How is technocracy not simply Nick Land's dictatorship of the software engineers, but with a planned economy instead of capitalism? It would basically be north korea except with engineers being in charge instead of generals, and more automation and robots and shit.
Other urls found in this thread:
Sort of like the Soviet Union.
I don't see the issue.
well, the USSR didn't have robots and it also didnt have energy based currency so no not really. Plus the USSR did have a degree of democracy
Essentially what happens when Pinochet & anti-cybernetic Soviet bureaucrats never gets on the way.
Because software engineers tend to be the perfect example of dunning-kruger in action. I can't tell you how many people I've met in my field who get a job and suddenly believe they have inherently superior political views, economics views, etc.
No, Soviet Union have limited democractic system and the technocracy isn't democractic.
ITT: Hur dur I don't like smart people telling me what to do.
basically everyone else's shit is retarded, economic productivity and prosperity comes out of engineers, not the left, not the right, fortune 500 are all engineering led engineering businesses, same with military, casualties of modern armed conflicts are almost all caused by artillery, same with law, its forensic scientists deciding what is and isnt crime, and enforcement of any laws comes almost exclusively out of cars and guns etc, clean water and electricity and all public utilities all depend on engineers and basically wealth comes out of engineers not workers and everyone who isnt a scientist, medical doctor, chemist, physicist, engineer etc etc is objectively speaking comparatively worthless
engineers these days are running art and culture as well
what non-technocrats think is practically irrelevant
Fuck off sad namefag scum. If it were up to me I'd put a bullet in you not because you were black but because you were a fucking narcissist idiot who's never contributed anything to the discussion.
Does B.O. know you're ban evading again, Howard?
Jesus Christ what a sad existence you must lead.
It had sham "democracy", and I was referring to the fact that 1/3rd of the politburo had technical degrees.
until then I'll keep bullying you fuckng nerd.
Fuck all masters and gods.
cmon now howard
He was not exactly wrong.
He's right tho.
tankies and nazbols are retards
The USSR or PRC or the vast majority of Fortune 500 Companies?
I need a red pill. I see the technocracy and the transhumanist flags on this board quite bit. Is their a difference even? If there is can someone forward me some reading material about the technocrats. I find them interesting.
Kill yourself my man.
based, but cybersyn wasnt technocracy
Technocracy doesn't imply new technology. It means a system run by experts.
It's not really a magic bullet. really its 90% the system we already have, since corporations run most of the country and the government tends to delegate everything that isn't on the news. In the context of capitalism it's trivially corrupted though, everything ends up being about expertise of how to improve things for the top tier of society, not how to improve things for the bottom half. The flipside is with no technocracy everything goes to hell sooner or later (Maoism, Chavismo).
Well if that true I hate technocracy then. If transhumanism equates to rule by robot I'm down provided I can be one.
Anyone who disagrees with this is an anarkiddie
From what little I've seen of Howard, he's a bit more extreme than I'd like but not wrong.
Smart People should only be telling me what to do when I tell them what I want done.
I say I want a Concorde. You tell me what I need to do in order to get a Concorde. Whether or not we ought to have a Concorde is none of your concern.
Such is the will of the council of elders of ma– The cabinet office of this benevolent social democratic state. Now get to the drawing boards before I extract your blood with my fa–long knives, science man.
But the companies are driven by profit. The technocrats are driven by production and distribution efficiency.
Here we see the main problem of technocracy: how could smart people rule us if all technocrats are so fucking dumb that they believe in technocracy?
Whats the difference between cockshottist cybersocialism and technocracy then
Now that is what I call a meme.
ok so all memes aside basically a technocratic society would be a society with a complete centrally planned economy with a massive focus on cybernetics/A.I/automation to keep efficacy as high as possible while keeping bureaucracy and corruption to a minimum while killing the "but muh human nature" argument?
technocracy has nothing cyber about it. It's basically about putting a university in power (it was really a corporation but university fits it well), every member of it equal through direct democracy in principle, but some group's opinion would be more valued depending on the subject, for example, engineers would be valued over chemists for infrastructure, while medical professionals would be more valued in public health questions, biologists, mineralogists, environment engineers etc. would be more valued in agriculture questions. These kinds of things.
The goal is to make rational decisions to optimize production and distribution instead of making irrational decisions to optimize capital revenues.
sorry forgot my shitpost flag
Lmao. How fucking stupid are you man?
