• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 17:45
CEST 23:45
KST 06:45
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202552RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams7Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 752 users

Could a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 37

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next All
sevencck
Profile Joined August 2011
Canada704 Posts
September 22 2011 23:12 GMT
#721
Lower tier value sets exist in any and all professions. Do you really believe that someone has an inclusive view by virtue of their professional credentials? Scientists and engineers are the way forward are they? Have you never heard of the numerous scientists denouncing global warming as a ruse or saying the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports creationism? Is it too much to imagine racist engineers? Ignorance and stupidity exists within scientific circles (and I would know) just as much as it does within political circles, because the human factor is present equally in both cases.

We need better/more inclusive values in our leadership, but that has very little to do with profession.
I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. -Albert Einstein
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
September 23 2011 01:10 GMT
#722
On September 23 2011 08:12 sevencck wrote:
Have you never heard of the numerous scientists denouncing global warming as a ruse or saying the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports creationism?


Yes, and those are <1% of the relevant scientists on the matter (and a bunch of them don't actually have real credentials). So they get outvoted by the ones who aren't cranks.

On September 23 2011 08:12 sevencck wrote:Is it too much to imagine racist engineers?


Good thing engineers don't vote on policies related to racial equality then.

On September 23 2011 08:12 sevencck wrote:
Ignorance and stupidity exists within scientific circles (and I would know) just as much as it does within political circles, because the human factor is present equally in both cases.


Yes, there are ignorant and stupid people with PhD's too, but it should be patently obvious that this percentage is orders of magnitude lower than the percentage of stupid/ignorant people in the general population.
sevencck
Profile Joined August 2011
Canada704 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-23 01:27:00
September 23 2011 01:19 GMT
#723
On September 23 2011 10:10 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2011 08:12 sevencck wrote:
Have you never heard of the numerous scientists denouncing global warming as a ruse or saying the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports creationism?


Yes, and those are <1% of the relevant scientists on the matter (and a bunch of them don't actually have real credentials). So they get outvoted by the ones who aren't cranks.

Show nested quote +
On September 23 2011 08:12 sevencck wrote:Is it too much to imagine racist engineers?


Good thing engineers don't vote on policies related to racial equality then.

Show nested quote +
On September 23 2011 08:12 sevencck wrote:
Ignorance and stupidity exists within scientific circles (and I would know) just as much as it does within political circles, because the human factor is present equally in both cases.


Yes, there are ignorant and stupid people with PhD's too, but it should be patently obvious that this percentage is orders of magnitude lower than the percentage of stupid/ignorant people in the general population.


You're missing the point. The ancient Greek philosophers had a notion of the human experience being comprised of truth beauty and goodness. The idea being that all human experience fundamentally falls into one of these elements, or a combination, and that none can overrule any of the others. Truth can be likened to scientific understanding. Beauty is obviously not related to this in the least. Beauty can be likened on a simplistic level to artistic awareness perhaps and other things. Goodness can be likened to morality. Each of these three elements exists independently of the others. The point is that each of these are vitally important aspects to human experience, and neither of the three can be overemphasized at the expense of the others. If you're more interested in this idea you can Google integral philosophy. As critical as I am of democracy, where it excels is that it is a system wherein all of these three elements are well represented.

You are espousing a system of government that is based almost completely in one of these elements, that being truth. In other words, it's just an orange meme modernist fantasy land where enlightened scientists guide human development with their dogmatic rational empiricism.

As a scientist myself, let me give you my opinion on the matter.

LOL

Edit: I should also add that moral awareness, or how developed someone's values are, is generally speaking independent of career. Anyway this system of government is fundamentally oligarchic in nature. Democracy is fine. Education on the other hand..
I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. -Albert Einstein
Diizzy
Profile Joined August 2011
United States828 Posts
September 23 2011 01:23 GMT
#724
whats good about a democracy is that scientists have become presidents before. even obama went to harvard. the greatest presidents weren't scientist in the U.S. thats for sure.
VanGarde
Profile Joined July 2010
Sweden755 Posts
September 23 2011 01:36 GMT
#725
Well, which form of government is "best" is always a matter of by what parameters you want to define a well run society.

But it is, as hard for it is for most of us in the western world to swallow the fact, arguably so that democracy is an inefficient way to run a society. A technocracy would be vastly superior in running a country efficiently and dealing with long term problems such as peak oil and what not.

