@11RisingPhoenix Technocracy isn't a philosophy. It's just a science based social design. An idea thought up as a replacement for the price system. Technocracy is the next most logical step in the governance of the human species in this high technological era. It's the "next most probable".
"Logical reason"?...Well, if you download and read the Technocracy Study Course the well laid out facts and statistics should sway even the most logical of minds.
@11RisingPhoenix Technocracy isn't something you can read about in a few pages and expect to understand it all. It's completely new idea and the frame of references for people to understand are unfortunately non-existent. People ask questions about one thing and all it leads to is more questions...soon the person answering the questions would be writing an entire booklet. This is why we ask people to read first...if you are truly intrigued by the idea. Otherwise we can't help.
@newb2yutube My sincere apologies for that. I was taken aback by the response of one of the supporters of Technocracy regarding one of my questions. I have since read some about Technocracy, particularly the Technate design. I am keen to agree on the idea, if not the only downside is the excesive support of groups, otherwise it seems good.
@newb2yutube I mean that in Capitalism, the individual can put into effect an idea provided he has the funds for it. In a Technocracy this would require peer support.
@11RisingPhoenix I wouldn't see that as a criticism. Most lame, faulty, damaging products are produced/made with ignorant investors being sold an idea by ignorant people. A con artist can also sell an idea to a rich ignorant person. It's better if the peers reviewed the idea as it would lead to a better product/service. Those are my thoughts on it.
@newb2yutube Of course. But do not forget that some of the most important advances in science ocurred thanks to individual effort. Like Ford's assembly line.
In reality, a society's economic well-being entirely depends on the biopsychosocial health of its individuals. This is why communism failed, and why the comparatively more "free" market systems of the west find themselves bewildered by an array of biopsychosocial health crises, whether it's heart disease or the highest per-capita murder and mental illness rates to be found anywhere. They make no attempt to account for any physical referent related to individual and hence societal wellbeing.
@LTS1287 Wanted the basic understanding of Technocracy articulated correctly. Sadly people don't want to read...much. So I put up this introduction with the best voice available at the time. There are better voices now, which I used in another requested video(History and Purpose of Technocracy)
@MagnitudePerson Calm Down. Technocracy Inc. is a non-profit, non sectarian, research and educational organization. They also assume no power theory in any event of a transition to a Technate. They are only here to protect the ideas and present and educate them to the public. Technocracy Inc. would have absolutely no say or power in a transition. It would be up the public or some agency like FEMA to transition into a Technate.
Hey Axe, wondering were you've been. I wouldn't really say it's communism. It's more of its own thing. If you want to play it that way, that's fine. Technocracy can also be described as a democracy. Where more than half the vote means the person gets the responsibility of taking care of whatever sequence or function he/she is in charge of. It is also the freest market there will ever be. Each person has a choice in what they want to do, consume, and play with no restrictions, no boundaries.
Yes, people can start elections and revert if they want to. If people are that badly brainwashed into capitalism, then sure, I'd think they would deserve a failed, corrupt, boom and bust system with the illusion of control and freedom. I wouldn't expect much participation though.
Yes, in a transition period(few years), you could not consume more energy than is allocated to you. However, in a fully operable Technate, I wouldn't see how anyone could even consume more than is available to them.
Why wouldn't someone be free in a place where they could choose their own vocation, choose what they want to consume without restriction and with the technological efficiency and effectiveness of an open source system?
Yes, dissent is fine so long as people don't hurt/kill anyone or sabotage any function of the technate.
Why cant you choose your own vocation in a capitalist system.. I did.
Why would someone take the time, effort and risk to innovative a good/ service if the good/service is a public good? I hope you dont suggest everyone gets paid equally. I would not be obtaining a PHD if I wasn't differentially awarded than a HS dropout
"Yes, dissent is fine so long as people don't .....sabotage any function of the technate. "
If that means what I think it does, then its oppressive.
What if I didnt want to work? Why would I work if I can receive anything for free? Would you make laziness punishable, deprive these individuals of goods/services or give them a free ride? Why would I waste years of my life studying highly complex adaptive dynamical systems and working 80-90 hours/ week if I get the same benefits as a janitor.
Yes, sabotage... As in taking any action that could render any function of the Technate or its products or services inoperable. Like destroying a building, or damaging equipment.
Yes, people take "jobs" because they WANT TO, I like to design and build, so I become an engineer or an architect. Remember, this is about efficiency in a open source system, People just organize and join into groups, no jobs. If you don't want to, then fine. Go rock climbing, take some piano classes or whatever.
