• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 10:28
CEST 16:28
KST 23:28
  • 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 202537RSL 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 teams4Weekly 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 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread RSL Season 1 - Final Week The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
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
ASL20 Preliminary Maps BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread
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 Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion 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: 750 users

Could a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 7

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 5 6 7 8 9 40 Next All
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-12 13:29:59
August 12 2011 13:23 GMT
#121
On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
I think many people seem regard scientists like some sort of rational, methodical robot that will carefully weigh the evidence and decide what is right.


I don't think anyone has suggested this. Rather, they are beter than average people at rational, methodical thought, but obviously not perfect.

On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Scientists agree about nothing and there are always different camps within diciplines much like political parties.


False. Scientists agree about a great many things. When they do disagree, then that's something you don't have enough knowledge to act on anyway.

On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Sociology and stuff regarding the whole society can't really be measured though, and there would never be a consensus or even close to it regarding what was right. This goes for economics, psychology etc as well.


False. Look up a sociology or economics journal sometime. Both fields are rooted in empirical science. I can't speak for psychology personally, but I would assume the same is true of it as well. And again, there is plenty of consensus in every field. Just about everything studied up to the undergraduate level is scientific consensus. It's enough to fill vast libraries and most of Wikipedia.

You seem to be working off of popular stereotypes about science, without any idea of how it actually works.

On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Making sure to consult those who have knowledge in fields relevant to decisions is of course important, but that's how it's done today.


Yes, but then the politicians ignore or override those experts, which is how we get a lot of problems.
Tarot
Profile Joined February 2011
Canada440 Posts
August 12 2011 13:25 GMT
#122
On August 12 2011 22:16 zalz wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


You have some sites that check what people say to make sure if it's fact or not.

I think America has a site called politifact or something similar.


But i don't see the use of it. The vast majority will not bother to look it up.

I'm sure a lot of them exist but none of them actually have influence.
If something like that was on a television timeslot/channel where a lot of people would see it, i'm sure the politicians will be a lot more careful about the stuff they say.
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
August 12 2011 13:28 GMT
#123
On August 12 2011 22:25 Tarot wrote:
I'm sure a lot of them exist but none of them actually have influence.
If something like that was on a television timeslot/channel where a lot of people would see it, i'm sure the politicians will be a lot more careful about the stuff they say.


No, they wouldn't. People voluntarily watch Fox News and assume every other network is lying. Why would the truth mean anything to them?

The public is stupid. It's a basic unofficial rule of political science.
Penke
Profile Joined October 2010
Sweden346 Posts
August 12 2011 13:29 GMT
#124
Every way of ruling a coutry has it's good and bad aspects, none will work perfectly. Another quote from the good old Churchill is "Democracy is the worst polity, except all of the others".
mopy
Profile Joined February 2011
Australia19 Posts
August 12 2011 13:32 GMT
#125
I think democracy can work you just have make sure you get a wide spectrum of people into parliment. In Australia most politicians have background law or business, we don't have enough politicians with backgrounds in science, engineering, health, education ect.
Hermasaurus
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
54 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-12 13:38:42
August 12 2011 13:37 GMT
#126
On August 12 2011 22:16 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


We also have people with PhDs in public health and health administration, you know. Those would be the relevant experts here. Brain surgeons would be called upon to decide issues related only to brain surgery.

Show nested quote +
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.


No, you simply are making unfounded claims based on your ignorance of how a technocracy works.

No I'm not quite sure you are completely informed of technocracy. Why don't you take the time to explain to us who handles everyday national policy.
You seem to suggest that said professionals are only called on to handle matters in said field. Well who makes decisions based on citizen, rights taxes, healthcare etc etc etc? I'm not familiar with health care engineers.

You also seem to be 100% for technocracy. You live in the United States. You don't enjoy your freedom? Because the only contemporary technocracies are in East Asia, with limited civil rights in comparison to what we receive.

I don't claim America is perfect. In fact, the president and the average citizen probably has just as little power as anyone other form of government. We all know Pepsi, Coca Cola, and anyone in the Oil Industry calls the shots in this land. But that is another topic for another time.
And guess what, you've wandered into our school of tuna and we now have a taste of lion. We've talked to ourselves. We've communicated and said 'You know what, lion tastes good, let's go get some more lion'
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
August 12 2011 13:38 GMT
#127
On August 12 2011 22:32 mopy wrote:
I think democracy can work you just have make sure you get a wide spectrum of people into parliment. In Australia most politicians have background law or business, we don't have enough politicians with backgrounds in science, engineering, health, education ect.


