NationStates Jolt Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocratic_movement

The Technocratic movement aims to establish a zero growth socio-economic system based upon conservation and abundance as opposed to scarcity-based economic systems like capitalism and the system used by Communist states. A core conclusion reached by the Technocratic movement is that a price / market system, or any system based on scarcity, is an illogical means of distribution in our technologically advanced world. Technocracy sees established economic, political, and administrative forms as relics of a traditional past.

Sounds interesting, if not a bit too fanciful. Not a movement I plan on converting to any time soon. So then, capitalists, socialists, communists et al, level your criticisms against their ideas. Would they work? Or are they just a bunch of hopeless visionaries with no future? :)

Isn't that kind of happening now, though? However, we're retaining the market system of distribution and the capitalist system, so it's not identical in all aspects. The market-driven model is quite able to address the problem of scarcity (which is still existent), so that aspect of technocracy is probably not workable or realistic at this point in time.

Population growth is levelling off and is flat in the developed world. Growth is becoming less resource intensive with overall zero per-capita growth in the developed world and negative in some fuels and metals. Consumption is also being slowed or reduced through the use of alternatives, improved efficiency, and conservation and technology is also addressing the problem by improving and developing new methods.

Globalization and the Internet are breaking down established economic and political forms and many types of commerce are becoming distributed, in particular energy generation and Internet business. Governments are cooperating more and the barriers between nations are being reduced economically and politically. Personally, I think many of Technocracy's goals are being achieved through the maturation of the capitalist system; those that aren't being achieved may be at a later date or may simply not work.

IPersonally, I think many of Technocracy's goals are being
achieved through the maturation of the capitalist system; those that aren't being achieved may be at a later date or may simply not work.
I would agree with that. I am interested though in particular criticisms to their core beliefs and ideas, such as their energy credit system.

Technocracy as described here seems to be like engineering the human society/world in the same way as one would engineer a machine. The question is who could be trusted to be the leader in such a society and could such a person actually find their way into power*. I think that having decisions made by an impartial computer program could work if a reliable program could actually be created.

*In today's world ascent to power depends primarily on charisma and appeals to emotion, not logic or competence.

Technocracy as described here seems to be like engineering the human society/world in the same way as one would engineer a machine. The question is who could be trusted to be the leader in such a society and could such a person actually find their way into power*. I think that having decisions made by an impartial computer program could work if a reliable program could actually be created.

*In today's world ascent to power depends primarily on charisma and appeals to emotion, not logic or competence.
Would a perfectly logical being be capable of ruling over humans though? Unless they too, in turn, became perfectly logical. For instance, already criticism is levelled against the notion of simulating the judicial system via computers due to the complexity of legal cases.

I didn't mean that all positions of authority would be a computer, just the top ones, like resource management.

Speaking of which, this is interesting:
"Technocrats believe there will be great environmental benefits to scraping cities and adopting Urbanates. Urbanates will take up much less physical space than cities and will not have polluting cars or industries."

I would agree with that. I am interested though in particular criticisms to their core beliefs and ideas, such as their energy credit system.

I think there would be serious problems with the model; whenever someone tries to control the supply, price, or allowed quantitiy of a good or service, a black market inevitably springs up to supply the good and people are willing to pay for it through one means or another.

Also, the equal nature of distribution would reduce many of the incentives to pursue difficult or uninteresting tasks that might be vital but are only attractive due to need or the financial or other benefits attached to doing them. Other ideas would require too much work to bring about without the creation of a large and omnipresent government, much like that of the USSR; in particular the urbanates would require this kind of management.

The problem of scarcity exists for all goods; until it were possible to literally solve all issues of scarcity and productivity while simultaneously providing incentives to do undesirable tasks, or a technological level were achieved that addresses these levels, technocracy will not be a practical system. And by the point that it is, undoubtedly the current one will have evolved in to a system more efficient than technocracy. There are some good and practical ideas, but too many of them just don't work in practice. The ones that do work are emerging on their own, and those that don't probably never will or will develop in the distant future.

I didn't mean that all positions of authority would be a computer, just the top ones, like resource management.

Speaking of which, this is interesting:
"Technocrats believe there will be great environmental benefits to scraping cities and adopting Urbanates. Urbanates will take up much less physical space than cities and will not have polluting cars or industries."
Yep, I read all of that. It sounds pretty much utopian. Thing is, anything can sound good on paper. I wonder how it lives up to reality though. Or how long a utopia would even last, for that matter.

