NationStates Jolt Archive

As an anarchist, I am preparing for the day when "democracy" falls. However, I am also preparing for new threats to freedom. I believe technocracy is one of them. What is technocracy?

Crudely put, a Technocracy is a statw*nker nation, for example one endowed with many steel pen*ses. :P

That doesn't help much. I'm planning on writing a book on the flaws of transhumanism and technocracy someday.

------------------------
Free your mind!

I believe that a technocracy is where machines are in charge, either like the culture, or the matrix. Technocracy involves a computer making all decisions regarding a civilisation, and it is in autocratic control. There are other factors, but that covers it, I think.

I believe that a technocracy is where machines are in charge, either like the culture, or the matrix. Technocracy involves a computer making all decisions regarding a civilisation, and it is in autocratic control. There are other factors, but that covers it, I think.

And I always thought it was a social or political system where scientific and technical experts hold a great deal of power..

I believe that a technocracy is where machines are in charge, either like the culture, or the matrix. Technocracy involves a computer making all decisions regarding a civilisation, and it is in autocratic control. There are other factors, but that covers it, I think.

And I always thought it was a social or political system where scientific and technical experts hold a great deal of power..

Ah! Sweet dream...

Simply look here:

http://phrontistery.50megs.com/govern.html

it has the definition of technocracy, and much much more

It's amazing what Google will get you: Link (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm)

Hardly seems like a threat to human freedom.

It's amazing what Google will get you: Link (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm)

Hardly seems like a threat to human freedom.

Hello, it's Marxism with a technological bent! They are trying to create communism without abolishing the state, just like Marxism. Scientific management? What's wrong with the people having power?

While increased automatization will put us out of work, maybe they should take that as evidence that technology isn't necessarily a good thing. Instead, they decide the solution is a command economy managed by scientifically chosen experts. It makes the same promises as anarchism without abolishing hierarchy, the cause of many of the problems it promises to solve.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

People are cruel, self-fish and greedy - and also awesomely stupid at times (willfull ignorance, maybe): They choose leaders like Hitler.

I also draw your attention to this:
Removal of methods of scarcity such as money, debt, value, and interest.
(From my link)

To me that sounds very much like some of the stuff you've mentioned whilst discussing anarchy.

I also draw your attention to this:
Removal of methods of scarcity such as money, debt, value, and interest.
(From my link)

To me that sounds very much like some of the stuff you've mentioned whilst discussing anarchy.

They plan to do it with a command economy just like Marxism-Leninism!

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

As an anarchist, I am preparing for the day when "democracy" falls. However, I am also preparing for new threats to freedom. I believe technocracy is one of them. What is technocracy?

How can you say its a threat when you don't know what it is?

What's wrong with the people having power?

The people are morons. At least with heirarchy and a political structure, you can limit the damage and focus the energy of small groups of people towards a mutual good.

Well, kinda.

Marx dealt with what happens when someone else owns the factories and such that people need to produce basic necessities. Marx thinks freedom means everyone has control over what they make, and that capitalism takes that freedom away from us. However, living in the 1800's, Marx saw the way out as people going back to a communal way of existence.

Technocracy, or basically using science and our knowledge of how matter works, is moving us to a state where everyone can have their own factory. Take nanotechnology, for instance: we can get little self-reproducing devices that will take individual atoms and make them into whatever we can program into the machine. With a system like that supply can always keep up with demand, so we hardly need to worry about fluctuating prices and capitalism kind of breaks down. So we get to where Marx wanted to go, but we still get high-tech goodies.

They plan to do it with a command economy just like Marxism-Leninism!
To be blunt, who cares how they get fed so long as they get fed?

The people are morons. At least with heirarchy and a political structure, you can limit the damage and focus the energy of small groups of people towards a mutual good.

As though the people in power are somehow smarter by being given power.

6.39 Does Technocracy believe in the use of democratic methods?

No, if you mean by this the selection of administrative personnel by use of the ballot.
It is too hazardous in today's highly integrated, technological society to depend on this random method for selecting the specialized type of personnel required.

Nuff said.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

The people are morons. At least with heirarchy and a political structure, you can limit the damage and focus the energy of small groups of people towards a mutual good.

As though the people in power are somehow smarter by being given power.
More through selecting the smarter people to be given power.

More through selecting the smarter people to be given power.

How does intelligence give you the right to rule others?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

More through selecting the smarter people to be given power.