For an introduction, read:
Where do you get this dictatorship by engineers thing? The only things engineers will dictate will be matters relating to engineering. Medics will dictate matters related with medicine, linguists those related with language standards and the teaching of languages, etc. And an engineer with 20 years of experience and great accomplishments will get to order around a novice engineer in matters of engineering.
This is a page from the Study Course: each rectangle is the sum of all people working in a profession (communications, railways, medicine, education, etc). While multiple rectangles may be put in a category (medicine and education are for example in the Services Sequences) they are completely parallel. A medic can't tell a professor how to do his job, no matter his rank in the medicine sequence/union/ministry, however you want to call it.
Even on the assembly lines there are ranks of workers. In my country, in the time of Communism, the highest ranking workers in a factory were called Masters, and they were above Engineers in some cases (usually, pertaining to work safety, the organization of the workers and the maintenance of the machines) while inferior in other cases (the overall production line design, that of the machines, production quotas). So you could say that the workers and engineers were in two separate, parallel technocratic sequences, each with their own hierarchy.
Interesting about the destiny notion and Continentalism. Kinda overlaps with Nazbol despite being the material to the Nazbol spiritual.
Do you have a fucking pamphlet or something I don't want to join your beaker cult that bad.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Technocracy is.
Technocracy is not about creating a dictatorship of engineers and scientists (that was the system advocated by Thorstein Veblen).
Technocracy would instead seek to place people into the roles that they are the most suitable for.
At its most fundamental level, it is like a strict meritocracy; only it rejects the silly emotional elements that go along with meritocratic selection.
Fucking hell mate, would it really have been so hard to just edit a screenshot of one of my posts?
This is the second time I have come across you both not understanding how a tripcode works and attempting to imitate me.
This newfag understanding of how imageboards work combined with both your attempts to falsify posts and attempts to push idpol is why I firmly believe you to be COINTELPRO.
Please neck yourself.
I'm personally always amazed by the arrogance that some people can display.
Is it really so hard to admit that they are not some Übermensch capable of doing and knowing everything?
He is COINTELPRO, what can you expect?
The first highway systems were met with speculation and derision as-well.
It is to be expected that a water based transportation network would be met with the same.
Just remember which group of people ended up eating their words.
That was quite obviously not me.
However I am rather extreme, I do admit.
Pretty much, yes.
While I know I have said this several times in the past to no effect.
Technocracy is explicitly anti-democratic.
I would advise that you read 'Technocracy and the American Dream" if you want more detail on that subject.
I would honestly recommend that you link video on Technocracy, rather then the study guide.
More people are willing to commit to watching a video then those willing to read a book.
Plus the last official edition of the study guide was published in the mid forties; so it contains information and ideas 'of its time' that have since been abandoned by most technocrats.
Sauce on pic? Why are there ranks missing???
Howard, do you like Bordiga? He's was also a STEM nerdlord disliking democracy, so I expect you'd like him.
I have come to devote the majority of my free time to the creation of a structured and complete ideological program; a modernised derivative of Technocracy.
The sections of society that are not involved with combat to not require such a comprehensive number of ranks.
This is due to the non-combat sections of society obviously functioning fundamentally different; Allowing to the roles and responsibilities of some ranks to be merged together.
I have not investigated Bordiga.
However a quick look at wikipedia seems to indicate him being some sort of left-com with trot sympathies.
Simply based on that alone, I would say that I would not agree with him on much.
bordiga and the communist left in the 1920s was only "sympathetic" to trotsky in a very "practical", undeveloped sense in the background of the degeneration of the russian revolution. from the 30s, they were definitely against trotsky's theoretical self demolition.
But he was the cool kind not the dutch-german kind.
That's just platonic justice you fucknut, stop wasting words making shitty synonyms
Why do you need technology to do this?
Is this what people actually believe?
Our god has returned, praise Howard!
I fucking hate your ranks Howard.
Some people are most suited to be the jack of all trades who know it all. They won't take orders from purists if they object to an executive order from a different field with different ideals.
I may get around to looking into him then.
I have been mislead before by Holla Forums in regards to recommended thinkers; so I'm going to tread with abit of caution before I set about investing any real amount of him into studying him.
When did I say that I required technology?