In fact I think a technocracy is superior to all forms of government except for the risk of corruption. Unless there is a way to remove the people in charge then there is huge risks of the system falling into a form of despotism instead. The same goes for the fact that it might be hard to devise a system that accurately puts the right people in the right spots.

But yes clearly if there was an element of democracy, where the people could step in and throw an official out of office with a sort of emergency button, then clearly a society where decisions are made by the people most qualified to make them would be much more functional.

Sadly, democracy is inherently incapable of dealing with long term problems, and it suffers the problem of being dependent on the average intelligence of the voters. People today are grossly uneducated about science, and uninterested. You go into a book store and you will find more books on astrology than on astronomy. More people knew who got voted out of the big brother house than the number of people who are excited about reading about the findings of neutrino's moving faster than the speed of light.

There is very little motivation for politicians to make changes that are tough on us now, because those changes are needed to solve long term problems. Voters are shortsighted and only want stuff for free. No one will vote for the guy who suggests everyone to swallow bad tasting medicine. I seriously don't see how pure democracies will survive through the end of oil as a combustible resource, or any of the other global problems that needs solutions to be put in place, many many elections before the problems become real.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
sevencck
Profile Joined August 2011
Canada704 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-23 01:42:52
September 23 2011 01:41 GMT
#726
On September 23 2011 10:36 VanGarde wrote:
Well, which form of government is "best" is always a matter of by what parameters you want to define a well run society.

But it is, as hard for it is for most of us in the western world to swallow the fact, arguably so that democracy is an inefficient way to run a society. A technocracy would be vastly superior in running a country efficiently and dealing with long term problems such as peak oil and what not.

In fact I think a technocracy is superior to all forms of government except for the risk of corruption. Unless there is a way to remove the people in charge then there is huge risks of the system falling into a form of despotism instead. The same goes for the fact that it might be hard to devise a system that accurately puts the right people in the right spots.

But yes clearly if there was an element of democracy, where the people could step in and throw an official out of office with a sort of emergency button, then clearly a society where decisions are made by the people most qualified to make them would be much more functional.

Sadly, democracy is inherently incapable of dealing with long term problems, and it suffers the problem of being dependent on the average intelligence of the voters. People today are grossly uneducated about science, and uninterested. You go into a book store and you will find more books on astrology than on astronomy. More people knew who got voted out of the big brother house than the number of people who are excited about reading about the findings of neutrino's moving faster than the speed of light.

There is very little motivation for politicians to make changes that are tough on us now, because those changes are needed to solve long term problems. Voters are shortsighted and only want stuff for free. No one will vote for the guy who suggests everyone to swallow bad tasting medicine. I seriously don't see how pure democracies will survive through the end of oil as a combustible resource, or any of the other global problems that needs solutions to be put in place, many many elections before the problems become real.


I completely agree with this appraisal of democracy. As Sir Winston Churchill once said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." But should we be so quick to scrap it all and return to the drawing board? The system might work quite well as our societies evolve and the condition of the average voter improves. Conversely, a technocracy might stymie the evolution of our societies in some respects, and become a burden as the condition of the average voter improves.
I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. -Albert Einstein
VanGarde
Profile Joined July 2010
Sweden755 Posts
September 23 2011 01:48 GMT
#727
On September 23 2011 10:41 sevencck wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2011 10:36 VanGarde wrote:
Well, which form of government is "best" is always a matter of by what parameters you want to define a well run society.

But it is, as hard for it is for most of us in the western world to swallow the fact, arguably so that democracy is an inefficient way to run a society. A technocracy would be vastly superior in running a country efficiently and dealing with long term problems such as peak oil and what not.

In fact I think a technocracy is superior to all forms of government except for the risk of corruption. Unless there is a way to remove the people in charge then there is huge risks of the system falling into a form of despotism instead. The same goes for the fact that it might be hard to devise a system that accurately puts the right people in the right spots.

But yes clearly if there was an element of democracy, where the people could step in and throw an official out of office with a sort of emergency button, then clearly a society where decisions are made by the people most qualified to make them would be much more functional.

Sadly, democracy is inherently incapable of dealing with long term problems, and it suffers the problem of being dependent on the average intelligence of the voters. People today are grossly uneducated about science, and uninterested. You go into a book store and you will find more books on astrology than on astronomy. More people knew who got voted out of the big brother house than the number of people who are excited about reading about the findings of neutrino's moving faster than the speed of light.

There is very little motivation for politicians to make changes that are tough on us now, because those changes are needed to solve long term problems. Voters are shortsighted and only want stuff for free. No one will vote for the guy who suggests everyone to swallow bad tasting medicine. I seriously don't see how pure democracies will survive through the end of oil as a combustible resource, or any of the other global problems that needs solutions to be put in place, many many elections before the problems become real.


