Gassho wrote:The democratic arm still, presumably, holds military and police power. That's still power.
No, the "democratic arm" does not hold power over the military and police, that is part of the technical administration. The democratic part of the Technate controls things like what is produced. The military and police work under the same strict controls as power plants and factories are. The people can't vote, for instance, to incarcerate all the (random example) French people because they feel like it. Nor can any one person (or group of people) in the military (or any part of the administration) make similar decisions. They don't have that kind of political power.
Gassho wrote:The power to influence and force. And people also hold views - political ones - that aren't economic: race, religion, vision for the future. Obviously that's always going to be the case,
Sure they might have that, but the point is that they have no (or in some cases, very limited) ability to act on those beliefs. It comes down to this, if it interferes with the Technate's operation (its goal), then they can't do it. The structure of the Technate makes it not possible. It would be just like the subway example I used: If the train operator decided they didn't want to let on any (random example) Scottish people, they couldn't do it. If they tried, it would be immediately noticed and dealt with. It would be essentially "against the law" because there is no scientific reason to do so. Perhaps if there was some virus or something that positively affected every single Scottish person that made them a danger to the public, then sure, they probably wouldn't be allowed on any trains, but until there is a scientific reason for it, it couldn't be done. Now if it doesn't interfere in this way, suppose a person has "vision for the future" that cell phones should be flexible instead of rigid, they are free to work on and research this to develop them. If people want them, then great, they are produced. If not, then they are not produced. If however your "vision of the future" is to hang all the (demographic), then you can't do that because that would be contrary to the Technate and its goal.
Gassho wrote:An environment of abundance would likely decrease the will to dominate; doubtful that it will preclude it. I would imagine the will to power is, in the first instance, born out of unhappy childhoods, and then fetishized.
I'm not just talking about people's motivation to do these things (although that is a factor), but also their ability. 95% of all crime committed today would be either impossible (like stealing money or income) or of no benefit (like stealing other people's possessions). The remaining 5% comes from pathological reasons, so sure, that would still exist, and be treated like the medical condition it is. But those people would be weeded out long before they got to a position where they could do a lot of damage, and even if they did, everyone around them (that they work with or for) would either stop them, or at least quickly remove them after, because they are not pathological, and are there because they want the job done right.
Gassho wrote:What was the term on the website - Director Controller? Whoever this is surely needs to be answerable to more than just a committee. He - and indeed the whole expert class - need to be answerable to the people in a very real way.
I think that you are referring to the Continental Director, and they are. Technocracy is not some lawless, uncontrolled oligarchy. It has a constitution of sorts. It starts from the stated goal of the Technate: To provide all citizens with the highest standard of living possible for the longest time possible. From that everything flows (called katascopically). Every design feature and decision made in the Technate has to fall under that goal. That's what makes it impossible to abuse (or abuse in any significant way). If say some manager of a power plant decides that they want revenge on their ex-spouse by denying them power, that is illegal because it deprives them of the highest standard of living possible. Same thing with the train operator and the Scottish. And the same applies all the way up to the Continental Director. They have no political power to exercise. What they do have is a responsibility to see that what needs to be done is done, and if it isn't, others will see and there are mechanisms to deal with that, including removal from service if deemed necessary.
By the way, I don't think the term "expert class" is appropriate when referring to economic technocracy, as it is a classless society, and anyone can become an "expert". Political technocracy sure.
Gassho wrote:It really is a dreadful name. The Venus Project is much better. That sounds like a positive movement, Technocracy just sounds old and futuristic at the same time. In my humble opinion you really need to change it.
Well, it's subjective. But what is objective is that the confusion over definitions, as well as the baggage from previous defamation efforts, have given it a negative effect on most people, so a new name would be practical, I agree. But the new name has to be better, and the Venus Project is taken. Personally I don't like TVP because while it is pretty, it is not descriptive enough, and could lead to confusion and assumption, such as one could assume that it's a NASA project to send a mission to Venus.
Solastalgia wrote:I never said that the word 'governance' has to mean a traditional political government.
Yeah, I think you did. I said that Technocracy does not require political government. You replied by saying that Howard Scott defined Technocracy as governance by technical experts. Ergo, you are saying that defining Technocracy as "governance" does indeed mean that it requires a political aspect. Perhaps you meant something else, but the rest of your arguments seem to center on the idea that Technocracy is indeed political, so it seems a reasonable conclusion.
