Technocracy ascendant

[Charles II]

Is there any non-ASBish way to have Technocracy become a major or even a dominant ideology and governing form in the U.S.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement

[Hnau]

Check out Max Sinister's extensive 'Ghengis Khan dies early' timeline. He has a technocratic Germany as world superpower and its incredibly interesting. :)

I always think that, if a first world nation adopt technocracy... well, they are going to be very powerful very soon. It can be one of the most productive kinds of government out there, as we all know that increased funding of science brings new technologies which leads to an increase in industry, low unemployment, monopoly over high-tech to export, increase in military power and national economy, which leads to a growing population, which fuels more of the economy and thus, more science and technology. Technocracy is one of the most efficient philosophies out there... I'm surprised it didn't appear in OTL.

[mmmeee0]

the so-called 'Revolt of the Scientists': let the intelligent men run things and you'll have utopia. It fell flat on its foolish face of course. Because the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is not itself a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centered as to be lacking in social responsibility. –Major Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_Starship_Troopers#Minor_char acters) in Starship Troopers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers), p.143

Well, it does sum it up quite nicely...

[David S Poepoe]

Sounds a lot like the Futurism movement in early 20th century Italy that eventually merged with Fascism. In the US there is good indication that Progressivism would have probably developed into similar lines with controlled economies and everyday life managed by the State. So much for the individual.

[Hnau]

Well, one way I see it working is if a government decided to incorporate scientists and specialists into their bureaucracy to run the country, creating a non-democratic, meritocratic government with two layers: those who protected the system, probably military, and held executive power, and the scientists and specialists organized in a corporate system who hold judicial and legislative power.

Perhaps the main way to establish a technocratic government is to have a military coup, with military forces, very loyal to a ruling junta, take command of the country and hold it down as a police state. In order to manage the country, they make a deal with former government-hired scientists, specialists and bureaucrats to take over management. There would probably be somewhat of a federal structure, with limited local autonomy, to keep the people pacified. Otherwise, corporations would hold a lot of power. Hmm... an interesting society.

[Charles II]

the so-called 'Revolt of the Scientists': let the intelligent men run things and you'll have utopia. It fell flat on its foolish face of course. Because the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is not itself a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centered as to be lacking in social responsibility. –Major Reid in Starship Troopers, p.143

That is actually where I got the idea for this thread.

[Trebuchet]

"I'd rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the dons of Harvard." - William Buckley

Offhand, I can't imagine any worse way (long run) to run a government than technocracy - you're basically giving all power and control to academic groupthink. I mean, honestly... I'd rather make Dubya Dictator of America than hand over power to some body of academics. He'd be more competent. There's not many situations where I can say that.

[Charles II]

Offhand, I can't imagine any worse way (long run) to run a government than technocracy - you're basically giving all power and control to academic groupthink. I mean, honestly... I'd rather make Dubya Dictator of America than hand over power to some body of academics. He'd be more competent. There's not many situations where I can say that.

I generally agree, though I just want to find out if such a thing could have been pssible.

[mtg999]

I generally agree, though I just want to find out if such a thing could have been pssible.

I don't know that much about the subject of technocracy, but I would think a very mild version of it could be possible. But I wonder to the extent to which it could be mixed with at least some form of democracy? I remember another thread about the British Labour Party, where it was suggested that if trade unions had taken a strong interest in worker control then it would have been possible to have a highly technocratic form of syndicalism. However, as someone else on that thread pointed out, this would be far more likely to occur in continental Europe than in the Anglo world, as in English-speaking nations, the esteem placed on the businessperson/entrepreneur is higher than that placed on the bureaucrat/scholar.

[Hnau]

Sure, sure, technocratic nations would be inconsiderate of their populace, I mean, the regular man doesn't have any power against them, but if they could control that, they would gain power extremely quickly, putting that much into science. Suddenly it becomes very attractive to gain an education in the science sector, creating some interesting curves. It'd be better than a dictatorship or totalitarian society, but it wouldn't be nice. Be prepared for some Soviet-style unsympathetic measures... this ethnic group causing problems? Execute them all... secretly, and confiscate their belongings. Yikes.

Still, I wonder if we could get the effect of the technocracy (concentration on science, technology, economic efficiency, etc.) without the negative aspects. That's why I think a military dictatorship, with a meritocratic military-police force, that supports a large class of meritocratically-operated scientists, with balanced popular power on a local level, could pull it off...

[MadAce]

I've done a great deal of thinking about a technocracy. Well, a more or less working model of it. (kinda self-defeating considering I'm far from qualified to be calling the shots on such things... But meh) Mainly because of my strong dislike of democracy.

Anyways.

It's an old cliché that Technocratic governments will turn out to be some sort of dictatorship. An old remnant from the time when people foolishly believed that the only alternative to a democracy was communism. And since everyone is/was being brought up to dislike communism...


If a technocratic government would want to stay in power then they wouldn't be an oppressive (or even unpopular) dictatorship.


A very rough overview of such a government as I see it working (in any time-frame, btw) is as follows:

There's a seperation of the branches. There's a legislative branche, a, executive branche, a judiciary branche and a communicative branche.

There's a very, very short but immensely powerful constitution. Meaning that it should be upheld in all circumstances. Otherwise the government becomes invalid and the army moves in.
Since it's so short and (relatively) basic it won't have to be changed.

After a lot of thinking a draft version of the constitution is similar to this:

The government shall offer as much opportunities as possible to as many sentient beings as possible in the most efficient way possible.

Of course almost each word would have to be strictly defined.


In practice anyone and anything (so from everyday people up to groups) are free to suggest policy. If it is found to be "better" (depending on what the goal of the policy was in the first place) than the original policy (and if enacting the new policy won't negate the possible gains in efficiency it would have yielded) then it HAS to be enacted.

To offer tools to do this (information on everything, aka a database about all aspects of society, scientists who are to do studies when requested, ...) there's the Communicatve Branche. This Branche also makes everything regarding the government public. So if there's a conversation in an elevator in a government building... it becomes public.