I completely agree with this appraisal of democracy. As Sir Winston Churchill once said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." But should we scrap it all and return to the drawing board? The system might work quite well as our societies evolve and the condition of the average voter improves. Conversely, a technocracy might stymie the evolution of our societies in some respects, and become a burden as the condition of the average voter improves.


Yeah, every system has its pro's and con's. I am of the opinion that a hybrid between technocracy and democracy is not only ideal but urgently needed. It is like we have settled on the notion that we've discovered all the forms of government already, while there is nothing saying we can't create a new one.

I don't know how it should be done in an ideal world but a system that combines the ability for people to influence and to elect officials while councils of experts that are chosen by merit and experience much like people are employed to companies would have a much stronger influence as well over the decisions in each field. For example the medical council, consisting of doctors, biochemists, evolutionary biologists etc and without any of them being connected to any companies could put in a motion that we ban the use of antibiotics for farm animals to prevent the rampant spread of resistant bacteria. And it would be more than just a recommendation but an actual motion that in order to not carry through would have to be stopped in the elected chamber.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-23 03:08:27
September 23 2011 03:00 GMT
#728
On September 23 2011 10:19 sevencck wrote:
You're missing the point. The ancient Greek philosophers had a notion of the human experience being comprised of truth beauty and goodness. The idea being that all human experience fundamentally falls into one of these elements, or a combination, and that none can overrule any of the others. Truth can be likened to scientific understanding. Beauty is obviously not related to this in the least. Beauty can be likened on a simplistic level to artistic awareness perhaps and other things. Goodness can be likened to morality. Each of these three elements exists independently of the others. The point is that each of these are vitally important aspects to human experience, and neither of the three can be overemphasized at the expense of the others. If you're more interested in this idea you can Google integral philosophy. As critical as I am of democracy, where it excels is that it is a system wherein all of these three elements are well represented.


You assume that truth, beauty, and goodness are all well-represented in a democracy. I would argue to the contrary that none of them are well-represented.

Perhaps in theory, democracy accomplishes what you imagine it does, but in reality, democracy is ignorant, ugly, and morally bankrupt.

On September 23 2011 10:19 sevencck wrote:
You are espousing a system of government that is based almost completely in one of these elements, that being truth. In other words, it's just an orange meme modernist fantasy land where enlightened scientists guide human development with their dogmatic rational empiricism.


You also assume that "beauty" and "goodness" should be a part of government. I fundamentally disagree.

I could care less about your ancient Greek ideals (though it's ironic that you espouse them since the ancient Greeks thought the idea of a democracy where anyone can vote was ludicrous). What I want is a government which does it's job of managing society to the benefit of the whole, not a government where a few powerful interests manipulate idiot voters into doing their bidding.
sevencck
Profile Joined August 2011
Canada704 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-23 03:24:01
September 23 2011 03:22 GMT
#729
On September 23 2011 12:00 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2011 10:19 sevencck wrote:
You're missing the point. The ancient Greek philosophers had a notion of the human experience being comprised of truth beauty and goodness. The idea being that all human experience fundamentally falls into one of these elements, or a combination, and that none can overrule any of the others. Truth can be likened to scientific understanding. Beauty is obviously not related to this in the least. Beauty can be likened on a simplistic level to artistic awareness perhaps and other things. Goodness can be likened to morality. Each of these three elements exists independently of the others. The point is that each of these are vitally important aspects to human experience, and neither of the three can be overemphasized at the expense of the others. If you're more interested in this idea you can Google integral philosophy. As critical as I am of democracy, where it excels is that it is a system wherein all of these three elements are well represented.


You assume that truth, beauty, and goodness are all well-represented in a democracy. I would argue to the contrary that none of them are well-represented.

Perhaps in theory, democracy accomplishes what you imagine it does, but in reality, democracy is ignorant, ugly, and morally bankrupt.

Show nested quote +
On September 23 2011 10:19 sevencck wrote:
You are espousing a system of government that is based almost completely in one of these elements, that being truth. In other words, it's just an orange meme modernist fantasy land where enlightened scientists guide human development with their dogmatic rational empiricism.


You also assume that "beauty" and "goodness" should be a part of government. I fundamentally disagree.

