Could a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 27

Post a Reply

Prev 1 25 26 27 28 29 40 Next All

lorkac

United States2297 Posts

September 13 2011 18:54 GMT

#521

On September 14 2011 03:41 tech information wrote:

Show nested quote +

Why are you posting in a discussion about Technocracy then if you don't find it interesting. Get a life.

So I say "technocracy isn't doing anything new"

You respond with

"Get a life."

Interesting...

You see, the reason I'm posting on this thread is to show the limitations of blind belief in it's ability to actually discuss a concept. When shown for what it is, technocracy doesn't present anything new or valuable to the human existence that was already present to begin with. However, it attempts to carry an aura of elitism that mostly boils down to "don't give stupid people a say" while attempting to not actually attempt to define "stupid people" because what they actually means is "people we dislike"

They do this by attempting to create this false image of modern day political structures having no "experts on their field" when that is actually very wrong. They need this image because then they would be able to say that "stupid people" means politicians when politicians aren't the only thing holding the governmental systems of the world together. In doing so, they are attempting to sidestep their fascist policy through world play and subterfuge using "I <3 technology" as their cover much like Lenin used "Bread+Land" as his cover. Not only is it nothing new, but it's also already been attempted (although with different specifics) with only the argument of "This time it will work unlike all those other times when we killed the stupid people." In fairness, most the time the stupid people are not killed, but most of the time Stalin is not the one in charge.

But let's say that section of the argument is not looked at--let's just stick to what technocrats are actually trying to say.

Going through the main website and watching many of those videos, they don't actually really say anything different. It all boils down to "If people aren't wasteful, and they're okay with sharing, and they don't really hurt each other, society would be awesome!" Which is true, albeit, as I have said many times, childish

fofa2000

Canada548 Posts

September 13 2011 18:56 GMT

#522

In fact a good government should admit that it is incompetent in itself. It uses comities of expert to design policies anyway, they're just here to follow a general ideology to please the people.

lorkac

United States2297 Posts

September 13 2011 19:00 GMT

#523

On September 14 2011 03:52 tech information wrote:

Show nested quote +

Nice try buddy.

Design. The end-products of design are radically different,
if one lays out the whole scheme of a given function in advance
and then works down to the details, from what they would be if
one started on the details and worked from them to the more
general complex. For example, the steamship Normandie has
been able to break world speed records and to exhibit other points
of functional excellence merely because these high points of per-
formance were written into the specifications before a single minor
detail was ever decided upon. The design of a ship to meet these
broader specifications automatically determines that the minor
details be of one sort rather than a number of others The specifica-
tion that the Normandie was to be the fastest steamship ever built
automatically determined the shape of the hull, the power of the
engines, and numerous other smaller details.

Suppose the procedure had been in reverse order. Suppose
that some one person decided independently upon the shape of the
hull; suppose that a second designed the engines, determining
what power and speeds they should have. Let a third design the
control apparatus, etc. It is a foregone conclusion that a ship de-
signed in any such manner, if she remained afloat or ran at all,
would not break any records.

For any single functional unit the design specifications for
the performance of the whole must be written, and then the details
worked out afterwards in such a manner that the performance
of the whole will equal the original specifications laid down.

The trouble with design in a social mechanism heretofore has
been that neither the specifications nor the design has ever gone
beyond the stage of minute details. We have designed houses by
the thousands, but no one has ever designed a system of housing
on a continental scale. We have designed individual boats, auto-
mobiles, locomotives, railway cars, and even articulated stream-
lined trains and individual airplanes, but no one has ever designed
a continental system of transportation. Even these latter units
are only individual details in the design of a whole operating social
mechanism. Even a design that embraced whole functional se-
quences would be inadequate unless it in turn was guided by the
super-design of the entire social mechanism.
- Technocracy Study Course

So what you're saying is that Howard was stupid in his interview since he only talked about a tiny aspects of a design and real life politicians in the US though about the problem as a whole?

In fact, using your example of the ship, the engineer is actually the least important part of the ship building process since what matter's more is either the public/business/political desire for a fast ship and not the actual construction or knowledge of how to build a fast ship.

According to your example, a centralize decision making process to allow for expedient creation of end goals is more important than a fragmented department of experts each one controlling "only" their respective field.

That's actually a really good argument against technocracy isn't it? Bravo!

EDIT::
City planning actually does exactly what your last paragraph talks about. To a T actually. Like I said, nothing new, nothing interesting and nothing that's already being done currently.

Half

United States2554 Posts

September 13 2011 19:02 GMT

#524

I don't get it. Where do you plan for all the inept politicians go? Well they wouldn't just disappear would they. They would all just become engineers. Now we have a shit ton of inept power hungry engineers exploiting scientific repute to gain power and, well, what do you know, two of our trains just collided and we are now burying alive the injured to silence the incident.

what a silly op lol.

tech information

105 Posts

September 13 2011 19:03 GMT

#525

On September 14 2011 03:46 lorkac wrote:so people no longer had to take public transportation as much reducing the need to have more expensive trains. They did this by providing more autonomy to the public

Ok ever heard of Peak Oil? You are both completely insane and you are a stooge for Price System corporate interests.
[image loading]

Hittomogasin

Finland80 Posts

September 13 2011 19:03 GMT

#526

Humans can never govern them selfs perfectly. Either we evolve into significantly better people, or we are governed by someone/something else instead.