How does intelligence give you the right to rule others?
How does the backing of a few media corporations give you the right to rule others?

Hierarchies always appear - people defer to others to lead the way all the time - so surely it's better to have someone smart at the top than let media backing be the deciding factor?

How does the backing of a few media corporations give you the right to rule others?

I'm an anarchist. I don't support corporations.

Hierarchies always appear - people defer to others to lead the way all the time - so surely it's better to have someone smart at the top than let media backing be the deciding factor?

You can't gain power in anarchism. There's no position to defer power to.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

How does the backing of a few media corporations give you the right to rule others?

I'm an anarchist. I don't support corporations at all.

Hierarchies always appear - people defer to others to lead the way all the time - so surely it's better to have someone smart at the top than let media backing be the deciding factor?

You can't gain power in anarchism. There's no position to defer power to.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

You can't gain power in anarchism. There's no position to defer power to.
Eh, I think you kind of missed my point: I'm not talking about deferring to a position or a role, I'm talking about deferring to another person. Say a few people have been given a group assignment, they sit down, joke a bit, then someone will say "who wants to do what?" they just took charge.

This might be a bad thing in some eyes but if no-one takes charge then nothing will get done. Some people are just good at organising things, they become the defacto leaders. They're not exploiting anyone, they're just doing what they do best. There has been untold amounts of money spent on seeing how people behave in groups, leaders naturally occur.

Now, to deny any form of leadership is to damn a group. The problem stems from abuse of power. Now back in our group, the de-facto leader is getting bossy and being a pain in the ass, so the others tell him to sod off. Boom, instant election and removal of power.

It's naturally occuring (and simplified) democracy - hierarchies and all.

Eh, I think you kind of missed my point: I'm not talking about deferring to a position or a role, I'm talking about deferring to another person. Say a few people have been given a group assignment, they sit down, joke a bit, then someone will say "who wants to do what?" they just took charge.

This might be a bad thing in some eyes but if no-one takes charge then nothing will get done. Some people are just good at organising things, they become the defacto leaders. They're not exploiting anyone, they're just doing what they do best. There has been untold amounts of money spent on seeing how people behave in groups, leaders naturally occur.

Now, to deny any form of leadership is to damn a group. The problem stems from abuse of power. Now back in our group, the de-facto leader is getting bossy and being a pain in the ass, so the others tell him to sod off. Boom, instant election and removal of power.

It's naturally occuring (and simplified) democracy - hierarchies and all.

If this "leader" can be replaced if they try to oppress, there isn't really a hierarchy. Power is the use of force. If the leader can use force, it's a hierarchy, if not, then it isn't a hierarchy.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

If this "leader" can be replaced if they try to oppress, there isn't really a hierarchy. Power is the use of force. If the leader can use force, it's a hierarchy, if not, then it isn't a hierarchy.
Strictly speaking, a hierachy is just an order, although I imagine this is one of those words which has radically different meanings to different people (like "anarchy" itself). I'm going with dictionary.com as per usual:

A body of officials disposed organically in ranks and orders each subordinate to the one above it; a body of ecclesiastical rulers.
An arrangement of ranks, principly maintained by deferring to other people: If we're in a group of groups, the same thing happens again and we end up with a "big cheese" who leads everyone. He doesn't have any power over those below him, nor does he use any force. They're there by conscencus, and that conscencus can evaporate if they're assholes.

More through selecting the smarter people to be given power.

How does intelligence give you the right to rule others?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

intelligence gives a ruler the advantage that he will be able to make a better decision.

In fact i believe that only the 'intelligent' should be allowed to vote. The reason for only allowing them to vote is that right now, most people don't know how the economy works, how diplomacy works... and therefor they would often think a wrong decision to be the right one. Because of this these people are often easier to manipulate. I am convinced that a democracy in which each person has one vote does not have a government that makes the best decisions possible.

Therefore i am in favor of a voting system in which only the 'intelligent' have a vote. One problem with this is that you have to make an arbitrairy decision on who is intelligent and who is not, which leads to some problems. Even more important is that when only the intelligent get to vote, the non-intelligent might get forgotten by the government (allthough in a utopian form, the intelligent would know not to forget them; but life isn't fair). Therefor i think the best system would be a system in which everyone has a vote, but some people get extra votes based on a few arbitrairy criteria. This way those that know more about relevant topics about governing have more impact while the masses are still too important to be left out.

i have spoken.

intelligence gives a ruler the advantage that he will be able to make a better decision.