@grimslider75 Complex system engineering is nowhere near cost effective. My comparison will become even more important with time as human capital becomes every increasingly more important. Technology is and will always be fluid. I don't see how a substitution for more knowledge intensive labor would diminish my point. In fact, the individual will have to investment in ever increasing education to be able to grasp every increasing complexity.
@axe863 If you want to study highly complex adaptive dynamical systems, it's your choice. It's not as bad as you make it seem. Usually you would have many people participating to share the workload and have better efficiency, if money wasn't an issue. Communications between groups and people is also important. This is why the Organizational chart is the way it is.
@newb2yutube This is an extremely simple concept. You need simple signals to optimize. Monies mainly serve to simplify the optimization. You dont have to compare prices in X1 with prices in X2....X10000 for each possible combination.
The elimination of money would be highly inefficient & completely retarded.
@axe863 Why are you trying to sell me an antique system of erratic exchange? As you already know, I'm a Technocrat. The price system is doomed any number of ways. Plus saying something is "retarded" doesn't give you any credence, especially after providing nothing to the argument.
@newb2yutube In the absence of monies, one must resort to barter in free markets. This is highly inefficient for individuals with heterogeneous preferences and specialized labor. No one will argue against that.
Of course, you don't value subjectively preferences. Elite scientists will forcefully allocate on the basis of objective "energy efficiency" measures. I shouldn't argue about massive inefficiency in matching peoples preferences when it has no value in your system.
@newb2yutube There exists competitive and symbiotic relationships in our current macro-economy. There is nothing revolutionary about this. Specialization & diversification occur and it has been a part of economic study for centuries.
@newb2yutube If you assume the "net energy theory of value", you are merely generalizing the labor theory of value. It has been centuries since an objective theory of value has dominated economic theory. Why has it been disregarded? Because subjective theory answered all previous paradoxes.
@axe863 There is no "net energy theory of value". Net energy analysis is used as a tool for efficiency. There are many other factors to take into account.
Energy accounting is a tool to distribute goods equitably. Remember this is about a non market economic system. Whether its objective or subjective is irrelevant. Energy is a common denominator of all consumable things. Energy can be measured, accurately. So it made sense to use that concept. It's not a value theory.
@newb2yutube I think you miss my point. If it is not used, how does optimization occur if prices will be eliminated? You wont optimize based on the preferences of individuals. You would optimize on the basis of energy usage (I thought everything was reducible to energy in the technocract mindset). I have not stated a false dichotomy.. it has to be either subjective or objective.
@axe863 Optimization occurs with consumption, yes.
I may have been unclear in my comment. There is an energy theory of value in the context of consumable goods and maybe a few services like cars and transportation in energy usage. This stuff isn't set in stone. However, this changes with maintenance, services, service buildings, housing etc. It wouldn't be used. As I said other factors need to be accounted for optimization.
@newb2yutube Ok. You still dont fully understand my point. Those maintenance methods &services (etc) are also reducible to energy valuation under technocracy (where do you obtain a bi-segmented valuation method). Thus, it is a generalization of labor theory of value.
@axe863 No, you still don't understand. There is no value theory. It's science based, whatever makes the most sense. Energy accounting is for accounting purposes only. Durability, and sustainability are also factors. Optimization occurs with cooperation, data, and analysis. It's not that hard to understand. I "can" be viewed as a energy theory of value. I can understand that. But it's not a energy theory of value. It is a science bases social design.
@newb2yutube "At the core of Scott's vision was "an energy theory of value". Since the basic measure common to the production of all goods and services was energy, he reasoned "that the sole scientific foundation for the monetary system was also energy""
Written about Howard Scott views: The first director of Tech Inc .
in regards to your last point, The Human Brain is capable of such complexity, and I'm positive that you are aware of that. As humans, we are biologically hard-wired to learn and assimilate new information as our innate curiosity becomes active with consideration towards the brains plasticity. This has both technological implications, as A.I becomes an important research initiative, and economical in principle.
@grimslider75 Will there be free elections(to accept or reject technocracy) under a technocracy regime every 4 years? It is a reversion to a static state of being, a mechanical stable view of the economy. Capitalism leads to evolutionary dynamics. Product differentiation, dynamic organization, agglomeration, specialization & diversification quasi-tradeoffs, market selective pressures etc lead to evolving dynamics and increasing returns to scale.
