|
On September 13 2011 21:45 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Hey, intelligence is not a scale. It's not about 50% more and 50% less. It's about knowing that humans are potentially unlimited beings and believing that they can take decisions for themselves and their community. Let me explain this as clearly as I can since you're having difficulty understanding (and possibly due to a language barrier). When you need a medical opinion, do you ask random people on the street, or do you see a doctor? When you need legal advice, do you ask random people on the street, or do you see a lawyer? When you want to build a bridge, do you ask random people on the street, or do you talk to an engineer? In a democracy, you're basically asking random people on the street. In a technocracy, you ask the relevant expert. If you would rather ask random people, then that's cool, but don't come in here expecting us to think you're smart for doing that. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 21:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
My sister is not as logical as me but she has fantastic sensibility and understand people much better than I do. Should she be out of political decisions because she is "stupid"? If your sister understands people better than you do, you should listen to her advice when it comes to matters of people. And likewise, she should listen to your advice on logical matters. Does that not make sense to you?
So what would your sorting out process be when experts from different fields disagree? How are funds allocated? The medical expert in the technocracy may want new medical equipment because the machine saves lives. The economist may decide that the equpment is too expensive and not allocate funds to their production.
This is a political question between income and health. Since, ultimately it is the people that have to live with either having less money or less health would it not be good for their views to be taken into account? This is why a democracy works. If you put experts in charge they all want what is best for their field... but they can't all get what they want.
Politics is not about technical things - congress doesn't decide if a new drug is safe or not the FDA (filled with experts) does. Politics is about resolving disputes between 'who gets what' in a way that society can live with.
|
On September 13 2011 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:That means that my expertise doesn't make me right, and therefore that your system is wrong. 
To the contrary, I am asserting that you are not an expert. Show me a PhD in political science and we'll talk about that.
On September 13 2011 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Pity that choosing if free-speech is good or not, or if everybody has the right to a good healthcare regardless of their wealth, or if TV channel should be nationalized or privatized, etc etc etc... has nothing to do with curing a disease or building a house, where the objective is clearly defined and therefore subject to the expertise of a specialist.
Free speech is a political science issue, universal health care is a public health issue, and the nationalization/privatization of a TV channel is a political science issue. We have experts for all of those, whether or not you're aware of them.
Cost-benefit analyses can be made for all of those. The preferences of the citizens certainly affects that as well, but the point is that there is a scientific way to figure things out. Just because you haven't figure this out doesn't mean other people haven't.
On September 13 2011 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you find what is the purpose of life, and therefore how society should objectively be, congratulation, you have solved human thought. If you haven't, please don't make loosy comparisons.
The fact that some issues are not solvable by technical expertise does not change the fact that most issues are. And yet for some reason, you refuse to consider the latter fact in your utterly dogmatic concentration on the former.
On September 13 2011 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think you are like everybody: you think you are smarter than average (you are definitely not part of the despised "braindead masses") and that everybody else is stupid. So many people think it, it's really comical.
Coming from the person who comes in here throwing around argumentums ad ignorantiam, it really is comical.
|
So how do we decide who'll be the representatives..??
|
On September 13 2011 22:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
So what would your sorting out process be when experts from different fields disagree? How are funds allocated? The medical expert in the technocracy may want new medical equipment because the machine saves lives. The economist may decide that the equpment is too expensive and not allocate funds to their production.
The economist doesn't just make the decision on a whim. He runs a cost-benefit analysis showing that the amount of lives saved does not justify the cost.
On September 13 2011 22:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
This is a political question between income and health. Since, ultimately it is the people that have to live with either having less money or less health would it not be good for their views to be taken into account?
No, because everyone who pays disproportionately high taxes votes against it (and leverages their significant power to manipulate others into voting with them) while people who pay disproportionately low taxes tend to vote for it. Instead, economists should be looking at the benefits and costs of universal or socialized healthcare, and determining scientifically whether it's best for society.
On September 13 2011 22:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:This is why a democracy works.
Except it doesn't.
|
I went into this thread hoping it would be about some kind of state controlled by technology itself. Like a robot overlord, except less dramatic.
That would be my ideal option since it's impossible for it to be biased. You either keep up with the system or you don't.
But the technocracy idea sounds like kind of a bad idea. Science should be an impartial field that isn't swayed by things like power and money. Technocracy is just asking for all kinds of conspiracies.
What we really need for a better democracy is better, affordable education.
|
On September 13 2011 22:27 MadNeSs wrote:
So how do we decide who'll be the representatives..??