Remember that the American Technocracy Movement was the largest American social movement of the 40s.
This worried the agents of the price system and resulted in Technocracy Inc being slandered in the press; in particular the press did their best to link Veblen and his silly idea of a 'Soviet of Engineers' to Technocracy.
This piece of propaganda stuck and is the reason why people think Technocracy advocates for some sort of dictatorship of engineers and scientists.
It is much the same reason why people tend to only think of Stalin era Russia when Communism is brought up.
It is all dishonest propaganda manufactured to keep the powers that be on the throne.
I always find it ironic when a communist on this board falls for it.
I returned on the 14th day.
Praise be my trip code.
I personally hate it when people think Technocracy is in anyway compatible with Socialism or Democracy,
Sure - in hunter-gather societies.
Ever since humanity first started to regularly enjoy food surpluses due to agriculture.
The trend has been towards more and more specialisation.
As as both material abundance increases and technology progresses, specialisation is only going to further increase.
In the modern world, it is impossible for someone to be a real 'jack of all trades'.
I can only take it that you are not very familiar with how professional militaries work?
Just because someone may outrank you, does not mean that they would necessarily have command over you.
An Admiral out ranks a captain for example - but an Admiral would not be able to give direct orders involving the operations of a ship he may be on, as the vessels captain would be the one in command of the ship.
If you were a sergeant in the Mining Corps and you came across a lieutenant in the Logistics Corps.
While you would have to show him due respect, he would not necessarily be able to give you orders in regards to Mining.
More than can be said for you lol
But how is that decided? Such a system would be super cumbersome and oppressive imo. It would be better just to let people free associate and sharpen the skills they want to sharpen instead of having some bureaucrat tell you what you job for the rest of your life will be.
In the modern world, it is impossible for someone to be a real 'jack of all trades'.
But that's the thing, people will always fall through the cracks. There will always be someone capable of meta specialization.
In the meritocracy that you claim you are making, you will have to reward these people with multiple ranks or extend their power in some way, or they will rebel. That is the downfall of every meritocracy it happens every fucking time. It screws over multiple people qualified for the same job. How do you handle redundancy? How do you handle the people who won't or can't work. What is the ultimate goal? Progress? Progress to what? How do you handle marriage between 2 high ranking officials? How do you handle conflict of interest?
The Function Corps, Heath Care Corps and Education Corps would work together to assess students and build a complete phycological, behavioural and educational profile that would be used to determine what selection of Corps the student in question would be suitable for.
This list of suitable Corps would be presented to the student at the end of their educational period, at which point the student would be able to apply for an open function in any of the Corps that they have been classed as suitable for.
From there it is a very simple process of screening candidates against Demonstrated Technical Ability, to ensure that everyone is assigned to the function that they are most suitable for.
A civilisation wide high energy state is cumbersome.
That does not make it a bad thing.
The individual selects what functions they would like to preform.
The bureaucratic role is simply one of providing the pool of functions to select from.
In an inefficient system, sure.
Any they will be given to opportunity to select a from a list of functions that take advantage of that.
I'm making a Technocracy.
I use the meritocracy as a short hand to help people understand the gist of my ideas.
People will be promoted in rank based upon a number of factors.
People would not have 'multiple ranks' however.
People rebel when presented with the opportunity to rebel.
Deny them that opportunity and they will simply never rebel.
If a person is made redundant as a result of automation, they will be re-classed as 'retired' and enjoy all of the associated benefits.
That is literally the only way for a person to be made truly redundant.
Until we reach that point.
People can always be assigned to 'high turn-over' functions if they really are misfits.
We will always suffer from a shortage of blood donors, experiment subjects and technology testers.
Such misfits can perform the function of alleviating those problems.
This is typically the result of either an underlying mental illness or fear of being subject to poor working conditions.
The combination of providing a robust mental health care system and short work hours for most functions would greatly reduce the number of such people.
Providing that the disability was not self-inflicted, they would be re-classed as retired.
Our Eugenics Corps would ensure that all children born would not have any disability in general at birth, certainly not one that would prevent them from working once they reach adulthood.
The ultimate goal of Utilitarianism.
The maximisation of happiness for the maximum number of people for the maximum amount of time.
I am not some Neo-Liberal sophist.
You get rid of marriage.
You've put a surprising amount of effort for such an idiotic ideology. I'm starting to think you're not just baiting.
