• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 14:06
CEST 20:06
KST 03:06
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202560RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 What tournaments are world championships? RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 882 users

Could a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 10

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 8 9 10 11 12 40 Next All
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
August 12 2011 15:05 GMT
#181
On August 12 2011 23:36 haduken wrote:
B) The lack of empathy. Scientists care little about your average citizens. Sometimes the populace do things that are against logic. Public mood can swing one way or another and a scientist is not equipped to deal with that unless he has prior experiences in political science which will end up like the system we have now. Scientists would have less patient for people's opinions when he consider himself smarter than them and a scientist is just as likely as the next person to be influenced by interest groups.

This rather bad and very insulting argument. It also shows you have no experience with scientists. Why the hell would they lack empathy, they are not robots. If anything in history highly educated people showed more empathy. Also if anyone, current politicians lack empathy in much greater degree as politics is basically fight for power and that attracts more ruthless people.
Saji
Profile Joined December 2010
Netherlands262 Posts
August 12 2011 15:11 GMT
#182
On August 13 2011 00:05 paradox_ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 23:59 Effay wrote:
basically anything would be better than democracy


Live in a monarchy where you aren't in the favoured class and then say something like "basically anything would be better than a monarchy".
Live in a totalitarian state where you disagree with what the dictator wants and then repeat that.

At least in a democratic society you're free to say statements like this. I wonder if you've lived outside a democracy at all where you're not in the favoured class/group of people.



Democracy is not free. If you are different you will be an outcast of a democratic society if you don't conform to the norm you will have a hard time well me what is being free about that?

Being able to say something has absolutely nothing to do with being free
meadbert
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States681 Posts
August 12 2011 15:14 GMT
#183
On August 12 2011 16:49 AustinCM wrote:
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."

Shit, wrong forum, please move to the General forum...


Economic decision making is more about knowledge than intelligence. If you know the supply and demand of goods, then picking prices becomes fairly trivial.

I wake up in the morning. I must now decide Milk or Juice.
Option one is to delegate that task to some high IQ expert living far away who has never met and let them decide what I have.
Option two is to consult with myself about which I think tastes better in general. Am a crazing protein? Does juice upset my empty stomach? Does milk give me gas?

When making such a decision, which is a typical economic decision, knowledge is far more important than intelligence, thus it makes no sense to ignore the knowledge of the vast majority of the population.
paradox_
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada270 Posts
August 12 2011 15:15 GMT
#184
On August 13 2011 00:04 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 23:58 paradox_ wrote:
The disagreements on matters of science aren't the issue. When there are limited resources, there are always going to be disagreements on how to distribute those resources, regardless of who gets to decide. You put in scientists in charge of distributing funds within the sciences, you're going to get biologists vs physicists etc. Who gets to decide whether cancer research or particle physics is more important for the human condition and progress. No scientist is an expert on both, and even if one existed, there's always going to be bias just as there would be for any normal politician. You make it sound as if politicians flip a coin to decide. They have experts and read reports etc. Even during a thesis defence the committee is not necessarily going to be an expert on the topic. They go over it just as a politician would go over it and make a judgement on whether it is valid or not, deserves funding or not etc.


Distribution of funds is not a biology or physics issue. That's an economics one.


Everything comes back to the economics of the situation, why do you need non-economic experts then? What is a biologist expert in government going to decide?


Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 23:58 paradox_ wrote:
You can't use SC2 as an analogy at all because in SC2 choices made in a game only affect 1 person. The choices that result from this affect a larger amount. In SC2 you can discuss as much as you want and you can repeatedly try different things and show results. In the case of government, its far more complex and you don't have a "New Game" button.


The point I'm making is that with any subject, experts agree on more things than noobs do. This is because noobs believe in things that are objectively wrong, whereas experts understand the scientific consensus and instead disagree on the edges of science and new research.


Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 23:58 paradox_ wrote:
Somehow thinking a group of scientists are going to be more rational than a group of politicians is silly. Scientists can be just as extremist as a a religious extremist.


You have no idea how stupid this sounds, do you?

You make an SC2 analogy then call this comparison stupid? Before we discuss further I would like you to explain to me what experts in whatever science of your choosing would decide in government as an example. I'm honestly confused what you think is going to happen.



