EPTCould a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
gyth
657 Posts
| ||
|
Crazyboogie
Denmark19 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 12 2011 18:55 LAN-f34r wrote: I like the concept, but how would it work? Would people who are qualified (ie have a PhD in the subject) apply and be voted in like the current system (except with more smart people  )? Would it be voted by other qualified people (after all, the do know the most about each-others qualifications). Would anybody who is qualifies be part of a council?Technocracy and democracy aren't binary. Barring the most extreme cases, most government systems are hybrids with certain elements of different forms. For example, the United States is mainly a federal republic, but incorporates elements of democracy, technocracy, and oligarchy. Moving towards technocracy just means giving more political power to the technocratic elements already within the system, such as the various Executive cabinets which implement policy and the National Academies which directly and indirectly advise elected officials. This would mean giving them more decision-making power, more participation in political discussions, and more insulation from political pressure. On August 12 2011 19:10 Crazyboogie wrote: The problem seems to me, to be the dividing of funds amongst different fields. I think most scientist would emphasise the importance of their own field. You mean like how most Congressmen emphasize the importance of their own constituents and donors? It's no different. Resolving those arguments just comes down to compromise either way. | ||
|
Kemy
105 Posts
This does not exclude experts sharing their views with the voters obviously but everyone should be free to decide and vote what he/she himself thinks is the best solution. | ||
|
nugget-92
Australia83 Posts
| ||
|
mustache
Switzerland309 Posts
On August 12 2011 19:30 Kemy wrote: I'm Swiss and I definitely prefer direct democracy over anything else I could imagine atm. I think the only way to avoid extreme decisions and encourage consensus is to let as many ppl participate in the decision process as possible. And it's only fair to let everyone have a vote to decide where his/her money actually goes. This does not exclude experts sharing their views with the voters obviously but everyone should be free to decide and vote what he/she himself thinks is the best solution. You are glad you have a direct democracy as long as your people can decide what's best for the country in the long term and what isnt. Luckily people in switzerland are educated very well and have an education system that is anchored to the economy (apprenticeships). We will however see how long this lasts, as most people my age i speak to are horribly misinformed about just about everything. | ||
|
Jombozeus
China1014 Posts
Likewise, the decisionmaker for everything economy-related is by Wen Jiabao, who is an economist holding a business degree. The problem is finding people who have the ability to run administrative work AND have a solid engineering background at the same time. Usually, one's education is in either or, and hence the problem. You can rarely find charismatic lawyers who have a PhD in chemical engineering. You then need two people for the job, and for some reason, the one with the business degree always end up above the hierarchy compared to the dude with the engineering degree, when ideally it should be the other way around. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 12 2011 19:30 Kemy wrote: I'm Swiss and I definitely prefer direct democracy over anything else I could imagine atm. I think the only way to avoid extreme decisions and encourage consensus is to let as many ppl participate in the decision process as possible. And it's only fair to let everyone have a vote to decide where his/her money actually goes. You have to keep in mind that your nation is unusually well-educated and intelligent, in which case democracy becomes more favorable. A nation like mine, however, where a majority don't believe in evolution... On August 12 2011 19:31 nugget-92 wrote: I could be the smartest man alive and I would still possess all the faults of the average human. Which is why technocracy is based not on dictatorship by a technocrat, but rather on scientific consensus. On August 12 2011 19:46 Jombozeus wrote: The problem is finding people who have the ability to run administrative work AND have a solid engineering background at the same time. Usually, one's education is in either or, and hence the problem. You can rarely find charismatic lawyers who have a PhD in chemical engineering. You then need two people for the job, and for some reason, the one with the business degree always end up above the hierarchy compared to the dude with the engineering degree, when ideally it should be the other way around. You still have a technocratic expert as a leader though (one who's expertise happens to be administration rather than engineering). Compare this with democracies, where leaders are primarily experts at winning elections. | ||
|
Vore210
Ireland256 Posts
On August 12 2011 18:55 sunprince wrote: The problem is that most people do not think like you do. Most Americans would rather have an 'unsophisticated regular guy' as their elected leader, rather than an 'deceptive elitist intellectual'. That's why it's actually imperative for politicians to downplay their intelligence to the public as much as possible. I've heard it said that "the dumber the politician, the better they represent their constituents". We need to get a bit smarter as a society before this would work. | ||
|
Diks
Belgium1880 Posts
What we call "democracy" in curent politic is everything but a true democratic system. Your point about Technocracy>Democracy when you listen to the average voter's opinion is so damn right. Most people don't have real clue about what they are voting for, so they wait that some "credible" figures come and suggest them what to vote. Technocracy shouldn't permit this kind of shit because people will have a real clue about what they are voting. But the problem is, how do you define the threshold from wich a person could be elligible as a technocratic figure in some field. If I'm an artist that did long electronic studies and who is passionated by nature and environment; Am I not specialized enough to be apart of any of those field ? Drawing those lines about competences is gonna make the fairness of technocracy nearly impossible to achieve. You can't use diplommas as they won't mean anything for some people who quitted that domain of expertise after their studies. Autodidacts are also gonna be a real pain in the ass to determine if they are legit as specialists. Should there be some kind of exam that could define if you're specialist in the said domain ? Beside this small problems, I really think it make more sense than forcing some poor-eduacted people to vote things they don"t understand entirely. | ||