Also (but how this would work in practice would be more complicated to explain) there wouldn't actually be any humans with power. So no single human would have any actual power. Forget presidents and such.

[Earling]

Based on the thread we had.. ages ago the question remains: How does a Technocracy "find" a better way of doing things? I mean you can make paperwork more efficient, but its more or less impossible to know whether one economic plan will be better than another before you put it into practice because your counting on things which are impossible for you to know; public confidence for a start.

"If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions."

Churchill may be overquoted, but in this instance he is surely correct. The same can be said of any aspect of social policy.

Its one thing to make a really efficient bureaucracy. Its another to work out what that bureaucracy should actually be doing. Technocracies would be dictatorial, because they would be governed by a few in ivory towers who would determine what *policy* is the best and anyone who thought otherwise would be condemned as intellectually inferior. The proposed policy might be carried out in an extremely efficient manner, but whether it would truely be considered the best by a free populace is another matter entirely. If there clearly was one policy which was obviously better than all others why do you think there is disagreement in matters of politics? The question would come down entirely to which individual you felt was better at administration.

[MadAce]

Based on the thread we had.. ages ago the question remains: How does a Technocracy "find" a better way of doing things? I mean you can make paperwork more efficient, but its more or less impossible to know whether one economic plan will be better than another before you put it into practice because your counting on things which are impossible for you to know; public confidence for a start.

How do scientists decide which research is the superior one?

You look at the facts, you look at the formulas, you look at the conclusions. Those which have the smallest margin of error, the largest and most objective basis and the most refined and unbiased conclusions wins. If you can't disprove it, it's true. (or something in that line)

If you're willing to take medication based on this way of working then I'm sure you'd be willing to accept a government working in this way. :)

Companies (good ones that is) do projections all the time. Besides, if you have to choose between two possible policies then you'll of course choose the one with the largest odds of success. If you have a headache, then you'll prefer an aspirin over leeches applied to your eyeballs.

That's science for you. To those with a cruder mind it might think it resembles magic. :D

In either case, it's still superior to the idea that the majority is right. There's no guarantee that the majority is right.


"If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions."

Churchill may be overquoted, but in this instance he is surely correct. The same can be said of any aspect of social policy.


Policy shouldn't be dictated by opinion, but by fact.

BTW,

"If you put two people in a room, you get two opinions."

So that kind of scrutiny pplies to democracy too.

Its one thing to make a really efficient bureaucracy. Its another to work out what that bureaucracy should actually be doing.

The same goes for democratically elected governments.

Technocracies would be dictatorial, because they would be governed by a few in ivory towers who would determine what *policy* is the best and anyone who thought otherwise would be condemned as intellectually inferior.

Why do you make that unfunded assumption? If democracy has fail-safes to prevent corruption, then why not technocracy?

Why do you make the weird (and also unfunded) assumption that there would be people in charge?

The proposed policy might be carried out in an extremely efficient manner, but whether it would truely be considered the best by a free populace is another matter entirely.

Define what freedom is. Besides,

"The proposed policy might be carried out in an extremely popular manner, but whether it would truely be considered the best by an specialized and educated system is another matter entirely."

You should define what best is. What the majority thinks? I don't see the link between superiority and what the masses think.

If there clearly was one policy which was obviously better than all others why do you think there is disagreement in matters of politics?

Because that's how the system works. And who said that the disagreements are about the policies that would actually be best? For all you know there could be a much better policy being defended by no politicians at all. Maybe because it advocates abolishing politicians. ;)

The question would come down entirely to which individual you felt was better at administration.

Just like whether you get a degree depends entirely on the mood of your teachers. Oh, wait. :eek: OMG. It's something that resembles a technocracy. (-ish thing)

[Grey Wolf]

What about the Soviet Union ? They basically said to the scientists 'You will do this or...' and none of them hung around to think about the 'or'. Its not so much the scientists making the agenda, as it being for them, but it was pushing science and technology. The main point is that it was backed up by repressive secret police terror, and as such this was more of a driver than any slight increase of status or being a 'Hero of the Soviet Onion'.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Admiral Canaris]

Why do you make that unfunded assumption? If democracy has fail-safes to prevent corruption, then why not technocracy?

Benevolent Dictator argument. This is unrealistic in the same way as Communism is; it doesn't take human nature into account. Power does corrupt, and any country run by a small elite will be run for that elite, the way they like it (and damn the consequences). Without checks and balnces, and without transparency, corruption and nepotism WILL flourish. People with power take advantage of it; the kind of psycho-fanatic that would live entirely for the government doesn't exist, or if he does he isn't mentally healthy enough to run a government.

Why do you make the weird (and also unfunded) assumption that there would be people in charge?

Because otherwise it's anarchy? Or are you imagining us ruled by aliens, gods or Skynet-like artificial intelligences?

[Earling]

How do scientists decide which research is the superior one?

You look at the facts, you look at the formulas, you look at the conclusions. Those which have the smallest margin of error, the largest and most objective basis and the most refined and unbiased conclusions wins. If you can't disprove it, it's true. (or something in that line)

If you're willing to take medication based on this way of working then I'm sure you'd be willing to accept a government working in this way. :)

Companies (good ones that is) do projections all the time. Besides, if you have to choose between two possible policies then you'll of course choose the one with the largest odds of success. If you have a headache, then you'll prefer an aspirin over leeches applied to your eyeballs.

That's science for you. To those with a cruder mind it might think it resembles magic. :D

In either case, it's still superior to the idea that the majority is right. There's no guarantee that the majority is right.

Again, this simply isn't true, well, unless you believe businesses throughout the world are intentionally making mistakes. You can have two similar businesses with a similar level of assets and yet very divergent business plans. Which one is the best and which one obviously flawed? Well in hindsight it might be clear, when one performs better than the other, but if people knew that at the time they would all adopt the same business plan. They don't. Why is this? They have the same information.

You cannot know unknowns. You can know they exist, but some things are beyond our capacity to determine ahead of time. In economics a good example is consumer confidence, governments and businesses cannot know this for sure, they can only guess.