Through technology we will be able to accomplish most of which you stated (evolutionary dynamics, Product differentiation, dynamic organization, agglomeration, specialization & diversification quasi-tradeoffs)
We can focus primarily on the change which occurs technologically through human innovation. We shall not rely on the inequality of capitalism for it is the very thing which profits from unethical and needless behavior.
If people are conditioned to accept the market-economy as the supreme system than how can dynamics concerning the economy be more important than the dynamics which are inhibited by human thought after one has been socialized? Why must there be a leader to control the massive abundance of resources when it is easier to spread the power amongst the many so that we become almost self-dependent. BTW I am not an advocate for technocracy, more like Secular Distributism, and Technology.
@axe863 Yup, cause it keeps morons from forcing other people into price system scams and contracts. The design is secular and humanitarian. What do people want in terms of freedom? Choices....check. Freedom from religion.....check. Freedom of religion.....check. Opportunity to the fullest extent....check. I'd say that is pretty hard to beat. Wouldn't you think? We all know how the price system works and where it's headed. So far this is the most viable solution available.
@newb2yutube Checks & balances & free elections are there for a reason. Free elections serve as a first stage deterrent against tyrannical rule. You're giving a group of elites unlimited power. I know you will say something foolish to try to rebuke that. Trust me I know what you'll say and I will destroy that rebuttal ;)
Checks & balances, free elections and the price system are obviously not working well enough. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing the amount of discourse about it. Your argument about tyranny is a legitimate concern. Technocracy, if structured the wrong way or changed can be very tyrannical. The Technate design is not. Elections (for what?) are pretty useless. A "checks and balance system" is the scientific method, organizational chart, and the appointment method proposed in the Study course.
@newb2yutube History is on my side. Please demonstrate 1 instances where checks &balances and free elections have been eliminated and there wasn't an abuse of power.
@axe863 the "group of elites" you are implicating, would, in technocracy be only administrators of function and have power only within the confines of their functional purpose. i.e., functional rather than political. Only political systems can supply absolute vertical and horizontal power. One of the functions of the social mechanism would be, in the first place, to insure the well-being of individuals and society. Free elections have, time and again, paved the way for demagogues.
@AceObrin "only administrators of function and have power only within the confines" Who ensures that they are confined to their functional purpose? Who establishes their functional purpose...the rules of the game? This statement either requires a power hierarchy or an assumption about perfect selflessness. Technocrats believe in energy based optimization, not utility based maximization. There are usually tradeoffs between individual and societal well being. Free thought has, time and again....
@axe863 No, it requires an understanding of the dynamic processes of the natural world. E.g., A continental director of transport would have no business specifying the mechanical particulars of a rail network, though he may discover its necessity in the first place. In a monetary society, your statement about indiv vs. societal well-being is exactly the false dichotomy that is set up as an unintentional result of the patchwork approach that is decoupled from all physical referents.
i'm not sure about the exact system of technocracy and it's rules, but I would think that anybody willing to live outside of a system which allows them to be bountiful of both critical thinking skills and the creation of more abundance of resources through technological design, would be missing out, don't you?
If politics is to remain alive, The social sciences must be of the most importance to all "governments." We must understand ourselves before we conquer the earth...
@grimslider75 By eliminating free elections? How can organizational structures evolve conditional on real/perceived optimality conditions if we eliminate free elections? Technocracy is antithetical to revealing new forms of organization if it eliminates a mechanism which would allow that potential to be brought forth.
Now that you mention it in such a way, i understand you completely! I am just not very aware of the true meaning of definitions such as "free" elections. Absolute freedom allows absolute chaos, unless objectivity becomes the norm.
Free elections in your sense seems to me as collaborative thought is to organization in general. So I would have to agree that free elections are needed for development.
I just would like to recognize the psychosocial factors which play into this.
@axe863 In a Technocracy, as proposed by the Technical Alliance, the organizational structures would evolve according to function, which in turn follows the progression of problem-solution relationships. This governance of function would render political elections irrelevant, as explicit functions must be executed and hence fulfilled by the most qualified candidates for specific positions of function. These problem-solution structures change as new solutions are developed though research.
@grimslider75 "be bountiful ..., would be missing out, don't you?
I seriously doubt it can come even close to the productive capacity/innovative potiental of capitalism and for good theoretical and historical reasons.
@axe863 In Capitalism, purchasing power is directly tied to the largely irrelevant labor theory of value. Therefore, in this system, technological innovation, however slow or gradual, invariably reduces the labor force and hence the purchasing power of an ever-increasing portion of the population. This is not a temporary dislocation, as definite human consumption limits and those imposed by dominant folkways invariably reduce the amount of work needed to maintain relevant societal functions.