You seem to be missing the cause.

The reason why most politicians are lawyers and businessmen (and military in some nations, including the US), is that the nature of democracy favors leaders who are skilled at getting elected and implementing their policy, which lawyers/businessmen/military leaders are better at than scientists/engineers/doctors/teachers.
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
August 12 2011 13:39 GMT
#128
On August 12 2011 20:50 Jibba wrote:
I've already bit off more than I want to chew today in the Bear thread and a few more places, so I'll just say 'no', and then leave you with this essay by George Orwell.

+ Show Spoiler +
George Orwell

What is Science?

In last week's Tribune, there was an interesting letter from Mr. J. Stewart Cook, in which he suggested that the best way of avoiding the danger of a ‘scientific hierarchy’ would be to see to it that every member of the general public was, as far as possible, scientifically educated. At the same time, scientists should be brought out of their isolation and encouraged to take a greater part in politics and administration.

As a general statement, I think most of us would agree with this, but I notice that, as usual, Mr. Cook does not define science, and merely implies in passing that it means certain exact sciences whose experiments can be made under laboratory conditions. Thus, adult education tends ‘to neglect scientific studies in favour of literary, economic and social subjects’, economics and sociology not being regarded as branches of science. Apparently. This point is of great importance. For the word science is at present used in at least two meanings, and the whole question of scientific education is obscured by the current tendency to dodge from one meaning to the other.

Science is generally taken as meaning either (a) the exact sciences, such as chemistry, physics, etc., or (b) a method of thought which obtains verifiable results by reasoning logically from observed fact.
If you ask any scientist, or indeed almost any educated person, ‘What is science?’ you are likely to get an answer approximating to (b). In everyday life, however, both in speaking and in writing, when people say ‘science’ they mean (a). Science means something that happens in a laboratory: the very word calls up a picture of graphs, test-tubes, balances, Bunsen burners, microscopes. A biologist, and astronomer, perhaps a psychologist or a mathematician is described as a ‘man of science’: no one would think of applying this term to a statesman, a poet, a journalist or even a philosopher. And those who tell us that the young must be scientifically educated mean, almost invariably, that they should be taught more about radioactivity, or the stars, or the physiology or their own bodies, rather than that they should be taught to think more exactly.

This confusion of meaning, which is partly deliberate, has in it a great danger. Implied in the demand for more scientific education is the claim that if one has been scientifically trained one's approach to all subjects will be more intelligent than if one had had no such training. A scientist's political opinions, it is assumed, his opinions on sociological questions, on morals, on philosophy, perhaps even on the arts, will be more valuable than those of a layman. The world, in other words, would be a better place if the scientists were in control of it. But a ‘scientist’, as we have just seen, means in practice a specialist in one of the exact sciences. It follows that a chemist or a physicist, as such, is politically more intelligent than a poet or a lawyer, as such. And, in fact, there are already millions of people who do believe this.

But is it really true that a ‘scientist’, in this narrower sense, is any likelier than other people to approach non-scientific problems in an objective way? There is not much reason for thinking so. Take one simple test — the ability to withstand nationalism. It is often loosely said that ‘Science is international’, but in practice the scientific workers of all countries line up behind their own governments with fewer scruples than are felt by the writers and the artists. The German scientific community, as a whole, made no resistance to Hitler. Hitler may have ruined the long-term prospects of German science, but there were still plenty of gifted men to do the necessary research on such things as synthetic oil, jet planes, rocket projectiles and the atomic bomb. Without them the German war machine could never have been built up.

On the other hand, what happened to German literature when the Nazis came to power? I believe no exhaustive lists have been published, but I imagine that the number of German scientists — Jews apart — who voluntarily exiled themselves or were persecuted by the règime was much smaller than the number of writers and journalists. More sinister than this, a number of German scientists swallowed the monstrosity of ‘racial science’. You can find some of the statements to which they set their names in Professor Brady's The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism.