In science you usually have to convince someone with money that your project is worthwhile. With governments that usually means a treasury of some description. If this treasurer is not elected, he will have an institutional bias to whatever institution put him into power. If he is elected he will have an institutional bias towards doing what is popular in order to keep him in power.

On the whole, corruption has been far more endemic in the former rather than the later. Democracy atleast gives people some vague motivation towards being honest and competent since if they are not they will be removed.

Policy shouldn't be dictated by opinion, but by fact.

BTW,

"If you put two people in a room, you get two opinions."

So that kind of scrutiny pplies to democracy too.

Most economists have facts that support their views. Scientists do as well. It depends on whose facts are accurate, something which is not easilly known untill after the event, especially if they involve guessing unknowns. Most economists, if they are any good, don't just sit in a dark room and then come up with numbers off the top of their head. The point of democracy is that you should face a number of alternatives and you can pick which one you believe is the best.

The same goes for democratically elected governments.

Democracy is the method of working out which policies should be followed. It determines who gets elected and they should have outlined their policies in the process of securing that vote. If they invoke policies that are truely unpopular they can be removed. I say truely unpopular because lots of people moan about their government, but then support them secretly at the ballot box.

Why do you make that unfunded assumption? If democracy has fail-safes to prevent corruption, then why not technocracy?

Why do you make the weird (and also unfunded) assumption that there would be people in charge?

How.. exactly.. does any form of government plan on working if no one is in charge? Do you imagine any organization can run without leadership? Who decides where the money goes?

Your basic premise is that anyone can offer an oppinion. Fine. If they can prove it is better then it has to be carried out. Thats where the problems occur. What if I refuse to accept your proof? What if I say your figures are flawed, or your hypothesis makes several assumptions which I believe are false. If your "best solution" proposes shutting down my pet project and putting me out of a job do you think I will be unbiased? What stops a Januseque switching between positions as people keep changing their minds?

Define what freedom is. Besides,

"The proposed policy might be carried out in an extremely popular manner, but whether it would truely be considered the best by an specialized and educated system is another matter entirely."

You should define what best is. What the majority thinks? I don't see the link between superiority and what the masses think.

Free in the sense of being unrepressed and capable of doing more about any resentment than mumble under their breath.

I would put forward pure neoliberal policies. I am confident that in the long-term they would benefit society by being the most just economic system. I am also aware however that such would involve alot of suffering for the most vulnerable in society who rely on the mercy of others. If my proposed policies are so obviously superior I should be able to convince people of their validity and thus win a democratic mandate.

Just because something is popular is no proof that it is the best alternative. I agree with you there. Where I disagree however is that you can objectively prove one course of action is superior. If that was true there would be no debate and there quite clearly is. It is far more likely that something which is broadly popular with the electorate will be broadly good for the electorate, rather than the policy of a small minority which is likely to be in their interests rather than the interests of the many.

[Berra]

I see three different technocracies.

Burocracy. The real world politicians are in the hands of civil servants to create brefings and other background to desitions, the implementation, and checking the results of the implementation. The civil servants are experts in their field and may hold more power then the elected officials. Call this the democratic technocracy.

The expert rule. A hirarcic system where the experts control every asspect of the human life. Call this the communist system.

The construction buro. The rule isn't one single project but rather a mutitude of problems that needs a solution. The experts are divided on groups working on a problem and somehow cooperate with each other. They might seek out problems themself even. This is similar to private companies or the Soviet construction buros.

All the systems mentioned above are close to real world systems so one might call them technocracies.

[Hendryk]

It should normally be Flocc's prerogative to point this out, but Singapore comes pretty close to the technocratic template. Then again, when you inject modernizing and/or corporate elements into a Confucian society, you're likely to end up with a fairly technocratic system.

[MadAce]

Benevolent Dictator argument. This is unrealistic in the same way as Communism is; it doesn't take human nature into account. Power does corrupt, and any country run by a small elite will be run for that elite, the way they like it (and damn the consequences).

Communism Argument.
Human Nature Argument.

Both arguments have been used ad nauseum so they absolutely deserve their capitalization.

You somehow assume that a technocracy would put a certain elite into power. This isn't the case.


Without checks and balnces, and without transparency, corruption and nepotism WILL flourish. People with power take advantage of it; the kind of psycho-fanatic that would live entirely for the government doesn't exist, or if he does he isn't mentally healthy enough to run a government.


There are checks and balances in place to saveguard democracy from corruption. Why couldn't the same be true for a technocracy?


Because otherwise it's anarchy? Or are you imagining us ruled by aliens, gods or Skynet-like artificial intelligences?

Well I think we can all agree on the fact that the last entity to hold any power should be an individual.

Theer are many institutions that aren't actually people. They're systems containing people. But they're not people. And you seem to be perfectly happy with that...

Again, this simply isn't true, well, unless you believe businesses throughout the world are intentionally making mistakes. You can have two similar businesses with a similar level of assets and yet very divergent business plans. Which one is the best and which one obviously flawed? Well in hindsight it might be clear, when one performs better than the other, but if people knew that at the time they would all adopt the same business plan. They don't. Why is this? They have the same information.

Ergl? What makes you think all the companies have the same information? I'd like a practical example of this situation please.

BTW, I (or anyone else) are not suggesting that governments are run like companies.

You cannot know unknowns. You can know they exist, but some things are beyond our capacity to determine ahead of time. In economics a good example is consumer confidence, governments and businesses cannot know this for sure, they can only guess.

Platitude. Sure you can know unknowns if you make them known. Wanna know what's behind the next hill? Go look. You've just made an unknown known.

And no one guesses consumer confidence anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_confidence

There's even a consumer confidence index.

Democracy atleast gives people some vague motivation towards being honest and competent since if they are not they will be removed.

Huh? That's untrue. I'll fix it for you:

"Democracy atleast gives people some vague motivation towards being popular and seem competent since if they are not they will be removed."


