|
On September 13 2011 20:04 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 15:52 lorkac wrote:From your link
The administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson theorizes that technocrats are primarily driven by their cognitive "problem-solution mindsets" and only in part by particular occupational group interests.
In other words, benevolent leaders. Yup. Nothing at all like a dictatorship to have a government system where we hope that the technocrats aren't corrupt  You fail reading comprehension forever. The point there is that technocrats by nature make decisions based on their expertise instead of being corrupt. You also still have no idea what a dictatorship is, do you? If you can go to school and join the ranks of the people in charge of something, it's not a dictatorship. It's a meritocracy. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 15:59 lorkac wrote:
Technocracy is forcing leaders to be doctors and engineers--not allowing any other option. It is leadership by government decree, government choice, and government desires. It is limiting human options in the hope that "the experts" know better than feeble civilians.
History is full of examples which prove that the feeble civilians really don't know better. People are idiots. The political system in the United States right now is a perfect example. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 16:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Experts are already often used to craft legislation, however. Plus government agencies are filled with experts who then enforce the laws / draft regulations based upon the laws. For example the Fed has great economists, the CBO great accountants, the FDA great doctors etc and all these agencies have the power to make important decisions.
Indeed. Unfortunately, they only advise Congress and enforce its decisions, meaning they have extremely limited power to actually decide policy. A technocracy would move towards the direction where they have true political power instead of merely having discretion as the instruments of that power.
Could you be more specific? What has congress done to step on the toes of experts in the field?
Most specific policies of different fields are decided by boards of experts in their field (boards of engineers, boards of doctors, etc.). Usually Congress is involved when it's heavily economic, or controversial in some way. Most of what they deal with is business. We already are 'technocratic.'
|
I apologise for sounding a little bit condescending in previous replies to you.
On September 13 2011 19:59 Macpo wrote:
Maybe the reference to nazis is not the best way to go, as it brings down the debate to its most extreme. No need to focus on that: there are many intermediary situations, between "horrible experiments" of nazis and virgin innocent scientists, which raise reasonable doubts on whether scientists should lead our politics. But why would regular politicians, with no good knowledge in any particular field do a better job? Look at America for example, a lot of politicians are pretty dumb because the general public is too. If half your country doesn't believe in global warming or evolution, you'll get loads of ignorant politicians elected who cannot even seperate state from church and basically ignore their duty to make sure our children will have a decent planet too.
The existence of corrupted scientists (have you heard of the recent mediator scandal in france, where it appeared that some nocive medicine (apparently responsible for many deaths) has been given by doctors for years, with intense lobbying of laboratoires Servier?) or more simply, by the fact that many honest scientists just make very bad political decisions, all the time, even in their supposed field of competence (and this not only because they make mistakes, but because they have interests, etc). seems to me enough to argue against technocracy. No doubt there are exceptions to the rule, but the majority of scientists don't want world domination. As for your second point, I have already said this a few times: "I thought I already adressed this? There are more sciences than just the beta ones. And even if you are still not convinced, this problem is easily adressed by using some form of tecno/demo-cracy hybrid."
Moreover, we should not neglect the fact that knowledge being a priviledge of the upper class, such government would certainly lead to very elitist, antidemocratic, inegalitarian politics - back to 19th century where poor people were supposed incapable to discuss about politics, because they were ignorant savages - and where people supposed to know (the rich) were only defending their interest in the name of "necessity" and "science". How would knowledge be a privilege of the upper class? Having a technocracy doesn't mean schools will disappear.
|
On September 13 2011 19:59 Macpo wrote:
The existence of corrupted scientists (have you heard of the recent mediator scandal in france, where it appeared that some nocive medicine (apparently responsible for many deaths) has been given by doctors for years, with intense lobbying of laboratoires Servier?) or more simply, by the fact that many honest scientists just make very bad political decisions, all the time, even in their supposed field of competence (and this not only because they make mistakes, but because they have interests, etc). seems to me enough to argue against technocracy.
