[CCJ]

Perhaps I've seen too many Sci-Fi movies, don't know enough about Technocracy, or have read too many books.

However, whilst I agree with the majority of things said by the Technocrats here at PoFo, there is one thing that is always bothering me:

If we leave all of the work to the machines, won't they rebel?

I know it sounds very Matrix-esque, but is it possible? Do I have everything about Technocracy wrong?

I'm really curious about this.

[The Nathan]

As long you don't program the worker machines with sophisticated AI, meaning they have no thought processes other than what is dictated by the central command unit in terms of how to do the job it was designed for, they would not have the capability to rebel.

[CCJ]

Ah, ok. I thank you very much for your timely and informative responses.

[Garibaldi]

I must concur with Kozlene(although I don't see how this will be different from what capitalism will end up doing). We've been programming machines for ages now, and one hard conclusion we've come upon is that it's impossible to teach them common sense.

Also, machine labor is more productive, and more productivity equals more profits, so why would we need technocracy to do this?

[The Nathan]

I must concur with Kozlene(although I don't see how this will be different from what capitalism will end up doing). We've been programming machines for ages now, and one hard conclusion we've come upon is that it's impossible to teach them common sense.

Also, machine labor is more productive, and more productivity equals more profits, so why would we need technocracy to do this?

Because it was outlined repeatedly that because of said machine labor, the very concept of wages for human labor would be rendered obsolete, as would the necessary human labor scaracity that maintains a price system.

With technocracy, as far as I know, it eliminates the price system and therefore does not ave to be subjected to the scarcity necessary to maintain such a system, meaning they can automate most jobs which humans are simply not suitable for.

[Garibaldi]

Also, machine labor is more productive, and more productivity equals more profits, so why would we need technocracy to do this?

This is a very simplistic view of economics. It works like this: the installation of machines has two fundamental economic effects: it raises production (overall productivity), and it lowers employment (less people needed). Now, the idea that "more productivity equals more profits" assumes that the value of those products stays the same, which is only true on a microeconomic level. However, every Econ 101 student would be able to tell you that this is not the case on a macroeconomic level (in fact I learned this in high school). Law of Supply and Demand: When supply goes up (as it does in our case here), the value of each one lowers and therefor so does the price. When demand becomes lower (as it does in our case here, since lower employment means less people spending money and more people saving it), then the value and price of those same commodities goes down. When both these factors work together, and at rates greater than ever seen before in history, what do you suppose happens to Price? It CRASHES! This is what happened in the beginning of the 20th century and caused the Great Depression. All of this is explained very well (but briefly) in the article Why Technocracy?

I think that was the truly simplistic look on it. Higher unemployement does not mean less purchasing power, it means it's more concentrated. With the extra money for the corporate owners, they increase demand for finer luxuries. The supply of these luxuries then must increase, which raises employement. This makes higher profits for the bosses and the workers in the feild, which increases other fine luxuries demans to a smaller degree and the demand for less luxurious items as well.

As I said before, the initial unemployement from these feilds is lowered by the slow progress of circulation increasing wealth in new feilds.