"Technocrats believe there will be great environmental benefits to scraping cities and adopting Urbanates. Urbanates will take up much less physical space than cities and will not have polluting cars or industries."

That sounds rather similar to New Urbanism and much of modern planning theory, not to mention the idea behind many modern industrial and commercial facilities. Circular industrial planning, like that used in certain sites in Europe or the US, is also very close to that idea. The Urbanate sounds more like an economically logical trend rather than a radical idea of social engineering.

I also want to point out that M. King Hubbert of Peak Oil fame was a member of the Technocratic movement. It's possible that some of Technocracy's ideas were intended for a high-tech, post-fossil fuel environment.

The problem of scarcity exists for all goods; until it were possible to literally solve all issues of scarcity and productivity while simultaneously providing incentives to do undesirable tasks, or a technological level were achieved that addresses these levels, technocracy will not be a practical system. And by the point that it is, undoubtedly the current one will have evolved in to a system more efficient than technocracy. There are some good and practical ideas, but too many of them just don't work in practice. The ones that do work are emerging on their own, and those that don't probably never will or will develop in the distant future.
I think that is what some of them assume; an end to scarcity. I am inclined to agree with you though; ie, that this kind of a society will develop slowly as capitalism matures. I don't see it happening anytime soon though.

Economics...is...complex

Finding out the meaning of life and the nature of evil are so much easier. :D

I think that is what some of them assume; an end to scarcity. I am inclined to agree with you though; ie, that this kind of a society will develop slowly as capitalism matures. I don't see it happening anytime soon though.

I'm thinking a Kardashev scale level of Type 1 or greater, because the Earth simply doesn't have enough resources to have limitless resources; perhaps once we colonize the solar system or beyond it will be plausible, but not when we only command the resources of Earth and its moon.

Also, we will definitely need to merge in to a planetary civilization before we even begin to explore beyond the Earth with intent to colonize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

I'm basically a pragmatist with respect to politics, so technocracy could be pragmatic (that seems to be the idea), but only if the resources needed to redesign everything so thoroughly could be obtained.

Economics...is...complex

Finding out the meaning of life and the nature of evil are so much easier. :D

Yep. "There isn't one" and "a subjective idea of which the most common features is a subset of the set of all actions that harm others".

I'm thinking a Kardashev scale level of Type 1 or greater, because the Earth simply doesn't have enough resources to have limitless resources; perhaps once we colonize the solar system or beyond it will be plausible, but not when we only command the resources of Earth and its moon.

Also, we will definitely need to merge in to a planetary civilization before we even begin to explore beyond the Earth with intent to colonize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
Type 1 doesn't sound too difficult...from there on though, it escalates radically. Some assume that one way of eliminating scarcity would be cloning goods, sort of like in Star Trek. I am not too well-read in modern technology, so I am not even sure if that would be feasible.

Type 1 doesn't sound too difficult...from there on though, it escalates radically. Some assume that one way of eliminating scarcity would be cloning goods, sort of like in Star Trek. I am not too well-read in modern technology, so I am not even sure if that would be feasible.
Well in star trek, they store all data about an object in a computer, in order to recreate it. That might be possible with quantum computing.
The big problem with the star trek method is that they had to invent a fictional "Heisenberg Compensator" to get around the very real "Heisenberg Principle" that says (more or less): obtaining knowledge about a particles position or velocity will change them. Not a problem on the macroscopic level, but when you have to place individual particles in the correct positions, it becomes one.

Type 1 doesn't sound too difficult...from there on though, it escalates radically. Some assume that one way of eliminating scarcity would be cloning goods, sort of like in Star Trek. I am not too well-read in modern technology, so I am not even sure if that would be feasible.

Well, we can't really know until the technology is attempted. However, we are approaching a technological singularity that will promise innovation well beyond the levels we currently dream of. For example, one of the biggest problems facing nuclear fusion was solved within the past year, and the articles about it came out yesterday. Plus, a brand new fusion research pact was signed and the project is amply funded for many years.

Put it this way: ten thousand years for agriculture, four hundred years for the scientific revolution, one hundred fifty years for the industrial revolution, and so on...