Its all related to point of view:

Tribesman mentality does work in small groups of people living closely to each other, but it dosent work when the leader dosent know everybody he governs. That is authoritarian system and in most cases survival of the most outweights the survival or wellbeing of few.

On larger societies survival is no longer a problem. The fact that the society has grown means that they have abundant food, water and outside hazards no longer threaten the society. The only threats are other large societies or natural disasters. Many such societies still have tribesman mentality and have single leader, king for example.

Todays societies are huge. Thanks to the nuclear weaponry, wars are less common but if they hapen, they are devastating to everybody, even the ones that do not take part of the war. We are able endure many natural disasters, and even deflects some, but we still face disasters that could wipe humans from the planet and the entire race with it. Now we atleast realize that we cannot be lead effectively by single man or woman. Most of us elect people to lead us, but that is as much curse, as its blessing. We are still tribesmen, we are still greedy, powerhungry assholes, and the most greedy and ruthless often raise to the top. Corruption is inevitable.

Personally im considered "sleeping voter" as i am not voting most of the time. This is because i do not know of any candidate that id trust my nations for. If i vote, it tends to be because i wish to change those in power to anything that even remotely agree with me. When im sleeping, it means that our leaders are doing atleast some good and i have no good enough reason to start messing it up. I absolutely loathe anyone who votes someone for nonpolitical reasons. For example, most common mistake is to vote someone because of the good looks. Or maybe the person was accomplished sports figure. Dosent matter. Both are bullshit reasons to vote.

So, how do i know my leaders arent worthless? Their training is imporant. We do not need astrophysicist to tell us how to fix our currensy, that'd be missing the point. However, astrophysicist could and should warn us from incoming meteorite and we should heed hes advice on how to deal with it instead of some general with punch of idle nuclear warheads at hes disposal. That would be missing the point again and it could infact be very, very bad thing for us in other ways.

Thinking this way, wed wind up with whole punch of professionals, and no matter how good they are at communicating and doing their work, our decision making would slow down. It might slow down to the point nothing gets done in time for it to matter. This is why i think that large powers such as soviet union or current EU could never work. If the process is speeded up, the decisions become worse and more shortsighted.

With the current methods available, something like USA system could work the best where small groups of people elect their government to deal with local problems, while whole USA elects people to work on matters that effect entire nation, like foreign politics. For example, ministers in EU dont know jacks shit about agriculture in Finland, so they should leave those decisions strictly to finnish them selfs.

Together we can make sure that warlike nations can never match our army such as NATO or USA army. Together we can decide how we market fairly between each other. Together we can advance in science and well being of everybody in our unions. BUT those just hapen to be decision our current political system allow smoothly. Minister from france or germany dosent know anything about problems in finland, and finnish ministers do not know the problems of in france or germany.

Maybe in future we have evolved into fair and caring people with supreme intellectual power or technology to make everybody happy. Or maybe we build the God thats going to rule us fairly, with justice and logic etcetc..

lorkac

United States2297 Posts

September 13 2011 19:04 GMT

#527

On September 14 2011 04:02 Half wrote:
I don't get it. Where do you plan for all the inept politicians go? Well they wouldn't just disappear would they. They would all just become engineers. Now we have a shit ton of inept power hungry engineers exploiting scientific repute to gain power and, well, what do you know, two of our trains just collided and we are now burying alive the injured to silence the incident.

what a silly op lol.

lololololol

I almost died, I was drinking tea and nearly choked to death from laughter lol

I should sue you for attempted murder

lol

Capped

United Kingdom7236 Posts

September 13 2011 19:05 GMT

#528

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.

While i agree it is a better concept than democracy by FAR in theory.

In reality scientists bitch and argue more then politicians and little girls. There would rarely ever be a decision agreed upon, decisions would be made more slowly.

Also, when some neural implant comes out proven to "increase" brain power (etc etc ive had a few drinks) all scientists will be agreed on the fact it is beneficial to the human kind - Do you want to have something implanted in your head as law?

EDIT: Last paragraph was an example. Dont take me literally, its just something that is likely to happen with scientists in control; You MUST take this / have this done to you because of X and X

tech information

105 Posts

September 13 2011 19:06 GMT

#529

Ok ever seen the movie IDIOCRACY I suggest you see it you will see yourselves there.