I personally prefer freedom over elitism.

In fact i believe that only the 'intelligent' should be allowed to vote. The reason for only allowing them to vote is that right now, most people don't know how the economy works, how diplomacy works... and therefor they would often think a wrong decision to be the right one. Because of this these people are often easier to manipulate. I am convinced that a democracy in which each person has one vote does not have a government that makes the best decisions possible.

Therefore i am in favor of a voting system in which only the 'intelligent' have a vote. One problem with this is that you have to make an arbitrairy decision on who is intelligent and who is not, which leads to some problems. Even more important is that when only the intelligent get to vote, the non-intelligent might get forgotten by the government (allthough in a utopian form, the intelligent would know not to forget them; but life isn't fair). Therefor i think the best system would be a system in which everyone has a vote, but some people get extra votes based on a few arbitrairy criteria. This way those that know more about relevant topics about governing have more impact while the masses are still too important to be left out.

Ignoring the fact that that is the most elitist thing I have ever read, I think controlling your own life is very important. I'd rather die from stupidity than live under the oppression of arrogant geniuses.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Ignoring the fact that that is the most elitist thing I have ever read, I think controlling your own life is very important. I'd rather die from stupidity than live under the oppression of arrogant geniuses.
Erm, that may just be you: I'd rather have a fully belly, food and shelter under an unrepresentative government than go hungry under one that completely represented. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people would agree with me, on this.

Principles are easy to have when you're comfortable.

Erm, that may just be you: I'd rather have a fully belly, food and shelter under an unrepresentative government than go hungry under one that completely represented. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people would agree with me, on this.

You would have no freedom to enjoy it, though.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

As opposed to being dead, and unable to enjoy the freedom afforded you. It's like swapping your legs for a sports car, great, you own a sports car but you can't drive it.

This is one of these principle arguments that can happily go on for hours, because both sides don't know what it's like to be oppressed. Don't argue, neither of us have ever been oppressed. Neither of us have been evicted from our homes with only the clothes on our back whilst a mob burns down our village and rapes people at random.

A technocracy is the best goverment there is! The Computer is my friend, and He's your friend too! He cares for me, gives me my happy pills and protects me from commies, traitors and mutants.
And should something bad happen to me, He'll even give me a new clone!

Technocracy? A threat? HAHAHA! You must really not know what a technocracy is. A technocracy is a republic or oligarchy run by scientists. THere has never been an entire nation that was a technocracy, only commities, and societies.

You can't gain power in anarchism. There's no position to defer power to.

Ah, I see. So that guy who is seven foot tall and 350 pounds of muscle has no power over you? No modicum of deference is required?

Hi everyone. It looks like there are a lot of misconceptions about Technocracy going around despite a good source being cited. Perhaps I can clear up a few things for you guys. :)

First of all, it is important to realize that Technocracy is not like any other government. It is not simply the "putting of technical experts/scientists/anyone else" into power. Technocracy is an entirely new paradigm. It is, in actuality, a technology, rather than a philosophy or political ideology. It is an application of science to solve a very specific problem. More on that problem later.

Since you seem to be interested mostly in the "power' structure of a Technocracy, let me tell you this, there is none. Yes, there is an administrative body, but it is not based on politics, or political "power". Instead, it is actually a two-part body. The Technical administration handles all matters that can be objectively defined, and scientifically solved. This would include decisions such as what is the best way to provide 200 million kw-hours of energy to the population, and what is the best way to transmit that power? Should more than one source be used? Should we only use one massive generator and transmit from there, or have several smaller ones? And if so, how many, and how much smaller? Given the goals (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/goals.htm) of the nation, and the desires set forth in the second part, it becomes clear that there is one, best solution for each of these problems.

The second part is the democratic side, and this part deals with all matters that are subjective, and opinion oriented. Decisions such as what should the nation produce for goods and services falls under this catagory, as does subjective national issues, such as the color of the flag, and gun control. To see more about how all this works, I suggest looking at Step 2 of How Technocracy Works (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/start.htm), especially the link inside that shows how the two parts work together. Once you understand this and Energy Accounting, you should be well on your way to understanding Technocracy.