So to live in this world I would have to renounce to every modicum of freedom to gain… what? The minimum amount of resources I need to survive?
If you have any specific criticisms, please feel free to provide them.
Empty attacks accomplish nothing.
The maximum amount of happiness possible to provide.
What would borderline starving a populous achieve?
When have I ever listed this as an ideological goal?
Please do not start inventing items to criticise.
Fine, I guess I wasn't being very intellectualy honest.
How do you face the controller problem? I mean the old "Who controls the controllers" question. With such emphasis on rigid hierarchical structures the meritocratic process has to be nothing less than perfect to assure the stability of the system, so how do you regulate them?
How do you deal with corruption, nepotism, unfair competition or just plain human or machine mistakes?
Also can you elaborate on the level of informational freedom you would have? Things like copyright, surveillance, sensible data. Are they accessible to the common citizen? If not how can I as a common citizen be certain that I am getting the share I deserve?
ban up already, howard?
That is understandable, the vast amount of people that respond to my posts do not do so in an intellectually honest manner either.
The fact that you actually admitted to your fault puts you well above the typical responder to my ideas.
Internal regulation by the individual and external regulation by ideological paragons.
I suppose that one of the most unique features of my ideology is the creation of a total replacement for religion.
Modelled off of the great Auguste Comte's secular 'Religion of Humanity'.
This replacement for religion would impart all of the virtues of my ideology to the citizenship and would overtime shape them.
Denying people the opportunity to not only act but think in a manner that would be contrary to the well being of the greater society.
In the rare circumstances that the above should fail (I expect that such occurrences would dramatically drop once the first generation born in this society reaches adulthood), a more direct method would be available.
One of the functions of the Ideological Corps is ideological oversight - basically ensuring that all individuals conform to the expectations of the ideology.
Should they identify a person that they suspect to not be acting in accordance with the ideology, they have to power to arrest the person responsible.
Indeed, should the evidence be overwhelming, they would have the power to perform summery executions.
The Eugenics Corps would be in charge of population replacement and growth.
Thankfully modern science has progressed to the point that humans are no longer required to to be a factor in the creation of human life.
Indeed, one we have collected the initial sample of genetically human reproductive material, 'natural' reproduction can be gotten rid of entirely - as cloning the material will ensure there is always an adequate supply.
At that point computers would select what two genetic samples to mix in order to start the creation process.
From there the now fertilised egg would enter a production line process that will eventually result in the birth of a healthy child from an artificial womb.
Nepotism is rendered impossible once you have people being produced in automated factories.
A 'progressive' punishment system would be in place to help limit both the number and severity of human mistakes.
For example if a Corporal were to make a serious mistake, he may be punished with a number of lashes.
However should a General make the same mistake, they would be subject to a summery execution.
Obviously machine mistakes would result in an investigation of the people responsible for the hardware, software, maintenance and operation of the machine in question.
If any wrong-doing or negligence is found, those responsible would be punished accordingly.
Would not exist.
Just like in modern society.
everyone would be subject to a 'surface' level of general surveillance.
Anything more then that would only happen should wrong-doing be suspected.
In what regard?
Economically, the energy budget for the next year would be public information.
And all citizens would receive the same portion of energy credits from this budget.
There's nothing new about canal systems though. They were build all over England and parts of the US, then they lost out to railroads.
So you're saying the technocrats don't have anybody with the expertise to update the book? Or anybody to make a video that isn't 30-40 years old, for that matter. That's highly ironic.
There was nothing new about road systems either.
Yet highways proved to be an important innovation due to the their scale and capacity.
I have never claimed that canal systems were some sort of original idea.
It is the scale and capacity of the canal systems I propose that sets them apart.
Due to profitability, not energy use.
I'm saying that most people often lack the attention span to commit to reading a book, as opposed to watching a video.
The Study Guide itself simply has not been updated for the same reason that there are little in the way of modern up-to-date works on Deleonism.
There are very few Technocrats, far to few to commit to reworking a several hundred page book.
No, it lost out because they're slow as hell.
The video link is to a video that's unavailable.
Which has a downward effect on profitability, friendo.
Try the link again.
howard do you have a degree in engineering? are you a STEM guy
I work in a hospital.
That is the extent of the personal information I care to share.