Malmis
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
Sweden1569 Posts
August 12 2011 15:15 GMT
#185
On August 12 2011 23:56 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 23:51 Malmis wrote:
I think one problem is that the knowledge of experts in their respective fields are usually irrelevant at the policy level. To take medicine for example: A doctor might be the most knowledgeable person in the world regarding some specific treatment but would this knowledge give him any relevant insights into how medical care is to be supplied?


This is actually due to confusion about the field of expertise in question.

You're right that a doctor would not be the most knowledgeable in how medical care is supplied. But we also have professionals in the fields of public health and health administration. Those would be the relevant experts here, not the doctors.

In a more technocratic government, we would listen to public health and health administration experts when we enact something such as health care reform. In our system, Congress mostly ignored them and instead did what was politically expedient a couple years ago.



True,

Although i would argue that the relevant policy expert in most the controversial issues of the present day isn't some "ground level" expert (like an aerospace engineer at NASA) or an administrator, rather, it's the economist.

What issues like the war on drugs, free trade, the structure of the tax system, the supply side of health care and immigration boils down to is "What is most economically efficient?" (or at least a very big part of). And when it comes to questions of economic efficiency the relevant expert is the economist.
To Suport@Bethsoft.com: okay so i completed morrowind.. um, can i have my life back now?
paradox_
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada270 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-12 15:20:47
August 12 2011 15:18 GMT
#186
On August 13 2011 00:11 Saji wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 13 2011 00:05 paradox_ wrote:
On August 12 2011 23:59 Effay wrote:
basically anything would be better than democracy


Live in a monarchy where you aren't in the favoured class and then say something like "basically anything would be better than a monarchy".
Live in a totalitarian state where you disagree with what the dictator wants and then repeat that.

At least in a democratic society you're free to say statements like this. I wonder if you've lived outside a democracy at all where you're not in the favoured class/group of people.



Democracy is not free. If you are different you will be an outcast of a democratic society if you don't conform to the norm you will have a hard time well me what is being free about that?

Being able to say something has absolutely nothing to do with being free


Nothing in this world is free. And if freedom of speech isn't something to do with being free, what would be? Anarchy?

Edit: Honestly everyone trying to make a point should attempt at making an argument that is articulated further than "democracy sux" & "we're not really free yo"
paradox_
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada270 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-12 15:28:48
August 12 2011 15:27 GMT
#187
On August 13 2011 00:05 mcc wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 23:36 haduken wrote:
B) The lack of empathy. Scientists care little about your average citizens. Sometimes the populace do things that are against logic. Public mood can swing one way or another and a scientist is not equipped to deal with that unless he has prior experiences in political science which will end up like the system we have now. Scientists would have less patient for people's opinions when he consider himself smarter than them and a scientist is just as likely as the next person to be influenced by interest groups.

This rather bad and very insulting argument. It also shows you have no experience with scientists. Why the hell would they lack empathy, they are not robots. If anything in history highly educated people showed more empathy. Also if anyone, current politicians lack empathy in much greater degree as politics is basically fight for power and that attracts more ruthless people.


Gandhi is probably on everyone's top 5 list if not on top of the list of most empathetic figures in history. He's not a scientist. He was a lawyer.
There are plenty of cases of highly educated doctors performing unethical research e.g. doctors in Nazi Germany that performed experiments on the Jewish population.

I'm not saying all scientists are evil and lawyers are empathetic but rather, empathy is independent of the type of education they recieved or if they received education at all (eg Mother Theresa was born to a politician father and had no real education as she decided to become a nun pretty young).

Edit: I just read who you responded to, I disagree with him as well but my point still stands on the matter of highly educated people showing more empathy.
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
August 12 2011 15:28 GMT
#188
On August 12 2011 23:56 agitprop wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 22:39 mcc wrote:
On August 12 2011 20:50 Jibba wrote:
I've already bit off more than I want to chew today in the Bear thread and a few more places, so I'll just say 'no', and then leave you with this essay by George Orwell.

+ Show Spoiler +
George Orwell

What is Science?

In last week's Tribune, there was an interesting letter from Mr. J. Stewart Cook, in which he suggested that the best way of avoiding the danger of a ‘scientific hierarchy’ would be to see to it that every member of the general public was, as far as possible, scientifically educated. At the same time, scientists should be brought out of their isolation and encouraged to take a greater part in politics and administration.

