Could a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 6

On August 12 2011 21:28 zalz wrote:
Bad idea

Knowing a lot about a certain field in no way prepares you for leading such a field.

On August 12 2011 21:32 Mecker wrote:
There is no reason to believe that it is impossible or even very complicated for that matter. A committee of thousands of merited scientists would have a lot of biases - all rendered mute simply through rational debate.

On August 12 2011 21:39 Traeon wrote:
You have a naive, idealistic view of things.

On August 12 2011 21:47 sunprince wrote:


Are you saying the uninformed/uneducated public is less biased than technocrats?

On August 12 2011 18:02 Newbistic wrote:
The real question is whether or not a technocracy can even form in the real world, and the answer is pretty much no.

Even if it is yes, professionalism and knowledge does not guarantee personal accountability or integrity in any shape way or form, so those in power are still easily corruptible. Those who aren't in power will be the masses, who simply can't all be so educated as to be able to know everything they need to know to be "informed citizens". Mankind simply isn't education-centered enough to be able to handle such a form of government.

On August 12 2011 21:53 Traeon wrote:
I said his view is naive and idealistic.

Strawmanning much?

On August 12 2011 21:56 gumshoe wrote:
Ever read player piano? Essentially technology begins to steadily replace everyone except the engineers that make the tech. The engineers are corrupt and blinded by their power and almost everyone else lacks a satisfying job, technocracy is a recipe for the worst kind of elitism, a society in which only a select few professions are considered meaningful.

On August 12 2011 21:57 Archaron wrote:
the problem with this system is that everyday people have no power what so ever and are dictated to how to properly live there lives even though they might not want to listen essential making this a subform of dictatorship. sure this would work if every1 was a robot and didnt have individual feelings but we do. the idea of having someone from the field in which they are leading is a good one however the job of ministers is not neccesarly to further the development of said industry or country but to simply get realected so if u feel a minister orpolitical group is doing a bad job with electing its ministers then dont vote for them and find some1 who does promote there ministers correctly and vote for them

On August 12 2011 21:58 bonifaceviii wrote:
Sounds like union rule and self-regulation, both of which are horrible.

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.

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.

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.

On August 12 2011 21:34 sunprince wrote:


No, but it prepares you to vote on decisions made in such a field, which is the point of a technocracy.

On August 12 2011 22:13 Tarot wrote:
Maybe a technocracy won't work but at the very least, I would like some unified and influential group of experts from various fields that fact checks the stuff that politicians say. Maybe they won't make decisions but point out things that are blatantly wrong, or misleading to the general public.

On August 12 2011 22:13 zalz wrote:
Yes, and these decisions would be of an administrative nature, something wich has nearly no relation to their actuall knowledge of the field.

Knowing how to perform brain surgery does not in any way shape or form train you to actually run a brain surgery department or a hospital.

On August 12 2011 22:13 zalz wrote:
And that is what you would get. People judging over decisions wich we think they know a lot about whilst in reality they probably have little to no clue about such matters.

A garbageman doesn't know how to run a garbage facility, all he knows is how to pick up the garbage and drive the car.

But in this system of government we can't vote out the incompetent people rather then in a democracy whilst both officials would have the same ammount of knowledge on any given subkect.