I could care less about your ancient Greek ideals (though it's ironic that you espouse them since the ancient Greeks thought the idea of a democracy where anyone can vote was ludicrous). What I want is a government which does it's job of managing society to the benefit of the whole, not a government where a few powerful interests manipulate idiot voters into doing their bidding.


There isn't much of a reason for you and I to argue really, because fundamentally I can't say that I disagree with you. I'm often frustrated with democracy to the point where I seldom even bother to vote anymore.

As an example, however, let's look at Monsanto. I know that there are tons of scientists that would love to be able to dive head first into GE because of what it has the potential to do (in short truth). Is it right? Should the "enlightened" few have the capacity to veer humanity down that road without so much as a second through to what is good? I also know alot of scientists in biological research groups that would be more than happy to sacrifice numerous different animals in the pursuit of what is true without a second thought for what is good.

I'd say democracy can do these things. Democracy can have leadership that is inspired by wise people who excel at examining truth, but can also be inspired by people who excel at examining beauty and goodness. Like I said, if you don't like the ancient greeks you can Google integral philosophy for a more comprehensive model. Democracy's current failings are less a failing associated with the political theory per se, but far more a failing pertaining to the people using the system (which again, gets back to truth, beauty, goodness -- someone who sees only truth might make spending cuts to education in certain areas, at the expense of a well balanced population). I think a system where truth and truth alone gets to reign supreme would be a disaster.
I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. -Albert Einstein
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
September 23 2011 04:13 GMT
#730
On September 23 2011 12:22 sevencck wrote:
As an example, however, let's look at Monsanto. I know that there are tons of scientists that would love to be able to dive head first into GE because of what it has the potential to do (in short truth). Is it right? Should the "enlightened" few have the capacity to veer humanity down that road without so much as a second through to what is good? I also know alot of scientists in biological research groups that would be more than happy to sacrifice numerous different animals in the pursuit of what is true without a second thought for what is good.


By contrast, however, there are experts in biology and ethics who disagree with them.

In a technocracy, that oppostion would tend to restrain egregious behaviors. In a democracy, however, Monsanto uses its vast funds to affect public opinion, politicians, and policy, in order to ensure it can do what it wants in the pursuit of profit.

On September 23 2011 12:22 sevencck wrote:
Democracy's current failings are less a failing associated with the political theory per se, but far more a failing pertaining to the people using the system (which again, gets back to truth, beauty, goodness -- someone who sees only truth might make spending cuts to education in certain areas, at the expense of a well balanced population). I think a system where truth and truth alone gets to reign supreme would be a disaster.


A political system cannot be measured only according to its full potential or ideal state. Despotism, for example, actually works out pretty well in the event of a kind, enlightened dictator.

Democracy's "current failings" are real problems with the system, because the nature of allowing everyone to vote in their ignorant self-interest inherently allows for the problems we currently see.
sevencck
Profile Joined August 2011
Canada704 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-23 05:03:05
September 23 2011 05:02 GMT
#731
On September 23 2011 13:13 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2011 12:22 sevencck wrote:
As an example, however, let's look at Monsanto. I know that there are tons of scientists that would love to be able to dive head first into GE because of what it has the potential to do (in short truth). Is it right? Should the "enlightened" few have the capacity to veer humanity down that road without so much as a second through to what is good? I also know alot of scientists in biological research groups that would be more than happy to sacrifice numerous different animals in the pursuit of what is true without a second thought for what is good.


By contrast, however, there are experts in biology and ethics who disagree with them.

In a technocracy, that oppostion would tend to restrain egregious behaviors. In a democracy, however, Monsanto uses its vast funds to affect public opinion, politicians, and policy, in order to ensure it can do what it wants in the pursuit of profit.

Show nested quote +
On September 23 2011 12:22 sevencck wrote:
Democracy's current failings are less a failing associated with the political theory per se, but far more a failing pertaining to the people using the system (which again, gets back to truth, beauty, goodness -- someone who sees only truth might make spending cuts to education in certain areas, at the expense of a well balanced population). I think a system where truth and truth alone gets to reign supreme would be a disaster.


A political system cannot be measured only according to its full potential or ideal state. Despotism, for example, actually works out pretty well in the event of a kind, enlightened dictator.

Democracy's "current failings" are real problems with the system, because the nature of allowing everyone to vote in their ignorant self-interest inherently allows for the problems we currently see.


You're highlighting the failings of democracy while trumpeting the (possible) virtues of a different system. You're also assuming that you can get a balanced moral view out of biologists (who I'll remind you are inherently interested in their research proceeding). Also, I suppose noone else gets to critique the moral practices of biologists since they aren't biologists (forgetting of course that biologists are experts in biology and may not have the most inclusive view in terms of social morality). When PETA has something to say about the way lab animals are treated what happens? Are they ignored for their biological ignorance (which is of course totally irrelevant)?