As a general statement, I think most of us would agree with this, but I notice that, as usual, Mr. Cook does not define science, and merely implies in passing that it means certain exact sciences whose experiments can be made under laboratory conditions. Thus, adult education tends ‘to neglect scientific studies in favour of literary, economic and social subjects’, economics and sociology not being regarded as branches of science. Apparently. This point is of great importance. For the word science is at present used in at least two meanings, and the whole question of scientific education is obscured by the current tendency to dodge from one meaning to the other.

Science is generally taken as meaning either (a) the exact sciences, such as chemistry, physics, etc., or (b) a method of thought which obtains verifiable results by reasoning logically from observed fact.
If you ask any scientist, or indeed almost any educated person, ‘What is science?’ you are likely to get an answer approximating to (b). In everyday life, however, both in speaking and in writing, when people say ‘science’ they mean (a). Science means something that happens in a laboratory: the very word calls up a picture of graphs, test-tubes, balances, Bunsen burners, microscopes. A biologist, and astronomer, perhaps a psychologist or a mathematician is described as a ‘man of science’: no one would think of applying this term to a statesman, a poet, a journalist or even a philosopher. And those who tell us that the young must be scientifically educated mean, almost invariably, that they should be taught more about radioactivity, or the stars, or the physiology or their own bodies, rather than that they should be taught to think more exactly.

This confusion of meaning, which is partly deliberate, has in it a great danger. Implied in the demand for more scientific education is the claim that if one has been scientifically trained one's approach to all subjects will be more intelligent than if one had had no such training. A scientist's political opinions, it is assumed, his opinions on sociological questions, on morals, on philosophy, perhaps even on the arts, will be more valuable than those of a layman. The world, in other words, would be a better place if the scientists were in control of it. But a ‘scientist’, as we have just seen, means in practice a specialist in one of the exact sciences. It follows that a chemist or a physicist, as such, is politically more intelligent than a poet or a lawyer, as such. And, in fact, there are already millions of people who do believe this.

But is it really true that a ‘scientist’, in this narrower sense, is any likelier than other people to approach non-scientific problems in an objective way? There is not much reason for thinking so. Take one simple test — the ability to withstand nationalism. It is often loosely said that ‘Science is international’, but in practice the scientific workers of all countries line up behind their own governments with fewer scruples than are felt by the writers and the artists. The German scientific community, as a whole, made no resistance to Hitler. Hitler may have ruined the long-term prospects of German science, but there were still plenty of gifted men to do the necessary research on such things as synthetic oil, jet planes, rocket projectiles and the atomic bomb. Without them the German war machine could never have been built up.

On the other hand, what happened to German literature when the Nazis came to power? I believe no exhaustive lists have been published, but I imagine that the number of German scientists — Jews apart — who voluntarily exiled themselves or were persecuted by the règime was much smaller than the number of writers and journalists. More sinister than this, a number of German scientists swallowed the monstrosity of ‘racial science’. You can find some of the statements to which they set their names in Professor Brady's The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism.

But, in slightly different forms, it is the same picture everywhere. In England, a large proportion of our leading scientists accept the structure of capitalist society, as can be seen from the comparative freedom with which they are given knighthoods, baronetcies and even peerages. Since Tennyson, no English writer worth reading — one might, perhaps, make an exception of Sir Max Beerbohm — has been given a title. And those English scientists who do not simply accept the status quo are frequently Communists, which means that, however intellectually scrupulous they may be in their own line of work, they are ready to be uncritical and even dishonest on certain subjects. The fact is that a mere training in one or more of the exact sciences, even combined with very high gifts, is no guarantee of a humane or sceptical outlook. The physicists of half a dozen great nations, all feverishly and secretly working away at the atomic bomb, are a demonstration of this.
But does all this mean that the general public should not be more scientifically educated? On the contrary! All it means is that scientific education for the masses will do little good, and probably a lot of harm, if it simply boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc., to the detriment of literature and history. Its probable effect on the average human being would be to narrow the range of his thoughts and make him more than ever contemptuous of such knowledge as he did not possess: and his political reactions would probably be somewhat less intelligent than those of an illiterate peasant who retained a few historical memories and a fairly sound aesthetic sense.