So, because no one is in "power", it is not an oligarchy, nor is it a "command-economy." Such labels can only refer to scarcity economies, the kinds that you are all familiar with because there has been no other kind on Earth before. On the other hand, Technocracy is a solution for how to distribute goods and services when scarcity has been defeated by technology. Such has been the case in North America since the 1920's, and our failure to adapt to this unprecidented change of events is what is responsible for most of our current social ills. But I can talk more on that later too.

Letila's reference to the FAQ file question was not a statement totally against freedom and democracy, but rather a statement that democracy is completely incapable of handling the complex issues of technological production. However, the people still decide what they want to buy, they just leave it to the experts on how to best make the stuff. So thus you have the best of both worlds: the freedom to do whatever you want without government control (aside from the big basics like no killing or stealling, etc.), as well as a method of production that is the most efficient and powerful in the world, limited only by available technology. No more bungling politicians and lawyers screwing things up, no more corporations out to get your money. It's kind of like living on a resort, or cruise liner.

Now, who here wouldn't like that? I mean, look at the benefits! (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/benefits.htm)

First, I've read the FAQ and I can tell this for sure: Technocracy is nothing but a nicer version of Marxism. Second, anarcho-communism gives you those benefits without the dehumanizing and hierarchializing effects of advanced technology. Any ideology that considers ordinary people too stupid to vote for their rulers, let alone rule themselves without one, is bad.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

An American technocracy would be ruled by Bill Gates. ~ Michael.

Avro's definition of a technocracy would be a complete failure if it were implemented. Yes, we have eliminated scarcity in the quantity of edible food, drinkable water, wearable clothes, and liveable housing since the 1920's. But the people are not going to accept a distribution system that limits their choices among products. Our scarcity nowadays is not for a quantity of what to eat, drink, wear, and live. (The only true scarcity in America is affordable housing. You can live almost anywhere if the right goods are supplied, but we have a legal system.) A technocracy as Avro defines it would break down because people want quality goods they cannot afford. They want jobs that fulfill them. They want ever increasing standards of living. Those who want more and are quashed by the upper eschelons of the technocracy will work to undermine it, and you will get back to what we have, more or less. ~ Michael.

As an anarchist, I am preparing for the day when "democracy" falls. However, I am also preparing for new threats to freedom. I believe technocracy is one of them. What is technocracy?

Funny you should post this Idea using a computer :lol:

Jim

Funny you should post this Idea using a computer

Don't get it. What's so funny?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Letila, if you are serious about writing a book on technocracy you should read up on the early Utopian Socialists (esp. Sanit-Simon and Owen, Fourier was also Utopian but he wasn't as technocratic as the other two).

I don't remember saying that I'm planning on writing a book on technocracy.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I don't remember saying that I'm planning on writing a book on technocracy.


*ahem*

That doesn't help much. I'm planning on writing a book on the flaws of transhumanism and technocracy someday

your second post on page 1

Good point, TGL. I'll look into those examples.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

That doesn't help much. I'm planning on writing a book on the flaws of transhumanism and technocracy someday.You said here something about a book. ~ Michael.

Technocracies remind me of robotic stuff, computer stuff, stuff like that.

It's some sort of Marxism with a technological bent. They like to claim that it's a technology rather than a political ideology. They must be playing too much Civilization II, where Fundamentalism and Democracy are treated as technologies in the game.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Hi everyone. It looks like there are a lot of misconceptions about Technocracy going around despite a good source being cited. Perhaps I can clear up a few things for you guys. :)

First of all, it is important to realize that Technocracy is not like any other government. It is not simply the "putting of technical experts/scientists/anyone else" into power. Technocracy is an entirely new paradigm. It is, in actuality, a technology, rather than a philosophy or political ideology. It is an application of science to solve a very specific problem. More on that problem later.

Since you seem to be interested mostly in the "power' structure of a Technocracy, let me tell you this, there is none. Yes, there is an administrative body, but it is not based on politics, or political "power". Instead, it is actually a two-part body. The Technical administration handles all matters that can be objectively defined, and scientifically solved. This would include decisions such as what is the best way to provide 200 million kw-hours of energy to the population, and what is the best way to transmit that power? Should more than one source be used? Should we only use one massive generator and transmit from there, or have several smaller ones? And if so, how many, and how much smaller? Given the goals (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/goals.htm) of the nation, and the desires set forth in the second part, it becomes clear that there is one, best solution for each of these problems.

