EPThttp://www.youtube.com/user/TechnocracyInc2
EDIT: This is really interesting too
Could a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 34
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
acgFork
Canada397 Posts
http://www.youtube.com/user/TechnocracyInc2 EDIT: This is really interesting too | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
I don't know if I believe you. | ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
On September 14 2011 09:57 acgFork wrote: I found a neat youtube channel on Technocracy, pretty neat: http://www.youtube.com/user/TechnocracyInc2 Yea it's awesome. More videos here: http://www.youtube.com/user/TechnocracyNow#g/p Join us on Technocracy Revolution on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/2205039391/ | ||
|
acgFork
Canada397 Posts
On September 14 2011 10:00 tech information wrote: Yea it's awesome. More videos here: http://www.youtube.com/user/TechnocracyNow#g/p Join us on Technocracy Revolution on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/2205039391/ Dude, why aren't there more views on these? They all have like 300 and barely any subs? I'm surprised because this seems like the best possible government.. | ||
|
scribe123456
United States43 Posts
The beginnings of Technocracy. "...It was made up of professional writers and newspaper people, and architects" lmao, enough said. Before Socrates became a philosopher, he believed he was a fool. All his friends told him he was a fool, the men he did business with called him a fool, and his wife told him what a fool he was every day, so he took it for granted that since they all agreed, they must be right. But he thought to himself, maybe even a fool can learn a little wisdom if he listens to what wise men have to say. So he sought out the reputed wisest men in Athens to teach him. They were generally happy to oblige such a humble student, but as he listened to them expound their philosophies he realized they were all fools as well, only they thought they were wise. And so he finally realized that he was the wisest man in Athens, since all men were fools but most believed themselves wise, while he at least knew that he was a fool. Realizing that you are a fool is therefore the first step toward attaining true wisdom. | ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
On September 14 2011 10:04 acgFork wrote: Dude, why aren't there more views on these? They all have like 300 and barely any subs? I'm surprised because this seems like the best possible government.. Yea... nothing like it anywhere else... check out these magazines too you have never seen anything so cool in your life: http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator:"Technocracy Inc."&sort=-publicdate | ||
|
EnderSword
Canada669 Posts
1) Who and how do you determine which experts are most senior or qualified? Dissenting opinions which may turn out to be correct can be quashed, and Elder status quo members of a field will dominate innovators. Science itself will become 'democratic' within those sub-groups. 2) Groups fight for power and funding. The HealthCare group and Engineering groups will both want more and more funding, so they'll be incented to not be efficient and instead make their own cause seem more in need. Who determines this? 3) Who becomes the 'expert' for social issues? Perfectly intelligent people can disagree on moral and ethic issues. Who do you appoint to decide on abortion, or animal rights or other issues without a clear cut answer. 4) Things are interdisciplinary When is anything just a 'Education' issue? It's always going to have a financial, Legal, social, education, public health etc... component. How do those groups decide who and how they decide on things? It's a cute adorable little idea....but it's actually pretty much what is Currently supposed to be happening. The idea is we elect educated people, and they control departments filled with experts who determine how to do things. They elect a President, and then he may decide when/if to conduct a war, but generals determine how. Or they determine to do some healthcare thing, but then healthcare experts decide on how. But it's a bad system currently, and would be even worse without the poltical executive heads of it. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
On August 12 2011 16:55 Netsky wrote: Interesting idea - not really comfortable with Blizzard having complete control of the parameters though. If they or their supporters don't like World President Nestea out comes the nerf stick for Zerg. If blizzard was in control it would be based on ladder rank and we would have bitbybit and ostojiy ruling the world. | ||
|
Geosensation
United States256 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On September 14 2011 09:39 tech information wrote: you will understand if you investigate Technocracy in depth... getting rid of the so-called Illuminis will not get rid of the problem tho... its the 7000 year old political Price System of ancient Babylon which needs to be gotten rid of You cannot be serious. What the fuck, man, I was obviously taking the piss. What the fuck. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
WHAT THE FUCK. | ||
|
mrafaeldie12
Brazil537 Posts
| ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
| ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
These observations, as may be expected, were bitter gall to industrialists who spoke in terms of dividends and profit margins. They had come to hear how they could get out of the Depression with their corporate skins intact and resume business as usual. Here was this man talking about energy conversion and the time rate of doing work. He even went so far as to say that all such special interest groups as liberals, debt merchants, and communists would wind up sharing "the mud of the last ditch wherein they now struggle so valiantly." The industrialists clicked their tongues, shook their heads, and proceeded to write Technocracy off as just another will-O'-the-wisp, like the Townsend plan. Then they went off to the government, hats in hand. They even tried to hire Scott at a princely wage, but Scott refused to be bound by what he called their "platinum handcuffs." Technocracy's researchers were summarily dismissed from Columbia University. Scott later maintained that he had in his possession a telegram directing all employees of the Hearst Corporation never to mention Technocracy again if they wanted to keep their jobs. Not everyone was cowed by the bluster of the media megaliths, however. The VANCOUVER SUN heralded Technocracy's program for social reconstruction as "North America's Great Chance". The Decatur, Illinois, HERALD-REVIEW headlined it as the "CURE FOR ECONOMIC ILLS". Encyclopedia Americana called it the "only program of social and economic reconstruction which is in technical accord with the age in which we live." H.G. Wells spoke of it as a sound method of placing economics on a purely physical basis. ![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-moE2_F4g6S0/TgpQVgpHHNI/AAAAAAAAASo/vE4hoevhZbM/s1600/Technocracy+in+the+News.jpg) Scott reported in a recorded talk to members in Detroit in 1951: “William Randolph Hearst… one of the worst of all Americans… I have the original telegram, signed in his handwriting, which was sent out to every Hearst official that the name “Technocracy” was not to be used under any condition whatsoever. They were subject to dismissal and severance from the Hearst organization if they did so.” WHO’S WHO OF TECHNOCRACY - SCOTT?, VEBLEN?, HUBBERT? | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
I was attempting to figure out what to say, but I'm dumbfounded Im literally lost for words I hope to go I'm right and tech is just trolling because otherwise this might actually be really sad  | ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
About all we have done so far in this discussion is to give you a definition, and to explain exactly what was meant by it. Why this insistence on exact meaning? We promised to tell you about science in general, and then proceed to split hairs about something so small as would surely make little difference in the composite whole. This brings us to another point. A scientist always knows exactly what he is talking about. That sounds like a boast, but it is really quite the opposite. It is just that a scientist pays attention to the exact definition of terms; he should never use a term beyond it's definition, and he should never use an undefined term at all. Many, quarrelling with me on that last, will say one must somewhere use undefined terms. But we have a way out of that difficulty which will be indicated in a moment. Now, contrast a rigidly defined term with the expressions used in fields other than science---in finance, in politics, law, etc. Suppose you were reading an article on economics and came upon the word `price' as you undoubtedly would do many times a page. Now everybody is credited with knowing the meaning of `price,' but you, being a particularly inquiring individual, insist on exact definition. You would discover that almost every economist, when he bothers to elucidate his terms at all, attaches to the word `price' a different meaning. Some define it as the measure of the ratio of the scarcity of money to the scarcity of any commodity. Others make no mention of scarcity whatever. Still others introduce psychological and social factors. Invariably you will find that a definition when given is followed by great amounts of explanatory and qualifying material. This means the definition represents what is in the author's mind, not what is in the minds of all users of the word. For example: The Encyclopedia Britannica starts off by regretting there is no exact meaning for the word, and presently works into the definition, `Price is value expressed in terms of money.' Then comes the qualifying material which says, in effect, this does not mean values are determined independently of or prior to the determination of their prices, or that values of goods and money are determined separately. Some story of an exchange is necessary, after which the values thus determined appear in the guise of money prices. We are also told that the abstract notion of exchange value is a generalization of the simple idea of price. One who finds this less clear than he hoped would naturally try to discover what is meant by value, since price is expressed in terms of it. He would discover there are three conceptions of value: exchange value, subjective value, and imputed price. He would read the opinion that `value is the greatest philosophical achievement of the 19th century' but nowhere would he find a statement of what it is. He would be gratified to learn there exists, however, if not an exact meaning, at least a theory of values, a theory that requires consideration of the following points: What is the nature of value? What are the fundamental values, and how are they to be classified? How may we determine the relative values of things, and what is the ultimate standard of value? Are values subjective or objective? What is the relation of values to things or of value to existence and reality? Let us go no further into the matter of price, for it does not appear necessary to labor the point that a term whose meaning has not been specified by general agreement among men is unsuited for the rigorous transmission of intelligence from man to man. In this connection, however, we shall take up another little problem. A hunter is standing near a large tree, and a squirrel is hanging onto the opposite side of the tree. The hunter now moves in a circle completely around the tree until he regains his starting position, but at the same time the squirrel also moves around the tree in the same direction and in such a manner as it always faces the man, and as the tree is always between it and him. Now, the problem is this: Does the hunter go around the squirrel? The correct answer is not `yes,' and it is not `no.' The correct reply requires an exact definition of the verb, `go around.' If we define `go around' as meaning that the hunter is first south, then west, then north, then east, and finally south of the squirrel, he very obviously does go around it. But if we agree that `go around' shall mean first opposite the squirrel's belly, then it's right side, then it's back, then it's left side, the answer is just as definitely `no.' Here, again, we see the necessity for exact definition. It is inimical to the integrity of our thinking to use words loosely. Lack of careful definition sires more illegitimate offspring, widely varying sports that take the form of controversies, debates, arguments, than a whole countryside of rabbit farms. Many problems outside science would vanish into thin air if definition were exact. Before we leave the subject, let us ask if anyone can define a term used in connection with measuring the strip of steel--the word `centimeter.' How long is a centimeter? It is useless to say it is the 100th part of a meter; that, in effect, is saying it is twice one-half centimeter, One merely asks: `How long is a meter? Is there possible an exact definition of length not in terms of other units of length?' Yes. In the International Bureau of Standards near Paris is a certain bar of metal--one only. It is an alloy of, I think, Platinum and Iridium. On this bar are two marks, and a centimeter is defined as one 100th the distance between these two marks when the bar is at 0 degrees Centigrade. This is an example of the prosaic, matter-of-course way scientists have of going about things. If they cannot define a term in terms of other terms, they define it in terms of an object or system of objects in the external world. That is how we avoid using undefined terms. We trust the distinction between a definition and a fact is clear. You will have many of both in your studies. A definition is an agreement, wholly arbitrary in character, among men; while a fact is an agreement among investigations carried out by men. It is a definition that a centimeter is one 100th the distance between certain marks on a certain bar at a certain temperature. It is a fact that a particular strip of steel is ten centimeters long. - Technocracy Study Course | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 14 2011 11:24 lorkac wrote: Lol I was attempting to figure out what to say, but I'm dumbfounded Im literally lost for words I hope to go I'm right and tech is just trolling because otherwise this might actually be really sad This is a true believer, that hiring supposed experts in all sorts of fields could run a country or geographical landmass better. And that Energy Certificates aren't Money and are better than Money for all sorts of reasons (Hand Wave this and that). Ughhh. | ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
"Two Intellectual Systems: Matter-energy and the Monetary Culture" (summary, by M. King Hubbert) During a 4-hour interview with Stephen B Andrews, SbAndrews at worldnet.att.net, on March 8, 1988, Dr. Hubbert handed over a copy of the following, which was the subject of a seminar he taught, or participated in, at MIT Energy Laboratory on Sept 30, 1981. "The world's present industrial civilization is handicapped by the coexistence of two universal, overlapping, and incompatible intellectual systems: the accumulated knowledge of the last four centuries of the properties and interrelationships of matter and energy; and the associated monetary culture which has evloved from folkways of prehistoric origin. "The first of these two systems has been responsible for the spectacular rise, principally during the last two centuries, of the present industrial system and is essential for its continuance. The second, an inheritance from the prescientific past, operates by rules of its own having little in common with those of the matter-energy system. Nevertheless, the monetary system, by means of a loose coupling, exercises a general control over the matter-energy system upon which it is super[im]posed. "Despite their inherent incompatibilities, these two systems during the last two centuries have had one fundamental characteristic in common, namely, exponential growth, which has made a reasonably stable coexistence possible. But, for various reasons, it is impossible for the matter-energy system to sustain exponential growth for more than a few tens of doublings, and this phase is by now almost over. The monetary system has no such constraints, and, according to one of its most fundamental rules, it must continue to grow by compound interest. This disparity between a monetary system which continues to grow exponentially and a physical system which is unable to do so leads to an increase with time in the ratio of money to the output of the physical system. This manifests itself as price inflation. A monetary alternative corresponding to a zero physical growth rate would be a zero interest rate. The result in either case would be large-scale financial instability." "With such relationships in mind, a review will be made of the evolution of the world's matter-energy system culminating in the present industrial society. Questions will then be considered regarding the future: What are the constraints and possibilities imposed by the matter-energy system? human society sustained at near optimum conditions? Will it be possible to so reform the monetary system that it can serve as a control system to achieve these results? If not, can an accounting and control system of a non-monetary nature be devised that would be approptirate for the management of an advanced industrial system? "It appears that the stage is now set for a critical examination of this problem, and that out of such inquries, if a catastrophic solution can be avoided, there can hardly fail to emerge what the historian of science, Thomas S. Kuhn, has called a major scientific and intellectual revolution." The following is from an article entitled "King Hubbert: Science's Don Quixote," in the February 1983 issue of Geophysics magazine, by Robert Dean Clark, assistant editor: "Hubbert has had serious health problems for several years. Both his eyesight and hearing now give him problems. But neither the ailments nor the recent adulation have eroded his zest for intellectual combat. In recent years, he has assaulted a target--which he labels the culture of money--that is gigantic even by Hubbert standards. His thesis is that society is seriously handicapped because its two most important intellectual underpinnings, the science of matter-energy and the historic system of finance, are incompatible. A reasonable co-existance is possible when both are growing at approximately the same rate. That, Hubbert says, has been happening since the start of the industrial revolution but it is soon going to end because the amount of [that the?] matter-energy system can grow is limited while money's growth is not. "'I was in New York in the 30s. I had a box seat at the depression,' Hubbert says. 'I can assure you it was a very educational experience. We shut the country down because of monetary reasons. We had manpower and abundant raw materials. Yet we shut the country down. We're doing the same kind of thing now but with a different material outlook. We are not in the position we were in 1929-30 with regard to the future. Then the physical system was ready to roll. This time it's not. We are in a crisis in the evolution of human socienty. It's unique to both human and geologic history. It has never happened before and it can't possibly happen again. You can only use oil once. You can only use metals once. Soon all the oil is going to be burned and all the metals mined and scattered.' "That is obviously a scenario of catastrophe, a possibility Hubbert concedes. But it is not one he forecasts. The man known to many as a pessimist is, in this case, quite hopeful. In fact, he could be the ultimate utopian. We have, he says, the necessary technology. All we have to do is completely overhaul our culture and find an alternative to money. "'We are not starting from zero,' he emphasizes. 'We have an enormous amount of existing technical knowledge. It's just a matter of putting it all together. We still have great flexibility but our maneuverability will diminish with time.' "A non-catastrophic solution is impossible, Hubbert feels, unless society is made stable. This means abandoning two axioms of our culture...the work ethic and the idea that growth is the normal state of life...." During his interview with Dr. Hubbert, Mr. Andrews asked him for his updated perspective, five years later, about his comments as quoted in the article above. He said: "our window of opportunity is slowly closing...at the same time, it probably requires a spiral of adversity. In other words, things have to get worse before they can get better. The most important thing is to get a clear picture of the situation we're in, and the outlook for the future--exhaustion of oil and gas, that kind of thing...and an appraisal of where we are and what the time scale is. And the time scale is not centuries, it's decades." | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
Yes. Read this article: It Really Doesn't Grow On Trees Stephen L. Doll 1997 Published in: The Northwest Technocrat, 1st quarter 1997, No. 346 The stripping of rainforests for monetary profit points up a vital truth -- we are dead set on a collision course between human ambition and the hard, cold realities of physical science. While I appreciate that you liked my post, I strongly disagree with Doll's article. As the 'physical economy' becomes more apparently limited, the 'monetary economy' will raise prices as necessary. That's what's so perfect about a free market - when trees and natural resources start to run out, they become more rare, and prices will rise. Right now, believe it or not, oil is extremely abundant. While current proven, tapped reserves will last only 200 more years, there are numerous untapped reserves as well as unfound reserves. 10 years ago, Saudi Arabia was considered the most oil rich country in the world, but with the recent oil discovery in the gulf (I believe by Exxon), the US is now considered the most oil rich country in the world, with over triple the reserves of Saudi Arabia. There is also the untapped Alaskan reserves, as well as the simple truth that oil is everywhere as long as you drill deep enough. As technology improves and as prices rise and need grows, these resources will be tapped. It's a matter of are we willing to pay to drill for it that's an issue, not the scarcity of oil. There's also Russia's approach to oil when the world refused to sell them oil for a better part of a century in a land considered barren of oil, but that's a little beyond this thread. It's not like the world will end. What will happen, is prices of oil will go up, companies will invest more into research to lower the price to drill for deeper oil and found more reserves, and then prices will go down. There is so much oil, it is literally unlimited (and that's not even talking about oil shale and other sources of oil). What will happen, is that the price of obtaining such oil will be so high that people will go for alternatives, and there was life before the combustion engine, so worst case scenario people will rather pay money for a horse - and life will still be a million times better with the having use of oil to fund, say, medicinal advancement. | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
| ||
| ||