Thats actually not an argument against technocracy. Politicians have make bad decisions and have interests, too. So this is just an argument why technocracy might not be that much better than democracy (or the current forms of so-called democracy we live in right now).
|
On September 13 2011 20:12 DoubleReed wrote:
Could you be more specific? What has congress done to step on the toes of experts in the field?
Most specific policies of different fields are decided by boards of experts in their field (boards of engineers, boards of doctors, etc.). Usually Congress is involved when it's heavily economic, or controversial in some way.
Political science research indicates that Congress in fact exerts enormous control over the bureaucracies (more when Congress is united, less when it is fractured). Essentially, the executive agencies are aware of invisible lines they cannot cross without Congress reigning them in using its power of the purse, and so self-constrain their behavior to avoid doing so.
For a more detailed explanation, check out Stanford University professors John Ferejohn and Charles Shipan's "Congressional Influence on the Bureaucracy" (the link requires access to JSTOR to read the full article, but you can find it elsewhere too).
|
But why would regular politicians, with no good knowledge in any particular field do a better job? Look at America for example, a lot of politicians are pretty dumb because the general public is too. If half your country doesn't believe in global warming or evolution, you'll get loads of ignorant politicians elected who cannot even seperate state from church and basically ignore their duty to make sure our children will have a decent planet too.
Okay, climate change. What would scientists do about climate change? Do they know the best ways to regulate fossil fuels? Do they need to worry about how regulation might affect businesses and the economy? Oh, maybe we should involve economists and businessmen in the discussion as well. But there are a lot of options of what we could do and a lot of perspectives. We should probably hire somebody to make those kinds of decisions.
Hence, politicians.
|
Isn't Singapore more or less operating as a Technocracy in a democracy shell. They seem to be doing well.
|
On September 13 2011 20:21 DoubleReed wrote:
Okay, climate change. What would scientists do about climate change? Do they know the best ways to regulate fossil fuels? Do they need to worry about how regulation might affect businesses and the economy? Oh, maybe we should involve economists and businessmen in the discussion as well. But there are a lot of options of what we could do and a lot of perspectives. We should probably hire somebody to make those kinds of decisions.
Hence, politicians.
For one thing, they would recognize the danger and try to act on it (unlike Congress), so they are already leaps and bounds ahead of our current system.
|
On September 13 2011 20:22 johanngrunt wrote:
Isn't Singapore more or less operating as a Technocracy in a democracy shell. They seem to be doing well.
Yes. It's quite obvious that it's not perfect, but it certainly does have its upsides.
China is arguably fairly technocratic as well, but it's more communist/authoritarian with a side of technocracy rather than a true technocracy.
|
On September 13 2011 20:23 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 20:21 DoubleReed wrote:
Okay, climate change. What would scientists do about climate change? Do they know the best ways to regulate fossil fuels? Do they need to worry about how regulation might affect businesses and the economy? Oh, maybe we should involve economists and businessmen in the discussion as well. But there are a lot of options of what we could do and a lot of perspectives. We should probably hire somebody to make those kinds of decisions.
Hence, politicians. For one thing, they would recognize the danger and try to act on it (unlike Congress), so they are already leaps and bounds ahead of our current system.
It sounds more like you're railing against politics in the current political climate. While I hate the anti-intellectualism that's going around nowadays, I'm not actually sure how a 'technocracy' would necessarily make these kinds of decisions any better than what we have now.
What makes you say it wouldn't be deadlocked by economists and businessmen? Just like it is now.
|
On September 13 2011 20:32 DoubleReed wrote:
It sounds more like you're railing against politics in the current political climate. While I hate the anti-intellectualism that's going around nowadays, I'm not actually sure how a 'technocracy' would necessarily make these kinds of decisions any better than what we have now.
Democracy makes such anti-intellectual politics possible. Appealing to people's stupidity doesn't fly when the voters on any given issue are limited to the knowledgeable.
On September 13 2011 20:32 DoubleReed wrote:
What makes you say it wouldn't be deadlocked by economists and businessmen? Just like it is now.
Deadlocks are a result of inadequate political will. Climate scientists recognize the urgency of the situation and would certainly push through legislation to address it, opposition be damned.
Listen to what climate scientists have been saying about the climate change problem and try to guess what they would do if they had the power. The only question would be how to solve the problem, not whether or not the problem exists, or when we need to solve it by. A deadline would be set and they'd come up with the best solution they can by then.
|
If there is a problem with our democracies, it's precisely that they are not democratic enough and too technocratic.
People in power work for their interest. If you consider that the purpose of a state is to serve the people, then the people should be in power. A political system should make the distance that directly separates people from their leaders as thin as possible.
I don't think you can find another legitimacy for the one in power than the people they govern's approval anyway (unless you come with religious argument).
Technocracy is the enemy of modern societies.
Now about Winston Churchill, he is very nice, but I prefer the opinions of most of the average voters than his regarding many many subjects.
On September 13 2011 20:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 20:32 DoubleReed wrote:
It sounds more like you're railing against politics in the current political climate. While I hate the anti-intellectualism that's going around nowadays, I'm not actually sure how a 'technocracy' would necessarily make these kinds of decisions any better than what we have now. Democracy makes such anti-intellectual politics possible. Appealing to people's stupidity doesn't fly when the voters on any given issue are limited to the knowledgeable.
This anti-intellectual climate has nothing to do with democracy, but with the concentration of the medias in few hands, who have a political and economical agenda. Just think of Fox News: it's a problem of collusion between the medias and private interests. Other problem is the degradation of education, and again, that's more of sign that our democracies are too weak (not democratic enough) and that the society is not able to invest in its citizen education anymore.
You address democracy for problems that have more to do with unregulated capitalism, in my opinion. The two don't necessarly work together.
|
On September 13 2011 20:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 20:32 DoubleReed wrote:
It sounds more like you're railing against politics in the current political climate. While I hate the anti-intellectualism that's going around nowadays, I'm not actually sure how a 'technocracy' would necessarily make these kinds of decisions any better than what we have now. Democracy makes such anti-intellectual politics possible. Appealing to people's stupidity doesn't fly when the voters on any given issue are limited to the knowledgeable. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 20:32 DoubleReed wrote:
What makes you say it wouldn't be deadlocked by economists and businessmen? Just like it is now. Deadlocks are a result of inadequate political will. Climate scientists recognize the urgency of the situation and would certainly push through legislation to address it, opposition be damned. Listen to what climate scientists have been saying about the climate change problem and try to guess what they would do if they had the power. The only question would be how to solve the problem, not whether or not the problem exists, or when we need to solve it by. A deadline would be set and they'd come up with the best solution they can by then.
Businessmen and economists have pretty powerful political will, man. They're the ones with the money, too. And economists (and possibly businessmen) are also part of the elite in this case, so shouldn't they have equal say? I'm sure many economists doubt the urgency of global warming.
Do the climate scientists have final say? What if what they do is severely economically detrimental, because they didn't believe the things the economists were saying? Who ends up deciding what to do?
|
On September 13 2011 20:43 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 20:35 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2011 20:32 DoubleReed wrote:
It sounds more like you're railing against politics in the current political climate. While I hate the anti-intellectualism that's going around nowadays, I'm not actually sure how a 'technocracy' would necessarily make these kinds of decisions any better than what we have now. Democracy makes such anti-intellectual politics possible. Appealing to people's stupidity doesn't fly when the voters on any given issue are limited to the knowledgeable. On September 13 2011 20:32 DoubleReed wrote:
What makes you say it wouldn't be deadlocked by economists and businessmen? Just like it is now. Deadlocks are a result of inadequate political will. Climate scientists recognize the urgency of the situation and would certainly push through legislation to address it, opposition be damned. Listen to what climate scientists have been saying about the climate change problem and try to guess what they would do if they had the power. The only question would be how to solve the problem, not whether or not the problem exists, or when we need to solve it by. A deadline would be set and they'd come up with the best solution they can by then. Businessmen and economists have pretty powerful political will, man. They're the ones with the money, too. And economists (and possibly businessmen) are also part of the elite in this case, so shouldn't they have equal say? I'm sure many economists doubt the urgency of global warming. Do the climate scientists have final say? What if what they do is severely economically detrimental, because they didn't believe the things the economists were saying? Who ends up deciding what to do?