But, in slightly different forms, it is the same picture everywhere. In England, a large proportion of our leading scientists accept the structure of capitalist society, as can be seen from the comparative freedom with which they are given knighthoods, baronetcies and even peerages. Since Tennyson, no English writer worth reading — one might, perhaps, make an exception of Sir Max Beerbohm — has been given a title. And those English scientists who do not simply accept the status quo are frequently Communists, which means that, however intellectually scrupulous they may be in their own line of work, they are ready to be uncritical and even dishonest on certain subjects. The fact is that a mere training in one or more of the exact sciences, even combined with very high gifts, is no guarantee of a humane or sceptical outlook. The physicists of half a dozen great nations, all feverishly and secretly working away at the atomic bomb, are a demonstration of this.
But does all this mean that the general public should not be more scientifically educated? On the contrary! All it means is that scientific education for the masses will do little good, and probably a lot of harm, if it simply boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc., to the detriment of literature and history. Its probable effect on the average human being would be to narrow the range of his thoughts and make him more than ever contemptuous of such knowledge as he did not possess: and his political reactions would probably be somewhat less intelligent than those of an illiterate peasant who retained a few historical memories and a fairly sound aesthetic sense.

Clearly, scientific education ought to mean the implanting of a rational, sceptical, experimental habit of mind. It ought to mean acquiring a method — a method that can be used on any problem that one meets — and not simply piling up a lot of facts. Put it in those words, and the apologist of scientific education will usually agree. Press him further, ask him to particularize, and somehow it always turns out that scientific education means more attention to the sciences, in other words — more facts. The idea that science means a way of looking at the world, and not simply a body of knowledge, is in practice strongly resisted. I think sheer professional jealousy is part of the reason for this. For if science is simply a method or an attitude, so that anyone whose thought-processes are sufficiently rational can in some sense be described as a scientist — what then becomes of the enormous prestige now enjoyed by the chemist, the physicist, etc. and his claim to be somehow wiser than the rest of us?

A hundred years ago, Charles Kingsley described science as ‘making nasty smell in a laboratory’. A year or two ago a young industrial chemist informed me, smugly, that he ‘could not see what was the use of poetry’. So the pendulum swings to and fro, but it does not seem to me that one attitude is any better than the other. At the moment, science is on the upgrade, and so we hear, quite rightly, the claim that the masses should be scientifically educated: we do not hear, as we ought, the counter-claim that the scientists themselves would benefit by a little education. Just before writing this, I saw in an American magazine the statement that a number of British and American physicists refused from the start to do research on the atomic bomb, well knowing what use would be made of it. Here you have a group of same men in the middle of a world of lunatics. And though no names were published, I think it would be a safe guess that all of them were people with some kind of general cultural background, some acquaintance with history or literature or the arts — in short, people whose interests were not, in the current sense of the word, purely scientific.

Orwell's text is full of conjecture's without supporting data. Also it has no bearing on discussion if technocracy(there are many flavors) would be improvement upon current system. Noone is probably saying it would be a perfect system.

Just to point out some problems I have with his arguments. He brings an example of scientists vs writers(+..) in Nazi Germany. Not that he actually has any data. In Eastern bloc the situation was in my opinion (again without any data, just my limited observation) somewhat different. But in general I think the situation is much more different. Scientists are just much less interested in politics and all the drama, they want to be left alone. So I would argue that even if he is right that there was more writers/artists/... that actively opposed nazism there was also more writers/artists/... that actively helped nazism. And since we are talking about opinions I will put forward my hypothesis. The way that writers/artists/... are easily recruited for a cause is more a bad thing than a good thing. As they are easily swayed by extremes on either side. From my own experience nations that have somewhat "cultural apathy" in national psyche are in the end much more peaceful. In some circumstances like defending against aggression it is a bad attribute, but in peaceful times it leads to less extremes, less drama. That was kind of off-topic, but shows why I dislike his argument.

That was just one of the problems with his opinion.
paradox_
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada270 Posts
August 12 2011 13:44 GMT
#129
Scientists and engineers aren't infallible or some how have more integrity than the average politician. Power corrupts and anyone in Academia will know they have their own politics in there. You give them power and it'll just turn into another shit show of disagreement that's a little more technically wordy.

There have been enough cases or research being stolen, papers being rejected by journals because the person on the board is doing the same research etc. Scientists are human, they're just specialized in a specific field of knowledge. Experts in science will disagree just as much as non-experts.

Now if you want the benefits a government like that can bring then it needs to change with the population. The government is a representation of the population, not the other way around. When the population changes to a more scientific oriented society, automatically the elected officials will change and represent this.
Sablar
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
Sweden880 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-12 13:51:33
August 12 2011 13:44 GMT
#130
On August 12 2011 22:23 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
I think many people seem regard scientists like some sort of rational, methodical robot that will carefully weigh the evidence and decide what is right.


I don't think anyone has suggested this. Rather, they are beter than average people at rational, methodical thought, but obviously not perfect.

Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Scientists agree about nothing and there are always different camps within diciplines much like political parties.


False. Scientists agree about a great many things. When they do disagree, then that's something you don't have enough knowledge to act on anyway.

Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Sociology and stuff regarding the whole society can't really be measured though, and there would never be a consensus or even close to it regarding what was right. This goes for economics, psychology etc as well.


False. Look up a sociology or economics journal sometime. Both fields are rooted in empirical science. I can't speak for psychology personally, but I would assume the same is true of it as well. And again, there is plenty of consensus in every field. Just about everything studied up to the undergraduate level is scientific consensus. It's enough to fill vast libraries and most of Wikipedia.

You seem to be working off of popular stereotypes about science, without any idea of how it actually works.

Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Making sure to consult those who have knowledge in fields relevant to decisions is of course important, but that's how it's done today.


Yes, but then the politicians ignore or override those experts, which is how we get a lot of problems.


Look at pretty much any field of science and people will be disaegreeing. From the existence of some theorized physical matter to the motivations of humans or the most important reasons behind unempoyment. There are contradicting results and camps with different ideas and discussions that pretty much never get settled. There isn't a consensus, instead text books are filled the "the x perspective" as opposed to "the y perspective".

Something being "rooted in empircal sciences" doesn't mean that is somehow objective or that there is a right answer. It's far too complicated to know about all the factors in society in order to make accurate preductions about economics or about how crime will be effected by different changes in society. You just can't control such variables and because of that science can't give any clear answers. At best there is good line of reasoning behind whatever prediction is made. In the end that line of reasoning may or may not be better than that of an elected politicians, but that alone doesn't make it a better system. Also sociology is more qualitative than quantitative overall.

So don't say things are false when they aren't, and don't question my character because I was the only one who admitted to using generalizations about scientists.
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
August 12 2011 13:45 GMT
#131
On August 12 2011 22:37 Hermasaurus wrote:
You seem to suggest that said professionals are only called on to handle matters in said field. Well who makes decisions based on citizen, rights taxes, healthcare etc etc etc? I'm not familiar with health care engineers.


Civil rights are a matter for lawyers, philosophers, and ethicists, to decide. Taxes are an economics issue. Health care is managed by public health and healthcare administration experts. And so on.

On August 12 2011 22:37 Hermasaurus wrote:
You also seem to be 100% for technocracy. You live in the United States. You don't enjoy your freedom? Because the only contemporary technocracies are in East Asia, with limited civil rights in comparison to what we receive.


Technocracy does not imply less freedom. China happens to be technocratic, but it's a technocratic authoritarian government. There's no reason that you can't simply have a system much like the United States already is, except while giving technocrats more power to determine public policy rather than depending so much upon Congress.
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
August 12 2011 13:46 GMT
#132
On August 12 2011 21:20 Traeon wrote:
Show nested quote +
Well, that's not an argument against technocracy. Any decision in a technocracy would be subject to scrutiny from scientists in any field as well from the public - once all the arguments have been put forth we will have a "winning" decision. If you are a rational person you would have to agree with this decision or put forth your argument as to why it is wrong.


Science is not the pinnacle of objectiveness and understanding that many mistaken it for. At least when it comes to complex systems such as economy or medicine. There is always a human bias.

Take the example in my quote. If we were to select a committee of scientists from various fields and backgrounds - how would we do this? Who gets to decide which scientist has merit and which doesn't? The people in charge of selecting the committee are inevitably going to be biased.

Show nested quote +
In all seriousness, the biggest problem with the idea is that academia is self-selecting over time.


This is also very important. Academia is also subject to human bias and inclinations, and the tendency is towards unification of opinions instead of diversification.


And do you know any more objective systems created by humans ? If no, than since noone is arguing perfection, just improvement upon current state I see no problem.
zalz
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Netherlands3704 Posts
August 12 2011 13:48 GMT
#133
On August 12 2011 22:16 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


We also have people with PhDs in public health and health administration, you know. Those would be the relevant experts here. Brain surgeons would be called upon to decide issues related only to brain surgery.

Show nested quote +
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.


No, you simply are making unfounded claims based on your ignorance of how a technocracy works.


Well the problem with your version of a technocracy is that it's more commonly known as a dictatorship.

All you suggest be done is that politicians are removed and with it, democratic election, and then you suggest we go on about our business as usual.

Who do you think are running hospitals right now? Those very same people with PhD's in public health and administration. Who judges over brain surgery cases? Brain surgeons.