Well in star trek, they store all data about an object in a computer, in order to recreate it. That might be possible with quantum computing.
The big problem with the star trek method is that they had to invent a fictional "Heisenberg Compensator" to get around the very real "Heisenberg Principle" that says (more or less): obtaining knowledge about a particles position or velocity will change them. Not a problem on the macroscopic level, but when you have to place individual particles in the correct positions, it becomes one.
That would solve the problem of scarcity I suppose. Maybe one day scientists will overcome the principle. I mean, we have achieved more in the past 100 years in terms of Science than we have over the past milleniums.

Well, we can't really know until the technology is attempted. However, we are approaching a technological singularity that will promise innovation well beyond the levels we currently dream of. Put it this way: ten thousand years for agriculture, four hundred years for the scientific revolution, one hundred fifty years for the industrial revolution, and so on...

For example, one of the biggest problems facing nuclear fusion was solved within the past year, and the articles about it came out yesterday. Plus, a brand new fusion research pact was signed and the project is amply funded for many years.
Exactly my point, that technology is progressing at an extreme speed. Assuming no major civilisational disasters, it would be fascinating to see what we could achieve within the next millenium.

Exactly my point, that technology is progressing at an extreme speed. Assuming no major civilisational disasters, it would be fascinating to see what we could achieve within the next millenium.

Even with them, technology advanced and at a faster rate. Look at European history during the Renaissance; dozens of wars (including the 30 Years War), revolutions and famines all in the midst of social change combined with the collapse of the Catholic Church's 1200 year lock on international power

I believe that even the most severe challenges will not derail progress; places that adapt will thrive and those that don't will fail or decline, and history has shown that people can adapt to anything if they desire it. Those places that do adapt will emerge as the economic and technological leaders of their particular timeperiod; interestingly enough, as societies approach the next level of the Kardashev scale civilization becomes more unstable and fragmented yet technology accelerates.

A good example is the Industrial Revolution; it was a period of rapid growth and development in Europe while the former superpowers India and China stagnated and ultimately declined economically and socially to the point of being colonized or dominated by Europeans.

Ah, I'm glad to see people are talking about Technocracy, I myself have been a supporter / Student of the Movement for about a year now, BTW I was the one who wrote that Wiki article about Urbanates (it's kind-of weird to see people reference something you wrote:D ).

Anyway I would try to explain Technocracy to you guys and correct your misunderstandings about it, but that would be quite Impossible to do in one post (or even many), so my best advice to people wanting to know more about it would be to check out these Websites...
http://www.technocracy.org/
http://www.technocracy.ca/
And of-course the various Wikipedia articles about it (though they are very brief and don't really explain allot of things).

Coming from someone who has spent about the past year studying it, I would say to people, do not be quick to judge it, it is not an easy subject to learn and requires some time. It seems like really quite a Bizarre and unworkable idea at first but once you get through a certain threshold of understanding, it really makes a great deal of sense (at-least the most sensible thing I’ve ever heard).
To anybody interested, I'd say drop by the Technocracy Forums here http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=index , we are quite welcoming to those interested in learning more about it. (or even if you want to try to bash it).

*snip*
True, good points. I was thinking of something along the lines of a nuclear holocaust, but I do not foresee this happening.

The funny thing about history is that it always goes round in patterns; all that changes are the shapes it takes on. The old world ended up with the colonisation of the West; the future will probably see US planetary colonies declaring their independence from it. Ironic.

Ah, I'm glad to see people are talking about Technocracy, I myself have been a supporter / Student of the Movement for about a year now, BTW I was the one who wrote that Wiki article about Urbanates (it's kind-of weird to see people reference something you wrote:D ).


I hadn't heard of it until now actually, so I wanted to know more about it, both from its detractors and proponents.

True, good points. I was thinking of something along the lines of a nuclear holocaust, but I do not foresee this happening.

I think nations attacked by a nuclear weapon would respond with conventional rather than nuclear strikes; they would have their own interests in not destroying everything...although certain military officials in the 1960's would have disagreed, I think.

The funny thing about history is that it always goes round in patterns; all that changes are the shapes it takes on. The old world ended up with the colonisation of the West; the future will probably see US planetary colonies declaring their independence from it. Ironic.

That's also interesting; the end of the Type I era involves colonized planets and systems declaring their independence and fracturing away from the prior unified civilization of systems.

I wonder what our policy towards indigenous civilizations will be when the era arrives for encounters...hopefully we will not pursue the same path as we did with the indigenous civilizations of our own planet.