You see the trouble with what you're talking about IMO is that it's overly idealistic and simplistic. Experts come together to talk about truth, and the rest of us that don't get to have our say had better hope they have goodness in mind for all our sakes. The difficulty is that expertise and excellence in humanity aren't so easy to draw borders around. It's also interesting that you said you had no interest in goodness, because you assume (incorrectly) that truth by definition will speak for goodness.

Completely agree that a political system cannot be measured only according to its full potential or ideal state.
I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. -Albert Einstein
Misled
Profile Joined December 2010
Germany19 Posts
September 23 2011 11:57 GMT
#732
I haven't had time to actually read the full thread yet, because I'm only on my lunch break at the moment. But I do find this thread very interesting, because I was thinking about this not all to long ago.

My perspective on Technocracy should not just be a Democracy in which you substitute politicians with ''experts'' in a certain field. Also a Technocracy should not be seen as something that puts more emphasis on science and engineering.

As I see it (as the engineer that I am, I should add ), a technocracy can be a system that builds on key engineering or scientific aspects or keywords such as ''Logic'' and ''Innovation'' without forgetting key aspects of Democracy like ''Equality'' and ''Respect''.

An upgrade or patch for democracy maybe?

I'll check back this evening. Have to go back to work now
HellRoxYa
Profile Joined September 2010
Sweden1614 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-23 12:24:07
September 23 2011 12:23 GMT
#733
On September 23 2011 10:48 VanGarde wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2011 10:41 sevencck wrote:
On September 23 2011 10:36 VanGarde wrote:
Well, which form of government is "best" is always a matter of by what parameters you want to define a well run society.

But it is, as hard for it is for most of us in the western world to swallow the fact, arguably so that democracy is an inefficient way to run a society. A technocracy would be vastly superior in running a country efficiently and dealing with long term problems such as peak oil and what not.

In fact I think a technocracy is superior to all forms of government except for the risk of corruption. Unless there is a way to remove the people in charge then there is huge risks of the system falling into a form of despotism instead. The same goes for the fact that it might be hard to devise a system that accurately puts the right people in the right spots.

But yes clearly if there was an element of democracy, where the people could step in and throw an official out of office with a sort of emergency button, then clearly a society where decisions are made by the people most qualified to make them would be much more functional.

Sadly, democracy is inherently incapable of dealing with long term problems, and it suffers the problem of being dependent on the average intelligence of the voters. People today are grossly uneducated about science, and uninterested. You go into a book store and you will find more books on astrology than on astronomy. More people knew who got voted out of the big brother house than the number of people who are excited about reading about the findings of neutrino's moving faster than the speed of light.

There is very little motivation for politicians to make changes that are tough on us now, because those changes are needed to solve long term problems. Voters are shortsighted and only want stuff for free. No one will vote for the guy who suggests everyone to swallow bad tasting medicine. I seriously don't see how pure democracies will survive through the end of oil as a combustible resource, or any of the other global problems that needs solutions to be put in place, many many elections before the problems become real.


I completely agree with this appraisal of democracy. As Sir Winston Churchill once said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." But should we scrap it all and return to the drawing board? The system might work quite well as our societies evolve and the condition of the average voter improves. Conversely, a technocracy might stymie the evolution of our societies in some respects, and become a burden as the condition of the average voter improves.


Yeah, every system has its pro's and con's. I am of the opinion that a hybrid between technocracy and democracy is not only ideal but urgently needed. It is like we have settled on the notion that we've discovered all the forms of government already, while there is nothing saying we can't create a new one.

I don't know how it should be done in an ideal world but a system that combines the ability for people to influence and to elect officials while councils of experts that are chosen by merit and experience much like people are employed to companies would have a much stronger influence as well over the decisions in each field. For example the medical council, consisting of doctors, biochemists, evolutionary biologists etc and without any of them being connected to any companies could put in a motion that we ban the use of antibiotics for farm animals to prevent the rampant spread of resistant bacteria. And it would be more than just a recommendation but an actual motion that in order to not carry through would have to be stopped in the elected chamber.



As has been pointed out earlier in this thread this is already being done. You might be interested in picking up a book on the Swedish political system and how the Riksdag operates. In short our politicians make great use of kommissioner, which are tasked with examining one or several issues and present a report to the politicians. Kommissionerna in turn make use of experts in whatever field or fields relate to the issue they are examining or investigating.