Most first-world nations already have national academies. You can read the link to see how they're selected.
|
Hmm... This Technocracy thing is rather intriguing to me. I have never heard of this style of political ruling before (always Democracy, Republican, Communism, Autocracy). I don't know much, but it seems that my political views match with this "Technocracy".
Can somebody send me a PM in reply where I can read more about Technocracy? (Books mostly, I can read about it on Wikipedia, but I don't trust the Internet for such things)
|
On September 13 2011 22:29 TedJustice wrote:
I went into this thread hoping it would be about some kind of state controlled by technology itself. Like a robot overlord, except less dramatic.
That would be my ideal option since it's impossible for it to be biased. You either keep up with the system or you don't.
But the technocracy idea sounds like kind of a bad idea. Science should be an impartial field that isn't swayed by things like power and money. Technocracy is just asking for all kinds of conspiracies.
What we really need for a better democracy is better, affordable education.
Jesus wouldn't have wanted us to worship the false idols created by man. If we were to allow machines to make policy decisions for us, we would surely be beset by wrathful acts of God punishing us for our blasphemy.
|
On September 13 2011 22:23 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:That means that my expertise doesn't make me right, and therefore that your system is wrong. To the contrary, I am asserting that you are not an expert. Show me a PhD in political science and we'll talk about that. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Pity that choosing if free-speech is good or not, or if everybody has the right to a good healthcare regardless of their wealth, or if TV channel should be nationalized or privatized, etc etc etc... has nothing to do with curing a disease or building a house, where the objective is clearly defined and therefore subject to the expertise of a specialist. Free speech is a political science issue, universal health care is a public health issue, and the nationalization/privatization of a TV channel is a political science issue. We have experts for all of those, whether or not you're aware of them. Cost-benefit analyses can be made for all of those. The preferences of the citizens certainly affects that as well, but the point is that there is a scientific way to figure things out. Just because you haven't figure this out doesn't mean other people haven't. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you find what is the purpose of life, and therefore how society should objectively be, congratulation, you have solved human thought. If you haven't, please don't make loosy comparisons. The fact that some issues are not solvable by technical expertise does not change the fact that most issues are. And yet for some reason, you refuse to consider the latter fact in your utterly dogmatic concentration on the former. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think you are like everybody: you think you are smarter than average (you are definitely not part of the despised "braindead masses") and that everybody else is stupid. So many people think it, it's really comical. Coming from the person who comes in here throwing around argumentums ad ignorantiam, it really is comical.
Ouch. You don't understand irony.
I don't think my "expertise" makes me any more qualified than anybody here to talk about anything. Otherwise, I would defend technocracy, right?
Nice to have introduced "political science". So free speech is decided by political scientists.
L. O. L.
A political scientist is someone who study the political tendencies, not someone who is specialized in political questions. A political scientist will tell you about the difference between this and that kind of constitution and how it affects political tendencies, not if free speech is good or not.
And I lack expertise. Jesus.
Universal healthcare is not about what is the best way to cure people, it's about who can benefit medicines and on what circumstances. Oie. Nothing to do with science, it's politics again. So, what's the name again of the scientist who decide who has what right?
Oh yeah, political science again.
In fact all these questions are political, and obviously, "political science" as you mean it doesn't exist at all because it doesn't even mean anything, since it has nothing to do with science or expertise but with choices, etc etc... For example; US free speech is not "better" than French free speech. It's different, has different implications, and are a different way to live and a different relationship to the public and the private sphere, and all come together with a different understanding of freedom.
You think there are objective specialists for that? What does that even mean?
Political scientist. Seriously. I think Hitler was what you understand by political scientist: someone who is specialized in taking political decisions. I call that a dictator, but let's not start to discuss semantics, huhu?
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On September 13 2011 22:32 Gummy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:29 TedJustice wrote:
I went into this thread hoping it would be about some kind of state controlled by technology itself. Like a robot overlord, except less dramatic.
That would be my ideal option since it's impossible for it to be biased. You either keep up with the system or you don't.
But the technocracy idea sounds like kind of a bad idea. Science should be an impartial field that isn't swayed by things like power and money. Technocracy is just asking for all kinds of conspiracies.
What we really need for a better democracy is better, affordable education. Jesus wouldn't have wanted us to worship the false idols created by man. If we were to allow machines to make policy decisions for us, we would surely be beset by wrathful acts of God punishing us for our blasphemy. Dunno if you're trolling, sounds like you are. God doesn't "punish" or deal out His righteous judgement until you die and are summoned to Him in the Day of the LORD. But yea - we are to rule this dominion according to two principles: Love God and love man. When these two principles are not followed, all hell breaks loose baby~~
|
I agree with sunprince.