People should have the final say, but be able to form a non-biaised opinion.
Businessmen have interest to say that climate change doesn't exist, and owe the medias, and therefore, manipulates the opinion.
Conclusion: in a functional democracy, the medias and the financial interests of the businessmen should be separated.
In a nutshell, instead of blaming democracy because stupid people take decision, blame what inside your democracy make people become stupid, namely, propaganda.
|
On September 13 2011 20:21 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +But why would regular politicians, with no good knowledge in any particular field do a better job? Look at America for example, a lot of politicians are pretty dumb because the general public is too. If half your country doesn't believe in global warming or evolution, you'll get loads of ignorant politicians elected who cannot even seperate state from church and basically ignore their duty to make sure our children will have a decent planet too. Okay, climate change. What would scientists do about climate change? Do they know the best ways to regulate fossil fuels? Do they need to worry about how regulation might affect businesses and the economy? Oh, maybe we should involve economists and businessmen in the discussion as well. But there are a lot of options of what we could do and a lot of perspectives. We should probably hire somebody to make those kinds of decisions. Hence, politicians. Economists are scientists as well, of course they would be included in a technocracy. But yeah, we could hire someone to make the decision, but that person should NOT be elected by the people. Such a person would have to be extremely intelligent and willing to see all sides of the coin. Hence, we're better of with just a gigantic council of experts (which includes everything, from nanoscience to whail experts to historians to free market experts) in every possible field imaginable voting on a subject.
As for climate change and economy. Making sure the world doesn't go to shit is more important than economic growth. Why economy is even a factor in decisions about how to fight climate change is beyond me. Who the fuck cares about economy when we won't even have an economy, like we have now, in a hundred years.
|
On September 13 2011 20:50 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 20:21 DoubleReed wrote:But why would regular politicians, with no good knowledge in any particular field do a better job? Look at America for example, a lot of politicians are pretty dumb because the general public is too. If half your country doesn't believe in global warming or evolution, you'll get loads of ignorant politicians elected who cannot even seperate state from church and basically ignore their duty to make sure our children will have a decent planet too. Okay, climate change. What would scientists do about climate change? Do they know the best ways to regulate fossil fuels? Do they need to worry about how regulation might affect businesses and the economy? Oh, maybe we should involve economists and businessmen in the discussion as well. But there are a lot of options of what we could do and a lot of perspectives. We should probably hire somebody to make those kinds of decisions. Hence, politicians. Economists are scientists as well, of course they would be included in a technocracy. But yeah, we could hire someone to make the decision, but that person should NOT be elected by the people. Such a person would have to be extremely intelligent and willing to see all sides of the coin. Hence, we're better of with just a gigantic council of experts (which includes everything, from nanoscience to whail experts to historians to free market experts) in every possible field imaginable voting on a subject. As for climate change and economy. Making sure the world doesn't go to shit is more important than economic growth. Why economy is even a factor in decisions about how to fight climate change is beyond me. Who the fuck cares about economy when we won't even have an economy, like we have now, in a hundred years.
And who decides what is more important? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who think making money now is vastly more important than the fact that the planet may no be viable in few centuries.
Now, there are very intelligent people who have all kind of opinion. On what criteria do you chose your leader? Milton Friedman was probably very intelligent and so was Lenin. I wouldn't like to have either of them as my leader, you see?
And if you take economists, bad luck, you have right economists, far right wing economists, left wing economists and far left economist. Who decide which economists have a word to say?
Politics is not about taking the right decision. Politics is about defining how we want society to be. How on earth would "scientists" or "clever people" (everybody is clever and some supposedely clever people are sometimes fucking dumb) have more legitimacy than the people who are being governed to know how they want to live and what is important?