Clearly, scientific education ought to mean the implanting of a rational, sceptical, experimental habit of mind. It ought to mean acquiring a method — a method that can be used on any problem that one meets — and not simply piling up a lot of facts. Put it in those words, and the apologist of scientific education will usually agree. Press him further, ask him to particularize, and somehow it always turns out that scientific education means more attention to the sciences, in other words — more facts. The idea that science means a way of looking at the world, and not simply a body of knowledge, is in practice strongly resisted. I think sheer professional jealousy is part of the reason for this. For if science is simply a method or an attitude, so that anyone whose thought-processes are sufficiently rational can in some sense be described as a scientist — what then becomes of the enormous prestige now enjoyed by the chemist, the physicist, etc. and his claim to be somehow wiser than the rest of us?

A hundred years ago, Charles Kingsley described science as ‘making nasty smell in a laboratory’. A year or two ago a young industrial chemist informed me, smugly, that he ‘could not see what was the use of poetry’. So the pendulum swings to and fro, but it does not seem to me that one attitude is any better than the other. At the moment, science is on the upgrade, and so we hear, quite rightly, the claim that the masses should be scientifically educated: we do not hear, as we ought, the counter-claim that the scientists themselves would benefit by a little education. Just before writing this, I saw in an American magazine the statement that a number of British and American physicists refused from the start to do research on the atomic bomb, well knowing what use would be made of it. Here you have a group of same men in the middle of a world of lunatics. And though no names were published, I think it would be a safe guess that all of them were people with some kind of general cultural background, some acquaintance with history or literature or the arts — in short, people whose interests were not, in the current sense of the word, purely scientific.

+ Show Spoiler +
Orwell's text is full of conjecture's without supporting data. Also it has no bearing on discussion if technocracy(there are many flavors) would be improvement upon current system. Noone is probably saying it would be a perfect system.

Just to point out some problems I have with his arguments. He brings an example of scientists vs writers(+..) in Nazi Germany. Not that he actually has any data. In Eastern bloc the situation was in my opinion (again without any data, just my limited observation) somewhat different. But in general I think the situation is much more different. Scientists are just much less interested in politics and all the drama, they want to be left alone. So I would argue that even if he is right that there was more writers/artists/... that actively opposed nazism there was also more writers/artists/... that actively helped nazism. And since we are talking about opinions I will put forward my hypothesis. The way that writers/artists/... are easily recruited for a cause is more a bad thing than a good thing. As they are easily swayed by extremes on either side. From my own experience nations that have somewhat "cultural apathy" in national psyche are in the end much more peaceful. In some circumstances like defending against aggression it is a bad attribute, but in peaceful times it leads to less extremes, less drama. That was kind of off-topic, but shows why I dislike his argument.

That was just one of the problems with his opinion.


It is interesting that you can dismiss Orwell's concerns by re-labeling them conjectures and then attacking only one of his supporting points. From my point of view as the reader this is both intellectually indolent and a feeble response.

Because they are conjectures. They are nothing more than opinions. He did not provide any evidence for his arguments other than rhetoric. Also note that I said that his whole quote does not really address current discussion very much. He is talking about pitfalls of concentrating on specific type of education not really on why democracy is better than technocracy, especially since they can overlap. His characterization of scientists is also as far from truth as yours.

On August 12 2011 23:56 agitprop wrote:
Orwell appears to be mostly in line with my opinion. Scientists have very specialized knowledge, and if government were able to be efficiently compartmentalized into such specific domains, scientists would make good leaders. This is not the case, however. Good leaders by necessity need to be multi-disciplinary, empathic, experts in the human condition, dynamic, flexible, willing to compromise, etc. I would assert that you do not want any of these qualities in most scientists, notably excepting the obvious.

Scientists, on the other hand, seem to make excellent advisors, in that their point of view as people who rigidly (dogmatically?) pursue the truth tends to give a healthy perspective in a decision making body or individual.

Your characterization of scientists is pure fiction, cliche from sci-fi movies. Scientists often have those qualities that you prescribe for leaders. Also elected leaders more often than not are lacking on those qualities you so desire.

On August 12 2011 23:56 agitprop wrote:
Moreover, I would like to say that the nature of your whole post is an excellent example of why technocracy is an undesirable political model. You ask for hard data in what can only amount to an NP complete problem. The discussion will absolutely have to be done in a qualitative manner for great stretches at a time. What great leaders made their decisions by the abacus? How do you measure "great leader"? When and where possible it is nice to have hard data that strongly indicates an acceptable solution, but while scientists try to do very little without 'hard data', I fear that for the rest of at least my life we will need leaders who can make excellent decisions without scientific rigor. Thus, scientists who are trained to think in very constrained ways probably will make for bad leaders.