That's also interesting; the end of the Type I era involves colonized planets and systems declaring their independence and fracturing away from the prior unified civilization of systems.

I wonder what our policy towards indigenous civilizations will be when the era arrives for encounters...hopefully we will not pursue the same path as we did with the indigenous civilizations of our own planet.
One would hope humans would learn from past experiences, though I am somewhat doubtful of this; humanity seems fated to repeat its past failures. Even more interesting would be an encounter with alien races. That would change the landscape completely.

One would hope humans would learn from past experiences, though I am somewhat doubtful of this; humanity seems fated to repeat its past failures. Even more interesting would be an encounter with alien races. That would change the landscape completely.

Especially if that civilization were of a similar technological level (albeit unlikely); it would be the equivalent of a Han China/Roman Empire encounter on a massive scale.

The myriad of social, philosophical, and religious questions raised by such an encounter are astounding; a sentient civilization that is nonhuman effectively destroys millenia of human theology and further broadens the question of the meaning of humanity and our place in the universe. The exploration of a truly alien culture would provide a wealth of knowledge unmatched by any discoveries on Earth...it would be literally civilization altering.

Especially if that civilization were of a similar technological level (albeit unlikely); it would be the equivalent of a Han China/Roman Empire encounter on a massive scale.

The myriad of social, philosophical, and religious questions raised by such an encounter are astounding; a sentient civilization that is nonhuman effectively destroys millenia of human theology and further broadens the question of the meaning of humanity and our place in the universe. The exploration of a truly alien culture would provide a wealth of knowledge unmatched by any discoveries on Earth...it would be literally civilization altering.
As well as potentially devastating. Humans can't even stand their own ilk. I would be most surprised if the so-called aliens were in actual fact alike to us in physical form. It would be indeed a massive logical overload if we were to discover our ancestors colonised the planet aeons ago, as some suggest the Atlantians had done. I doubt this, but I love playing around with hypothetical scenarios. Alas, none of this will occur in this lifetime. Whatever the case may be, should we encounter an alien civilisation, we would no longer be the "centre" of the universe like we thought.

As well as potentially devastating. Humans can't even stand their own ilk. I would be most surprised if the so-called aliens were in actual fact alike to us in physical form. It would be indeed a massive logical overload if we were to discover our ancestors in actual fact colonised the planet aeons ago, as some suggest the Atlantians had done. I doubt this, but I love playing around with hypothetical scenarios.Alas, none of this will occur in this lifetime. Whatever the case may be, should we encounter an alien civilisation, we would no longer be the "centre" of the universe like we thought.

It might lead to a new wave of virulent racism or xenophobia on either side with devastating consequences; in particular, it might lead to elitism in the minds of our ancient colonizers (if your situation were true...we don't know yet) or elitism on our side if the other civilization is like us but less advanced.

Or, it could lead to a new era of intersystem cooperation and prosperity...it all depends on who makes first contact and how. The colonial era mindset was created by the ill-informed and generally ignorant perceptions of the slave traders, soliders, and fur trappers who encountered the natives first; hopefully, the same will not be true of future contact.

When it occurs...definitely not in this lifetime as you correctly mention. However, the effects it has will be immense regardless of our technological level; discovering a sentient species of any technological level will greatly affect our perception of humanity and what it means to be human. Undoubtedly, a new Descartes or Kirkegaard will step in to attempt to answer it, perhaps to no more success than we have today.

*snip*
A hypothetical scenario I might be faced with is not waking up in time to hand in my essay tomorrow, so better get off to bed. Thanks for an interesting discussion though. :)

This system seems to have all the problems associated with socialism.
And I don't think the issues it addresses will justify such a drastic change.

They use the Great Depression as an example of why a Technate would be desirable, but somehow capitalism works just fine after the Great Depression. What makes Technocrats think it'll be different next time?

I'm thinking a Kardashev scale level of Type 1 or greater, because the Earth simply doesn't have enough resources to have limitless resources; perhaps once we colonize the solar system or beyond it will be plausible, but not when we only command the resources of Earth and its moon.

Also, we will definitely need to merge in to a planetary civilization before we even begin to explore beyond the Earth with intent to colonize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Kardashev is rubbish.

It suffers from a Soviet-mindset fallacy, i.e. the only reason mankind would ever build a device to harness all of the power from a star is if someone like Joseph Stalin told them to. Such a device would have absolutely no market value, it will never be built, it is useless. The whole stupid scale is just an extension of the Soviet drive for ever-increasing power purely for power's sake, both politically and technologically.