For example:
Let's assume, that the majority chooses the president in an election, because he said he will give the most part of govermental money to a "good cause" like poor families, ill or elders, etc. and on top of that, he will lower the taxes!
In other country, people chooses a president that said he will try to improve the law to ensure that
monetary market won't be as sensitive to manipulation, he would also make sure that schools are neutral and aren't allowed to teach lies, but only proven knowledge.
But to acheve it, taxes must be raised.
Which president do you think is better and which people made their election decision based on reason and not on feelings?
And let's face it... The first types of people and presidents are the vast majority...
|
On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
A political scientist is someone who study the political tendencies, not someone who is specialized in political questions. A political scientist will tell you about the difference between this and that kind of constitution and how it affects political tendencies, not if free speech is good or not.
There are tangible benefits and drawbacks to free speech. Political scientists with an emphasis on comparative politics understand them quite well. Just for the record, it comes down in favor of free speech for the most part.
On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
And I lack expertise. Jesus.
You really, really do.
On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Universal healthcare is not about what is the best way to cure people, it's about who can benefit medicines and on what circumstances. Oie. Nothing to do with science, it's politics again. So, what's the name again of the scientist who decide who has what right?
You assume that universal healthcare is a human right. That's a bullshit normative way of looking at it. People deciding that things are "human rights" are simply a way of side-stepping a real analysis of issues. The U.N. declaring internet a "human right" in no way impacts the fact that you can look at the tangible costs and benefits of universal internet access.
On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Political scientist. Seriously. I think Hitler was what you understand by political scientist: someone who is specialized in taking political decisions. I call that a dictator, but let's not start to discuss semantics, huhu?
A political scientist is a person who studies politics. A dictator is a ruler who assumes sole and absolute power. If you can't see the difference between the two, you really are as uninformed as you've been coming off in this thread.
|
On September 13 2011 22:37 JesusOurSaviour wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:32 Gummy wrote:On September 13 2011 22:29 TedJustice wrote:
I went into this thread hoping it would be about some kind of state controlled by technology itself. Like a robot overlord, except less dramatic.
That would be my ideal option since it's impossible for it to be biased. You either keep up with the system or you don't.
But the technocracy idea sounds like kind of a bad idea. Science should be an impartial field that isn't swayed by things like power and money. Technocracy is just asking for all kinds of conspiracies.
What we really need for a better democracy is better, affordable education. Jesus wouldn't have wanted us to worship the false idols created by man. If we were to allow machines to make policy decisions for us, we would surely be beset by wrathful acts of God punishing us for our blasphemy. Dunno if you're trolling, sounds like you are. God doesn't "punish" or deal out His righteous judgement until you die and are summoned to Him in the Day of the LORD. But yea - we are to rule this dominion according to two principles: Love God and love man. When these two principles are not followed, all hell breaks loose baby~~
You seem like one of those Revisionist believers who believe there is some wiggle room in the tablets given to Moses on the Mountain or that there is room for liberal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. I am not one to judge, but I'll see you in hell. Oh wait no I won't, because I am pre-ordained a spot in heaven where I will bask the the glory of Him for all eternity while your soul burns. I pray that you will see the error in your ways so that you may escape the insufferable, eternal damnation to which the devil tempts you.
|
On September 13 2011 22:43 Gummy wrote:
You seem like one of those Revisionist believers who believe there is some wiggle room in the tablets given to Moses on the Mountain or that there is room for liberal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. I am not one to judge, but I'll see you in hell. Oh wait no I won't, because I am pre-ordained a spot in heaven where I will bask the the glory of Him for all eternity while your soul burns. I pray that you will see the error in your ways so that you may escape the insufferable, eternal damnation to which the devil tempts you.
While this is slightly amusing, could we please stop derailing the thread?
|
No. The same things would happen.
The problem is always how you select those in power. The criteria can be changed to fit any person so those who are sufficiently motivated (typically by self gain, not by altruism) will always end up in power with their friends.
|
On September 13 2011 22:32 Gummy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:29 TedJustice wrote:
I went into this thread hoping it would be about some kind of state controlled by technology itself. Like a robot overlord, except less dramatic.
That would be my ideal option since it's impossible for it to be biased. You either keep up with the system or you don't.
But the technocracy idea sounds like kind of a bad idea. Science should be an impartial field that isn't swayed by things like power and money. Technocracy is just asking for all kinds of conspiracies.
What we really need for a better democracy is better, affordable education. Jesus wouldn't have wanted us to worship the false idols created by man. If we were to allow machines to make policy decisions for us, we would surely be beset by wrathful acts of God punishing us for our blasphemy.
