Why haven't you accepted energy credit distribution and biophysical economics as the practical answer to organizing the...

Wtf is that shit? Technocracy is putting the most qualified people in charge of running things they know best about, not this weird-ass scifi bullshit. Seizing the means of production comes first, then having the most knowledgeable people in charge of the means of production and then giving each of what everyone needs according to mathematics. Then comes the motivation for scientific innovation.

So how is this relevant to human emancipation if you just want to replace us with your ultimate Other mechanical God cos humans aren't good enough for your exacting requirements?

Well a big goal would be to turn humanity into a purely digital form of life.
Emancipation from the horrid limits of our biologicalness, if you will.

At that point, any form of production, distribution, governance etc can just be handled by the AI.
True liberation is achieved by not only excising work, exploitation and inefficiency, but also the feeble limits of human biology.

lmao. Get the hell out of here nerd

Nothing, as long as that end-goal is something that the average person would care about and want to strive for and not a theoretical massive astroengineering project we don't have a use for or even know is physically possible.

Take another look at the part about building a machine-god AI to rule the world and be worshiped by all of humanity.

Quite subjective.

Yes. You can design it to be a perfect ruler, but "perfect ruler" was conceptualized by deeply imperfect beings with deeply imperfect imaginations and programming abilities.

No, I don't believe that. Being created by humans rather than being the creator of humans bars it from deityship. People aren't going to actually worship something they know for a fact is literally made up. And again, "superiority" is subjective.

Reminder that Howards_Scott said that he liked "some" aspects of fascism, fuck off back to your containment board

technocracy more like scientists owning the means of productions

most technocrats are closet fascists and they admit it

Obviously the pamphlet is not aimed at the general public.
I made it with the intent of explaining the MTM specifically to the NEETs that browse image boards and have some level of inclination towards scientific/logical governance or even just general futurism.

At the very most I would consider that eccentric.

In what ways would you consider that subjective?
I fail to think of any elements of a true 'Smart AI' that would not be totally superior to any biological life.

Well that is why the AI would be built in such a way as to force the AI to undergo an 'intelligence explosion'.
Once it has reach the end state of that, It would be able to remove any imperfections from itself with ease.

Obviously I'm not using the term 'deity' in the traditional, supernatural sense of the word.

I disagree.
Humans evolved a rather well developed desire to seek some level of spiritual fulfillment.
In the past this desire has been satiated by religion and mysticism.

Now rather recently, supernatural mysticism has given way to the relatively secular mysticism of the 'new age' rubbish.
I think traditional, supernatural religion is due to undergo a similar such metamorphosis.

People would be inherently compelled to worship a superior form of life.
By providing the frame work for such a 'faith' now, we can ensure that such worship is healthy and to the benefit of both the individual and the state.

I was only expressing honestly.
Something you reds are far to deep in your ideologies to often express.

Technocracy, Fascism and Socialism are all collectivist ways to organize society.
Of-course there are going to be some elements of Fascism that I will like, just as there is with Socialism.
There is simply to much of an over-lap to not express some level of agreement in good faith.

That is not at all Technocracy.

Admiration of aspects of Orthodox-Fascism =/= Being a Fascist.

There's a difference between "we want people in charge of things who know what they're doing" vs. "fuck you, more money for one party"

Goddamn this is such an incredibly dumb thing to say. I'm not letting someone who has zero scientific acumen be in charge of the a governmental department that handles environmental regulation for example. Also, ignore the scifi shit that some people here are spouting: they took the term "technocracy" to mean futurism apparently.

Technocracy has always been locked to futurism.
Try actually reading the details of Technocracy Inc's plan for America.

Just because the MTM takes that a step further, does not make it an invalid form of Technocracy.

If you're actually trying to branch out the movement and make it relevant somewhere other than a dead board on a site associated with socially inept Nazis, it's not a good idea to spout "eccentric" ideas that you know would alienate you from the average person.

I would consider it a good motive for a cartoon super villain.

Having flaws, being relatable to humans, enjoying a piece of music, understanding suffering, having preferences, having personal desires and aspirations, jouissance, etc.

From the experience of having family members fall for new age rubbish I can tell you it is actually very fixated on the supernatural.

Not without some otherworldly connection to it in some way or another. I can't think of wholly materialistic religion that involved worship of a deity.

But you can't only have an engineer in positions of power. You need an engineer to design the plans for some technology, an artist to make said thing aesthetically pleasing, an economist to figure out distribution of whatever currency (if currency as a concept hasn't been already annihilated by that point), and a sociologist to dictate social policy that leads to the least amount of suffering with said technology.

It takes all different types to keep a machine well-oiled and running.

Care to elaborate?

No thank you. I'll be the guy pulling the plug after all your consciousnesses are safely in the machine.

Well that is just stating the obvious.

I have a across several different sites, with several different audiences in mind.
I simply tailor the content i present for the audience at hand.

Well I suppose it would speak for the state of our civilization when someone attempting to do such good could be compared to a villain.

A negative trait.

All irrelevant distractions.

In a fundamentally different way from the Greco-Roman mystery religions, or Hermeticism.
By comparison as to what mysticism was, it has been secularized.

I admit it may take some degree of humility.
But once people witness a superior form of life with the closest thing possible to omnipotence, they will come around to worshiping it.

You make it sound like digitization would be optional.

Well I guess we'll be duking it out in the flesh then cyborg.

Good lord, can we actually get someone else who legitimately read Veblen in here?

Here is the baby version of what he thought:
highered.mheducation.com/sites/0072824301/student_view0/chapter11/chapter_summary.html

The main difference between him and Karl Marx is the argument Marx has of labor being the creative force in society where Veblen saw the industrial arts as the creative force in society.

Also, most importantly:

"Veblen sees an inherent conflict between what he calls, somewhat idiosyncratically, business and industry. Veblen's two-class model of social stratification includes a business class, which owns wealth invested in large holdings, and an industrial class, whose conditions of life are controlled by others and who live by work. On the one hand, today's business leaders are almost exclusively concerned with financial matters—especially profit—and make no contribution to production. Veblen sees these captains of industry as parasitic and exploitative. On the other hand, industry is oriented toward workmanship and production. Unlike the businessman's pecuniary orientation, the industrial orientation is an impersonal standpoint of quantitative relations and mechanical efficiency."

So no, no state has been able to practice true technocracy any more than any has practiced true communism.

The fact that you would even bring up 'The Spoiler' shows how weak your own grasp on Technocracy is.

Howard Scott himself had this to say on that bastard, Veblen:
"he wrote this cockeyed thing about the soviet of technicians, which we jumped him for. He had no more idea - -Veblen – of a technological structure than Suzy Q of Broadway did".

Seems like fascism but with dictators replaced with engineers and "smart people"

...

I have an idea, Philosopher-Kings, except they world's most autistic stemlords. Their only aim to to forcibly extinct humanity due to it being fucking retarded and replace the known universe with computronium, which will use its incredibly high I.Q. and supreme rationality to solve various hard mathematical riddles until the end of time.

Howard Scott was good at physics and engineering, but not at political theory so that argument swings both ways.

Who decides who's good at theory tho?