Where does this system leave the oldest profession of all? I dont think even the most forward looking technocrat believes this process is likely to be automated with good result. I doubt that desire for this service will fall as leisure time rises, and every person in a technocracy has a right to as much of any goods or services as they can use. All the Urbanates will have all needed goods and services within walking distance. The decision to work or not is to be provided by peer pressure. There wont be any money only energy credits which will be distributed evenly in such quantity that they cant rationally all be spent by anyone.

Does this leave free hookers by peer pressure? If so what is in it for the ladies and laddies of the evening? Or does it leave a society without prostitutes?

Ill predict right now that any system with freedom to do as one wishes, tons of free time, but no room for prostitution is doomed to fail.

I'm firmly against it. It strikes me as very paternalistic, élitist, and utilitarian. I think I'll take my chances with a nontechnological system. Over all, I'm sticking to anarcho-communism.

Over all, I'm sticking to anarcho-communism.

Not with factory made glue either!;)

I was quite fascinated by the urbanate proposal as it is nearly identical to an idea I myself have ventured. Though my proposal would have several of these mostly autonomous communities closely linked together to form a city – in other words moving to the proposed towns of 14,000 would only work with a much smaller total population (like what we had a century ago). Modern population densities would suggest clustering many such communities into a single ‘city’.

The Baltimore-Washington metro area has about 8 million people living in it, mostly in suburban sprawl. I would like to see these clustered together into maybe 10 urbanates in the area with the rest preferably being restored to some parks and a few farms in the immediate area around the urbanate and the land in between restored to wild areas (with the occasional small farming community for those who can’t stand living in the city – and for city kids to be forced to spend a semester out there to learn about the outside world and that beef comes from a cow rather than spontaneously appearing wrapped in plastic on the supermarket shelf). I would of course make some exceptions to this for historical preservation – I do not believe we should scrap all evidence of the past.

The major problem I see is the lack of incentive to work. Everyone needs incentive to work – this may either be internal motivation to create (artists would be in high demand as they have many rooms in an urbanate to make unique), high praise for a job well done, awards for service (be it monetary or otherwise), or some other compensation for people to feel appreciated.

Relying on ‘peer pressure’ to get people to work is based on a fallacy common to people who grew up in small farming towns (as per a typical early 20th century small town). When you compare that to cultures where many people do not actually have to work (such as the modern public housing projects) you find a population where peer pressure works in the other direction; people who want to work are denigrated for it. Assuming peer pressure will ostracize those that don’t contribute, and thus keep a society productive, is a fallacy that is not necessarily true.

@Entropic Creation
Actually Technocracy's design does include "Clustering" of Urbanates around areas where a large Population is necessary. (Perhaps I didn't make that clear in the article).

As for “incentives” to work in a Technocratic society, well here’s an article that deals with what your were talking about, perhaps it will answer some of your misconceptions http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=22&page=1

Or you could go ask Technocrats whatever you want about Technocracy at the Forums here http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=index

Technocrats remove the soul from politics. Politics is nothing without the human spirit, and people, not machines, have the right to decide how they are governed and what policies they enact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocratic_movement



Sounds interesting, if not a bit too fanciful. Not a movement I plan on converting to any time soon. So then, capitalists, socialists, communists et al, level your criticisms against their ideas. Would they work? Or are they just a bunch of hopeless visionaries with no future? :)

They could either make our world a better place, or make it worse. I'm in favour of it, I'd like to see some global change.

Human machine... I don't like the sound of that.

Say 'no' to stagnation, zero growth, systems of control, and the destruction of liberty and dynamic expansion!

Seriously, this is incredibly stupid. Yes, technology can, will, and should be used to drastically reengineer the way we do everything, all the way up to politics and economics. The proposed way is crap, though. Where do they think the technology they hail came from? Growth! Expansion! Competition! Creating a stagnant, steady-state socioeconomic system (heh alliteration) dooms us to ending our existence with a meteor collision, and effectively grinds change, extropy, increase in absolute productivity, and technological advancement to a halt. We can only go further, be more, and do better by growth, advancement, and freedom to experiment, trade, expand, and compete.

Ironically, this 'technocratic' movement would have the same essential effects as a neoluddite movement, just coming from different premises.