I ask for data that support his claims, this has nothing to do with NP-complete problems. As for real life problems, yes they are likely NP-complete, so what ? Scientist/engineers are more than capable and trained to make calls without complete information. Again you display that you probably never met one scientist.

And just to note NP-complete problems are bitch to find optimal solution. But if sub-optimal solution is good enough, and in real life problems this is always the case, often even very close-to-optimal solution can be found in P time.
Saji
Profile Joined December 2010
Netherlands262 Posts
August 12 2011 15:29 GMT
#189
On August 13 2011 00:18 paradox_ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 13 2011 00:11 Saji wrote:
On August 13 2011 00:05 paradox_ wrote:
On August 12 2011 23:59 Effay wrote:
basically anything would be better than democracy


Live in a monarchy where you aren't in the favoured class and then say something like "basically anything would be better than a monarchy".
Live in a totalitarian state where you disagree with what the dictator wants and then repeat that.

At least in a democratic society you're free to say statements like this. I wonder if you've lived outside a democracy at all where you're not in the favoured class/group of people.



Democracy is not free. If you are different you will be an outcast of a democratic society if you don't conform to the norm you will have a hard time well me what is being free about that?

Being able to say something has absolutely nothing to do with being free


Nothing in this world is free. And if freedom of speech isn't something to do with being free, what would be? Anarchy?

Edit: Honestly everyone trying to make a point should attempt at making an argument that is articulated further than "democracy sux" & "we're not really free yo"


Really I question that... When you look at a flower without any prejudice, your just looking just observing that is free.

I understand why you react this way because your whole existence is based on democracy and if someone questions that you go on auto defense (I`m saying you but i don't mean it personal)

And if what you claim is to be true that nothing is free why has the human race always fought for freedom? if nothing of that is true then slaves would remain slaves right?

Aristocrats would still rule the land right? You would follow order blindly right? But do you do that?

And if freedom of speech has nothing to do with being free than why is that word in it? and why is it so important it place such a important factor in our live, through out our live.

If you are with friends, friends that you can question that you don't care saying what you think, even if you know they don't like it or disagree that is freedom right there.
sevia
Profile Joined May 2010
United States954 Posts
August 12 2011 15:29 GMT
#190
What defines an 'expert' in a field? In some areas you can easily demonstrate knowledge (e.g. climate science), but in others, what passes for 'expert' is subjective (e.g. economics, ethics).

Apply this to recent history to see what a disaster it would be. A small panel of experts regarding terrorism and foreign policy, a small panel of experts regarding Wall St. and financial crisis, a small panel of experts regarding taxation and budgeting, etc. It would be the same situation we're in now, with each side constantly trying to convince the public that they are the true experts.

It would be nice if this were used for things like drug legalization, environmental regulation, and other issues where there are studies and research to confirm the correct decision. But even then, people will disagree based purely on personal belief and misinformation (I'm sure a few people even here get prickly when I mention controversial issues like that and state that there is a correct decision).
최지성 Bomber || 김동환 viOLet || 고병재 GuMiho
bonifaceviii
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada2890 Posts
August 12 2011 15:29 GMT
#191
I can understand the OP's line of reasoning.

Government hires technical consultants to look into issues and report back with reccommendations. Why not eliminate the middle-man and make the technical people the ones who make the decisions?

The problem is there would be no central decision-making body, just a bunch of cloistered, separate divisions that all administer their work from their own discipline's point of view with no over-arching (as awful and meaningless as this word is)... vision.

Unless you're saying that public administration "professionals" would be that body, in which case it's not qualitatively different than it is today.
Stay a while and listen || http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=354018
Hermasaurus
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
54 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-12 15:31:36
August 12 2011 15:30 GMT
#192
On August 12 2011 23:32 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 23:30 Hermasaurus wrote:
You lack the ability to see from a different perspective. Instead of a technocracy, why don't you look into dictatorship.


You have no idea what you're talking about, so instead you try to attack me by equating technocracy with dictatorship. GTFO of the thread, troll.

Coming from I had 50 posts before this thread, and I've reached 200 by posting every other post for 9 pages.
Glad to see you've found a topic you think you know something about.