Do you worship the president? Do you worship your car or your computer? Do you worship the internet? No. They're just things designed to make our lives easier. Why not have technology also make political decisions, if it were able to? If an artificial intelligence could be designed to analyze our needs and make decisions, keep track of money, jobs, etc, then pretty much all problems associated with politics would disappear.
It's not an immediately attainable goal, but it's something to work toward in the distant future.
|
On September 13 2011 22:45 TedJustice wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:32 Gummy wrote:On September 13 2011 22:29 TedJustice wrote:
I went into this thread hoping it would be about some kind of state controlled by technology itself. Like a robot overlord, except less dramatic.
That would be my ideal option since it's impossible for it to be biased. You either keep up with the system or you don't.
But the technocracy idea sounds like kind of a bad idea. Science should be an impartial field that isn't swayed by things like power and money. Technocracy is just asking for all kinds of conspiracies.
What we really need for a better democracy is better, affordable education. Jesus wouldn't have wanted us to worship the false idols created by man. If we were to allow machines to make policy decisions for us, we would surely be beset by wrathful acts of God punishing us for our blasphemy. Do you worship the president? Do you worship your car or your computer? Do you worship the internet? No. They're just things designed to make our lives easier. Why not have technology also make political decisions, if it were able to? If an artificial intelligence could be designed to analyze our needs and make decisions, keep track of money, jobs, etc, then pretty much all problems associated with politics would disappear. It's not an immediately attainable goal, but it's something to work toward in the distant future.
I hope it will never happen.
AI would at some point assume, that to preserve humanity, the humanity itself must be tainted, and who can possibly imagine, what AI would do to us then...
|
On September 13 2011 22:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:19 RageBot wrote:On September 13 2011 21:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 13 2011 21:24 sunprince wrote: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. I think people are exceptionally smart and wise when they are not taken into hysterical bullshit. People make bad decision or are "stupid" when they are manipulated or uneducated. Work on both those aspects and your democracy is very functional. That's not the case today. No, the average IQ is 100, that means that 50% of human beings have IQ smaller than 100. However, no one is to say that 100 IQ is "smart", pepole with IQ lower than 110 usually can't graduate of collage, and even these pepole aren't that intelligent. Pepole get to the point where they are considered "intelligent" when they have IQ higher than 120 (these pepole are called "gifted" by the ordinary population), and these pepole are about 20-25% of the population. IQ really proves one thing about intelligence: it's that people who invented it are really fucking dumb.
...Do you think that, if there is a limited number of pepole that can learn medicine, biology, physics etc etc, for free, per year:
1. Pepole should get through tests in order to see who deserves the funding.
2. The funding should be given on a "first-come-first-served" basis?
|
On September 13 2011 22:41 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
A political scientist is someone who study the political tendencies, not someone who is specialized in political questions. A political scientist will tell you about the difference between this and that kind of constitution and how it affects political tendencies, not if free speech is good or not.
There are tangible benefits and drawbacks to free speech. Political scientists with an emphasis on comparative politics understand them quite well. Just for the record, it comes down in favor of free speech for the most part. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
And I lack expertise. Jesus. You really, really do. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Universal healthcare is not about what is the best way to cure people, it's about who can benefit medicines and on what circumstances. Oie. Nothing to do with science, it's politics again. So, what's the name again of the scientist who decide who has what right? You assume that universal healthcare is a human right. That's a bullshit normative way of looking at it. People deciding that things are "human rights" are simply a way of side-stepping a real analysis of issues. The U.N. declaring internet a "human right" in no way impacts the fact that you can look at the tangible costs and benefits of universal internet access. Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Political scientist. Seriously. I think Hitler was what you understand by political scientist: someone who is specialized in taking political decisions. I call that a dictator, but let's not start to discuss semantics, huhu? A political scientist is a person who studies politics. A dictator is a ruler who assumes sole and absolute power. If you can't see the difference between the two, you really are as uninformed as you've been coming off in this thread.
Sorry, dude you don't make any sense.
Don't you fucking understand that something like universal healthcare is not a question of "efficiency", not even a question of cost, pr anything like that, but it's a philosophical question and that there are no specialist who can deiced for you if you want to live in a society where everybody can go to hospital for free or not?
You just started a political discussion. Oh, and nobody is right. Everybody thinks he is right, but, surprise! we just have different opinions.
Me, as a citizen, want to live in a society where a homeless who break an arm can go to hospital and have it fix, with my taxes.
That's a choice, you understand? There is no scientist who can tell you if it's right or wrong. It's not right or wrong, it's how I think society should be because the opposite, I would find monstrous. That's obviously not the case of someone who vote for the American Republicans.