Screw this stagnation-centric technofascist concept; it's a betrayal of origins. Instead, read about transhumanism, which is a sort of technolibertarian philosophy. Ex machina libertas! Eritis sicut dii!

http://www.transtopia.org

It suffers from a Soviet-mindset fallacy, i.e. the only reason mankind would ever build a device to harness all of the power from a star is if someone like Joseph Stalin told them to. Such a device would have absolutely no market value, it will never be built, it is useless. The whole stupid scale is just an extension of the Soviet drive for ever-increasing power purely for power's sake, both politically and technologically.

We won't know its validity until the events actually come to pass; we do know that Earth is advancing technologically, we're growing economically as is our population, and our energy demand is always increasing. The Kardashev scale is not a predictive device, but more of a means of technological approximation; however, the trend is towards increased energy demand, technological complexity, and poplulation growth.

The one thing the technocrats have right, I think, is that increased automation limits the damage done to society by the freerider problem.

Under socialsim, some people will choose to do just enough to get by, rather than working as hard as is expected of them. They benefit from the labour of others, but don't contribute.

Machines don't slack off. Machines works exactly as hard as they tell you to, so the impact of freeriders has less of an impact on production.

Say 'no' to stagnation, zero growth, systems of control, and the destruction of liberty and dynamic expansion!

If technology continues at its present rate, we're up for a period of dynamic expansion and economic growth that is unprecedented in human history. The technocrats were right in their belief that technology would change our lives, but they were totally wrong in thinking that it is desirable to have zero growth. They made the mistake of thinking that growth occurs in a bubble and does not affect other aspects of life; the reason why a Malthusian collapse has never occured is because of growth.

Economic and population growth drive technological innovation and improved productivity, which in turn expand the capacity of civilization to sustain that growth and encourage it to progress further. That in turn drives more innovation and productivity growth which proceeds to drive more economic and population growth.

I hardly think it is coincidental that technology has been expanding at a faster and faster rate simultaneously with the growth in human population and expansion of the world economy. However, the technological level and economy have been growing faster than the population, leading to rising living standards and more stable supplies of basic resources and energy.

Kardashev is rubbish.

It suffers from a Soviet-mindset fallacy, i.e. the only reason mankind would ever build a device to harness all of the power from a star is if someone like Joseph Stalin told them to. Such a device would have absolutely no market value, it will never be built, it is useless. The whole stupid scale is just an extension of the Soviet drive for ever-increasing power purely for power's sake, both politically and technologically.

That's completely untrue. In a sufficiently advanced pure-information civilization, computation is the ultimate necessity and product, and to compute you need energy. A Dyson sphere harnesses maximal energy in a given local area of space, so that it can be used for computation by something like a Matrioshka Brain.

Additionally, such a civilization will also have as its goal the minimization of entropy, to maximize the computation-supporting lifespan of the universe. Stars are enormous wastes of energy; they continuously spew exojoules of energy into the vacuum in the form of radiation to no purpose save heating interstellar space another arbitrarily close to zero fraction of a degree above absolute zero. Making maximally efficient and productive use of all energy and mass you can possibly contain and harvest reduces entropy and extends the life of your civilization.

The ultimate goal is to reorganize the mass of an entire galaxy into a galaxy assembled completely of pseudo-neutron-stars structured for nucleonic computation, cored by instantaneous information transmission nodes connecting the not-stars, and surrounded by Dyson spheres that absorb the energy output and pump it back in. Perhaps that's what some proportion of dark matter is - galaxies that have been transformed into near-perfect non-emitters and which host a near-infinitude of transcendent alien pure-information civilizations.

The Kardashev scale is certainly simplistic, but it reflects the fact that every joule of energy in the universe is a usable resource, that entropy is the enemy, and that massive waste of energy resources and resultant unabated continuance of entropy is not in the interests of an advanced civilization.

If technology continues at its present rate, we're up for a period of dynamic expansion and economic growth that is unprecedented in human history. The technocrats were right in their belief that technology would change our lives, but they were totally wrong in thinking that it is desirable to have zero growth. They made the mistake of thinking that growth occurs in a bubble and does not affect other aspects of life; the reason why a Malthusian collapse has never occured is because of growth.

Economic and population growth drive technological innovation and improved productivity, which in turn expand the capacity of civilization to sustain that growth and encourage it to progress further. That in turn drives more innovation and productivity growth which proceeds to drive more economic and population growth.

