[Tex]

I have skimmed the Technocracy website, reading the parts that interest me, and find it very interesting. A born skeptic (not to be confused with cynic), I have a question, which may be answered on the website and has just not “jumped out at me” yet. A brief answer here might determine whether or not I read more, or simply reject the idea “out of hand.” Here it is:

If “energy” science is used to solve every problem, obviously computers will be a massive factor in solving problems, since they are much more efficient at answering “yes/no” questions. It seems that, with technocracy, virtually every question will be answered by applying the test of consumption/production to every problem, so that there is only one solution: the most energy efficient. Therefore, theoretically, the system, if never “corrupted” by human “tinkering”, would eventually be capable of being administrated almost entirely by computer.

Assuming the above, how will emotional issues be dealt with, in which human judgment is presently required? Won’t the human eventually evolve into a simple biological “unit,” whose value to the system is evaluated using purely scientific criteria? Of course, I understand that, in the beginning, that aspect will be planned for, to reassure everyone before the “continental referendum,” but what happens a few generations down the road, when science continues to strive for greater efficiency, and the “masses” are more receptive to the idea of “efficiency for the sake of efficiency?”

For example: Given that the young tend to think of the aged as generally being unproductive, won’t they eventually allow “the system” to regard them as a waste of resources, and therefore expendable? I choose this as an example because there have been numerous science fiction books and movies along this line, so there is probably a “pat” answer, which will suit me fine…for the moment. I will assume that a similar solution could be applied to the mentally defective people, those afflicted with chronic ill health, etc.

Also, what about philosophical “truths” that have been established to apply to the existence we now know? Will they be discarded, in favor of a more scientific approach to morality?

I understand that all of these things can be “allowed for” at the beginning, but since all systems tend to evolve into something quite different from the ideas of the “founding fathers,” why can I not assume that technocracy will eventually attempt to remove from the system all things not necessary for its scientific advancement?

[Tex]

I suppose we should assume that capitalism, at least as we now know it, will eventually fail, since every system eventually does...and that technocracy, in some form or fashion, may be a logical evolution.

But, one has to assume that the "human element" will also corrupt it, eventually. The more technocracy strives to eliminate the "corruption" brought on by human beings attempting to achieve ascendancy over one another, the more it will dehumanize the population. And the more it attempts to dehumanize the population, the more credence it will lend to those who oppose it. Revolution is one of the constants in a society of human beings, the striving for "justice for all"...and humans can rarely agree on what is "just" for all.

There has to be a human being or a council of human beings administrating the system, else we are all just a herd of cattle, being managed by an unemotional "logic machine" of some sort. And, where there are human beings involved, compromises will be made, and someone will "get the shaft".

I am assuming that the first people to "get the shaft" will be the wealthy. Assuming that the "referendum" to adopt technocracy passes, and every citizen turns over his personal wealth to the administrators of technocracy, in order to originally fund it, how will it be enforced? Won't the wealthiest of the wealthy see it coming and transfer their wealth to a safe haven? Certainly, new wealth (energy?) can be generated, but where does the original funding come from? I understand that the "value" system that we now use is to be replaced, but how is the transition made? The humans that will do the labor to construct the infrastructure have to be fed and clothed, materials have to be acquired, etc.

It seems to me that the infrastructure has to be in place and functioning properly before the "value" system is changed, which means that it would have to be funded using the current value system. The only way to do that is for the government to seize the wealth that exists under the existing system. This may seem like a worrisome detail to the proponents of technocracy...but to me it is a deal-breaker, because it immediately violates my sense of justice...long before any good can come from it. It appears that capitalism must yield "temporarily" to socialism, before technocracy can even gain a foothold...and that is a highly unattractive scenario to me, since socialism has rarely been able to deliver on its promises.

So, I contend that the logistics of the transition will immediately corrupt technocracy, and that I will have to hope that the transition can and will actually take place, from socialism to technocracy.

Technocracy may be in our future, and could possibly be a good solution, for a time. It might even work better than capitalism, for a while. But personally, I would prefer that capitalism be allowed to take its natural course, in the places where it is managing to succeed, while conducting "experiments" with technocracy in places that should be succeeding, but are not.