Solastalgia wrote:Also, the analogy/example of controlling (governing) the speed of a vehicle (w/o politics) doesn't work in this situation. As we're talking about controlling (governing) society (not a car), which makes this political in nature.
It does work because the issue was whether or not Howard Scott's use of the word "governance" proves that Technocracy is political in nature. I pointed out that the word can apply to non-political cases, therefore it does not automatically mean that every time someone uses the term "governance" it has to be political. Governance covers more situations than political control, but if you'd like more evidence of that then Wiktionary has at least two definitions I can see that fit that do not require a political aspect. The process of governing, an administration, and the people who make up an administration.
But this is all semantics. The point is is that there is no part of the design of Technocracy that includes any political process. In fact it specifically precludes it as a requirement. Instead of pointing to definitions, show me where in the design you see any political processes or characteristics.
Solastalgia wrote:"Politics" doesn't have to mean traditional political government, by the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PoliticsI know, and as quoted it is "the practice and theory of influencing other people," which specifically is not part of Technocracy. One of Technocracy's mottos is "The control of technology, not people." In this way it is more like Anarchism if you are familiar with the formal idea of it, instead of the popular idea of people running around doing whatever they want (I only say this to make sure we're on the same page, no implications there). Technocracy is a voluntary system of administration, and in fact needs to be in order to work. And if you want to refer to the bit about the distribution of resources, yes, politics can certainly do it, but it is not the only way to do it.
Solastalgia wrote:I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. Most definitions of technocracy are, in fact, talking about Howard Scott's Technical Alliance.
I'm sorry, but I'm not. Most definitions are either a) referring to a generic idea of technical experts in control, b) current people in governments that embrace technology in some way, or c) yes, referring to Howard Scott's Technocracy, but are incorrect in defining it either from misunderstanding it, which is common, or as an attempt to deliberately misinform people, which was very common for many years (even going so far as to equate Technocracy with both fascism and communism), and itself has helped lead to the others misunderstanding it. Even I misunderstood Technocracy for a long time. It took me over a decade to figure it out, so I perfectly understand why Technocracy looks like one thing to you, even given all this seeming evidence to back it up, when really it is not. I've spent over 20 years researching this, talked extensively with many prominent people in the movement, including people that knew Scott. I know very well what is said about Technocracy and what is true and what is false, and what is just misleading or hard to understand. This is why I have put so much effort into trying to clear up these misunderstandings because I know most people are not going to (or are not even capable of it because many of the people I've talked to are dead now) put in the effort I have into understanding it, or at least don't have to. But the evidence is there if you care to look at the right sources.
Solastalgia wrote:You can keep trying to separate politics and economics (which was originally called political economics, btw, before it became just economics) but it's a lot more intertwined then you think.
Today and throughout history that has been true, but not in the design of Technocracy.
Solastalgia wrote:Even if the economy is controlled by scientists (as you advocate), that's still a political proposition.
No because as I have said politics involves a type of social control that is absent in Technocracy because it is voluntary in nature. Nobody is forced or coerced in any way into working for the Technate. They don't even have their income suspended or interfered with in any way. If you want to participate, you do so entirely at you own doing. And politics does not enter in to any decision making process either because all decisions are either purely technical, like the design of a power plant, or personal, like what to eat for dinner. The closest you'd get to something like politics would be some kind of popular vote on what the flag looks like, but no one is controlled or influenced there, except perhaps that the people who didn't vote for the winning flag now have to live in a country which has adopted that flag, but how much does that really affect their life?
Solastalgia wrote:Even Howard Scott, I'm sure, would tell you that technocracy is political in nature.
And why are you so sure of that? Have you talked to him? Read something he wrote or heard something he said that says this? I have talked to people who've known him (including one of his closest friends) or even just met him. I've read lots of things he's written and listened to taped interviews with him. I've heard nothing of the sort.
Solastalgia wrote:Sure there's a lot of utopian technocrats today, that believe they're somehow beyond politics, but that's just delusional.