Who judges over the grand scheme of things? Politics on a national level? Politicians. Except you want to remove elections...


So basically your perceived notion of technocracy boils down to "same shit as we got right now, but remove elections".

Power that cannot be held accountable sounds like a good idea to you?
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
August 12 2011 13:51 GMT
#134
On August 12 2011 22:44 paradox_ wrote:
Scientists and engineers aren't infallible or some how have more integrity than the average politician. Power corrupts and anyone in Academia will know they have their own politics in there. You give them power and it'll just turn into another shit show of disagreement that's a little more technically wordy.

There have been enough cases or research being stolen, papers being rejected by journals because the person on the board is doing the same research etc. Scientists are human, they're just specialized in a specific field of knowledge.


Scientists and engineers aren't the equivalent of politicians in a technocracy. Rather, scientists and engineers are the equivalent of citizens, while leaders of the scientific community are equivalent to politicians. The idea is that citizens should not get to vote or elect representatives to vote on issues on which they have no knowledge or expertise.

On August 12 2011 22:44 paradox_ wrote:
Experts in science will disagree just as much as non-experts.


False. Experts in science have a shared knoweldge base generally accept many foundational ideas even if they disagree on details. For example, most people seem to have a very wrong idea that there is disagreement about evolution, when scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution as fact and disagree only on details.

To use a Starcraft analogy, professional Starcraft players agree on a lot more elements of strategy than noobs do, even if they have intense disagreements with each other over the details.
Probe1
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States17920 Posts
August 12 2011 13:52 GMT
#135
I'd rather stick my dick in a toaster than get caught up in this discussion but I feel the need to weigh in without considering others opinions anyway.

A technocracy has the same failing as communism or even Monarchies in all their related forms. On paper it sounds GREAT. In reality they become hopelessly corrupt in a very short time. Cool idea, doesn't work.

If we manage to stop killing each other over TVs and raping people for fun just long enough to be as civilized as we consider ourselves then yeah this form of government would be fantastic. Until then..

Well, the OP likes catchy quotes.

Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
우정호 KT_VIOLET 1988 - 2012 While we are postponing, life speeds by
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
August 12 2011 13:59 GMT
#136
On August 12 2011 22:48 zalz wrote:
Well the problem with your version of a technocracy is that it's more commonly known as a dictatorship.

All you suggest be done is that politicians are removed and with it, democratic election, and then you suggest we go on about our business as usual.


Please review my posts to learn why you are mistaken.

On August 12 2011 22:48 zalz wrote:
Who do you think are running hospitals right now? Those very same people with PhD's in public health and administration. Who judges over brain surgery cases? Brain surgeons.

Who judges over the grand scheme of things? Politics on a national level? Politicians. Except you want to remove elections...


When considering technocracy vs. democracy, we're obviously considering things from a public policy standpoint, not who runs hospitals or performs brain surgery. In other words, who makes laws that hospitals and brain surgeons have to follow.

If we did have a more technocratic government, then the health care reform debate would primarily be driven by expert knowledge on how to bring down health care costs. Rather than health care reform that would be the consensus of public health professionals, we instead got a bill that primarily served political interests and did little to curtail dramatically rising health care costs. The real question is, why are legislators with no experience with public health/health administration the ones who are writing up laws? Why not follow the close guidance and directions of experts? The answer is that politicians aren't concerned with what's good for public health, but what's good for reelection.

On August 12 2011 22:48 zalz wrote:
So basically your perceived notion of technocracy boils down to "same shit as we got right now, but remove elections".

Power that cannot be held accountable sounds like a good idea to you?


That's obviously not what I've said. As I argued in a previous post, technocracy and democracy is not a binary choice. You can make a government more technocratic in some respects. Nowhere have I argued that you should remove elections.

Rather, the main thing I am advocating is for technocrats to be given political power within their narrow fields of expertise.
Hermasaurus
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
54 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-12 14:01:12
August 12 2011 13:59 GMT
#137
And guess what, you've wandered into our school of tuna and we now have a taste of lion. We've talked to ourselves. We've communicated and said 'You know what, lion tastes good, let's go get some more lion'
Hermasaurus
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
54 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-12 14:01:40
August 12 2011 14:00 GMT
#138
On August 12 2011 22:51 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 22:44 paradox_ wrote:
Scientists and engineers aren't infallible or some how have more integrity than the average politician. Power corrupts and anyone in Academia will know they have their own politics in there. You give them power and it'll just turn into another shit show of disagreement that's a little more technically wordy.