|
bech
Denmark162 Posts
Some of the brightest minds in our society have no skills in this area whatsoever, which is why a technocratic leader would have a hard time governing his/her respective field. What you're not seeing behind the scenes of the political arena is that while a business grad appointed the position of minister of science does not personally know much about science, his job is to convey the message and bargain with opposing powers, while his/her advisers, who are in fact experts in their fields, make suggestions on what needs to be done - just as the technocratic leader would. The only problem here is that the advisers only advise - they don't decide. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 12 2011 20:04 Diks wrote: Should there be some kind of exam that could define if you're specialist in the said domain ? If a doctorate degree is the basic criteria for basic expert competency in a field, then completing the main requirement, publishing a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, could be considered the prerequisite whether you have a degree or not. Thus, an autodidact or career-switched professional who can produce a civil engineering paper of sufficient quality to make it into a peer-reviewed journal would therefore be entitled to an honorary doctoral degree and membership in the relevant National Academy, as well as meet some of the requirements for a job within the relevant bureaucracy. | ||
|
Kralle333
Denmark301 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 12 2011 20:09 bech wrote: The main problem with a technocracy is that while they may be the best in their respective fields, this in no way translates to political skill. Politics is more than knowing what the best thing to do is, it's also about persuading those with different beliefs into following you in that decision, and being able to make the right compromises whilst also forcing others to compromise in order to reach the best possible solution. Advanced political skill is more necessary in a democracy, however. When other leaders are career politicans, then of course you need to up your level of game to compete. This 'arms race' still results in a stalemate, however, which is why even though we have leaders with "political skill", Washington DC is completely deadlocked. By contrast, in a technocracy the other leaders you deal with are primarily experts in their field; thus, it is unnecessary to be as skilled politically to be on even footing,. | ||
|
Qzy
Denmark1121 Posts
I've never believed in democracy. Too many crazy people around. I want you to at least have a phd in what you are a minister of. If I could conquer a country - or a certain area of e.g. Denmark chose to cut off from society, I hope they take up Technocracy and bans religion. Welcome to the new ages of SCIENCE! BAM! | ||
|
Jayve
155 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 101379
4849 Posts
The only way scientists and engineers talk to each other is through arguments on who is the better and if you assign two scientists/engineers on one project without supervision it will never finish because both will argue forever on which is the best approach to start. You need someone to supervise and steer them that is not another scientist/engineer - because then it would be 3 people pushing their opinions around -, best someone who is very experienced in herding cats  EDIT: About "consensus"... in a group of X scientists and engineers, there are exactly X+1 opinons on the right choice and everyone is convinced that exactly X of the other opinions are totally wrong and will ruin everything. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 12 2011 20:20 Morfildur wrote: If you've ever seen scientists and engineers in a team, you know that it won't work. Have you seen politicians in a team? On August 12 2011 20:20 Morfildur wrote: You need someone to supervise and steer them that is not another scientist/engineer - because then it would be 3 people pushing their opinions around -, best someone who is very experienced in herding cats Or you just have the scientists and engineers vote on who is in charge of specific projects. On August 12 2011 20:20 Morfildur wrote: About "consensus"... in a group of X scientists and engineers, there are exactly X+1 opinons on the right choice and everyone is convinced that exactly X of the other opinions are totally wrong and will ruin everything. That's not how it works. Voting theory tells us flat out that at some point they'll realize that they're better off pooling votes by forming coalitions with people who are closer to agreeing with them. Consequently you'll get a consensus. | ||
|
Deleted User 101379
4849 Posts
On August 12 2011 20:25 sunprince wrote: Have you seen politicians in a team? Or you just have the scientists and engineers vote on who is in charge of specific projects. See my edit about consensus. Not possible with scientists. Politicians strive for the most profit, scientists strive to be the only one who is right... so considering politics, we are better off with politicians than with scientists :p | ||
|
Diks
Belgium1880 Posts
On August 12 2011 20:20 Morfildur wrote: If you've ever seen scientists and engineers in a team, you know that it won't work. The only way scientists and engineers talk to each other is through arguments on who is the better and if you assign two scientists/engineers on one project without supervision it will never finish because both will argue forever on which is the best approach to start. You need someone to supervise and steer them that is not another scientist/engineer - because then it would be 3 people pushing their opinions around -, best someone who is very experienced in herding cats EDIT: About "consensus"... in a group of X scientists and engineers, there are exactly X+1 opinons on the right choice and everyone is convinced that exactly X of the other opinions are totally wrong and will ruin everything. Actually the debate is a good thing and could be resolved by a vote. Staticians technocrates could bring up a new vote system that might prevent the scenario you described with a near 50% - 50% result with totally opposite views (Let's be honest, I don't see it ever happen), I have faith that ingeineers and scientist could find a smart compromise. What I'm concerned is "political skills" as mention above. I believe all humans have inherent political skills. This is just a word that has been mystified a lot with history, and if you follow any political courses you'll realise that this is mainly historical and communication classes. You will never get deep into financial, statistic, environmental and the scientific aspects of "politic" Can someone please bring a realistical definition of politician ? Because as a non-expert I might say shit In my opinion "politicians" are just people that knows how to get and diffuse influence and have limited expertise in a large domains. | ||
| ||
