[Wilhelm]

Exactly, what is technocracy?

[Siberian Fox]

http://www.technocracyinc.org/MainIndex.htm

[Wilhelm]

Thanks, I'll read about it. Although, I have already read about 2 paragraphs of one of their publications.

The use of non-muscular energy has freed man from toil, has replaced human labor. A new kind of slave has taken over the old slaves' jobs by the millions. In fact, there are so many of these slaves in North America that they outnumber all the human slaves on the earth by far. These new slaves are very different from the old. They neither buy nor consume the goods they produce; there is no limit to their working hours; they do not tire; and they can accomplish things the old slaves never dreamed of or thought possible.

As you probably have guessed, the new slave is the kilowatt-hour; the old slave is the man-hour.

Probably true, but then this causes unempoyment. That's one of the problems with having too much machines, unoccupied people, living in a capitalist state. It leads to poverty. While machines replace secretaries and janitors, the former secretaries and janitors will now be unemployed. This leads to greater poverty, and to crime.

There is a big social cost to technocracy. It would probably work alongside with communism, but in a capitalist state it just means suppressing the masses to favour the rich, and enslaving new, non-thinking masses that will never rebel against their masters (never believe in 2001:Space Oddyssey).



This solution has one problem: it costs money.

Technocracy costs money, lots of it. Technology is expensive.

In short, technocracy will not work in a capitalist state. Communism and technocracy might work.

[Proctor]

Wilhelm, at least part of the unemployment problem is solved by the fact that the robots have to be made by people. But I agree, continued technological advancements in robotics wont help the common people much, but to stop research Brave New World style certainly isn't an improvement.

[Wilhelm]

The biggest problem is the money involved in it. Technocracy costs loads of money, and people are starving in the world right now. We should first spend our money and efforts in letting people live, then making their lifes better.

[Adrien]

Such intensive using of robots could bring two problems at long long term, which sound now like science-fiction but that may become real:

-if robots do absolutely everything like "progess extremists" want them to, man would become one lazy empty body behind a panel, and personally i don't imagine mankind only being able to live with machines.. That's the main danger of abusive technology.

-mankind could be the victime of its creation, if -seriously- robots revolt themselves against us. I know, it sounds bad, but when you look at the technical progress of this century, you can be frightened for the future!

[Wilhelm]

Yes I agree. It sounds ridiculous. We should never make computer technology advance to think for itself. They should remain our slaves. And yes, we cannot depend solely on machines.

[Ixa]

Such intensive using of robots could bring two problems at long long term, which sound now like science-fiction but that may become real:

-if robots do absolutely everything like "progess extremists" want them to, man would become one lazy empty body behind a panel, and personally i don't imagine mankind only being able to live with machines.. That's the main danger of abusive technology.

-mankind could be the victime of its creation, if -seriously- robots revolt themselves against us. I know, it sounds bad, but when you look at the technical progress of this century, you can be frightened for the future!

The last "problem" is downright absurd, and I had a good laugh out of it. Thank you.

As for the first problem, instead of being workers, the majority of us would be thinkers (and the workers can be disposed of). We still need mathematicians, and it has been proven by the incompleteness theorem of Godel that AI cannot solve all mathematical puzzles. Labourers may be replaced, but thinkers can never be replaced, so long as mankind exist. ("Mankind" can also be used as a plural word, so "exist" instead of "exists" in that context is correct.)

[Wilhelm]

The last "problem" is downright absurd, and I had a good laugh out of it. Thank you.

The University of Salamanca laughed at Columbus when he said the world was round...

and the workers can be disposed of

So just because someone is smart, they are better than other people?

Labourers may be replaced, but thinkers can never be replaced, so long as mankind exist. ("Mankind" can also be used as a plural word, so "exist" instead of "exists" in that context is correct.)

So your point is that technocracy is a solution to get rid of workers?

You are a fucking moron! What the hell? Do you think you're better than others?

[Jesse]

Thats quite an interesting site, reminded me a lot oF Robert A. Heinlein, for reasons unknown

But no matter, a good read.

[Adrien]

Well, in front of my little problems translating my thoughts in english, i can only say that I share Wilhelm's point of view.

[Proctor]

Wilhelm, you have misinterpreted Supernicus. When he said get rid of the workers, he didn't mean kill them. He meant that workers will no longer be neccessary, so everyone is free to think.

[Adrien]

Well, let's hope he didn't mean that.

This debate is also about personal visions of mankind: personnaly i don't see it like billions of eight-legged-brains thinking over and over but as an active population (active, but not unequal, of course). That's an extreme vision, and i'm sure Supernicus will laugh at it, but men must not become Borgs.

[llegovski]

Intriguing!

[Adrien]

Very interesting answer Kolzene!

[Siberian Fox]

May I ask who's idea it was?

I set the forum up, just because I find the whole concept a rather intriguing idea myself.

[Siberian Fox]

Too much work to do for university. I have stopped all my other projects like OnionRings.org so I can just concentrate on making this the world's best politics discussion website.

[TUC]

Too much work to do for university. I have stopped all my other projects like OnionRings.org so I can just concentrate on making this the world's best politics discussion website.

NONONONONONONONO! You should just be working on that one project who's name I have forgoton....But it was something like: Does Communism Maximise consumer utility? the deadline was May 6th or so....might be something that can go on here too.

[A_Technocrat]

I'm glad to see a Technocracy forum here. I'm working to become a member myself.

We still need mathematicians, and it has been proven by the incompleteness theorem of Godel that AI cannot solve all mathematical puzzles.

So what makes humans able to solve puzzles that an AI can't? I believe that the incompleteness theorem refers to mathematical puzzles that CAN'T be solved at all. This is used by AI doubters to 'prove' that an AI can't function.
Although, there is a good book, 'The Age of Spiritual Machines' by Ray Kurweil, that points this out and rebuts this by saying that an AI can develop tools to 'guess' at a solution, which humans routinely do, as opposed to finding a mathematical solution to everything.