We understand your opinion, why don't you allow other people to convey their own.
And guess what, you've wandered into our school of tuna and we now have a taste of lion. We've talked to ourselves. We've communicated and said 'You know what, lion tastes good, let's go get some more lion'
Dragom
Profile Joined December 2010
194 Posts
August 12 2011 15:31 GMT
#193
Yes, i dont understand why we elected generals with no political experience and then blame them when the economy is bad and they start a war with some obscure country.
"The second thing to go is your memory...ergh, I can't remember what the first thing is..."
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-12 15:37:17
August 12 2011 15:33 GMT
#194
On August 13 2011 00:15 paradox_ wrote:
Everything comes back to the economics of the situation, why do you need non-economic experts then? What is a biologist expert in government going to decide?


Economists determine funding, but legislation within the field is determined by those experts. For example, biologists would decide that teaching evolution is mandatory and creationism is banned, stem-cell research should be allowed, etc.Additionally, economists would base their funding decisions based on information provided by the biologists.

On August 13 2011 00:15 paradox_ wrote:
Before we discuss further I would like you to explain to me what experts in whatever science of your choosing would decide in government as an example. I'm honestly confused what you think is going to happen.


An easy example would be the current debt crisis. Here's how it would work in a technocracy.

The members of the National Academy of Sciences (Economic Sciences) analyze the situation and crunch the numbers. They arrive at a consensus over how to handle the problem, and submit a proposed budget. Congress looks it over, makes constrained modifications to ensure that no constituency is disproportionately impacted in terms of gain or harm, and then pass it off to the President to sign. The public grumbles at the massive spending cuts and tax increases, but the deficit is closed and the debt comes under control within a few years. How's that?

On August 13 2011 00:30 Hermasaurus wrote:
Coming from I had 50 posts before this thread, and I've reached 200 by posting every other post for 9 pages.
Glad to see you've found a topic you think you know something about.

We understand your opinion, why don't you allow other people to convey their own.


Thanks for continuing to contribute nothing to the thread!
bonifaceviii
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada2890 Posts
August 12 2011 15:36 GMT
#195
On August 13 2011 00:33 sunprince wrote:
An easy example would be the current debt crisis. Here's how it would work in a technocracy.

The members of the National Academy of Sciences (Economic Sciences) analyze the situation and crunch the numbers. They arrive at a consensus over how to handle the problem, and submit a proposed budget. Congress looks it over, makes constrained modifications to ensure that no constituency is disproportionately impacted in terms of gain or harm, and then pass it off to the President to sign. The public grumbles at the massive spending cuts and tax increases, but the deficit is closed and the debt comes under control within a few years. How's that?

HAHAHA, because that's not political at all and completely scientific
Stay a while and listen || http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=354018
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-12 15:40:42
August 12 2011 15:38 GMT
#196
On August 13 2011 00:36 bonifaceviii wrote:
HAHAHA, because that's not political at all and completely scientific


It's not pure technocracy, no. It's a simple example of how we could shift the existing system towards technocracy.

If you want, you can also make it more extreme by removing the Congressional component entirely, or even the President.

The key point, though, is the technocratic policymaking process.
NoobSkills
Profile Joined August 2009
United States1598 Posts
August 12 2011 15:41 GMT
#197
On August 12 2011 16:49 AustinCM wrote:
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."

Shit, wrong forum, please move to the General forum...


About 50% of the voters shouldn't be voting.
BUT having the top dogs from the private sector run things will lead to more corruption and stealing. It will always happen.
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-12 15:43:06
August 12 2011 15:42 GMT
#198
On August 13 2011 00:29 bonifaceviii wrote:
Government hires technical consultants to look into issues and report back with reccommendations. Why not eliminate the middle-man and make the technical people the ones who make the decisions?

The problem is there would be no central decision-making body, just a bunch of cloistered, separate divisions that all administer their work from their own discipline's point of view with no over-arching (as awful and meaningless as this word is)... vision.

Unless you're saying that public administration "professionals" would be that body, in which case it's not qualitatively different than it is today.


It's not necessary to eliminate the middle-man entirely, as I avoided doing so in my proposed example. The main issue is that, currently, the government doesn't actually listen to the technical consultants.

On August 13 2011 00:41 NoobSkills wrote:
About 50% of the voters shouldn't be voting.
BUT having the top dogs from the private sector run things will lead to more corruption and stealing. It will always happen.