At the end of the day, when the report is presented, it is up to the elected politicians to make a decision whether whatever the report says should be concidered valid and/or relevant or not. At this point, if you dislike what the politicians are doing, you replace them during the next election. Alternatively you can try to have a public debate or reach them individually through public means of contact (phone, e-mail).

Although I'm not an expert on the American political system this seems to be the norm for their system as well.
Jongl0
Profile Joined June 2011
631 Posts
September 23 2011 12:41 GMT
#734
I don't think is would be any worse at least.
Shraft
Profile Joined October 2010
Sweden701 Posts
September 23 2011 12:46 GMT
#735
I don't want some "experts" to decide what's healthy or what's legal or illegal. A government limited to only police and courts would be superior to a technocracy in every single way. Any form of society that relies on heavy centralization is bound to be worse than a free market one.

Also, just how much power are these rulers supposed to hold? Can they adopt heavy taxation of the citizens to fund some important scientific project?
Talin
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Montenegro10532 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-23 14:01:19
September 23 2011 13:55 GMT
#736
On September 23 2011 21:46 Shraft wrote:
I don't want some "experts" to decide what's healthy or what's legal or illegal. A government limited to only police and courts would be superior to a technocracy in every single way. Any form of society that relies on heavy centralization is bound to be worse than a free market one.


See that's exactly the problem - you oppose an idea because you don't like it. This is exactly why what people want or don't want or like and dislike shouldn't matter, and objective efficiency should.

How is it "bound to be worse" anyway?

One of the greatest advantages humans have, being on the evolutionary stage that we are, is the ability to form strong and structured communities and benefit from proper hierarchy and organization.

Allowing everybody to do what they want, say what they want, and behave how they want, chasing only their own personal interests is a recipe for disaster - which is exactly what the last few hundreds of years of human history have been - a disaster. So much of our joint potential and energy has been wasted on superficial things and coping with outdated social structures.

Society fostering and encouraging internal conflict and competition on every level is fundamentally absurd and anti-progressive. What you're advocating essentially turns humans into animals with technology. In fact, some insect species would have more advanced organizational structures than we do.
VanGarde
Profile Joined July 2010
Sweden755 Posts
September 23 2011 14:09 GMT
#737
On September 23 2011 21:23 HellRoxYa wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2011 10:48 VanGarde wrote:
On September 23 2011 10:41 sevencck wrote:
On September 23 2011 10:36 VanGarde wrote:
Well, which form of government is "best" is always a matter of by what parameters you want to define a well run society.

But it is, as hard for it is for most of us in the western world to swallow the fact, arguably so that democracy is an inefficient way to run a society. A technocracy would be vastly superior in running a country efficiently and dealing with long term problems such as peak oil and what not.

In fact I think a technocracy is superior to all forms of government except for the risk of corruption. Unless there is a way to remove the people in charge then there is huge risks of the system falling into a form of despotism instead. The same goes for the fact that it might be hard to devise a system that accurately puts the right people in the right spots.

But yes clearly if there was an element of democracy, where the people could step in and throw an official out of office with a sort of emergency button, then clearly a society where decisions are made by the people most qualified to make them would be much more functional.

Sadly, democracy is inherently incapable of dealing with long term problems, and it suffers the problem of being dependent on the average intelligence of the voters. People today are grossly uneducated about science, and uninterested. You go into a book store and you will find more books on astrology than on astronomy. More people knew who got voted out of the big brother house than the number of people who are excited about reading about the findings of neutrino's moving faster than the speed of light.

There is very little motivation for politicians to make changes that are tough on us now, because those changes are needed to solve long term problems. Voters are shortsighted and only want stuff for free. No one will vote for the guy who suggests everyone to swallow bad tasting medicine. I seriously don't see how pure democracies will survive through the end of oil as a combustible resource, or any of the other global problems that needs solutions to be put in place, many many elections before the problems become real.


I completely agree with this appraisal of democracy. As Sir Winston Churchill once said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." But should we scrap it all and return to the drawing board? The system might work quite well as our societies evolve and the condition of the average voter improves. Conversely, a technocracy might stymie the evolution of our societies in some respects, and become a burden as the condition of the average voter improves.


Yeah, every system has its pro's and con's. I am of the opinion that a hybrid between technocracy and democracy is not only ideal but urgently needed. It is like we have settled on the notion that we've discovered all the forms of government already, while there is nothing saying we can't create a new one.

