Could a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 37

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?

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

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.

On September 23 2011 10:10 sunprince wrote:


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.



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



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.

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.

On September 23 2011 10:41 sevencck wrote:


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.

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.

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.

On September 23 2011 12:00 sunprince wrote:


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.



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.

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.

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.

On September 23 2011 13:13 sunprince wrote:


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.



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.

On September 23 2011 10:48 VanGarde wrote:


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.

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.

On September 23 2011 21:23 HellRoxYa wrote:


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.

On September 23 2011 22:55 Talin wrote:


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.

On September 23 2011 23:09 VanGarde wrote:


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.