Democracy is the method of working out which policies should be followed. It determines who gets elected and they should have outlined their policies in the process of securing that vote. If they invoke policies that are truely unpopular they can be removed. I say truely unpopular because lots of people moan about their government, but then support them secretly at the ballot box.

Democracy is the method of working out which policies are popular. In practice it's the method to determine which people are the most popular...

Doesn't that strike you as weird? Shouldn't the BEST policy be the one to be used?


How.. exactly.. does any form of government plan on working if no one is in charge? Do you imagine any organization can run without leadership? Who decides where the money goes?

It's not because there isn't a single individual with a immense amount of power that there isn't leadership. For some odd reason people always want to have a few, recognizable people in charge. While in practice that doesn't give any advantages.

Besides, does the department that calculates and sends the wages of your company have a single leader decide everything? Of course not. Neither does a "democratic" government. Theer are many, many decisions being taken by people who haven't been democratically elected. The whole civil servants army that runs governments is not democratically elected. And in practice it often works fine. In my experience the place where it goes badly is at the top, where people are often politically appointed.

Your basic premise is that anyone can offer an oppinion. Fine. If they can prove it is better then it has to be carried out. Thats where the problems occur. What if I refuse to accept your proof? What if I say your figures are flawed, or your hypothesis makes several assumptions which I believe are false. If your "best solution" proposes shutting down my pet project and putting me out of a job do you think I will be unbiased? What stops a Januseque switching between positions as people keep changing their minds?

That's easy to answer. What if in a democratically elected government the leaders decide to ignore the election results? The army steps in. Or something similar. Why can't the same happen in a technocracy?

Listen. I just don't get why people are perfectly happy to take any medication which is the result of the scientific mehtod if they're completely untrustworthy of the same method being used in a government.

What if the figures were flawed, what if this, what if that... Well, there are safeguards in place to prevent you dropping dead from your aspirin. The same could be true for a technocracy.

Free in the sense of being unrepressed and capable of doing more about any resentment than mumble under their breath.

You're being oppressed right now (according to some definitions) but you just refuse to see it. Or you realize that freedom comes in different forms and shapes and can have different interpretations.

Besides, in the system "I" proposed people can just prove that they're right and the government is not.


Just because something is popular is no proof that it is the best alternative. I agree with you there. Where I disagree however is that you can objectively prove one course of action is superior. If that was true there would be no debate and there quite clearly is.

So we agree on that. Almost everybody does. And YES you can objectively decide on the best course of action. It's just that no one ever bothered to create a workable framework for this. Theer's a whole scientific mehtod ready to be adapted to decision making.

And when there's debate in a democracy it's rarely about the facts. Very rarely.

Example: In my home-city they want to build a bridge. ome are saying it's too polluting so they want a tunnel.

The way to find out which would be best is to look at similar situations and thus make traffic projections and the lot to decide which is the least polluting. But now the demoratically elected city council wants to build the bridged because they've already spent millions on preparations.

Could be that they're right. Could be that a tunnel is best. Possibly there's a third alternative.

We'll never know. That's democracy for ya.


It is far more likely that something which is broadly popular with the electorate will be broadly good for the electorate, rather than the policy of a small minority which is likely to be in their interests rather than the interests of the many.

That's simply untrue. There's no reason that something is better because it's popular. Majorities can be as underinfmred as minorities. In today's world (where even professors need to have specializations because they can't begin to keep up with advancements in their broader field) where information is created exponentially it's impossible for a single individual (a voter perhaps) to know enough to make the correct decisions. Assuming there's a party/figure offering them the choice (which often isn't the case).
Actually, it would be quite unfair to ask people to know all the things they should know. I bet they'd want to sleep from time to time...



BTW, did you know that democracies are supposed to saveguard the interests of the few? Otherwise that would be discrimination.

[Vault-Scope]

It can be one of the most productive kinds of government out there, as we all know that increased funding of science brings new technologies which leads to an increase in industry, low unemployment, monopoly over high-tech to export, increase in military power and national economy, which leads to a growing population, which fuels more of the economy and thus, more science and technology.

Not only that, there would also be the whole purely technical/scientific driven approch to production and strategy, it would be the most efficient system.

[OAM47]

There is a bit of a following for an AI led technocracy out there, of course everyone pretty much realizes to do that we have to wait for AI to advance that far.

(and I guess by quite a bit I mean just as much as any other idea that seems like it wouldn't have a following)

[Zajir]

You could do something in Vichy France with Groupe X-Crise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_X-Crise) becoming the dominant fction.

[Admiral Canaris]

Communism Argument.
Human Nature Argument.

Both arguments have been used ad nauseum so they absolutely deserve their capitalization.

You somehow assume that a technocracy would put a certain elite into power. This isn't the case.

I thought the very point of technocracy was putting the technocrats in charge.

There are checks and balances in place to saveguard democracy from corruption. Why couldn't the same be true for a technocracy?

Appeal to ignorance; you could use the same argument to claim that a Communist system wouldn't necessarily be corrupt. The reason democracy works better against corruption than authoritarian systems is that power isn't concentrated to the top. There is transparency and responsibility not merely to your superiors, but to the people.

Well I think we can all agree on the fact that the last entity to hold any power should be an individual.

Theer are many institutions that aren't actually people. They're systems containing people. But they're not people. And you seem to be perfectly happy with that...

I'm just a dumb Swede; could you give me a clearer example of how you suppose that would work?

[Bishop]

It should normally be Flocc's prerogative to point this out, but Singapore comes pretty close to the technocratic template. Then again, when you inject modernizing and/or corporate elements into a Confucian society, you're likely to end up with a fairly technocratic system.

Agreed, while it has not ever been really implemented on a large scale, it is erroneous to talk of all of this as completely theoretical stuff and never before tested in some form.

[Vault-Scope]

I thought the very point of technocracy was putting the technocrats in charge.


Technocracy is about putting the most competent in charge, systematically. It is 2 + 2 = 4.

The reason democracy works better against corruption than authoritarian systems is that power isn't concentrated to the top. There is transparency and responsibility not merely to your superiors, but to the people.