I don't know how it should be done in an ideal world but a system that combines the ability for people to influence and to elect officials while councils of experts that are chosen by merit and experience much like people are employed to companies would have a much stronger influence as well over the decisions in each field. For example the medical council, consisting of doctors, biochemists, evolutionary biologists etc and without any of them being connected to any companies could put in a motion that we ban the use of antibiotics for farm animals to prevent the rampant spread of resistant bacteria. And it would be more than just a recommendation but an actual motion that in order to not carry through would have to be stopped in the elected chamber.



As has been pointed out earlier in this thread this is already being done. You might be interested in picking up a book on the Swedish political system and how the Riksdag operates. In short our politicians make great use of kommissioner, which are tasked with examining one or several issues and present a report to the politicians. Kommissionerna in turn make use of experts in whatever field or fields relate to the issue they are examining or investigating.

At the end of the day, when the report is presented, it is up to the elected politicians to make a decision whether whatever the report says should be concidered valid and/or relevant or not. At this point, if you dislike what the politicians are doing, you replace them during the next election. Alternatively you can try to have a public debate or reach them individually through public means of contact (phone, e-mail).

Although I'm not an expert on the American political system this seems to be the norm for their system as well.


Yeah, I am a swede I know how the system works
Although I do not agree that the system is anywhere near the one I am thinking of. There is little or rather no actual power invested in this highly advisory system. Secondly these people are not the kind of expert councils you would want in a technocracy, there is no rule for who does this, in fact it is politicians to the vast extent and not at all experts in various fields but as you said meant to go out and get expert opinions which is a very indirect way of gaining information, with very little guarantee for its accuracy.
Furthermore the problem remains that all power lies with the uneducated public and none with the actual experts.

The system I am advocating is vastly different from this one.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
Shraft
Profile Joined October 2010
Sweden701 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-23 15:21:48
September 23 2011 15:16 GMT
#738
On September 23 2011 22:55 Talin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2011 21:46 Shraft wrote:
I don't want some "experts" to decide what's healthy or what's legal or illegal. A government limited to only police and courts would be superior to a technocracy in every single way. Any form of society that relies on heavy centralization is bound to be worse than a free market one.


See that's exactly the problem - you oppose an idea because you don't like it. This is exactly why what people want or don't want or like and dislike shouldn't matter, and objective efficiency should.

How is it "bound to be worse" anyway?

One of the greatest advantages humans have, being on the evolutionary stage that we are, is the ability to form strong and structured communities and benefit from proper hierarchy and organization.

Allowing everybody to do what they want, say what they want, and behave how they want, chasing only their own personal interests is a recipe for disaster - which is exactly what the last few hundreds of years of human history have been - a disaster. So much of our joint potential and energy has been wasted on superficial things and coping with outdated social structures.

Society fostering and encouraging internal conflict and competition on every level is fundamentally absurd and anti-progressive. What you're advocating essentially turns humans into animals with technology. In fact, some insect species would have more advanced organizational structures than we do.


It's bound to be worse because a free market leads to the best/most efficient economy. I am not the greatest economist myself, but there's plenty of books/videos on the subject. (Economics in one lesson, for example)
And you're entirely wrong on the "competition is bad" stuff. Competition on a free market means that the companies have to produce commodities that people want, or they'll go bankrupt.

And who are they to decide what's objectively wrong? Perhaps they'll decide that steroids are bad for your health, so they'll prohibit the production and consumption of them. But if I think that the benefits of using steroids outweigh the health hazard, then why can't I use them? As long as I don't hurt anyone else, it should all be fine and dandy.

Basically, it's stupid to have a bunch of guys decide what's in the best interests of everyone.
HellRoxYa
Profile Joined September 2010
Sweden1614 Posts
September 23 2011 15:32 GMT
#739
On September 23 2011 23:09 VanGarde wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2011 21:23 HellRoxYa wrote:
On September 23 2011 10:48 VanGarde wrote:
On September 23 2011 10:41 sevencck wrote:
On September 23 2011 10:36 VanGarde wrote:
Well, which form of government is "best" is always a matter of by what parameters you want to define a well run society.

But it is, as hard for it is for most of us in the western world to swallow the fact, arguably so that democracy is an inefficient way to run a society. A technocracy would be vastly superior in running a country efficiently and dealing with long term problems such as peak oil and what not.

In fact I think a technocracy is superior to all forms of government except for the risk of corruption. Unless there is a way to remove the people in charge then there is huge risks of the system falling into a form of despotism instead. The same goes for the fact that it might be hard to devise a system that accurately puts the right people in the right spots.