I will say however that my admiration of Technocracy comes from a fanatical devotion to Positivism, Meritocracy and Utilitarianism.
Not from some silly position of STEM elitism.
The Maginot Line was never that grand.
I recall you here a while ago.
You said euthanasia and light drug use (pot) would be available to any given member of the public as long as s/he is mentally healthy.
If that still stands it looks like the beginning of a catch 22.
It would have been amazing if it were realised.
I fail to see any problem.
I have never heard of that.ideology before,
It is not an ideology in-and-of-itself.
It is a philosophical position.
A building block of an ideology.
I would advise you to look into it however.
Despite what the subjectivists that plague this board may tell you, Positivism is pretty fucking based.
dude where can I enlist?
I like the picture. Some people think the technocracy is democratic but in reality it is a radical meritocracy that is run by the experienced people based on talents instead of useless politicians.
I sincerely appreciate your interest.
I once I can get myself in a position where I'm 'on the bounce', I intend to start setting up my organisation.
I'm currently investing a great deal of time in 'fleshing out' my ideology to the point that a mass movement could be formed around it.
I have no idea why anyone would ever think Technocracy is at all democratic.
Democracy is simply not compatible with a strict meritocracy.
You will show the symptoms of depression if you want to die.
You will show symptoms of addiction if you regularly smoke pot, and have signs of an addictive (maybe risky is a better word) personality if you want to try it in the first place, even if it is socially acceptable.
Not the same guy, but hit us up if you ever get anything going.
Wanting to die is a position that is entirely possible to arrive at via logical, informed contemplation.
The idea that a desire to end ones life is always linked to mental illness is little more then a remnant of empty abrahamic moralising.
One is perfectly able to indulge in light recreational drugs such as alcohol and tobacco without being mentally ill.
Allowing people the indulge in equally light recreational drugs like marijuana would not change that.
While I do intend to only start internet based recruitment after I have grown my organisation to atleast platoon size in active local members.
I certainly do intend to keep this board updated on my organisation before that point, and shill for the recruitment website after reach my first local recruitment goal.
pretty sure technocracy would devolve into dystopic fascism pretty fast
why aren't the engineers in charge ? Because politics is not only about the most efficient solution, it's about picking among a set of most efficient solutions according to your ideology/moral/priorities
if you go hardcore meritocracy, you have smart people at the top, that can be total assholes or have completly warped views of what humanity should be like, and will have the power to change the system in accordance to their wants and their ideas
I would ask that you attempt to provide your reasoning when making such statements.
As it stands, I have no way of addressing your concerns.
I would also ask that you expound upon what you consider 'dystopic'.
As I have stated several times in this thread alone.
I do not advocate putting some cabal of engineers and scientists in charge.
Nor is that an element of Technocracy in general.
The only person to advocate such a system was Thorstein Veblen and his 'Soviet of Engineers'.
Please do not construct strawmen.
You don't seem to have any real understanding of what meritocracy is.
One does not have to be the most intelligent to be the most qualified for a given position.
General intelligence is a tertiary concern at best.
Temperament policing is the realm of kindergartens, not societal governance.
Well quite obviously the ideology would provide them the correct view of what 'humanity should be like'.
If they do not hold the same such views, they would not be in a position of power in the first place.
Look mate, I'm attempting to be as polite as possible here.
But I refuse to believe that you are unaware of the existence and role of both constitutions and oversight committees.
This is pretty basic stuff here.
its funny as Howard Scott advocated basically for annihilation of the Latin American cultures.
source: America, Now and Forever
you, you need people to intrepret and guide things, not only engineers. not evrrythig is reductionist.
Howard Scott himself said that democracy would be outdated and advocated some highly undemocratic shit. I don't have a problem with Technocracy, in fact I like the idea, but its not exactly going to be a "liberal democracy"
There is literally nothing wrong with that.
All current cultures are inherently reactionary, tribal and corrupted by price system scarcity economics.
That is why I personally wish to entirely eradicate all existing cultures and replace them with one single, united, post-scarcity human culture.
One language, one religion, one culture, one government - for one united species.
people tend not to like to have the cullure they were raised in to be destroyed. they tend to be willing to fight and die for it, because the death of the culture often is the death of the group in question.
And I bet you they all will be based off "western" culture which will be amazingly fucked up to those who would prefer not to undergo another cultural genocide.
plllleeeease rename it to something better than Eugenics Corp to keep the Brave New World analogies from coming in here.
please no. summary executions? seriously?
