0
   

Technocracy >>>>> Democracy

 
 
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 03:17 pm
Call me an elitist, but if a Technocracy is actually implemented as described, by actual scientists, and transitioned to peacefully and reasonably. I think it would be superior to a democracy.

What is a Technocracy?

Technocracy is a governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly skilled and qualified they are, rather than how much political capital they hold. A form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control; "technocracy is described as that society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge"

The kinds of policies that a Technocracy adopts are those that are based on sound scientific or sociologic evidence rather than those based on political ideology. Think of it as evidence based politics. Where no such evidence exists, technocracies will try that policy in much smaller scales until they can determine if it would work well on a larger scale.

Essentially, they use the scientific method of only accepting what can be supported with evidence and experiementation, and apply that method to public policy.

Such a form of society puts science above religion. Religion does not meet the requirements imposed by the Scientific Method as god can't be proven scientifically. Many scientists are agnostics (god can not be proven or disproven) so it's conceivable that a society run by and largely composed of scientists would be agnositc as whole.

Some interesting links...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_Incorporated

Technocrats, see societies as inefficient and wasteful, and argue that the unemployment rate is not an accurate measure of the total number of people working and the amount of work being performed. In the United States, of those of working age, only 65% participate in the economy,[9] while European countries have an even smaller proportion.[10] Moreover, a significant number of employees work in industries such as finance, advertising, and retail. Many of these jobs would disappear after the transition from a monetary economy to a technocracy, meaning that the "adjusted" unemployment rate (a measure excluding such pecuniary jobs) is much higher than indicated.


Urbanates: A technocratic replacement for cities
Once a technate has been established Technocracy Incorporated advocates an entirely new form of living environment called Urbanates. An Urbanate is essentially an assembly of buildings where people live and work. These places would have all the facilities needed for a community, including schools, hospitals, shopping malls, waste management and recycling facilities, sports centres, and public areas.

Technocrats plan for Urbanates to be something akin to resorts, designed to give each citizen the highest standard of living possible. Getting around in an Urbanate would be inherently easy and efficient. Every kind of major facility would be placed within walking distance of a housing complex, eliminating the need for cars.

Urbanates would be connected via a continent-wide transportation network envisioned by Technocracy, which would involve a High-speed rail network linking every Urbanate, the Continental Hydrology (a massive Canal network), and air transport. These systems would also be connected to the Technate's industrial sites for easy transport of goods to consumers, and to all recreational and vacation areas of the continent.

The reason given by Technate advocates for all this ambitious restructuring of urban life is that modern cities are often extremely poorly planned and built in a haphazard way leading to major inefficiencies, waste, and large numbers of social and environmental problems. Technocrats believe that rather than trying to solve all these problems within the framework of existing cities, it is best to start with a clean slate and construct Urbanates when needed.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,645 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 03:39 pm
Sound silly to me. Can scientists "prove" that murder is "bad"? If not then we'd be free to murder whomever we chose right?

Whether a society is religious or secular, they all have moral standards that are implemented into laws. Science can't prove or disprove morals so any law based on a moral code would be out by the listed description.

As I've said numerous time before, science is great for telling us what is possible and what isn't. It does a piss poor job of telling us what should or shouldn't be done however...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 03:42 pm
I also have a sneaking suspicion that this:

Quote:
Technocracy is a governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly skilled and qualified they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.


Would quickly become a system in which those who performed the judgment of how skilled and qualified someone is would become the politicians. It isn't at all clear how skilled and qualified people are for a wide variety of situations; there is no easy written or oral exam for, say, the presidency, or a senator...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 03:48 pm
Urbanites would also greatly enhance social interaction and communal bonding.

fishin you're not thinking clearly,

A 6 year old with a tube sock could prove that murders are bad. They increase fear, anger, hatred, violence, and decrease productivity.

Reread my post. It clearly describes technocracy as an application of the scientific method to fields such as sociology and economics, and implementing the results.

Find me one sociologist worth his salt who can't show that murders have a negative impact on society.