That's silly. What you are all advocating is the right for some people to take decision against the will of the people, ignoring the fact that the reality is complex and that politics is made of choices that are everything but consensual. It has a good name, it's called: a dictatorship.
|
And if you take economists, bad luck, you have right economists, far right wing economists, left wing economists and far left economist. Who decide which economists have a word to say? Every single one of them should get to vote.
The point of a technocracy is not to have a bunch of smart people rule a country, the point is that the general public is stupid and therefore not fit to elect a government.
And as has been said before, it isn't black and white, we could have a hybrid government, half of the government are experts, half of it is chosen by the people. That would already be a hundred times more preferable than what we have now.
And who decides what is more important? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who think making money now is vastly more important than the fact that the planet may no be viable in few centuries. I'm sorry but I'm not going to pay attention to people who think that as they are fucking stupid.
That's silly. What you are all advocating is the right for some people to take decision against the will of the people, ignoring the fact that the reality is complex and that politics is made of choices that are everything but consensual. It has a good name, it's called: a dictatorship. The people are stupid and do not realise what the right decision is. Also, comparing a technocracy to a dictatorship is laughable since anyone can go to college, get a degree and be able to vote.
We have two options:
- allow intelligent people to vote
- allow everyone to vote
That is the essence of this discussion. A technocracy cannot be worse than a democracy.
|
On September 13 2011 21:07 Thorakh wrote:
We have two options:
- allow intelligent people to vote
- allow everyone to vote
That is the essence of this discussion. A technocracy cannot be worse than a democracy.
Except for the part when it excludes everyone is stupid, hence splitting the country into a two-tier system, encouraging the spread of social injustice. The "intelligent" are by and large upper class, and as a result, they'll be encouraged to do good for their friends, and benefit their own kind, surely.
Also, to suggest that anyone can go to college is just silly IMO. There are a myriad of reasons, and they're closely tied to social class. Children to look after due to teen pregnancies. Parents ordering their kids to go to work so they can bring back money for the family immediately. Children in lower class areas go to lower class schools with lower success rates. That's just how it is.
|
The problem with democracy isn't with the system, it's with the populous. The solution isn't to change the system, it's to change the population. Increase education so that the general population is more informed. Changing the system might help, but it will NEVER happen. Not only that but it isn't so sure that the technocracy would be better.
At first, it would. It sounds ideal, does it not? It's not that simple. First of all, the motives aren't this cut and dry. I work in a University and I can say without doubt that 95% of the professors I know are extremely selfish when it comes to their work. What happens in a technocracy when an 'expert' publishes a (later) discredited piece and get's elected for it? What happens when a an expert in charge starts publishing false works in order to stay in charge? Who combats this? The jury of his peers within the field? What if it is so convincing that it splits the field?
Don't pretend this doesn't happen, either. You would be a fool to think otherwise. In this supposed environment the experts would have to constantly rotate as well, because this environment fosters technological advancement, doesn't it? Well whoever comes up with the newest technology is the expert in that field. What then?
This creates another problem--how would you classify these experts? Do you even understand how many experts you would require? For instance medical doctor's are (actually) quite poorly informed as far as pharmaceutical are concerned. Then within the pharmaceuticals there are different experts in relation to different structures as well. Are you going to have the expert who is working on new uses for steroids give his advice as far as benzodiazepine's are concerned? Why not ask the expert working on benzo's?
Then of course there is the problem of where these experts come from. Who are the most educated in society? Typically the wealthiest (especially true in the states). So the panel of experts come from a very small pool of people, typically with similar values. Now this itself isn't a problem, but where does the next panel come from? That same pool? Is there time to introduce a new education system in which it could properly create the next generation of experts, or is it unchanging? If it is, then what is to keep education away from those they do not want? I can literally keep sitting here posting problematic questions, but I have other things to do.
Of course I'm being cycnical. "Oh Cytokinesis they are all benevolent loving scientists and experts who want to help society!" Complete and utter bullshit. That is so naive I can't even comprehend it. Like I stated before, 95% of the professors I know are in their research for selfish reasons and would stop at nothing short of killing competitors to get to the top. Is this a problem because of the economy? Sort of. The bottom line is even if you had a panel of amazing experts at the start, corruption would seep in over time.