I wonder what self-declared "democrats", like tony blaire for example(who managed to pull out a war opposed by 90-80% of britons), would think about that.

Communism Argument.
Human Nature Argument.

Both arguments have been used ad nauseum so they absolutely deserve their capitalization.


These arguments are not quiet correct. The struggle of power is about option, whever one win throught being skilled or by cheating.
Technocracy is 100% taking the first option. Democracy? Democracy is just an another ground for this struggle.

[Admiral Canaris]

Technocracy is about putting the most competent in charge, systematically. It is 2 + 2 = 4.

And in practice, that means a small elite of scientists, big business and what have you. And small elites rule the way that's good for the small elite. Whenever the government isn't responsible to the people, it's only responsible to itself.

I wonder what self-declared "democrats", like tony blaire for example(who managed to pull out a war opposed by 90-80% of britons), would think about that.

In a democracy, compromises must be made. The voters are required to elect the candidate that best represents their views, not the one that does so perfectly (because unless they launch their own candidacies, that won't be an option). If people are very opposed to the war, they can elect anti-war Congressmen (or MPs, for Britain).

[jkay]

I think modern (since Nixon in China) China might count as a technocracy. IMHO, Chuckie II and Trebuchet're right; IMHO the Bush II Administration HAS done a better job, despite its underperformance in our context.

I think the best you could hope for would be for it to be like modern China. Like all Communist countries, you have to be smart to be part of the elite. It hardly kept them from oppressing their people over the Olympics by enforcing a work holiday around Beijing and letting companies and the people pay for it, or letting all-too-many be die or displaced to build the latest-and-greatest Three Gorges Dam. I'm not trading pebble-bed nuclear reactors for Tibet, no thank you. They will continue to see innovation disadvantages vs democracy because of the lack of freedom of speech and conscience, albeit fewer than when they were economically communist.

The idea that we can easily figure out the optimal response to any situations has been known to be wrong since the introduction of chaos theory (google the Butterfly Effect). It boils down to a simulation problem. Because reality's vastly complicated, to get a good enough model to do that kind of thing, you need a level of computing power that we won't see for at least a century.

Vault-Scope wrote
Not only that, there would also be the whole purely technical/scientific driven approch to production and strategy, it would be the most efficient system.Yeah, we know we can produce a system that makes the most tanks, if you don't care about shoes or food or glue. Just think about it a bit, what's the right allocation between...everything? How do you implement innovation in food and shoes while doing your tanks? If you have answers, tell the Chinese so they can know what to do with their burdensome state factories.

[Inferus]

Knock technocracies all you want, but they saved Italy numerous times. I'd rather have an educated individual who has experience in their field in chrage rather than someone voted into office based on advertising or popularity.

Sure it seems cold, if there is a problem the technocrat gives a solution that may appear cold. But still, an educated solution is better than a thought out one, i.e. based on voters' opinions. Many think along the ridiculous liberal agenda, that the educational system will put out the worst leaders, but ifthe system is merocratic, then those who can't achieve positives is removed and those who can't are removed. So those who know what works will achieve leadership and know what is best fo0r society. I could care less if this means I be sterilized as long as future generations achieve their greatest potential.

[MadAce]

And in practice, that means a small elite of scientists, big business and what have you. And small elites rule the way that's good for the small elite. Whenever the government isn't responsible to the people, it's only responsible to itself.


I reject your view of a technocracy in practice. Why? Because:

Technocracy : A form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control; "technocracy is described as that society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge".

Simple logic dictates that it's hard (if not impossible) to scientifically prove that having a few people in charge (example: one guy to do all the economics stuff, one guy to do all the health care stuff) in stead of a system in which there are many specializations, many commisions and many parts that correct/regulate each other.


People also (conviniently) forget that it would be against the ideology of a technocracy to ignore the man in the street.

Example: How do they calculate the consumer confidence index? They ask people. :)

Just think about it a bit, what's the right allocation between...everything? How do you implement innovation in food and shoes while doing your tanks?

IMHO that depends entirely on your priorities. And in "good" government all decisions are being made in the best interest of the people.

So one could make the best possible projection to determine if there are any tanks needed. Included in this projection could be numerous war-time sistuations and in the case of China they could possibly notice that their economic might (and the dependency of the world on China) is possibly more of a defensive weapon than 10K tanks. I'm not an economic/military specialist so I'm just guessing possible approaches. But frankly I think it could be possible to calculate a little more and guess a little less.

Anyways, back on-topic, sorta.

I believe there are more than enough reasons to merit a distrust of populism/democracy. So more than enough reasons for a technocracy to emerge at any point in the past.


I suppose since there's almost no popular basis for the smart guys to design the system it would have to be a situation in which there's an absolute NEED for experts in charge. Apoclayptic situations perhaps? Oncoming meteors? Pandemics? (a more rampant Spanish Flu?) Rampant pollution? (different industrial revolution?)

Or maybe the scientific could have been a counter-weight for reactionary (religious?) powers? I can see resistance movements centering around universities and such.

[Grey Wolf]

In a democracy, compromises must be made. The voters are required to elect the candidate that best represents their views, not the one that does so perfectly (because unless they launch their own candidacies, that won't be an option). If people are very opposed to the war, they can elect anti-war Congressmen (or MPs, for Britain).

You CAN'T elect someone when a crisis blows up. You'd have to be clairvoyant to know in advance, when you get your once-in-five-years chance to vote

And when all the parties are the same anyway, it really doesn't make any difference

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[xchen08]

People also (conviniently) forget that it would be against the ideology of a technocracy to ignore the man in the street.

IMHO that depends entirely on your priorities. And in "good" government all decisions are being made in the best interest of the people.


I think this perfectly captures exactly what is wrong with technocracy. (and also communism and even democracy) You say that it is against the ideology of technocracy to ignore the common people, but surely it is also against the ideology of communism to ignore the common people. Even in feudalism, the ideology calls for the lords to defend the people as well as provide capital for improvements, etc, in exchange for a share of the crop. However, ideology means little in practice. What really matters are incentives.

What is the incentive structure for leaders in democracy? It rewards leaders for actions leading to reelection. Note that this does not equal what is good for the country/people, which is why democracy is not perfect, but with an educated and motivated citizenry, it is quite close. The incentive for technocrats is to maximize their own welfare, which would preclude actions that destroy the country that pays them, but allows for a whole assortment of other actions that benefit no one but them. Why would a technocrat care about whether the commoners are better off? Plato would say that the technocrat has to be brainwashed from youth and prohibited from possession of wealth, but I doubt even that would work.

[MadAce]

I think this perfectly captures exactly what is wrong with technocracy. (and also communism and even democracy) You say that it is against the ideology of technocracy to ignore the common people, but surely it is also against the ideology of communism to ignore the common people. Even in feudalism, the ideology calls for the lords to defend the people as well as provide capital for improvements, etc, in exchange for a share of the crop. However, ideology means little in practice. What really matters are incentives.

We both have a partial point.

In reality ANY form of government, when suffering faulty design, can ignore its own reason of existence/ideology. Hence why there should be checks and balances to ensure that the government steps over a certain line. If for example a government violates the constitution by passing an anti-religion alw, then there should be someone/something to force the government back in line. Hence the separation of branches.

In my opinion it's perfectly possible to design a system in which it is "impossible" to step over the line. Even better. I think it's also perfectly possible to design a system in which the "politicians" (a profession that has no reason to exist) don't WANT to step beyond the boundaries.
In about the same way that a civil servant can't/won't start calling shots concerning a completely different department.

What is the incentive structure for leaders in democracy? It rewards leaders for actions leading to reelection. Note that this does not equal what is good for the country/people, which is why democracy is not perfect, but with an educated and motivated citizenry, it is quite close.

IMHO it isn't. I, even with all my effort and time dedicated to it, will not be able to educate myself enough to know enough about every possible thing to form funded opinions about the issues that are important for my country.

The world has gotten too complicated. There's too much information. There are too many factors. The world is quite different than it was 100 years ago.


The incentive for technocrats is to maximize their own welfare, which would preclude actions that destroy the country that pays them, but allows for a whole assortment of other actions that benefit no one but them. Why would a technocrat care about whether the commoners are better off? Plato would say that the technocrat has to be brainwashed from youth and prohibited from possession of wealth, but I doubt even that would work.


I reject the idea that in a technocracy, there would be any actual technocrats. There don't have to be.

Listen. Why do people want to do a good job, at any job? Because, if they're working somewhere efficient, they have incentives. If for example you clean toilets then you probably haver a supervisor who'll check your work. Hence why you want to do a good job. Otherwise you won't get paid or you get fired.
Exactly the reason why the members of a technocratic government will want to do a good job. Because they'll get judged by their work. And if they don't meet the objectives set forth, they get fired. Simple as that.

And logically if anyone (common people, a group, a lobby, ...) can prove that any part of the technocratic system could do a more efficient job, then this part should be held accountable for their inefficiency.

[Admiral Canaris]

You CAN'T elect someone when a crisis blows up. You'd have to be clairvoyant to know in advance, when you get your once-in-five-years chance to vote

Of course; that is part of the necessary institutional inertia of the democratic system which provides us with some stability. This is important if we want a functioning government; democratic systems are always a balance between popular power and governmental efficiency.

If it is something like the war, you can vote against it in the next five-year period.

And when all the parties are the same anyway, it really doesn't make any difference

Valid point; I'm Swedish, so I know.;) And God knows I complain about this a lot. Still, this would be a sign that the people approve of the party lines, or else it would leave room for new parties.

(Unless it's like in Sweden, where we have a proportional system and certain parties have a monopoly on power...)

[Admiral Canaris]

I reject your view of a technocracy in practice. Why? Because:

Technocracy : A form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control; "technocracy is described as that society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge".

Simple logic dictates that it's hard (if not impossible) to scientifically prove that having a few people in charge (example: one guy to do all the economics stuff, one guy to do all the health care stuff) in stead of a system in which there are many specializations, many commisions and many parts that correct/regulate each other.


People also (conviniently) forget that it would be against the ideology of a technocracy to ignore the man in the street.

Example: How do they calculate the consumer confidence index? They ask people. :)

So the model is competing bureaucratic agencies? That doesn't usually work very well, see Nazi Germany for an extreme example (I'm not talking about crimes, the Holocaust or anything here right now, just sheer inefficiency). You either have some coordinating authority above that (which then still forms the embryo of a ruling elite) or it's chaos if everyone attempts to enforce his views against those of the others.

Just how large would this "upper class" of scientists and experts to make up the bureaucracy be, anyway? It'd still be a pretty small percentage of the population.

[Earling]

I think I can sum up my opposition in two points without wading into quotes.

1. The imperfectability of knowledge. As you have repeatedly said, "popularity" isn't a determinant of whether something is the best action, but it will have an impact, since in the example of building a tunnel or a bridge, if everyone hates the tunnel (for reasons unknown) then the tunnel is likely to have less utility than a bridge everyone would use.

Now I am sure you have changed your mind at some point. Most people do. Now its possible that once they built this tunnel, people would lose their opposition and find that actually it is quite acceptable. Or they might not. How do you go about calculating this beyond guess work? You can ask people yes but as I just said people are subject to change.

Yes there is a consumer confidence index. Its a guide rather than a hard and fast rule. If it was so accurate people would not make mistakes in business. It should be apparent, as demonstrated by the recent activities as anything else, that this is not the case. The fact scientists repeatedly pour money into researching dead ends is another. Before you try something you cannot know the results with complete certainty. You say you can solve unknowns by walking over hills. Yes you can. Walking over hills however is expensive. For an optimal result you want to walk over the ones which will give you the best result rather than wasting time and resources.

