive under technocracy/technate, because technocracy/technate are the most pro-machine social systems.

[Omnist Priest]

People control the environment with the chemicals that they release into the air. If global warming occurs what would follow would be an ice age.

If technocracy can control pollution, than it can control the environment.

It could allow create positive pollution and alter the environment in such a way that would result in a positive effect. Like planting (diverse) forests.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

People control the environment with the chemicals that they release into the air. If global warming occurs what would follow would be an ice age.

If technocracy can control pollution, than it can control the environment.

It could allow create positive pollution and alter the environment in such a way that would result in a positive effect. Like planting (diverse) forests.

This is all possible without "advanced" technology, and it would also be much more efficient and have much more potential without "advanced" technology, such as electricity. All forms of "advanced" technology inevitably require imperialism and hence war. All types of "advanced" technology require foreign raw materials as a source of energy or non-human labor (machine labor), which immensely degrades the value of labor and subsequently of the human laborers (the working-masses of the world), this results in progressive/gradual loss of social-incentive for the majority of humanity (whom are workers/unemployed poor); this is not taken into any consideration by technocrats, I think this is because of their intrinsic symbiotic relation to capital (as opposed to labor, please read "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx).

[The Nathan]

With NDS' talk about abolishing advanced technology making things magickally easier, I'm beginning to suspect he's a spoof handle.

Tell me, how would re-planting forests as suggested before make things easier if it would require much more manpower and time due to the lakc of sophisticated processes like oh say... trucks to carry loads of seeds.

And before you say "Oh, we'll just assign more people to the task" please keep in mind people are a finite resource, and their time is also just as finite. So far all the practical solutions you have given consist of assigning mroe people to a task, leaving very little room for things besides necessary large-scale tasks that have been rendered logistically unsound due to your abolishment of technology.

[immortallove]

You obviously do not understand even the most basic principles of technocracy.

To answer one of your questions, no, there is no money.

The capitalist class, as you call them, would not exist as companies/corporations would not exist because there would be nothing to gain from it, because there would be no money.

You have several times misused the term "genocide". Genocide, by definition, is the systematic and planned termination of an entire national, racial, political or ethnic group. Therefore the US and UK have never been involved in genocide. The annihilation of the Native Americans was not performed by the US as it did not exist then. That was the action of greedy colonists. Later on, the natives remained aggressive (rightly so) and the new US defended itself. That's not genocide, that's aggressive defence, which I'm not condoning. The killing of Aborigines was the same deal - the action of morally bankrupt individuals and groups who happened to have British nationality.
Hiroshima/Nagasaki requires a little more thought. Try to keep up. At the time, it seemed that fighting the war on the ground and through other conventional means would cost millions upon millions of casualties and billions of dollars on both sides, and would destroy Japan as a country while doing severe damage to the US as well. The dropping of two atom bombs and murders of a few million people was far less costly than the other possible conclusion. As distasteful, horrifying and sad as the nuclear attacks were, they were certainly preferable to the steady destruction of a nation and meat-grinder killing of even more people in brutal, bloody combat.

Yes technology is the root of acid rain and nuclear accidents, but certainly not unemployment, world wars and anti-social behaviour. Acid rain and nuclear accidents are the results of the abuse of technology. In a technocracy, anyway, cleaner and more efficient processes would be used universally, negating the possibility of Nuclear accidents and acid rain.

There are several definitions of technology, none narrow it down to involvement of metals, plastics, chemicals, pollution and destruction.
The commonly accepted one is "the scientific application of knowledge to a problem." Thus, even mediating a debate which is falling apart is by definition technology, if the ugly debate is a problem.

Technology does not require the "rape of the environment" to function. Impatience and cost-effectiveness drives people to harm the environment when producing an item or resource, but in a technocracy where cost-effectiveness does not exist and completely unharmful methods of production are universally in use this is not a problem.

Mr. Anderson wrote:
It is overdoing this which destroys the environment.


The environment gets damaged by technolgy not destroyed. Your use of the word destroy is improper.

This is not a grammatical or literary debate, but if it was then you would not be completely clean either.

technology in itself is an overdoing

Explain. This is not the only pointless and baseless statement you have posted. What sounds sensible in your head does not necessarily make any sense.

Please, give me the web link that I requested above in this post. Thank you.

Mr Anderson and Saddam had both posted plenty of links to Technocracy resources before you posted this. Sounds like you are trying to retreat under cover of ignorance, and even that tactic is pointless.

I am not going to explain technocracy to you, or get bogged down in debate when you refuse to make solid arguments or to see sense. Please at the very least read the Introduction to Technocracy thread in full before posting any more ignorant rubbish. I apologise if I sound unduly harsh, but I really hate rhetoric.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Nationali, I'm afraid you sound like Saddam Hussein, having just eaten a bale of pot, puking up the dictionary.

That is an obvious personal attack, please delete it through exercising the edit option, or else I will have to notify the moderator.

You obviously do not understand even the most basic principles of technocracy.

Based on reading your entire post, I think it is you that obviously does not understand "basic principles" of technocracy. Like:

To answer one of your questions, no, there is no money.

Where did I ask such a simple question? And money exists in many forms, such as capital (as I have mentioned many times before).

The capitalist class, as you call them, would not exist as companies/corporations would not exist because there would be nothing to gain from it, because there would be no money.

See above.

You have several times misused the term "genocide". Genocide, by definition, is the systematic and planned termination of an entire national, racial, political or ethnic group.

How does this have anything to do with the topic of this thread? And by the way, genocide in almost all dictionaries is: "the systematic killing of a racial or cultural group." - Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide

Therefore the US and UK have never been involved in genocide.

See above. If you still don't reject this statement ("the US and UK have never been involved in genocide"), then you need to research much more on American history, its best if you go to an American history class, for at least 2 or 3 years, because thats about how long I took American history class in elementary school and middle school.

The annihilation of the Native Americans was not performed by the US as it did not exist then. That was the action of greedy colonists.

Thats exactly like saying that a teenage son of a colonist man is innocent for helping his father systematically kill thousands is not millions of indigenous peoples. Again you need to read American history, and comprehensively such as taking class as I have aforementioned. You simply lack knowledge of a lot of American history, if you think that the "greedy colonists" and United States of America were 2 seperate entities and seperate biological groups of people.

Later on, the natives remained aggressive (rightly so) and the new US defended itself.

What is "new US", that is an oxymoron. You obviously completely reject the fact that the US is a terrorist cell that is occupying and using the land, labor, and resources of the indigenous peoples of America for their mischievious imperialist and colonialist activities, just like all non-indigenous colonists.

That's not genocide, that's aggressive defence, which I'm not condoning.

It is genocide, whether you like it or not.

The killing of Aborigines was the same deal - the action of morally bankrupt individuals and groups who happened to have British nationality.

"Systematically killing of a racial group" does not mean that a state is necessary to prove that it was systematic, you are simply making a repetitive mistake of confusing systematic with state-sponsorship.

Hiroshima/Nagasaki requires a little more thought. Try to keep up.

That was an unnecessary arrogant remark, which is very unintellectual of you.

At the time, it seemed that fighting the war on the ground and through other conventional means would cost millions upon millions of casualties and billions of dollars on both sides, and would destroy Japan as a country while doing severe damage to the US as well. The dropping of two atom bombs and murders of a few million people was far less costly than the other possible conclusion. As distasteful, horrifying and sad as the nuclear attacks were, they were certainly preferable to the steady destruction of a nation and meat-grinder killing of even more people in brutal, bloody combat.

All of this is irrelevant, because it is off topic: technocracy and pollution. The purpose of this thread is not a personal downgrading of each other on the forum, the purpose is to simply discuss the pollution that a technocracy will cause or might cause and the unemployment that the main-causers of man-made pollution that echnocracy will so heavily use (machines), and etcetera.

Yes technology is the root of acid rain and nuclear accidents, but certainly not unemployment, world wars and anti-social behaviour.

It is good that you at least realize/understand that "technology is the root of acid rain and nuclear accidents".

Acid rain and nuclear accidents are the results of the abuse of technology.

I admit maybe you are right on that, I understand what you mean, though not necessarily agree 100%, because I think and I am sure you do too that acid rain and nuclear accidents were inevitable prerequisites to more "Advanced" technology, such as extremely immense amounts of energy from nuclear generators and the massive capitalist want of transportation and factories that produced the air pollution that causes acid rain.

In a technocracy, anyway, cleaner and more efficient processes would be used universally, negating the possibility of Nuclear accidents and acid rain.

Yes, but this ignores the main point that I am raising, which is that pollution will only increase from a technocracy, and or that technocracy requires at least some sort of pollution, even if it is minimal in comparison to a non-technocratic system.

There are several definitions of technology, none narrow it down to involvement of metals, plastics, chemicals, pollution and destruction.

I never typed that technology is defined by destruction.

The commonly accepted one is "the scientific application of knowledge to a problem." Thus, even mediating a debate which is falling apart is by definition technology, if the ugly debate is a problem.

This is an obvious distortion of the real definition of technology, and you know yourself that you are distorting the definition for your propagandic scheme for whatever purpose.

Technology does not require the "rape of the environment" to function.

It does, but ofcourse it does not if you go by the bizarre and eccentric definiton: "technology is the scientific application of knowledge to a problem."

Impatience and cost-effectiveness drives people to harm the environment when producing an item or resource, but in a technocracy where cost-effectiveness does not exist and completely unharmful methods of production are universally in use this is not a problem.

What about "Impatience", you explained how the "cost-effectiveness" would somehow disappear.

Mr. Anderson wrote:
It is overdoing this which destroys the environment.


The environment gets damaged by technolgy not destroyed. Your use of the word destroy is improper.

This is not a grammatical or literary debate, but if it was then you would not be completely clean either.

Its not a matter of greammatical or literary things, because there is a complete different meaning of damage and destruction, because to damage something is to simply injure it and to destroy something means to obliterate it, pollution does not destroy the environment even in isolated areas, it just damages it.

technology in itself is an overdoing

Explain. This is not the only pointless and baseless statement you have posted. What sounds cool in your head does not necessarily make any sense.

You took that out of context, that is why you do not understand it. What I meant was that technology in itself is an excess (overdoing), because it is an extremist version of the wood-guild from whence it sprang. And your use of the word "cool" in that context shows and makes the better understanding of where your coming from, which is that anything that is cool is much more important than something that is not cool, no matter what, even if the "cool" thing (technocracy) is permanently destroying the limited inhabitation of humanity (earth).

Please, give me the web link that I requested above in this post. Thank you.

Mr Anderson and Saddam had both posted plenty of links to Technocracy resources before you posted this. Sounds like you are trying to retreat under cover of ignorance, and even that tactic is pointless.

This is an obvious baseless assertion, which boils down to a personal attack in its irrelevant personal remark. And again, you took this out of context, because the link that I was asking for was about something that I did not find any information on in the other web sites of the other links that they provided.

I am not going to explain technocracy to you, or get bogged down in debate when you refuse to make solid arguments or to see sense.

Then why did you post this message to me and with such arrogance and flaming personal attacks?

Please at the very least read the Introduction to Technocracy thread in full before posting any more ignorant rubbish.

Ok I will, but please do not ever make such arrogant stupid remarks as calling my posts "ignorant rubbish", if you continue then I will never reply to any of your posts again. Have I ever used such inflammtory personal attacks againsty you or anyone on this entire forum on technocracy?!?!?!?

I apologise if I sound unduly harsh, but I really hate rhetoric.

Why are you apologising? So you acknowledge that your post was very negatively inflammatory? You think my posts are rehtoric, I think your post and almost all the posts supportive of technocracy are rehtoric, because they refuse to go into rational intellectual debate through unemotional reasoning. Your entire post is either emotionally charged, irrelevant, or out of context. It seems as if you typed this post in a haste out of angry emotional reaction to my intellectual exposing of the massive amounts of flaws in technocracy and technology itself.