Being without politics isn't utopian. Technocracy has never liked that term to refer to itself. Technocracy has never claimed to be a perfect society, just far, far better than we have now. There will still be crime, there will still be people fighting and disagreeing and not liking each other. There will be people disappointed with things, and those that fail to achieve their dreams. There will just be less of all that than in any time in history. Technocracy can't provide everything, just more, and better.
Solastalgia wrote:You omitted the rest of the title of that book, which reads in full, "Technocracy: Technological Continental Design, Functional Governance For North America"
I wouldn't really call that part of the title, so it was hardly an omission. In fact, since I knew the people who made that version of the book I know exactly why they put that phrase in there, why they chose the word "governance". It was because the word "government" didn't fit, because that implied political control, and they couldn't think of a better term for it. They knew it wasn't perfect, but they felt it was better. So really that is evidence against your assertion, not for it.
Solastalgia wrote:I think when they said that political government would cease to exist in technocracy, they were referring to our current traditional political government. But I'm sure they'd be the first to admit that they're replacing it with a new form of governance and politics, as the title itself implies.
I know you think that, and you have made it clear why you think that, and the reason for it is because your sources of information are both insufficient and flawed. There's nothing wrong with that. Good information on Technocracy is hard to find, while the misleading stuff is far easier. But as I've said, I've read the accurate stuff, talked to the people involved. Once you look at the design itself, instead of some dictionary definitions of it, you can see that politics is not involved, and instead very much excluded.
Solastalgia wrote:Just because the system isn't run (as you say) by popularity contests of elected officials in our current traditional political government model of "democracy". Doesn't mean that the new scientist run system of technocracy, is above politics in general.
You're right, it doesn't. But what I said was a statement of conclusion, not of proof, so I was not using it to explain why that was so, only that that is the conclusion one reaches upon seeing the evidence.
Solastalgia wrote:As you said yourself, in technocracy, everything is directly controlled by the administration. As opposed to controlled by elected officials (who in turn are really controlled by corporate interests currently). That's governance and politics, my friend.
Governance sure, but as I've shown that doesn't have to mean politics. When an engineer is designing a bridge, is that politics? No, they have been given a goal of allowing a certain amount of traffic to overcome a certain geological obstacle, and that is done entirely scientifically. If politics interferes with that design in any way, then you will fail to get the best design. Now that goal might have been given to them for political or even financial reasons, sure, that kind of subjectivity is part of Technocracy, and that is in it's goal: To give people the highest standard of living possible for the longest period possible. Why that goal? Because that is what people, subjectively, want, and that was determined scientifically. So that is how Technocracy works, to scientifically figure out what people want subjectively, and then scientifically find the best way to give it to them. That is the role of the engineer and why they do not need politics to do it.
Solastalgia wrote:You, yourself, admitted that technocracy is about governance (at the beginning of this post). Now you're saying that there isn't anything "in the design" about it. This is just plain false. You, yourself, said that things are controlled by the administration. Well that's governance my friend. So to now say that there's nothing about governance involved in this, is just ironic and untrue.
Actually, to be specific, I did not say that at the beginning of the post. Later on sure, but initially I was simply showing how your Howard Scott quote did not support your assertion. Given my position that governance does not necessarily have to involve politics, my position has not changed at all, and there is nothing contradictory about it. Like I said, we are both mired in a game of semantics, where we are meaning something different by that one word. But the bulk of my evidence for my assertion that Technocracy does not involve politics is in the design itself, as published by the people who created it. It is there that you should be looking to, not less reliable sources and definitions.
Solastalgia wrote:I think the issue here, is that you seem to only equate politics and governance with what we see today in our current political governments. Not realizing that what you advocate is merely a new form of politics and governance. You can pretend all you want that what you're pushing for isn't about this, but it clearly is to anyone who understands politics.
I know you think that, because you are working with the information you have, which quite naturally leads to that conclusion, so I can't fault you on that. However the point I am trying to make is that there is other, far more reliable evidence for this, much of which is still available to you if you choose to look at it, that contradicts much of what you think you know. Your choice now is whether to ignore that evidence and continue believing what you like, or not, and find out for yourself if what I am saying has any real merit or not.
Solastalgia wrote:If only the world were this black and white (as you paint it). The gray that you're forgetting, is that "politics" (in it's current manifestation) uses facts and data as well, and deals with a lot of technical issues regarding society.