I hardly think it is coincidental that technology has been expanding at a faster and faster rate simultaneously with the growth in human population and expansion of the world economy. However, the technological level and economy have been growing faster than the population, leading to rising living standards and more stable supplies of basic resources and energy.

Precisely my point. Bring on the singularity! Are you a transhumanist?

Free Mercantile States Wrote:
Say 'no' to stagnation, zero growth, systems of control, and the destruction of liberty and dynamic expansion!

I would say 'no' to that too, fortunately Technocracy suggests none of the above.

"Stagnation", hardly. In-fact a Technocratic Society would be far more fluid and progressive than any previous society. People would be free of the drudgery and spirit crushing 'realities' of a scarcity system, and would be able for the first time in human history to devote their lives to whatever they wish, Cultural progress would certainly be the result.
"Zero Growth", not at all. If you mean standard Economic monetary growth then obviously such things would not exist in a Money-less society. That does not by any means mean that there would be no growth in a Technate, quite the opposite, there would be whatever amount of Growth that is either required or desired by the Citizens of the Technate. It would be growth with purpose, not meaningless increase in percentages of GDP.:rolleyes:

In a Technate, the Factories (automated of-course) would Produce whatever the people demand (within our Technological limits of-course), thus if the Population grows and thus more people demand more things then the Technate will supply them, that is Growth in a Technocratic system. Supply = Demand, and that is the meaning of Technocracy's Symbol, Dynamic Balance and symbiosis between Man and his Machines. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Silver_red_monad.png

"systems of control, and the destruction of liberty", Complete Garbage. If you would take the time to read Technocracy's proposals or talk to Technocrats you would find that they abhor any ideas of Authoritarianism, or any control of people's lives. The Purpose of the Technocratic system would be solely to serve the needs and wants of it's citizens, any form of control would run counter to that purpose.
The Technate's Legal system is quite simple and can be summed up in a single easy sentence 'A Citizen of the Technate is free to do Anything, as long as their actions do not harm others or interfere with other's ability to consume'.
That is essentially the Technate's only Law, and covers everything from Murder, Assault, Rape, Robbery, etc... Anything else an individual wishes to do is up to their own Ethics and Morals, there would be no Political entity deciding what people can and cannot do, aside from the example I've just given.
Technocracy’s proposed society would be probably the Freest society in Human History, it is as far from "Techno-Fascism" as could be possible.

Seriously, this is incredibly stupid. Yes, technology can, will, and should be used to drastically reengineer the way we do everything, all the way up to politics and economics. The proposed way is crap, though. Where do they think the technology they hail came from? Growth! Expansion! Competition!

Of-course Technocrats acknowledge that all Human Progress to this point was driven by the economic systems of the past, which were Scarcity bases systems. The point being, we have now reached a level of Technology where scarcity itself can be made a thing of the past, and an era of Abundance can be created, but no Previous economic systems are designed to deal with an abundance, so a new system is required. Technocracy is that system.

Creating a stagnant, steady-state socioeconomic system (heh alliteration) dooms us to ending our existence with a meteor collision, and effectively grinds change, extropy, increase in absolute productivity, and technological advancement to a halt. We can only go further, be more, and do better by growth, advancement, and freedom to experiment, trade, expand, and compete.

Ironically, this 'technocratic' movement would have the same essential effects as a neoluddite movement, just coming from different premises.

Ha! again utter BS. It is the Scarcity based economic systems that hold back Technological progress today, an Abundance based Technate would set science free to accomplish feats never dreamt of under the constraints of Money and private profit.
As to your example of a Meteorite about to hit Earth, a Technocratic society could mobilize all resources, all scientist, every single asset the Technate had in a combined, concentrated, Continent-wide effort (we can all alliterate) to come up with a solution (and all without any concerns for "budgets"). What Scarcity price system could do that, none.

Instead, read about transhumanism, which is a sort of technolibertarian philosophy.
Actually several members and supporters of the Technocracy Movement are also Transhumanists, they believe that Technocracy will be the first step to a Technological singularity.

My advice again is, study our proposals before you dismiss them so easily, if you refuse to learn about it, then fine, don't. But if you do wish to learn then we are always willing to teach.

Precisely my point. Bring on the singularity! Are you a transhumanist?

Oh yeah...big time. I couldn't agree more, bring on the singularity!