I think the biggest problem people fail to understand is that the most powerful commodity in the world isn't money, it's knowledge. If you want better elected officials, you have to start by giving better education to the masses. If you want a technocracy, go for it. But it's not going to happen, and if it does it won't be as great as you think.
|
On September 13 2011 21:07 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +And if you take economists, bad luck, you have right economists, far right wing economists, left wing economists and far left economist. Who decide which economists have a word to say? Every single one of them should get to vote. The point of a technocracy is not to have a bunch of smart people rule a country, the point is that the general public is stupid and is therefore not fit to elect a government. And as has been said before, it isn't black and white, we could have a hybrid government, half of the government are experts, half of it is chosen by the people. That would already be a hundred times more preferable than what we have now. Show nested quote +And who decides what is more important? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who think making money now is vastly more important than the fact that the planet may no be viable in few centuries. I'm sorry but I'm not going to pay attention to people who think that as they are fucking stupid.
Look, the problem is simple: if a decision is taken, I want to be part of it, because it will affect my life.
I am typically the "general public" since I am not a whatever scientist; however,
1- I am the general public and I am not "stupid".
If you think general public is stupid, why don't you ask yourself why the general public is stupid? Why don't you fight the ones that make the general public stupid. We know who they are, it's not hard to find. Instead of despising so much your fellow citizen, you could maybe start by wondering why TV channels or tabloids newspaper are allowed to lie and to serve people an ocean of shit everyday. That's a good start for a functional democracy.
2- I am the general public, and I am affected by the decisions taken
What if a decision is taken that I don't agree with? I would have no right to say anything. Would I feel free? No. Would I find it fair? No. Would I revolt? Yes. I would fucking take a rifle and make a revolution, because not being part of the decisions that affect your life and that you may find very detrimental to you has a name: oppression.
3- I am the general public and only as such am I qualified to take political decisions.
Politics is not a science. Nobody can say that liberalism is better than social democracy, or that free economy is better than regulated market. There is no truth about it. When an economist says that free market is better than regulated market, it's an economical point of view. I can admit it, means, it's better for the economy, but as a citizen, I am against free market for non-economical reasons. What you value in life, what you want for yourself and your country, it has nothing to do with being right or wrong.
The only people who have legitimacy in their political opinions are the ones who are affected. These people are called: citizens, and the power should always come from them.
On September 13 2011 21:07 Thorakh wrote:
We have two options:
- allow intelligent people to vote
- allow everyone to vote
That is the essence of this discussion. A technocracy cannot be worse than a democracy.
It would be much worse.
First, how do you define who is "intelligent"?
IQ? LOL.
Level of studies? I know insensitive fucktards who have PhD, I don't think they would be any better than my building keeper to decide anything.
Why would the "stupid masses" accept decisions they are no part of? That's silly.
Your elitist system seems just very fascist to me.
Everybody has the right to say how the society in which he lives should be.
Would you be part of the people who can decide? Are you intelligent? Am I? Who is?
|
On September 13 2011 20:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Businessmen and economists have pretty powerful political will, man. They're the ones with the money, too. And economists (and possibly businessmen) are also part of the elite in this case, so shouldn't they have equal say? I'm sure many economists doubt the urgency of global warming.
Do the climate scientists have final say? What if what they do is severely economically detrimental, because they didn't believe the things the economists were saying? Who ends up deciding what to do?
Climate scientists have the final say on wheter there is a problem, what needs to be done to address it, and what would happen in various scenarios depending on various attempts to solve it.
In other words, economists run the cost-benefit analysis, but all variables related to climate (e.g. most of the benefit variables) are determined by climate scientists (by contrast, most of the costs variables are determined by economists).
On September 13 2011 20:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
In a nutshell, instead of blaming democracy because stupid people take decision, blame what inside your democracy make people become stupid, namely, propaganda.
Stupidity is natural, and has been around long since the rise of propaganda and media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