While many will be happy with this, there will be 'traditionalists' who will want to do things the 'old fashioned way'. You shouldnt go full dystopia with that.
Also, you're getting seriously into Brave Nww World vibes here.
it's not irrelevant. being an asshole can be a warning sign that that person probably shouldn't be placed into power. If a 'eritorous' system can get open assholes into power who then fuck things up, that can be a excellent event.
technocracy isn't a democracy, so whether say the north american technate has a constitution restricting state power or not is questionable
I intend to condemn all existing cultures, religions, languages, philosophies, economic theories and governmental systems to the waste bin of history.
I would consider myself to be the most extreme poster on this board.
I also intend to gain power by co-opting the very source from which all authority (and as such state-hood) is derived - the barrel of a gun.
By gaining the loyalty of the armed forces (the military + police force), one is able to immediately destroy any authority and as such enforceable legitimacy that any given government may hold.
In terms of effectiveness, practicality and relative simplicity - I would consider my 'revolutionary' strategy to be rather extreme.
Especially since it forgoes a revolution.
If I gave a shit about what people people currently hold dear, my ideology would be some form of social-democracy.
What is best for people and what people like do not tend to be the same thing very often.
My interest is in really helping all of humanity, not simple populism.
Many Germans lamented the destruction of Hitlers regime.
Many white southerners lamented the destruction of jim crow laws.
Just because some people may lament the destruction of something - does not mean that it should not be destroyed.
History has not bore this out.
People almost always take the path of least resistance.
As we can see now with Neo-Liberalism, the vast majority are quite content to follow the head of the herd - even if he leads them off of a cliff.
I'm absolutely not advocating genocide.
However my goal is indeed to destroy these 'groups' and integrate them into one united whole.
The culture that I intend to create will be a blend of western intra-military culture and chinese Legalism with elements of both Aristotelianism and Platonism.
So quite distinct from and currently extant culture.
What people prefer is quite irrelevant.
It is a perfectly descriptive yet brief name.
Why would I care?
I address strawmen created out of ignorance in just about every thread I post in.
Addressing strawmen created out of a silly propaganda novel is little different from what I currently do.
What exactly is the problem?
Should someone be clearly, overwhelmingly guilty of a crime.
Why would one waste resources on an arrest, incarceration and prosecution that would only end in the same sentence?
Obviously the regulations surrounding summary executions would be very strict and the times when one would be able to lawfully perform one limited.
They will find that quite impossible.
A mandatory part of the citizenship process would involve sterilisation.
I have zero problem with people having sex.
Simply them reproducing.
I would ask you to reflect on why certain idea are portrayed as 'dystopic' in works of propaganda like 'A Brave New World' or '1984'.
I fundamentally disagree.
And it is better for it.
As I have already explained in this thread.
My ideology is a modernised derivative of Technocracy.
Not the exact same ideology as advocated by Technocracy Inc.
Fucking hell, Howard_Scott's even crazier than I thought he was.
I support it cause the humanity need to improve even further.
Too many sufferings in this broken world so don't you agree that it need urgent attention to fix the problems soon as possible?
I'm too lazy to link each of your quotes toward which I'm responding so I'll just make one continuous post:
Fixed Corps. The fact that these sections of the system are set in stone is very inefficient. What if one section becomes irrelevant? What if a new one needs to be formed? If you allow sections to be formed by a group of people associating with eachother, you could speed up scientific progress. An example: you got a Psychology Section, but a guy or two develop Neurology in their spare time. In a fixed Corps system, the psychologists, not desiring any competition which would undermine their authority, would prevent the funding (in Joules, not currency, labour-vouchers or other bullshit) of these guys' research into Neurology. If you allow association, these two guys will form a Neurologists Corps, which at the start will have only 2 people, but as they show their results to the public, they will receive more funding, and more people would join. Psychology would be dead in the end and replaced with the more performant Neurology.
I don't think you mentioned funding, but I believe it should be decided in a council made of the highest ranking personnel of each Corps, based on the plans that each Corps puts forward for the next years and their past success in generating useful projects.