Now, second thing. A political scientist is not someone who study, and therefore is right, on political issues, it's someone who study politics. Politics itself. Someone who knows about political systems, parties, tendencies, etc... I'll stop the ad ominem because it's annoying, but, really, you shouldn't say anybody is not educated enough if you don't know something like that.
Good luck with technocracy, I have to work.
A question for tonight:
"Who is the scientist who knows if abortion should be legal or not".
Enjoy.
|
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7xvdIfN1UYQ/Tm9ecCFqX4I/AAAAAAAAAZ0/6UJeQ7-hT6c/s1600/Technocracy+INC+heading.png)
You are discussing meritocracy, not Technocracy, which is a completely different concept. Get that into your head. The fact that propagandists and incompetents have coopted the word does not allow you to do the same.
On September 13 2011 15:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
What's your point?
You are advocating a planned economy with a controlled price system.
No successful economy today uses such a system.
Like it or not most economies in the world are "controlled" or "mixed" Price Systems your libertarian wet dreams notwithstanding. Technocracy is not a Price System in which it uses metrical measurement, not an economical theory of value. Money being a "rubber yardstick", a "controlled economy" using money (commodity evaluation) is really a contradiction in terms.
On September 13 2011 15:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Please stop posting your crazy propaganda. It's worse than scientology.
There is nobody else on this thread who is actually discussing Technocracy. If you don't like it create another thread called meritocracy vs. democracy or aristocracy vs. democracy those are well known debates in political philosophy. It can be argued we already have a meritocracy/aristocracy just as we already have a "controlled" or "fixed" Price System. However that is not Technocracy. All of your comments have nothing whatsoever to do with Technocracy. If you do not find Technocracy to be interesting please close this discussion.
On September 13 2011 21:42 sunprince wrote:
No, you don't understand. You are completely naive in matters of political science, political theory, and game theory.
On September 13 2011 22:28 sunprince wrote:
The economist doesn't just make the decision on a whim. He runs a cost-benefit analysis showing that the amount of lives saved does not justify the cost.
Economics is not a science. Political science is not a science. Morality control is not a science. Chemistry is. Biology is. Geology is. Physics is.
---------
A very great amount of confusion exists as a result of mis-
taking social position for ability. For example, there are few of
the 'Park Avenue' crowd, most of whom have inherited money
but have never done anything in their lives in evidence of superior
intelligence or functional capacity, who do not adopt an attitude
of extreme condescension towards such people as farmers, mem-
bers of the skilled trades, and others whose daily functions
are the most vital (and require among the highest degrees of
intelligence) of any that exist at the present time. Likewise, the
professors of a university view with considerable condescension
the activities of the skilled mechanics in the university machine
shops, little realizing that it takes a considerably higher order of
intelligence, both as regards training and in everyday perform-
ance, to be a master mechanic than it does to become and remain
the learned' Professor So-and-So.
No better example of this particular type of intellectual insol-
ence need be sought than that afforded by Professor Ortega y
Gasset in his book. Revolt of the Masses. In this book the writer
is decrying the rise of the masses and uses the illustration of an
African savage who has learned to drive an automobile and to use
aspirin. What the professor does not appear to realize is the irony
of his own situation, namely, that in the world of action his own
position is practically identical to that of the savage he is describ-
ing — one of complete functional incompetence. Professor Ortega
y Gasset is a Jesuit Professor of Philosophy at the University of
Madrid, and, as such, so far as is publicly known, has never done
anything of more importance in his entire life than to read books,
talk, and write more books. - Technocracy Study Course
Technocracy Study Course Unabridged
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0nMARjYXV-U/TgFOavuPY6I/AAAAAAAAASA/57Vh3u1oofo/s1600/d75e729fd7a0a72a7bb2e010.L.jpg)
The Technocracy Study Course was mostly written by Howard Scott and Marion King Hubbert
Technocracy is dealing with social phenomena in the widest
sense of the word; this includes not only actions of human beings,
but also everything which directly or indirectly affects their ac-
tions. Consequently, the studies of Technocracy embrace practic-
ally the whole field of science and industry. Biology, climate, nat-
ural resources, and industrial equipment all enter into the social
picture; and no one can expect to have any understanding of our
present social problems without having at least a panoramic view
of the basic relations of these essential elements of the picture.
All things on the earth are composed of matter and therefore re-
quire a knowledge of chemistry. These things move, and in so
doing involve energy. An understanding of these relationships
requires a knowledge of physics. Industrial equipment, as well
as the substances of which living organisms are composed, are
derived from the earth. This requires a knowledge of geology and
earth processes. Man is himself an organism, and derives his food
from other organisms. Hence, a knowledge of biology is necessi-
tated. - Technocracy Study Course
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