Education, Knowledge & Insight can't be faked nearly as easily as ideology can. Right now, we have people like Bush getting into office promising a smaller govt, decreased spending, bipartisan leadership and a humble foriegn policy (a direct quote by him), who do the exact opposite once in office.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:03 pm
Centroles wrote:
fishin you're not thinking clearly,

A 6 year old with a tube sock could prove that murders are bad. They increase fear, anger, hatred, violence, and decrease productivity.

Reread my post. It clearly describes technocracy as an application of the scientific method to fields such as sociology and economics, and implementing the results.

Find me one sociologist worth his salt who can't show that murders have a negative impact on society.



You just eliminated yourself from the pool of possible ruling elites. Maybe when you reach 6 you'll get a tube sock and a clue?

"Bad" is a subjective moral determination and can't be proven or disproven scientifically and therefore, falls outside the parameters of your technoracy's authority to control.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:07 pm
You're saying that one can't determine what is good or bad for productivity of society and the happiness of people living within it by applying the scientific method to social sciences?

Bullshit.

Studying what makes people happy and content within a society is practically half of what psychology and sociology study.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:11 pm
So in a roundabout way we are back to Plato and his Philosopher Kings.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:12 pm
Did Plato ever apply the scientific method to make determinations about key tenets of psychology and sociology?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:18 pm
Centroles wrote:
Did Plato ever apply the scientific method to make determinations about key tenets of psychology and sociology?
Yes he did in that he mentored Aristotle.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:27 pm
That's a pretty long strech. Rolling Eyes

I've seen rubber bands less elastic.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:31 pm
Centroles wrote:
That's a pretty long strech. Rolling Eyes

I've seen rubber bands less elastic.
about as long a stretch as "key tenets of psychology and sociology"
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:31 pm
Centroles wrote:
You're saying that one can't determine what is good or bad for productivity of society and the happiness of people living within itby applying the scientific method to social sciences?

Bullshit.


No, what I'm saying that any determination of "good" or "bad" is a moral decision - not a scientific one. It has a big fat zip to do with productivity or hapiness.

There is no good/bad in science. Things are considered "good" when they lead to a scientist's desired state and "bad" when they lead to an undesired state. But desired/undesired are moral determinations.

Look at medical science. Pretty much all of it is based on a moral premise that "extending life is good". What scientific proof is there that being alive is a "better" condition then being dead? You can't get there without first making a moral determination.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 04:47 pm
Couple of questions, Centroles:

1) What powers would your technocratic government have over citizens? On what technocratic basis would one decide how much power it ought to have over them?

2) You are using the passive voice when you say that "decision makers are selected based upon how highly skilled and qualified they are". That's a little vague: Who selects the decision makers, and by what constitutional process? How does the constitution make sure that it's scientist and engineers who end up controlling government decisions, rather than powerful bureaucrats politicizing science?

3) What does a technocratic government optimize society for? On what technocratic basis does it decide what society ought to be optimized for?

I'm sure I'll have more.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 05:34 pm
Re: Technocracy >>>>> Democracy
Centroles wrote:
Technocracy is a governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly skilled and qualified they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.


Right here you have the source of the failure of your utopian technocracy. Politicians are the necessary agents of compromise and cooperation among the competing interest groups of any society. Winston Churchill is famously alleged to have said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others which have been tried. Even in absolutist monarchies or dictatorial and totalitarian states, there are sufficient divergent interests to make politics and diplomacy necessary. Even someone like Stalin or Hitler had to negotiate with at least a small group of people in responsible positions who all had their own agendae, their own "turf" to protect.

Democracy is (or can be, if not subverted by venal individuals concerned only with their personal share of power) the most effective form of government for large numbers of people because when the people choose politicians, they are choosing negotiators who are intended to find an at least tolerable balance of interests. Your technocrats would, in fact, be little better, and might be a good deal worse, than the commisars and chairmen of soviets in a totalitarian system. There would be no reason for technocrats to balance the needs and desires of the members of society, and they would sooner or later--and likely sooner rather than later--impose on the populace to an unacceptable degree.
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 12:14 am
@Setanta,
At this point, I don't trust anybody to make the right calls.

So I recant.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Technocracy >>>>> Democracy
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 05:00:45