DeepElemBlues

United States5079 Posts

September 13 2011 19:08 GMT

#530

i think this guy is just a stooge for the new world order

what ya gonna do when hollywood and the nWo run wild on YOU, brother, with their energy "certificates"

(which look suspiciously like debit cards, as in government through the banks has control over all currency as all currency is electronic... bad idea)

lorkac

United States2297 Posts

September 13 2011 19:09 GMT

#531

On September 14 2011 04:03 tech information wrote:

Show nested quote +

Ok ever heard of Peak Oil? You are both completely insane and you are a stooge for Price System corporate interests.
[image loading]

Yes, of course, non-public transport is *only* dependent on oil

Oh wait, as technology changes the specific *means* of transportation changes but not the *needs* of populace for non-public transport.

+1 politicians again

Please, stop being silly since you're making politicians look good which should never be the case.

lorkac

United States2297 Posts

September 13 2011 19:11 GMT

#532

On September 14 2011 04:06 tech information wrote:
Ok ever seen the movie IDIOCRACY I suggest you see it you will see yourselves there.

I love how your arguments get more "complex" over time

Ooh! Ooh! I can join in!

Ever seen Terminator 2?

Ooh! Ooh! Let's be less actiony!

Ever seen Gattaca?

Ooh! Ooh! Even better!

Ever seen Pleasantville?

lol I love this game! Let's see how many other movies we can bring up

gosublade

632 Posts

September 13 2011 19:11 GMT

#533

It would be definitely be better than democracy(democracy my ass) but the human race is fucked no matter what. There is a saying that goes with this. A person is smart but people are dumb.

This huge mass of humans that have populated earth are so easily manipulated by abusing the flaws of our brains. Our logic needs a shift. How it would happen or will it ever, can't say yet. Buts thats kinda difficult too. We need to find a solid barrier between selfishness and selflessness.

Yeah, were fucked no matter what. Too late :/

tech information

105 Posts

September 13 2011 19:12 GMT

#534

No Technocracy is anti-New World Order and corporate elite interests. There are not enough resources in the world to sustain such a large population. Only in North America, with 52% of the world's resources and only 15% of the population can a high standard of living be maintained. I suggest you read the article GLOBALONEY FANTASY by Wilton Ivie one of the most respected Technocrats.

tech information

105 Posts

September 13 2011 19:13 GMT

#535

Stop selling your Continent to foreign interests.

Tschis

Brazil1511 Posts

September 13 2011 19:13 GMT

#536

I think it wouldn't matter that much if they were also all corrupts who actually voted for their interest instead of what is best in their field of study.

And then, if you could eliminate corruption, you could probably enjoy democracy...

But I'd say yes... Because I want to believe people who have studied enough to be masters at their profession are less likely to be corrupted, or to commit corruption in the same grave state that I see politics commiting in Brazil.

DeepElemBlues

United States5079 Posts

September 13 2011 19:15 GMT

#537

Wilton Ivie was an entomologist.

No doubt his study of spiders gave him great insights into political and social science for humans.

tech information

105 Posts

September 13 2011 19:18 GMT

#538

If Technocracy Technate design is not adopted population to resources will have to balance out through war, famine, and population depletion. That is the New World Order's credit-debit scheme. That will entail social fascism, like it has during the whole of human history. Still think Technocracy is not important?

tech information

105 Posts

September 13 2011 19:23 GMT

#539

On September 14 2011 04:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Wilton Ivie was an entomologist.

No doubt his study of spiders gave him great insights into political and social science for humans.

You are retarded. Technocracy is not about social science, economics, or politics. We have nothing whatsoever to learn from those fields. Biology yes because man is himself an organism, and derives his food from other organisms . Read his famous article called The Ecology of Man

Technocracy has always insisted that the type of social operation it offers is not just desirable; it is necessary. As we peruse this pamphlet we ask ourselves the question, `Can man continue to live at all on this Continent without drastically changing his methods of management?'

This is not a pleasant pamphlet to read. It will frighten the reader into realizing just how close to the edge our plundering Price System has led us, and how casually our ignorant political and financial leaders are ignoring the facts of life. It is this persistent refusal to face facts that has been the cause of all our difficulties as a nation in the past thirty years.

Ecology is the study of organisms in relation to their environment. Since no one organism lives strictly to itself, the study of ecology involves the inter-relationships of many organisms as well as the relationships of these organisms with the non-organic environment.

Half

United States2554 Posts

September 13 2011 19:27 GMT

#540

On September 14 2011 04:18 tech information wrote:
If Technocracy Technate design is not adopted population to resources will have to balance out through war, famine, and population depletion. That is the New World Order's credit-debit scheme. That will entail social fascism, like it has during the whole of human history. Still think Technocracy is not important?

What if the technate is perhaps a ruse perpertrated by the upper enclaves of the Illuminati order, comrade? Perhaps it in itself is just a ruse in instituting the facist enterprises, by giving us the illusions of two opposition choices that are actually both part of the greater whole, simulating a dialectical conflict that will sere as a vanishing mediator to ensure the stable transition human society into the 2nd echelon, and the age of the seven lights will begin as we feared.

I fear we have been deceived brother. Flee safe house 13. Flee while you still can!. The bee has entered the hive. I repeat the bee has entered the hive.

Prev 1 25 26 27 28 29 40 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Could a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 27

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming