EPTCould a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 36
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
tech information
105 Posts
| ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
| ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
| ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
"'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.' | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On September 14 2011 11:24 lorkac wrote: I hope to go I'm right and tech is just trolling because otherwise this might actually be really sad  I called this out a while ago. He's most likely an elaborate strawman account made to troll us, if not just flat out insane, considering that he created an account just to spam this thread full of crap. On September 14 2011 13:11 Rabiator wrote: A Technocracy would be WORSE than our sucky democracy for the simple reason that NONE of the listed professions cares about HUMANS (i.e. citizens). Lolwut? Doctors don't care about people? Engineers don't care about people, that's why they constantly worry about safety and ergonomics right? All the social sciences, which revolve around people, don't care about them? Highly educated people have been at the forefront of just about every social and civil rights movement. Assuming that experts don't care about humans is just your knee-jerk anti-intellectual attitudes showing. The idea that intellectuals are an "other"/"not one of us"/dangerous because they have "little empathy for the common folk" is as old as dirt, and has always been used by tyrants to crush dissent. There's a reason that autocratic regimes are quick to persecute the intellectual class; they're the vanguards of freedom. On September 14 2011 13:11 Rabiator wrote: The belief that technology can solve all problems is a myth and it has put us on the road to global destruction by making us waste energy in an insane amount while creating more problems than it solves. Technology ≠ technocracy. Read the thread and/or do some research before sticking your foot in your mouth. | ||
|
Flamingo777
United States1190 Posts
| ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
Irrelevant + Show Spoiler + Lose your one-track mindset and use the whole site when you come back. Your affection for that one thread is simply too much. It was a little weird, but that's a reason for a ban? | ||
|
Dr.Brawndo
2 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
 | ||
|
Naio
27 Posts
| ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 22 2011 11:33 Dr.Brawndo wrote: Haha, man some people really are stupid. Tech Info seemed to be the only one actually on subject (Technocracy), and instead of reading the information and maybe learning something important you try and mock the organization and call him a troll? Please... you guys are obviously the trolls. Not contributing to the debate in any way, insulting some of the greatest thinkers in history and not understanding a single thing about Technocracy, refusing to learn and remaining so pathetically ignorant as to not even be able to formulate a valid argument or inquiry on the subject, just throw names at it and call it silly. You do not know what you are trying to insult.. the most important organization in the world, the result of decades of research by the top scientists and engineers.... You children do not understand the difference between science and opinion obviously, and have a very deluded view of what's real, maybe you spent too much time playing video games and dont care about the real world. Technocracy = scientific social design. You can't argue with science. Debate over. "Perhaps, if we fail to stop and consider the matter, this may sound rather dogmatic. Actually, it isn't. The statements stand, and will continue to stand BECAUSE Technocracy IS NOT dogmatic. Technocrats do not have a doctrine codified from a set of opinions and myths, with a few inescapable facts rationalized to fit. Technocracy is wholly conditioned by the facts of this physical world in which, despite any philosophical aspirations we may cherish, we are forced to live; and as and when new facts are found bearing on our social problems, Technocracy will conform as the facts dictate. Physical facts are uncompromising, as we may learn if we try to disregard them." Idiocracy reference??? "You can't argue with science. Debate over." except when science goes wrong, i.e. opposition to plate tectonics, opposition to theory of relativity, and opposition to heliocentric theory. Scientists have the biggest egos among the population, and they're most likely to exhibit hubris and excess confidence in their pet theories. BTW, one of the tenets of the scientific method is continuous skepticism, theorisation, and validation. Thus, the debate is never over. | ||
|
lithiumdeuteride
96 Posts
On September 22 2011 13:34 TanGeng wrote:"You can't argue with science. Debate over." except when science goes wrong, i.e. opposition to plate tectonics, opposition to theory of relativity, and opposition to heliocentric theory. Scientists have the biggest egos among the population, and they're most likely to exhibit hubris and excess confidence in their pet theories. BTW, one of the tenets of the scientific method is continuous skepticism, theorisation, and validation. Thus, the debate is never over. What you're saying is true, but the cure to scientific errors is more science. Eventually, the wrong ideas will be overturned. Non-scientists unfortunately can't do much to help this process. I'm all for a Technocracy, but I'm not sure how different it would be from current western civilization. Would scientists be put in charge of government spending? That would be a big step forward. Career politicians are a blight upon society. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 22 2011 13:56 lithiumdeuteride wrote: What you're saying is true, but the cure to scientific errors is more science. Eventually, the wrong ideas will be overturned. Non-scientists unfortunately can't do much to help this process. I'm all for a Technocracy, but I'm not sure how different it would be from current western civilization. Would scientists be put in charge of government spending? That would be a big step forward. Career politicians are a blight upon society. There you go conflating the robust process with its flawed practitioners. If process science is to rules then it must necessarily extricate itself from its human component and the personal biases that come with each scientist. Yet, technocracy requires a human component. Instead of focusing on the personalities of politicians, it's more instructive to focus on the incentives and institutions and look at the selection process for personalities of rulers. The main feature common to all politicians and rulers is political power, and as Lord Acton states, "All power corrupts." Does that axiom magically not apply if we give scientists power. Besides, who decides whom is deserving of the privilege to rule in a technocracy. It would seem that decision maker would hold the ultimate power in a technocratic government. And if the selection process for the ruler-scientists is based on popular vote, then there is no substantive difference between democracy and technocracy. Nor would there be substantive difference between the politicians and technocrats. | ||
|
pedduck
Thailand468 Posts
If a country ruled by corrupted government, like Thailand, no system will work. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On September 22 2011 14:47 TanGeng wrote: Instead of focusing on the personalities of politicians, it's more instructive to focus on the incentives and institutions and look at the selection process for personalities of rulers. The main feature common to all politicians and rulers is political power, and as Lord Acton states, "All power corrupts." Does that axiom magically not apply if we give scientists power. Research indicates that technocrats and professionals are actually less corruptible because the self-selection process is biased towards people who care most about their science than anything else, as I've pointed out earlier in this thread. Regardless, power corrupts politicians too, so this isn't exactly a point for democracy. On September 22 2011 14:47 TanGeng wrote: Besides, who decides whom is deserving of the privilege to rule in a technocracy. It would seem that decision maker would hold the ultimate power in a technocratic government. There's no one ruler in a technocracy. A technocracy would effectively boil down to a representative or direct democracy, except that the voters are limited to experts on any given issue. On September 22 2011 14:47 TanGeng wrote: And if the selection process for the ruler-scientists is based on popular vote, then there is no substantive difference between democracy and technocracy. Nor would there be substantive difference between the politicians and technocrats. It isn't. It's based on expert votes. That is, only physicists get to determine who represents them on matters of physics, and only environmental scientists get to determine who represents them on matters of environmental science. If you look at how national academies for most first-world nations work, then you have an idea of how the process would function. Essentially, the national academy selection process would remain, but the members would have real policy-making power with regards to their areas of expertise. | ||
|
jbee
35 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game theory | ||
|
Relickey
United States145 Posts
The Planet Skaro has been torn in an ongoing 100 year war between the Thalls and the Kaleds. The Kaleds have a Technocracy, in a way. All the scientists/engineers are an elite group that makes all the decisions for the rest of the populace, but there is a lead scientist, Davros, whom ultimately decides everything. Near the end of the story when the Doctor is about to destroy everything the Kaleds have worked for(The Daleks) Davros goes to the Thall base and gives them the chemical compound to launch at the Kaled city to destroy its shield, so they can launch their super rocket and kill everyone inside. Do I think that if we have a technocracy the Daleks will be made and super weapons will be created? No. Do I think that giving educated people the title of elite, or even if they're not given the title they will feel it being masters at their respective fields, and immense power could possibly lead to these sort of decisions? Most definitely. | ||
|
Dr.Brawndo
2 Posts
| ||
|
NewbieOne
Poland560 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On September 22 2011 15:37 Relickey wrote: Do I think that if we have a technocracy the Daleks will be made and super weapons will be created? No. Do I think that giving educated people the title of elite, or even if they're not given the title they will feel it being masters at their respective fields, and immense power could possibly lead to these sort of decisions? Most definitely. So you're opposed to technocracy because you watched a Doctor Who episode and decided that you now understand human nature, politics, and 'educated people'? Ignorance + arrogance like this is why democracy fails so hard. | ||
| ||