Like all human creations, I suspect it has major flaws that the best scientists and sociologists could not predict, so why not subject only those who have nothing to lose to it, as a good scientist would do, before presenting it as the solution for everyone. Every scientific theory has variables that must be resolved by"test case" data. Sure, many of the individual components have already been tested, but I would want to see all of the components functioning together, to see what unexpected trends might develop.

[Tex]

No reply?....Hmmm...did I take the subject of technocracy too seriously, by stating my skepticism? Is it really just a "what if" game that I don't understand the rules for? For a while there, I thought it was a serious plan for the "real world." My mistake.

[Tex]

...I do have other things to do in my life and don't always have a lot of time to spend on forums.

So if you'd like to wait just a bit longer, you'll get a reply.

Sheesh.

Please forgive my impatience. I didn't realize there was only one of you...thought technocracy was a movement...not one person's hobby. Anyway, I am glad you have "a life" and that you don't just sit around and dream of a "Brave New World" all day long...very unhealthy.

[Tex]

You know, I don't want to pick a fight here or anything, but that's the second post you've made that gives me the impression that you are more interested in ragging on Technocracy (or perhaps just me) rather than really learning about it. I hope I'm wrong...

As I said in the beginning, I am skeptical, but my questions are sincere. I am not a discourteous person, by nature, and apologize if my sarcasm has offended you. Most of the discussions I have had on PoFo have been with socialists, who tend to rely on mostly "canned" arguments that don't hold up well when scrutenized carefully. I am not really looking for links to a website dedicated to glorifying an "alternative" political system to capitalism, but would prefer instead a sound explanation of how such a system could ever be put in place, without first going through decades of purges and re-education...which to my thinking, would be advocating a revolution.

Take your time...I, too, have "a life", and I will not pressure you, further.

[Tex]

...Technocracy is a technology, just like a car, and you need to learn all the basic parts in a certain order in order to understand why a car works. Looking at random engine parts and comparing them to animals is a difficult and lengthy process...

Maybe so...but if you are going to try to sell a Yugo to someone who has always preferred a Ford, you have some large hurdles to leap over, just to keep his attention. Before a good salesman can progress to the point where he can actually make his "case," he must find a way to appeal to the guy that has seen no compelling evidence that the other guy's Yugo is superior to the Ford he now drives. A good salesman tends to pass quickly over some major points that he doesn't really want to try to defend, preferring to concentrate on the more positive aspects of his product, and you are a good "salesman." I commend you on your positive attitude and your patience, in trying to overcome the skepticism that has derailed many good ideas. Technocracy has some logic that is appealing in a theoretical sense, but in order to get to its strengths, a skeptic has to ignore some of those annoying variables to be solved very early on. For example:

You contend that capitalism has already failed, and that the Great Depression was a "defining moment" in recognizing this...that the death throes of capitalist were only temporarily halted through artificial means, that were doomed to failure at the outset. Yet it has been nearly 75 years since the stock market catastrophe that most people associate with the beginning of the depression, and capitalism, with all its inefficiencies and failures, keeps stumbling along, and the countries that truly understand how it works are economically stronger than ever. Saying that it is "artificial" and "temporary" is not so unreasonable, but in order for theory to displace something that seems to be firmly in place, a great deal of faith is required, and I am of the opinion that economics is more of an art than a science, because of the very large variable that is called "consumer confidence."

Economic theorists, as a group, have historically had a very poor track record at making accurate predictions, largely because of the human variable. Also, it is virtually impossible not to influence the outcome of any test that can be applied to economics, with one's own personal beliefs. Knowing that, a skeptical person is not so willing to accept a "scientific" prediction that sounds so much like many others that have never been borne out.

...I have also included some links as well. I know that you will not use them, but I try to write my posts with the fact in mind that others will be reading them as well. So it is for their benefit I have left links for further info on various topics, if they desire...

As I said from the beginning, I "skimmed" the links for the parts that interested me, as the website suggested that I should do. I had no particular preconceived idea (other than the fact that I am unconvinced that capitalism is a proven failure), nor was I merely searching for "points of attack" to try to make you look foolish. Your implication that I only wish to attack techocracy is a typical "fallback" position of someone who has expended their "hard evidence" without proving their point.

Since you are obviously very busy, I won't trouble you for more information.

[Tex]

My analogy of the salesman was an effort to explain my skepticism by using one of technocracy’s “teaching tools”, rather than incite your passion against consumerism. Since technocracy uses “oversimplified” analogies to try to explain how the system works, I mistakenly assumed that you would accept mine, rather than become defensive and elude the point. After all, you did say:

And as to your skepticism, I welcome it. Technocracy prefers that people scrutinize our work rather than accept it blindly.

Some of our staunchest supporters have been people who've set out to "prove it wrong."

I thought I was rather “pointed” in my assertion that economists have a rather poor record of predicting collapses and certain successes, and also about my concerns regarding the “transitional” phase. At least in my mind, that is a pivotal point in time, and will determine whether technocracy can actually be implemented, or simply be put on the “back burner” while the masses are acclimated to the “scarcities” that are common to communistic societies. My earlier suggestion that you prefer to “sidestep” this question is based on these statements:

…Ah yes. I will agree with you entirely that the "transition" stage of Technocracy will indeed be our biggest obsticle and challenge. But the way I see it, what other choice do we have?…

…you will see that the discussion of the transistion is a difficult one indeed, and is really a problem best left to those qualifed to handle it…

… Yes, I can see as you can the numerous places where things can go wrong at this point, but again, I say that it is our only chance, which I will expand on later...

Lacking a more detailed explanation to the contrary, I have to assume that you don’t wish to discuss these topics, other than in vague generalities. From my vantage point, that of a person who is not convinced that the status quo is a failure, you have sidestepped some very crucial points, by accusing me of ad hominem attacks, which I deny.

Your apparent sensitivity, when pressed on these points, lends credence to the possibility that technocracy is simply the carrot that is dangled in front of an unrepentant capitalist, while the stick of socialistic revolution is wielded against his backside. Past experience has taught me that such sensitivity is usually feigned, and is merely used as a tool to disengage from a discussion that is not going well. I assume that these statements are intended to extricate you from a discussion that you no longer prefer to have:

I tried to acommidate you, even though I believe that the material on our two websites is a far better "explanation" than I could ever give you here. I thought your judgement of the site(s) rather harsh, and innaccurate. So really who now (and ever) has been doing the "attacking"?

and…

So, if you wish more information or clarifications on anything further, don't hesitate to ask. I'll do what I can. If you want to be "sold" on it, please don't waste my time.

It seems that my overdeveloped tendency towards skepticism has once again doomed me to bear the burden of being a “mean old dog,” who is too dumb to learn any new tricks.

[Slip, Freudian]

Technocracy doesn't really lack credibility. Already science is the new religion. As I always say, it's all about faith. The mind sees and believes what it wants to see. I have seen people get physically sick when their beliefs and prejudices have been questioned.

Should modern societies develop peacufully, we will see something like a Technocracy in the not-so-distant future. Capitalism has it's weak points, but I wouldn't expect a sudden huge leap to Technocracy. First of all, the technology isn't there yet. Capitalism won't produce it very fast, although automation is progressing quite nicely. As more and more people get unemployed, people will turn to technology for answers, and it will provide them. It's a quite happy society actually, with the instant-voting systems and all. Nobody knows if it will ever happen though. Democracy is so much easier to explain. One man, one vote. Technocracy needs new prophets, charismatic and intelligent men who do not fear publicity or politics.

"Since technocracy uses ?oversimplified? analogies to try to explain how the system works"

This is not true. It uses common sense and real life examples.

"...Organization and management of a country's industrial resources by technical experts for the good of the whole community." What's not to like?

[infestedterran]

First of all, the technology isn't there yet. Capitalism won't produce it very fast...

If Capitalism doesnt produce the technology needed for FULL automation(we have had the technology needed to produce Technocracy for over half a century), maybe Militarism will:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... t_interest