Bureaucracy already runs all this. The scientific method obviously works fine for determining how something should be done but it is not the optimal question of determining "what" should be done. You can draw up probabilities, which is what economists and scientists do all the time, and go with what is the most likely outcome, but that shall not always be the route which gives the "best" output.

Faced with two rival plans one with a 60% chance of success and another with 40% chance of success, but with a greater payout if it comes off, which should you go with? Your scientific method has led you to those numbers but it will take you no further. This is where you have to make a political choice to gamble based upon your convictions.

2. The lack of leadership. Who judges these technocrats if there is no leadership? You have said you do not know how to judge what is the best policy:

I, even with all my effort and time dedicated to it, will not be able to educate myself enough to know enough about every possible thing to form funded opinions about the issues that are important for my country.

So what stops a technocrat telling you everything will be fine in five years and everything is going according to plan even if your conditions are apparently getting worse? You don't know any better right, because your perceived self-interest may not actually lead to your best outcome. You might imagine things could be better and yet be wrong in that belief.

I think if you begin to argue the public are incapable of reason your on very slippery ground. You may be correct in some instances as people often make stupid choices but it is the point of freedom to let them do so. People are also convinced to make stupid choices by technocrats every day. You say I accept the scientific method for modern medicine. I can however judge if my medicine worked or not. If it didn't I will try a different doctor. With government I can determine to elect someone else if the current bunch are not performing to my satisfaction.

You say the army will exist to enforce the "best" option is enforced. But it presumes that this army will be unbiased to its only policy choices. You are effectively creating a system where the bureaucrats judge their own performance. See the Soviet Union for how well that works. Corruption will be rampant and your "best" option will be laid aside for what is popular, but instead of the popularity of the masses what shall matter is that of this technocratic elite.

You say everyone has a supervisor. Well, in a democratic society that almost works, under the premise that the voting public "supervise" the elected officials who are meant to supervise the bureaucracy which flows downwards. In your system the bureaucracy just exists. It has no elected supervision and the public get no say about whether something is truely the best or no.

After all if they do get such a vote you have effectively just produced a democracy.

[MadAce]

If it is something like the war, you can vote against it in the next five-year period.

How long did the first world war take? You could start a horrible war and finish it, within the time between two elections. Easily.

Even more now than before. How long does it take to destroy civilization? 40 minutes?

And how long for a conflict to errupt that will harm the global economy for decades to come? A few weeks?


Valid point; I'm Swedish, so I know. And God knows I complain about this a lot. Still, this would be a sign that the people approve of the party lines, or else it would leave room for new parties.

I'm Belgian, and I should know too. My country is in an "unprecendented" political crisis over nothing. Honestly. NOTHING. Not a single political party (nor a single newspaper or TV station) is willing to break the issue down and thus negate the war-mongering (literally) language of various party leaders.
This while polls point out people don't give a fuck. Note that this game has been going on for at least 15 years now... The evolution leading up to the "problem" even longer. The electorate apparently never saw it coming.


Frankly, it's painfully obvious the people are so easily manipulated that politicians can do whatever they want... So it's politicians who are dictating the political agenda. Not the people.

So the model is competing bureaucratic agencies? That doesn't usually work very well, see Nazi Germany for an extreme example (I'm not talking about crimes, the Holocaust or anything here right now, just sheer inefficiency). You either have some coordinating authority above that (which then still forms the embryo of a ruling elite) or it's chaos if everyone attempts to enforce his views against those of the others.

Just how large would this "upper class" of scientists and experts to make up the bureaucracy be, anyway? It'd still be a pretty small percentage of the population.

Did I say "competing"? Can't remember... Well, maybe competing in about the same way as the legislative and executive branches are "competing" in your beloved democracy. :)

I also never said there wouldn't be an coordinating organs. But that would be their job. Coordinating. Not leading. Logically those organs that coordinate are purely advisory organs and nothing else. Besides. If anyone can prove that they're working against the aforedecided objectives then the people responsible (or the departments) can be put out of "power" (for the sake of easy communication I'm pretending there would be individuals with actual power).

So as far as I can see there would be far less of an upperclass than in a democracy. Please, don't try to deny that families like the Kennedy's and the Bushes aren't aristocratic families with immense amounts of power. And please don't tell me people like the Clintons and Dick Cheney aren't part of an upper-class... BTW, we have a name for this upper-class. They're called "politicians".

With all my experience in bureaucracy (I'm a clerk:p ) I can only tell you that the non-politically appointed members of the system are so very afraid to mess up and lose their job that they're in fact very, very efficient. And too swamped in work to be going after any power. :)


The imperfectability of knowledge. As you have repeatedly said, "popularity" isn't a determinant of whether something is the best action, but it will have an impact, since in the example of building a tunnel or a bridge, if everyone hates the tunnel (for reasons unknown) then the tunnel is likely to have less utility than a bridge everyone would use.


Of course it has an impact. The opinion of people always has an impact. Why do you think I'm suggesting it would be a major factor in the technocratic decision making?
But I'm most certainly also saying that the opinion of the people isn't all that valuable either. Look at the Eifel Tower. Everyone in Paris hated it while it was being built. I challenge you to find 100 people in Paris today that want to have that tower demolished. And I'd say it has more than made up for any costs made to build it.

Also if that bridge in my town ever gets built I promise you that it WILL be used to the fullest. Even by people who previously opposed it.


So your strange suggestion that people will use a much needed bridge less because they opposed it is kinda weird. And it most certainly isn't a major factor.


Now I am sure you have changed your mind at some point. Most people do. Now its possible that once they built this tunnel, people would lose their opposition and find that actually it is quite acceptable. Or they might not. How do you go about calculating this beyond guess work? You can ask people yes but as I just said people are subject to change.


Exactly! So the only thing you CAN calculate is the projected traffic congestion and the NEED for that bridge. Trust me, if it's needed enough then it WILL be used.
Did you know that there are indexes that "predict" in how much peoples' opinions will evolve? I've tried finding info about them but I've actually only seen it being used in practice.