There have been enough cases or research being stolen, papers being rejected by journals because the person on the board is doing the same research etc. Scientists are human, they're just specialized in a specific field of knowledge.


Scientists and engineers aren't the equivalent of politicians in a technocracy. Rather, scientists and engineers are the equivalent of citizens, while leaders of the scientific community are equivalent to politicians. The idea is that citizens should not get to vote or elect representatives to vote on issues on which they have no knowledge or expertise.

Show nested quote +
On August 12 2011 22:44 paradox_ wrote:
Experts in science will disagree just as much as non-experts.


False. Experts in science have a shared knoweldge base generally accept many foundational ideas even if they disagree on details. For example, most people seem to have a very wrong idea that there is disagreement about evolution, when scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution as fact and disagree only on details.

To use a Starcraft analogy, professional Starcraft players agree on a lot more elements of strategy than noobs do, even if they have intense disagreements with each other over the details.



You seem to believe that Scientists and other experts of transcended past human emotion onto a platform of sheer objectivity. Which is wrong. The problem with any government is human emotion. No one is exempt from ego, envy, or greed. Being a scientist doesn't assert any higher level of morality than the next person. Which means everyone is capable of corruption, regardless of expertise.

But the thing is morality is subjective, and so on, and so forth. As well as corruption. Just the same as a civilizations success, or a persons. Success isn't objective. You can't suggest that technocracy is objectively better than any other form of politics.

The pros and cons of any policy varies through the eye of the beholder.
And guess what, you've wandered into our school of tuna and we now have a taste of lion. We've talked to ourselves. We've communicated and said 'You know what, lion tastes good, let's go get some more lion'
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
August 12 2011 14:00 GMT
#139
On August 12 2011 22:52 Probe1 wrote:
A technocracy has the same failing as communism or even Monarchies in all their related forms. On paper it sounds GREAT. In reality they become hopelessly corrupt in a very short time. Cool idea, doesn't work.


Every system, American federal republicanism included, is hopelessly corrupt and worse in practice than on paper. The question is, can we improve on what we have now?
Traeon
Profile Joined July 2010
Austria366 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-12 14:10:57
August 12 2011 14:05 GMT
#140
The more I read from the pro-technocracy people, the more I'm skeptical. The idea comes across as extremely authoritarian and is sold under the guise of a presumed intellectual superiority of the experts.

That doesn't mean I think it couldn't work, that's just what I gather from the way people write about it.

By the way, I'm not even sure I'd agree that an engineer who knows how to design a bridge would be equally suited to handle the building of bridges in a country. They're totally different jobs.
Prev 1 5 6 7 8 9 40 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Esports World Cup
10:00
2025 - Day 2
Reynor vs MaruLIVE!
herO vs Cure
Serral vs Classic
EWC_Arena11153
ComeBackTV 2506
TaKeTV 593
Hui .551
3DClanTV 379
EnkiAlexander 238
Rex235
CranKy Ducklings169
mcanning160
Reynor138
UpATreeSC121
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
EWC_Arena10783
Hui .551
Rex 235
mcanning 164
Reynor 138
UpATreeSC 124
StarCraft: Brood War
Bisu 4021
Barracks 1987
Flash 1822
BeSt 1529
Jaedong 1472
EffOrt 1051
Mini 562
Stork 504
ggaemo 401
Snow 333
[ Show more ]
Soma 269
ZerO 263
Soulkey 254
GuemChi 250
ToSsGirL 193
Rush 121
Hyun 113
Dewaltoss 64
soO 54
TY 52
Sea.KH 46
Sacsri 37
scan(afreeca) 25
Terrorterran 12
Movie 12
Bale 10
Yoon 10
ivOry 8
Britney 0
Dota 2
syndereN332
420jenkins299
XcaliburYe270
Counter-Strike
sgares545
edward58
flusha30
Super Smash Bros
Westballz32
Other Games
singsing2053
hiko1318
B2W.Neo1082
crisheroes476
Fuzer 162
ArmadaUGS75
KnowMe53
QueenE44
ZerO(Twitch)15
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 3
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH269
• Adnapsc2 1
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 1019
• WagamamaTV507
League of Legends
• Nemesis3883
• TFBlade707
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
19h 32m
TBD vs Zoun
TBD vs SHIN
TBD vs ShoWTimE
TBD vs Rogue
Esports World Cup
1d 20h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 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
5 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
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
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
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.