|
Do you think that a Technocracy could work anywhere in the world?
What is a Technocracy you ask?
A Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals, and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields.
So do you think that it would be able to accelerate scientific discovery and advancement and how do you think it would affect the economy of the given country?\
I for one feel that this is exactly what we need and will end the OP with a quote from Winston Churchill.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
How about this, I imagine a technocracy having about a dozen represenatives in each field and their decisions would need a scientific research paper sort of outlining why they made their decision, so people in those respective fields can peer review their decisions. I think that would be able to prevent any corruption.
|
What is this doing in the SC2 General forum lol
Is this asking if the leaders of the world should be decided by their skill in SC2? Sounds like an awesome manga
|
On August 12 2011 16:51 Emporio wrote:
What is this doing in the SC2 General forum lol
Is this asking if the leaders of the world should be decided by their skill in SC2? Sounds like an awesome manga
I'm cool with president Nestea unless that means nerfs to Protoss and Terran by federal command
|
President Professor Nestea would nerf zerg just to make things more of a challenge, and he still would be undefeatable.
|
professor Tea would make an excellent commander
|
On August 12 2011 16:51 Emporio wrote:
What is this doing in the SC2 General forum lol
Is this asking if the leaders of the world should be decided by their skill in SC2? Sounds like an awesome manga
Interesting idea - not really comfortable with Blizzard having complete control of the parameters though. If they or their supporters don't like World President Nestea out comes the nerf stick for Zerg.
|
On August 12 2011 16:52 Sworn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 16:51 Emporio wrote:
What is this doing in the SC2 General forum lol
Is this asking if the leaders of the world should be decided by their skill in SC2? Sounds like an awesome manga I'm cool with president Nestea unless that means nerfs to Protoss and Terran by federal command
And the thread goes down hill from here,
Personally I think Boxer, community proclaimed emperor, should lead. The man has far more experiance and credentials (bw, not sc2) than nestea.
|
Hurry mods, the peeps in General will be confused at the first 5 posts xD.
|
That sounds like haters of president MC trying to sabotage him. But he hasn't been impeached yet!
On the other hand, automated tournaments may indeed be the future...
|
i think this should be in blogs or general forums 
mods please dont close this D: i want some discussions for thissss cuz its pretty interesting
|
Actually I'm very strongly in favour of the technocracy concept, but maybe mixed with a form of democracy.
I don't understand how a guy with a degree in business should be appointed communications (technology) minster, or a lawyer head of health. It really makes no sense.
|
Blazinghand
United States25558 Posts
On August 12 2011 16:51 Emporio wrote:
What is this doing in the SC2 General forum lol
Is this asking if the leaders of the world should be decided by their skill in SC2? Sounds like an awesome manga
I would totally read that manga. Instead of elections, they'd have National Starleague Tournament. Imagine like G Gundam meets Death Note but twice as awesome and with all our favorite characters progamers.
|
Defy Overlord Tea at your own peril
|
fight wars by playing sc2 imo. south korea would conquer the whole world in the span of a GSL season though.
|
|
|
it seems like a very, very vague concept. are representatives from certain fields elected by the people? by their peers? is there a president or just a council of representatives? how do you make sure the different fields are represented fairly? and so on and so forth. a system based on merit rather than public approval seems nice... but I absolutely think that the general population needs a say and obviously checks and balances need to be put in place.
|
Theoretically as grand as communism, with a very low plausibility with society's current form.
In a few centuries though, very likely.
|
The flaw isn't in the systems themselves but in people. If you had a technocracy then those in charge would simply abuse it and suppress things challenging to their viewpoints. Just like now everyone talks over each other.
|
On August 12 2011 17:08 Jombozeus wrote:
Theoretically as grand as communism, with a very low plausibility with society's current form.
In a few centuries though, very likely.
I disagree. The sort of people who think they are able to make the big decisions for the general populous are exactly the sort that aren't experts.
|
Probably could not be worse than the current system... I mean, I studied computer science, and when I look at the politicians in France voting some absurd, misinformed, nonsensical and impossible to enforce, the laws regarding Internet/New technologies these last couple of years, I am absolutely TERRIFIED about what the hell they are doing in domains that I don't understand properly, like healthcare, economy or whatever, because looking at their actions in stuff that I understand, I assume that in the domains that I don't understand they are doing the same ridiculous decisions, and I'm not even realising what is happening.
Dunno if my point is very clear but, yeah, Technocracy always seemed a good idea to me. That said it probably should be mixed with democracy to some extent to prevent abuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