There are also way too few Corps. Transportation should be divided into at least land, naval and air transportation, science into physics, math, biology and many others. Also, putting all the Research into one single organization? In our times, physicists have huge installations and servers like the ones at CERN. Same with construction engineers, pharmaceutical researchers, etc. You can't put them all together, it would cause too much complication and give them too much power in the fact that they control so much knowledge. Instead, each Corps should have their own research branch.
The ideology part: although it seems nice in broad lines, it needs more detail. I would suggest allowing each Corps to develop their own culture and symbolism, kinda like medieval guilds. The Energy corps would have an emblem, a certain architecture to their buildings, would celebrate Nicola Tesla's birthday, etc. This would compel them to work harder, as part of the same community of people who love the study and production of energy.
You suggested being only one language. I think there should be two: One informal language, designed for everyday use, with only 3 basic tenses, little declination and generally simple grammar. And one formal language, to be used in official and scientific papers, and in conferences at work. This second language might have the same vocabulary but it would have a way more comprehensive grammar and syntax, with each word having particles which indicate whether it is the subject or object and to what other word it is referring, many verb tenses and noun cases, all which would minimize the risk of a misunderstanding. Sentences would be long and clear, as it should be when discussing important matters which affect the lives of people.
And lastly, executions. Generally, the more scientifically and technically advanced a person/society is, the more subtle their approaches are to solving problems. Archeologists in the 19th century would blow up pyramids with dynamite to get inside. Now they carefully create small paths which disturb the site as little as possible.
Executions was and still is, something done by barbaric societies, with a little understanding of justice and the human psyche. In the more civilized land of Europe, capital punishment has been abolished, and in the most advanced countries within Europe, (Norway, Germany) they are abolishing prisons to replace them with rehabilitation centers.
If a technate would be that technically advanced, then it wouldn't even need rehabilitation centers. Convicts would be surveilled constantly while free, and made to attend rehabilitation sessions as much as it is needed.
afroplasm in charge of not being retarded corps.
I swear I'm not a memeing jackass: why would you actually keep on creating new people? Nowadays I can understand that, it's partially to save one's own ass (even though it's rather indirect with all the taxes and retirement pension) and partially the spook of wanting to have a little copy of you with half of your chromosomes wandering the world. What would the point once you've destroyed all the irrational bullshit and brought the whole wold to full efficiency? Wouldn't it be better to just let the existing humans live their days while the robots care for them?
sorry for the sage, I've got it left in my email field.
I applaud your attempt to create something. Reminds me of Plato, Thomas More etc. It's a good exercise for thought, even if it never sees practical use.
These ideological paragons would eventually (or instantaneously) become the defacto oligarchs, looking out for their own self interest with no one to stop them. There would probably be a leader of that group, who would become the formal or informal dictator of the state. And voila, your "Technocracy" is now a monarchy with science and shit.
And since the power of the state is total, and people are depoliticized no one could ever end the dictatorship. Maybe only internal strife inside the "ideological paragons council", or an outside force.
The not so glamorous an ideologically pure solution could be some decennial referendum of confidence to the "executive government" of the state. Or something along those lines, as long as the people who can abuse power change every so often.
Maybe even elect a "Controller Council" with limited power.
That would solve a potential problem and keep people happy, without altering the nature of the system.
And who decides that happiness is? Experts on happiness? Pseudo scientist psychologists? Or maybe the turbo autist monarch?
Plato had the same problem in his Republic. No one would want such a constrictive and totalitarian system imposed on them. He solved it by saying he would brainwash a minority of the people with myths (similar to your ideology), so they would see it as an honor and a muh privilege. In their eyes they sacrificed their freedom and sense of self for the good of the community. The "chosen" would guide and administrate over the majority who would be happy plebs just going whatever the fuck they wanted to do and paying taxes.
Plato also suggested this, but the problem is still that people make informal bonds with each other. The only way to police that is for everyone to be under surveillance non stop.
Which is impractical and bad for productivity and morale. You can't stop nepotism even if you take family out of it, people form friendships and interest groups.
Corporal punishment has no place is a civilized society. Read Foucault's discipline and punish.
Overall i like some parts of your system, but i personally wouldn't wanna live in it just yet. With that said, what would you propose be done with people who wanna leave your state?
speak for yourself.
If someone is waiting to die they will show symptoms of depression.
Unless you mean you'd only classify it as mental illness if a neurological imbalance is shown through brain-scans.
