| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:18 Thorakh wrote: And that's why there's a bunch of wellrespected economists on the council of course. Well, economists tend not to agree on most matters. And where they do, you end up with fairly market-friendly policies that I'm not sure scientists would be too enamored with. | ||
|
paradox_
Canada270 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:40 Saji wrote: If your are free you don't impose things (how can freedom be imposed on others). I don't know what you mean by freedom in that context? Or are you talking about privileges when you say freedom? The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins. That boundary is what the government "imposes". | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:49 domovoi wrote: And that's where the vote comes in.Well, economists tend not to agree on most matters. And where they do, you end up with fairly market-friendly policies that I'm not sure scientists would be too enamored with. At least we'd have people with a clue disagreeing instead of a bunch of monkeys yelling stuff that they think will get them re-elected next term because the general public is about as smart as the backend of a goldfish. | ||
|
sorrowptoss
Canada1431 Posts
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." 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. This sounds too theoretical and utopic to be reality. It would never work. It's like a reminder of what Karl Marx hoped in the early 20th century and turned out to be a disastrous idea. And by the way, "I think that would be able to prevent any corruption" is a pretty ignorant statement because as long as there are humans there is corruption. Corruption is universal and has no way to be totally removed, ever. | ||
|
DerNebel
Denmark648 Posts
| ||
|
graph1k
United States97 Posts
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." | ||
|
Daray
6006 Posts
On August 12 2011 22:32 mopy wrote: I think democracy can work you just have make sure you get a wide spectrum of people into parliment. In Australia most politicians have background law or business, we don't have enough politicians with backgrounds in science, engineering, health, education ect. Finland has rednecks and ex-celebrities | ||
|
Timestreamer
Israel157 Posts
Why? Because we let them. There needs to be a better reason for why a specific person is chosen to make the right decisions. Moreover, a political power driven through scientific research alone can't be so easily persuaded one way or another, by populist demands, without them having a real reason to. "I do not know what the people want - but I do know what the people need" - David Ben Gurion. Right now we are focusing our resources too much on pleasing the general public. | ||
|
keeblur
United States826 Posts
| ||
|
brum
Hungary187 Posts
On August 12 2011 17:06 Krogzor Korea(North). wrote: What an absurd idea. I see what you did there. Or do i? | ||
|
RodrigoX
United States645 Posts
Basically what I see, is that we would have a period of terrible things happening, making life better once the technocracy was thrown out because they wouldnt stop abusing power. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:49 domovoi wrote: Well, economists tend not to agree on most matters. And where they do, you end up with fairly market-friendly policies that I'm not sure scientists would be too enamored with. they cant possibly be any less qualified than a bunch of people who can shout JOBS and EDUCATION the loudest though can they. | ||
|
julianto
2292 Posts
Although I must admit, I liked the sound of this utopian idea when I first read about it. It annoys me to see religious creationists trying to intrude into the biology classroom. | ||
|
Timestreamer
Israel157 Posts
On August 13 2011 05:34 RodrigoX wrote: I Think this is a fantastic "idea" but I dont really agree with the idea of the people wanting to make as many scientific advancements possible in charge. While I think that in the end it could prove to be great, But I dont see why if the worlds scientists were in charge of everything, they wouldnt abuse their power to pick the handcuffs of ethics. Basically what I see, is that we would have a period of terrible things happening, making life better once the technocracy was thrown out because they wouldnt stop abusing power. Well psychology and social sciences are still very much respected fields, so ethics wouldn't die out so quickly because it will actually be a part of the "government". But yes, I'd believe that once you get to a true technocracy, some ideas that now days seem to be ethically questionable will no longer be debated. For example eugenics - will you castrate people with a high chance of passing on a genetic disorder and such. It's kinda disturbing to think about this at first, but then again, if the cure for Alzheimer and cancer is an inch over the line - will you not cross it? "Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." - Thomas Stearns Eliot | ||
|
Daray
6006 Posts
On August 13 2011 05:38 julianto wrote: How would the government work coherently if every domain is looking out for its best interest? Does the distributor of money and power have to be as equally competent as all of the divisions it rules over? Although I must admit, I liked the sound of this utopian idea when I first read about it. It annoys me to see religious creationists trying to intrude into the biology classroom. I agree this would be fantastic if people weren't greedy by nature but i don't think it would be worse than it is now. | ||
|
Archontas
United States319 Posts
Yes, in an ideal world, decisions would be made by professionals with complete expertise in their field and total objectivity, but absolutely no political, career, or popular opinion concerns. Also, in an ideal world, everyone would have equal access to food, clean water, and medical care, research scientists would be treated like rock stars, beer would be free, and nice guys would get laid occasionally. We do not live in an ideal world. | ||
|
Avi-
Germany58 Posts