The second part is the democratic side, and this part deals with all matters that are subjective, and opinion oriented. Decisions such as what should the nation produce for goods and services falls under this catagory, as does subjective national issues, such as the color of the flag, and gun control. To see more about how all this works, I suggest looking at Step 2 of How Technocracy Works (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/start.htm), especially the link inside that shows how the two parts work together. Once you understand this and Energy Accounting, you should be well on your way to understanding Technocracy.

So, because no one is in "power", it is not an oligarchy, nor is it a "command-economy." Such labels can only refer to scarcity economies, the kinds that you are all familiar with because there has been no other kind on Earth before. On the other hand, Technocracy is a solution for how to distribute goods and services when scarcity has been defeated by technology. Such has been the case in North America since the 1920's, and our failure to adapt to this unprecidented change of events is what is responsible for most of our current social ills. But I can talk more on that later too.

Letila's reference to the FAQ file question was not a statement totally against freedom and democracy, but rather a statement that democracy is completely incapable of handling the complex issues of technological production. However, the people still decide what they want to buy, they just leave it to the experts on how to best make the stuff. So thus you have the best of both worlds: the freedom to do whatever you want without government control (aside from the big basics like no killing or stealling, etc.), as well as a method of production that is the most efficient and powerful in the world, limited only by available technology. No more bungling politicians and lawyers screwing things up, no more corporations out to get your money. It's kind of like living on a resort, or cruise liner.

Now, who here wouldn't like that? I mean, look at the benefits! (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/benefits.htm)

Indeed. I'd love to live in a Technate.

Indeed. I'd love to live in a Technate.

I'll take a medium tech anarcho-commune. High-tech marxism just isn't for me.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

First, I've read the FAQ and I can tell this for sure: Technocracy is nothing but a nicer version of Marxism. Second, anarcho-communism gives you those benefits without the dehumanizing and hierarchializing effects of advanced technology. Any ideology that considers ordinary people too stupid to vote for their rulers, let alone rule themselves without one, is bad.

You did? The whole thing? Wow, it's big! Even more surprising is, if that is the case, how you come to some of these conclusions. There is nothing "dehumanizing" about technology, only in how you use it. Technocracy would allow people to be free from menial labor and simple, repetitive, or undesirable tasks, and instead spend time on the things that are truly worthy og human potential: art, science, philosophy, including plenty of leisure time to enjoy yourself, and spend in social activities (e.g. "quality time" with the family). Our current system today is dehumanizing, forcing most of us to work as little more than mere automatons, jobs that simple machines can do. Really, where do you get dehumanizing?

As for "hierarchializing", the only hierarchy in the entire idea is only where technological administration is concerned, which is no different than the technical portion of any technology company today. It was chosen because it works; people are given positions of functional responsibility based on performance and competence. Surely you recall the answer to question 5.2.1? (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/Technocracy_FAQ_1.x.htm#5.2.1) It's purely pragmatic, which you have to be concering machines. One the other hand, is this not better than our current method of choosing leaders based on wealth, charisma and rhetoric?

I never said that people were too stupid to vote for thier rulers, instead the issues are: that poltics is incapable of managing a complex of technological production and distribution as exists in North America, and that in order for people to be informed enough to make these decisions, they would require advanced degrees in every branch of engineering and science known, except for maybe astronomy. The concept of Technocracy is simple: let the people decide what they want from technology, and let those who know technology figure out the best way to give it to them. It is this separation of the types of decision making that is essential for the operatiion of a high-tech society. An excellent illustration of this principle can be found in pages 2 and 4 (http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=20&page=2) of Technocracy by Analogy.

An American technocracy would be ruled by Bill Gates. ~ Michael.

Doubtful, since Technocracy would mean the end of all business, corporations, and money. Not only would he lose all his power, but also the means with which to re-aquire it.

But the people are not going to accept a distribution system that limits their choices among products.

Where did you get this impression? Did you miss point number four from Technocracy's Goals (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/goals.htm), which states: "Providing all citizens with the maximum latitude in choice of goods and services"? And being built into a top-down design structure, people in a Technate would not only have far more choice than they do now (because 1) wider selection automatically available, 2) currently unavailable items easily produced if technically capable, and 3) higher incomes for everyone means that you are not limited in what you buy either), but also all products and services would also be of the top quality possible given the technology. This when compared to today's disposable and shoddy goods would be a greatly welcomed aspect of Techncracy, by everyone. Who wants to buy crap?