BTW, your argument that peoples' opinions are subject to change (depending on mood, hunches, ... anything but cold hard fact, otherwise the opinions would be predictable) completely supports the idea that democracies aren't the most efficient system for exactly this reason.


Yes there is a consumer confidence index. Its a guide rather than a hard and fast rule. If it was so accurate people would not make mistakes in business. It should be apparent, as demonstrated by the recent activities as anything else, that this is not the case. The fact scientists repeatedly pour money into researching dead ends is another. Before you try something you cannot know the results with complete certainty. You say you can solve unknowns by walking over hills. Yes you can. Walking over hills however is expensive. For an optimal result you want to walk over the ones which will give you the best result rather than wasting time and resources.


I'll take "a guide" over blind populism any day. And truly you are aware people make mistakes while having all the info? Otherwise people would have stopped smoking a long time ago. They would at least not start smoking.
I'm quite sure the errors of businesses aren't completely to blame on that consumer confidence index...

Actually the reason why scientists pour money in "dead end" research is mostly because that way they don't have to try it in practice. If you want to know if a medecine works then you try it on rats first. This will give you an idea of how it will work on humans. That's one of the major points of science...

I'm happy you finally start to see sense. I agree completely that we should all walk over hills that will give us the best results. Not the hills people want to walk over because the charismatic guy said they would yield the best results.


Bureaucracy already runs all this. The scientific method obviously works fine for determining how something should be done but it is not the optimal question of determining "what" should be done. You can draw up probabilities, which is what economists and scientists do all the time, and go with what is the most likely outcome, but that shall not always be the route which gives the "best" output.


So you're comortable with science (opposed to populism) determining how something should be done. GOOD!

Now on to the "what" should be done. I agree that's a tricky one. IMHO this would actually depend on the short, mid and long term plans set forth by the government to serve the constitution.


Faced with two rival plans one with a 60% chance of success and another with 40% chance of success, but with a greater payout if it comes off, which should you go with? Your scientific method has led you to those numbers but it will take you no further. This is where you have to make a political choice to gamble based upon your convictions.


Obviously the plan which best serves your goals. You could have come up with that.
BTW, a government should NOT gamble. Of course a voter shouldn't either. But hell, we all know they do that all the time.


The lack of leadership. Who judges these technocrats if there is no leadership? You have said you do not know how to judge what is the best policy:


Lack of leadership is a purely psychological barrier in my opinion. People want faces and want leaders. They can not comprehend something can work perfectly fine where the leadership isn't concentrated in one or a few people.


So what stops a technocrat telling you everything will be fine in five years and everything is going according to plan even if your conditions are apparently getting worse? You don't know any better right, because your perceived self-interest may not actually lead to your best outcome. You might imagine things could be better and yet be wrong in that belief.


Like I already said. Saveguards. About the same ones you find acceptable for democracy.

BTW, I keep rejecting the notion that there would be a group called "technocrats".


I think if you begin to argue the public are incapable of reason your on very slippery ground. You may be correct in some instances as people often make stupid choices but it is the point of freedom to let them do so. People are also convinced to make stupid choices by technocrats every day. You say I accept the scientific method for modern medicine. I can however judge if my medicine worked or not. If it didn't I will try a different doctor. With government I can determine to elect someone else if the current bunch are not performing to my satisfaction.


I most certainly did not say the people aren't capapble of reasoning. Many people are. And I even know 2 or 3 people (not including myself) who vote with great care.
I said people, even the smartest ones, can not even BEGIN to know enough to make choices that are funded enough. They have to get 20 university degrees. And that ignoring specializations. They'd have to study 24/7. That's what I said. I said people aren't superbeings. Curse me.

Modern medecine is almsot completely a product of "technocratic" processes. The reason WHY medecine (usually) doesn't kill you is because in stead of the most popular people the most qualified and best trained people got to design the medecine. It's exactly the same as if you would live in a technocratically designed city and you'd choose for the subway in stead for the ground-level maglev after which you would credit the perfectly working subway to your own choice. :D


You say the army will exist to enforce the "best" option is enforced. But it presumes that this army will be unbiased to its only policy choices. You are effectively creating a system where the bureaucrats judge their own performance. See the Soviet Union for how well that works. Corruption will be rampant and your "best" option will be laid aside for what is popular, but instead of the popularity of the masses what shall matter is that of this technocratic elite.


The army was just an example of an organ that helps enforce the constitution in some democratic countries. See Turkey where the army has vowed (and acted upon it) to interfere when the seperation between church and state would be broken.
You seem fine with the saveguards present in democracy so why not use the same ones in a technocracy?


You say everyone has a supervisor. Well, in a democratic society that almost works, under the premise that the voting public "supervise" the elected officials who are meant to supervise the bureaucracy which flows downwards. In your system the bureaucracy just exists. It has no elected supervision and the public get no say about whether something is truely the best or no.


The democratic kind of supervising doesn't seem to be working very well...
It's a bit like the employees of a paper mill can decide with "yes" or "no" whhether the scientific staff of a nuclear plant will eat pizza or Chinese. (that comparison is suprisingly accurate)
Yet again you base your opinion on nothing but assumptions. Pretty ironic actually. You assume that the people are able to suprvise the politicians. You assume they have all the info/knowledge to do so. You assume that in "my" (since when did it became mine?) system bureaucracy just exists. You assume the public gets no say. If you would have less selective reading skills you'd realize that I numerously proposed that ANYONE (even that guy in your street who thinks we should overthrow the Lizard Overlords) can dictate policiy if they can prove theirs is most efficient.

EDIT: ON-TOPIC

I think we can all agree (finally) that there are at least good reasons for any shift in a country that would lead to a technocracy. At least in name. :)

[Adamanteus]

Is there any non-ASBish way to have Technocracy become a major or even a dominant ideology and governing form in the U.S.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement

The only way I could see this happening is if some massive catastrophe happens in which the only hope for survival is to grant scientists power to the exclusion of all others. Examples: widespread fatal disease, environmental destruction (whether self-inflicted or not, and may occur from space, such as an asteroid impact), nuclear annihilation, alien invasion.