But yes clearly if there was an element of democracy, where the people could step in and throw an official out of office with a sort of emergency button, then clearly a society where decisions are made by the people most qualified to make them would be much more functional.

Sadly, democracy is inherently incapable of dealing with long term problems, and it suffers the problem of being dependent on the average intelligence of the voters. People today are grossly uneducated about science, and uninterested. You go into a book store and you will find more books on astrology than on astronomy. More people knew who got voted out of the big brother house than the number of people who are excited about reading about the findings of neutrino's moving faster than the speed of light.

There is very little motivation for politicians to make changes that are tough on us now, because those changes are needed to solve long term problems. Voters are shortsighted and only want stuff for free. No one will vote for the guy who suggests everyone to swallow bad tasting medicine. I seriously don't see how pure democracies will survive through the end of oil as a combustible resource, or any of the other global problems that needs solutions to be put in place, many many elections before the problems become real.


I completely agree with this appraisal of democracy. As Sir Winston Churchill once said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." But should we scrap it all and return to the drawing board? The system might work quite well as our societies evolve and the condition of the average voter improves. Conversely, a technocracy might stymie the evolution of our societies in some respects, and become a burden as the condition of the average voter improves.


Yeah, every system has its pro's and con's. I am of the opinion that a hybrid between technocracy and democracy is not only ideal but urgently needed. It is like we have settled on the notion that we've discovered all the forms of government already, while there is nothing saying we can't create a new one.

I don't know how it should be done in an ideal world but a system that combines the ability for people to influence and to elect officials while councils of experts that are chosen by merit and experience much like people are employed to companies would have a much stronger influence as well over the decisions in each field. For example the medical council, consisting of doctors, biochemists, evolutionary biologists etc and without any of them being connected to any companies could put in a motion that we ban the use of antibiotics for farm animals to prevent the rampant spread of resistant bacteria. And it would be more than just a recommendation but an actual motion that in order to not carry through would have to be stopped in the elected chamber.



As has been pointed out earlier in this thread this is already being done. You might be interested in picking up a book on the Swedish political system and how the Riksdag operates. In short our politicians make great use of kommissioner, which are tasked with examining one or several issues and present a report to the politicians. Kommissionerna in turn make use of experts in whatever field or fields relate to the issue they are examining or investigating.

At the end of the day, when the report is presented, it is up to the elected politicians to make a decision whether whatever the report says should be concidered valid and/or relevant or not. At this point, if you dislike what the politicians are doing, you replace them during the next election. Alternatively you can try to have a public debate or reach them individually through public means of contact (phone, e-mail).

Although I'm not an expert on the American political system this seems to be the norm for their system as well.


Yeah, I am a swede I know how the system works
Although I do not agree that the system is anywhere near the one I am thinking of. There is little or rather no actual power invested in this highly advisory system. Secondly these people are not the kind of expert councils you would want in a technocracy, there is no rule for who does this, in fact it is politicians to the vast extent and not at all experts in various fields but as you said meant to go out and get expert opinions which is a very indirect way of gaining information, with very little guarantee for its accuracy.
Furthermore the problem remains that all power lies with the uneducated public and none with the actual experts.

The system I am advocating is vastly different from this one.


You didn't advocate a system at all and what you described is what we have today. I think you are misinformed and distrustful because of it.

However, a system without public support is very much so a worser system. When we get a technocractic party elected with majority and they change the system (requires super majority, ie. they're going to have very strong support or a super majority of public votes) then I'll be inclined to agree with you, at least partly. That wont ever happen so I'll conclude that you're wrong.
vetinari
Profile Joined August 2010
Australia602 Posts
September 23 2011 15:41 GMT
#740
Before I endorse technocracy, what would women's studies professors decide upon?
Prev 1 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 13h 15m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nathanias 261
Hui .233
StarCraft: Brood War
ivOry 12
Dota 2
monkeys_forever678
League of Legends
Dendi839
syndereN81
Counter-Strike
Fnx 1494
Stewie2K623
Super Smash Bros
Liquid`Ken38
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu593
Other Games
summit1g7596
FrodaN3256
C9.Mang0171
ForJumy 64
PPMD33
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• musti20045 24
• Hupsaiya 24
• davetesta22
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 52
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Other Games
• imaqtpie1632
• Shiphtur502
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
13h 15m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
16h 15m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 12h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 16h
CSO Cup
1d 18h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 20h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.