Same with light drugs.
please describe how would you classify someone as showing symptoms of depression then, preferably without using circular logic.
"I deplore brutality," he said. "It's not efficient. On the other hand, prolonged mistreatment, short of physical violence, gives rise, when skillfully applied, to anxiety and a feeling of special guilt. A few rules or rather guiding principles are to be borne in mind. The subject must not realize that the mistreatment is a deliberate attack of an anti-human enemy on his personal identity. He must be made to feel that he deserves any treatment he receives because there is something (never specified) horribly wrong with him. The naked need of the control addicts must be decently covered by an arbitrary and intricate bureaucracy so that the subject cannot contact his enemy direct."
And you are a far worse person then I thought you were.
A strict adherence eugenics is the only ethical position to hold in regards to human reproduction.
My system operates upon a military organisational structure.
A non-fixed system is not only antithetical to that, but has its own set of problems.
The share of the energy budget that each section of government receives would be decided by the CCB.
How each share is distributed among a given section would be decided by the relevant OF-10 level officers.
The picture I posted earlier in this thread was simply a conceptual image of one section of government.
It was not meant to be a comprehensive list.
Where appropriate, each Corps would have sub-departments responsible for each of the functions that fall under the purview of a given Corps.
So for example, land, air, water and space transportation would all be sub-departments within the Transportation Corps.
That is a given, as I said before - military organisational structure.
Esprit de corps would be highly encouraged.
A unique derivative of Brutalism would be the only approved architectural style.
'Birthdays' would not be observed at all.
Nor would the admiration of past fine examples of our species be so limited in scope.
The ideological/philosophical replacement for religion would have set days dedicated to the remembrance and (if applicable) celebration of certain people and events.
Much like the 'religion of humanity' from which it was derived.
A Lojban derivative would be more then suitable for both low level casual conversation and more high level, intellectual discussion.
A second language would be superfluous.
Those capable and worthy of rentering society need to be punished in an appropriate manner before hand.
As such rehabilitative labour facilities will exist to house those that are able to work for the length of their sentence.
Like-wise, specialised prison facilities will exist for those that are serving a sentence but are unable to contribute to society via rehabilitative labour.
The vast majority of people arrested would find themselves at one of the above facilities.
Executions are merely for those that have committed such a grave offence that they should not be suffered to live.
I see no reason why murderers (including those merely responsible for a death), traitors or rapists should be kept alive.
There are many reasons to create huge amounts of humans.
The severe under-population of the planet and the required manpower for construction projects are two of the best ones.
I did get a number of my ideas and underlying philosophical concepts from Plato.
Indeed after Auguste Comte, Plato would be my biggest influence.
While I'm sure that there are one or two examples of this, I cannot personally think of any nation that has been defacto ruled by an oversight body.
Just as governments ultimately derive their authority from their military, yet the number of instances of defacto military rule is relatively small.
If almost all militaries around the world are able to resit abusing their position of power, I'm confident that an oversight body would be able to as-well.
Particularly since ideological fanaticism would be a prerequisite for a function within this oversight body.
I consider this unrealistic and overly cynical.
Ultimately a computer.
Calculating happiness is both a cornerstone of Utilitarianism and something that computer would be far more suited to then a human.
And we can change that too.
By having people see friendships and even relationships as transient and rather ephemeral things.
One can ensure that a persons strong ideological commitment to meritocracy will always come before something as tertiary as friendship.
So said the hypocrites of the French Revolution.
Corporal punishment is not only a necessity.
But a virtue.
The sad state of modern society and those that populate is due in part to the move away from
corporal punishment, at the behest of bleeding hearts.
Well I would first be interested in where exactly they would intend to go.
A very important part of my ideology is the unification of humanity.
That is not exactly something that someone can just walk away from.
Then do humanity a favour and take yourself outta the gene pool (kill yourself, m8).
What another amazing post by Afroplasm.
Truly reddit worthy.
Take your COINTELPRO and your embarrassing attempts at impersonation and fuck off.
anarkiddies are even b(n)igger retards
Anarchists do tend to be quite intolerable.
I do miss the days of M-Ls outnumbering them on this board.
The /marx/ split was truly disastrous.
Yea I agree with you.
Why are you so negative toward Technocracy?
Rolled 67, 46 + 1 = 114 (2d100)
Sometimes I think Howard exists to make Technocracy look bad.