A technocracy as Avro defines it would break down because people want quality goods they cannot afford. They want jobs that fulfill them. They want ever increasing standards of living.

I think you need to read a little more about this. The things you describe would be far more available in a Technate than they are now. And yes, our scarcity isn't in how much stuff we have, it's inherent in our method of distribution: money. Why don't you buy a better car, are there not enough of them? No, you don't have enough money. Why don't we have more docotrs, nurses, or hospitals? Not enough money. Why don't many schools have enough good books, or good teachers for smaller classes? Not enough money. Are you starting to get the picture? There will NEVER be enough money because it is scarce, and as long as we insist on using it as a measure for everything, we will never have enough of anything else either!

. Those who want more and are quashed by the upper eschelons of the technocracy

What "upper eschelons"? Are you still confusing Technocracy with a corporate dictatorship? Or perhaps something else (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/isnot.htm)? There are people with greater amounts of responsibility in a Technocracy, but thanks to the abolishment of politics, no one has any "power" over others. There is no more social "classes" of any kind either. And despite Letila's insistance that it is nothing more than Marxism, this one shared trait is mere coincidence.

Ok, to clear up the Marxism issue:
1) Marxism seeks to give power to the working class by guaranteeing them jobs. Technocracy seeks to make people work less, and give power to nobody, in fact abolishing poltics altogether.
2) Marxism is a means to distribute a natural scarcity. Technocracy is a means to distibute a technological abundance.
3) Marxism was developed based on ideas of philosophy and ethics. Technocracy is a scientificly devised solution to a modern technological problem that Marx did not even have the chance to witness, and therefor could not have even imagined. How could he possibly devise a reasonable solution to such an unknown?
4) Marxism believes that one group of human being can "rule' more ethically than another. Technocracy abolishes the whole concept of political "rule".
5) Marxism's final stage is a totally uncoordinated hope. Technocracy has scientifically demonstrated that a complex of machines such as ours needs coordination. Even the disasterously poor management of technology we see today would be better than the virtual anarchy that Marx describes.

Does anyone still think that they are the same?

Letila, if you are serious about writing a book on technocracy you should read up on the early Utopian Socialists

I think that you should read up more on Technocracy instead. It has nothing to do with utopianism, idealism, or any other "-ism." It is science, straightforward and simple. If people are happy in the Technate because of its results (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/benefits.htm), this is a fortunate consequence of pragmatism; happy people function better than unhappy ones.

It's some sort of Marxism with a technological bent. They like to claim that it's a technology rather than a political ideology. They must be playing too much Civilization II, where Fundamentalism and Democracy are treated as technologies in the game.

No, it's called a technology because it is the application of science to solve a specifc problem. If you need further explanation than that, here is an article (http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=19&page=1) that deals specifically with this concept, and here si the problem (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/why-technocracy.htm) that Technocracy was designed to solve. The problem was discovered scientifically, and the solution devised scientifically. Nowhere did they use any ideas from philosophy, ideology, or opinions. If you have read the FAQ, then you know a bit about the history of Technocracy, and can see that this is so.

But for those who don't read it, the basic idea is that technologies do not have to be machines, or even objects. Things such as surgery and physiotherapy are applications of science to solve specific prolems. Yet they are not objects, but rather "ways to do things." This is what Technocracy is, the best way to manage our machines in order to get the most out of them; the highest standard of living for all citizens, and the least impact on the environment. What did Marx ever have to say about that?

This also give Technocracy the advantage over other forms of govenment of being objectively "provable" or not, just like any technology. To see how this is so, the aforementioned article explains it nicely. All other governments are based on your personal opinion, and thus can never be proven "right". It all depends on your personal values and views.

Oh, and since Technocracy was invented in the 1920's I'm sure even you realize the absurdity of your Civilization comment. Why do you seem to have it out for Technocracy so?

God, not more of Letila's anarchist bullshit. Letila, you're a relatively inoffensive anarchy proponent, but I do have to wonder what's going through your head.. Letila, you seem like an idealist who believes that people all have benign intentions. So I'll tell you how long an anarchist 'society' would last. Perhaps a day, because that's the time it would take for warlords to conquer neighboring towns. The cycle would start again, until finally larger political units were again formed. History ALWAYS repeats itself. Civilization and anarchy are mutually exclusive, it's simply not possible to have civilization without some governmental body.