Technocrats =/= top dogs from the private sector. Mostly they're the top dogs from academia, if anything.
Saji
Profile Joined December 2010
Netherlands262 Posts
August 12 2011 15:42 GMT
#199
On August 13 2011 00:36 bonifaceviii wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 13 2011 00:33 sunprince wrote:
An easy example would be the current debt crisis. Here's how it would work in a technocracy.

The members of the National Academy of Sciences (Economic Sciences) analyze the situation and crunch the numbers. They arrive at a consensus over how to handle the problem, and submit a proposed budget. Congress looks it over, makes constrained modifications to ensure that no constituency is disproportionately impacted in terms of gain or harm, and then pass it off to the President to sign. The public grumbles at the massive spending cuts and tax increases, but the deficit is closed and the debt comes under control within a few years. How's that?

HAHAHA, because that's not political at all and completely scientific


This is a perfect example why it would not work...

You don't the solve the problem because the root cause of it is not even been identified.... the fact that the debt grew that much should ring an alarm on what has been done but that part is totally negated while trying to lower the debt

and after a while the same problem will arise and the same reason the same line of thought is applied and we will have more problems
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
August 12 2011 15:43 GMT
#200
On August 13 2011 00:27 paradox_ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 13 2011 00:05 mcc wrote:
On August 12 2011 23:36 haduken wrote:
B) The lack of empathy. Scientists care little about your average citizens. Sometimes the populace do things that are against logic. Public mood can swing one way or another and a scientist is not equipped to deal with that unless he has prior experiences in political science which will end up like the system we have now. Scientists would have less patient for people's opinions when he consider himself smarter than them and a scientist is just as likely as the next person to be influenced by interest groups.

This rather bad and very insulting argument. It also shows you have no experience with scientists. Why the hell would they lack empathy, they are not robots. If anything in history highly educated people showed more empathy. Also if anyone, current politicians lack empathy in much greater degree as politics is basically fight for power and that attracts more ruthless people.


Gandhi is probably on everyone's top 5 list if not on top of the list of most empathetic figures in history. He's not a scientist. He was a lawyer.
There are plenty of cases of highly educated doctors performing unethical research e.g. doctors in Nazi Germany that performed experiments on the Jewish population.

I'm not saying all scientists are evil and lawyers are empathetic but rather, empathy is independent of the type of education they recieved or if they received education at all (eg Mother Theresa was born to a politician father and had no real education as she decided to become a nun pretty young).

Edit: I just read who you responded to, I disagree with him as well but my point still stands on the matter of highly educated people showing more empathy.

You are kind of right as I did not word my point properly. First we are talking statistics, so individual examples are not disqualifying my point. Second, basically what I meant is that highly educated people in history showed more empathy towards people they were not close with. This basically because they think more about public policy issues and similar. So it is not capacity for empathy I am talking about. For example movement to abolish slavery came form educated circles, ...
Prev 1 8 9 10 11 12 40 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
14:00
King of the Hill #219
davetesta23
Liquipedia
Esports World Cup
11:00
2025 - Final Day
Serral vs ClassicLIVE!
EWC_Arena30284
ComeBackTV 5894
TaKeTV 1275
JimRising 957
Hui .773
3DClanTV 699
Fuzer 454
EnkiAlexander 330
Rex254
CranKy Ducklings168
Reynor161
SpeCial102
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
EWC_Arena30284
JimRising 957
Hui .773
Fuzer 454
Rex 254
Reynor 161
UpATreeSC 154
SpeCial 102
JuggernautJason10
StarCraft: Brood War
Shuttle 2977
Bisu 2657
Mini 913
Larva 800
Soma 392
actioN 339
EffOrt 257
Rush 128
TY 102
JYJ77
[ Show more ]
Shine 68
sorry 32
Aegong 26
sas.Sziky 26
yabsab 24
zelot 19
Terrorterran 16
JulyZerg 11
Sacsri 9
NaDa 6
soO 5
Dota 2
420jenkins697
League of Legends
Trikslyr60
Counter-Strike
fl0m3752
sgares402
oskar216
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu33
Other Games
gofns8880
FrodaN2273
tarik_tv2078
Beastyqt748
KnowMe191
crisheroes95
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• FirePhoenix3
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV961
League of Legends
• Nemesis4970
• TFBlade380
Other Games
• imaqtpie848
• Shiphtur381
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
15h 54m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
19h 54m
CSO Cup
21h 54m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
23h 54m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 14h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 19h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 23h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.