On August 13 2011 05:47 Archontas wrote: Concentrating any power in the hands of an appointed few, where they have no obligation to explain themselves or have any concerns about being replaced or even questioned, just opens the door further to making decisions for financial or social reasons rather than the 'right' ones. A bunch of really smart economists with no oversight invented the financial product of "derivatives" and melted the world's credit system. A lot of really smart doctors classified homosexuality as a mental illness until about 40 years ago. Really smart engineers launched a shuttle which exploded 73 seconds later. Your utopia is a fantasy. Yes, in an ideal world, decisions would be made by professionals with complete expertise in their field and total objectivity, but absolutely no political, career, or popular opinion concerns. Also, in an ideal world, everyone would have equal access to food, clean water, and medical care, research scientists would be treated like rock stars, beer would be free, and nice guys would get laid occasionally. We do not live in an ideal world. Ehm, i dont get you. Technocracy does not mean that people in power do not have concerns about being replaced. China is in fact a kind of technocracy. Their parliament is full of engineers and economists, but not professional politicians and they are all quite replaceable. And they did indeed quite well during last economical crisis. What is your point about very good economists and engineers who failed in their jobs? Do you implement that worse specialists with full control by public would be doing better? | ||
|
Archontas
United States319 Posts
Yes, public opinion can also support lots of bad policy, and its far from ideal as well. But you are correct, I'm saying that being answerable to the public really is better in the long term. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 13 2011 01:16 NoobSkills wrote: Best at their jobs, makes the most money, smartest = top dogs and from the private sector is where they would come from. No one who in favor of technocracy argues that merit should be determine by income. You're either woefully misinformed or strawmanning. On August 13 2011 01:18 paradox_ wrote: You're right, my economic theory is rather weak since my field of study is engineering but the point still stands. There are still going to be different schools of thought, maybe much more subtle but the differences are you said exist. There is no guarantee that those on the committee are more subjective to make decisions on public policy and will even come to a compromise faster than the senate. What you're proposing is basically another senate just on the matter of economics. You think economists are somehow going to show different human behaviour in that their "mini senate" isn't going to breakdown into the gong show that's occurring right now? To be frank, yes. Congress is driven primarily by political incentives, while technocrats are primarily driven by their knowledge. Plenty of research supports both of these. On August 13 2011 01:18 paradox_ wrote: You make it sound as if senators simply make up policy while on the toilet. They have experts and advisers on the matter at hand when they write policy. The senate is simply the forum to present ideas before the people elected make a decision on the value of the idea. You're forgiven because you're an engineer, but that's not how Congress works. Experts make policy suggestions, sure, but Congress rarely listens. Congress is also not the forum to debate the value of an idea, but a forum for political jockeying and exchanging favors in order to benefit constituents. On August 13 2011 01:18 paradox_ wrote: What you're saying is to simply move this forum to a more specialized location (NAS). Now what happens when the decisions made by this specialized body affects healthcare, because it will. Let's even assume they somehow manage to agree on a policy and then they try to execute it. Why are the other expert bodies going to respect their decision. Why are those that run medical services going to agree to the cuts that they take. How is the NAS going to decide what % can be cut from medical services and what % is going to be cut from education etc. Having technocratic bodies aren't going to solve anything, it'll simply just shift the problem elsewhere. Economists decide what % will be cut from education and what % will be cut from medical services, using the input provided by education and medical experts. The difference between this and Congressmen making decisions is obviously that you have experts making decisions, rather than politicians, which leads to decisions that are more knowledge-driven and less politics-driven. That's a good way to shift the problem. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 13 2011 01:20 Saji wrote: What do you base on that economist would truly address the root cause. (because either they don't want to see/recognize or they just aren't able to see it(if you look at what is done now right?) Economists are well aware of what the problems are. It's politicians who won't agree to fix them, because doing so is politically unpopular. On August 13 2011 01:20 Saji wrote: Is it because you identified economist as "experts" (people that have studied for it) and therefore they should now what is right (being able to see the root cause and act upon it)? Obviously economists are the ones best suited to determining problems with national debt. We in fact use them to determine the problem right now; government simply does not listen to them unless it's convenient. On August 13 2011 01:22 Jibba wrote: Here's a scenario. Two of the top medical researchers (think Robert Gallo) work for competing pharmaceutical companies each racing to find and patent a cure for Parkinson's disease. The two prospective medicines will use a different method to address the issue. Now these are your two top experts on the field of degenerative brain diseases, but they have their research positions first. When the government is deciding how to appropriate funds for research in that area, who do they turn to? Both of them are competing, and any "objective" third party will not have enough expertise to make a useful decision (seeing as medical technology development is very secretive.) If they're competing for government funding, then it would behoove them to disclose enough information about their research that other medical researchers and economists could evaluate the worthiness of their research. | ||
| ||
|
|
Big Brain Bouts
Elazer vs Nicoract
Reynor vs Scarlett
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Krystianer vs TBD
TriGGeR vs SKillous
Percival vs TBD
ByuN vs Nicoract
OSC
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Solar vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Krystianer
Spirit vs TBD
OSC
|
|
|
EPT