I'm afraid that that is a faulty conclusion. Just because politics may sometime use facts and data (and even science!) does not mean that one has to use politics when using these things. It's like saying that because politicians use cars, that if I use a car, then I am a politician.
Solastalgia wrote:On the other hand, technocracy as an ideology, has a subjective opinion that society/economy is best run by scientists and experts.
I've already addressed this, but I'll say it again here to be clear and because it is a tricky point that needs to be clear. Technocracy is not based on the opinion that scientists and experts are better to run things. Technocracy was developed because scientists and engineers used science to try and figure out what it was that people want, and then used it again to figure out how to best get it to them. The result was Technocracy. If it turned out that all people really wanted to live alone, farming, or living in caves, then Technocracy would not have been the result of that research. But what people do want, subjectively, is a higher standard of living, and the freedom to use it as they wish, so that is what Technocracy provides. That "desire" of people is the subjective component. That technical and objective problems are best dealt with by using science and engineering is a matter of proven fact. You can see this yourself in your own home if you wish. Suppose you want to watch a DVD, what do you do? Do you try to persuade your DVD player into doing this for you? So you intimidate it, threaten it with destruction, bribe it, embarrass it, seduce it? No, because these things, "influence" and "politics" don't work on machines, which are technical things. Playing a DVD is an objective, technical problem that requires a technical, objective solution. You must put the DVD in the tray and close it. You must press play. The machine must have power, and it must be connected to a working television. Now, what DVD you decide to play, that's a completely subjective decision, you can play whatever you like, your player doesn't care. This is why Technocracy works so well, because it does not conflate subjective with objective issues, like we do today. It knows how to handle both, and how they work best together.
Solastalgia wrote:Also, science isn't entirely objective, as there are subjective choices in tools and methodology, and even deeper subjective assumptions, as documented in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
It is objective when it's being done right. What you are talking about is either in cases where lack of knowledge about something forces someone to make a subjective choice (such as what tools to use), or the fact that scientists are humans and do sometimes let subjectivity interfere with their objectivity, but that is a complicated mess. But pure science doesn't have as much at stake when it comes to getting things wrong. Let me tell you were that happens far less often: in engineering, because if you aren't being objective enough, you don't come up with the right answer, and then the thing you're making doesn't work right, and sometimes that means someone gets hurt. If you don't get your measurements and calculations and conclusions exactly right when making that bridge, then it will not work right, it'll collapse, and someone gets hurt. All the times you read of or hear stories of machines failing, that was because subjectivity was interfering. Usually in our society this is due to politics and money, which is why Technocracy specifically precludes them in its design. Will everything in the Technate be designed perfectly, without flaw, forever? Of course not, like I said, it is not utopian. But we have a measure of assurance in our technology today that allows us to rely on it, and ridding ourselves of politics and money will only mean less subjective interferences in that technology, and hence it will work better, far better than today, giving us all much better lives.
Solastalgia wrote:Not to mention that all scientists and technical experts hold their own subjective opinions, which are often embedded in the systems and technologies that they create. The famous philosopher of technology, Jacques Ellul, covers this issue quite well.
Sure there is a subjective component in all engineering and technology, that's part of what engineering is. Engineering is the use of science to solve society's problems. In other words, if there was no subjective impetus for it, engineering would have no use. A machine that solves no problem is a useless machine. So of course there has to be a reason behind it. And I have already specified where that element lies in Technocracy, in its goal, just like with any machine or engineering project. Take a computer program; it could be designed to look for viruses on your computer and clean them out, or it could be designed to make money. I think we all know that the latter program is not going to do as well at fighting viruses because the programmer will be focusing on better ways to make money. By the same token the first program is not going to make money as well as the second. That is the role of the "goal" of any engineering project like Technocracy, and Technocracy's goal is something that precludes any other subjective interferences, so you needn't worry about those, because if they were allowed to interfere with the design, then like a faulty bridge, it won't work. But we know we can make it work because we know we can make engineering designs that work. We do it all the time.
"Only when there is zero opinion in the arrivation of social decisions in the operation of a technological totality will there be a maximum of personal selectivity, choice, and opportunity." -Howard Scott