@axe863 As innovation in capitalism continues, it dislocates an ever-increasing portion of the population. Leaving out microtrends of market oscillations, the general trend in capitalism is toward greater technologically-based energy transformation and less required labor. The method of applying consumption power, then, becomes entirely outmoded (i.e., labor theory of value) as people become unable to work a sufficient amount to meet all of their needs.
@axe863 Therefore, consumption power would be equitably assigned on the basis of available extraneous energy after maintenance of the social mechanism is taken into account. With the extant energy conversion capability of the social mechanism of the North American continent, 2x10^5 kg-cal per day per capita would be available--or roughly 100 times the amount of power a human being can perform. All basic needs would be met in abundance, with plenty to spare for leisure.
@axe863 As far as innovation, the intent would be to continuously minimize the amount of extraneous energy needed to produce maximally useful goods with maximal longevity and simultaneously minimize the use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals. Capitalism seeks to minimize "cost"--an abstraction of scarcity, literally a correlate of nothing. It seeks to make things more scarce and exclusive while appealing to dominant forms of psychological conditioning to maximize purchases and profit.
@axe863 Innovation in a technate would therefore be uninhibited by price system concerns, limited instead by the concerns of maximal sustainability, laws of nature, and satisfaction of function.
@AceObrin How will one tradeoff between numerous alternatives given individuals heterogeneous path/ spatially dependent inter-temporal preferences, risk/uncertainty aversion to multi-frequency non-diversifiable risk/uncertainty, etc under an evolving set of innovative potentials/uncertainty spikes that are endogenously/exogenously induced? Unlike you, I have actually solved stochastic optimization problems. Those problems required numerous unrealistic simplifying assumptions.
@axe863 Part of the point is to eliminate the risk and uncertainty on the part of the consumer. There's a definite number of needs and a definite number of solutions to them, these aren't random variables despite how a market system makes it appear. You seem to be asking 4 questions simultaneously, no doubt an artifact of the thorough understanding you derived from your experience with stochastic optimization. People have a finite consumption potential in terms of empirical referents.
@AceObrin 1. I am talking about a non-ergodic/open dimensional system==> highly non-linear and stochastic. In a complex system, idiosyncratic risk reduction leds to fragility. I love how you say that stochasticity is merely an artificial of the market system when it is in fact ubiquitous to all complex systems. 2. That was a single question. It was a complicated question because it is a realistic question. 3. The consumption potentials are endogenously induced by market dynamics.
stochasticity is an intrinsic property of all systems, but its bounds, variables, and bounds thereof can be more precisely measured and dealt with when a physical referent is used as the basis for making economic decisions of optimization, rather than something infinitely scalable and with no prescribed utility (i.e., money). Consumption potentials would be exogenously induced by the total energy degradation capacity of the entire social mechanism. Voodoo economics vs. thermoeconomics.
@AceObrin "Physical referent" ... aka an objective theory of value. :) Untested assertions. "Technocracy science" .... reach a conclusion before any experimentation. Given the the superiority of marginalist position, objective value theory effectively died with Karl Marx. Fyi, money utility exists due to time varying uncertainty. Fyi, there have been countless research papers that demonstrate that money exhibits approximately long run neutrality. So why the money drama?
@axe863 Depends on what you mean by theory of value. In energetic terms, an individual cannot perform the amount of work sufficient to compensate society for the extraneous energy required to produce all the goods s/he consumes, and the total extraneous energy degraded per capita is over 200 times the work equivalent of a human being operating for 24 hours. By maximizing the standard of living equitably and using physical referents, time-uncertainty would be kept at a minimum.
@AceObrin "By maximizing the standard of living equitably and using physical referents, time-uncertainty would be kept at a minimum."
Im sorry but I dont understand how that's possible in a dynamic macro-economy. The scientific elite in your hypothesis world would have to transcend the reality of endogenously induced uncertainty cycles.
@AceObrin Another example...Pre 2007, Individual risk levels were significantly reduced via well diversified Gaussian optimized portfolios, insurance derivatives etc whilst network densification spiked, agents structured on low risk, concave error optimization accrued etc... led to ever increasing systemic fragility.
This is the same general dynamic that occurs in ecosystems after prolonged periods of excess natural or induced stabilization make the structure fragile to x type colored noise
@AceObrin 4. How will dynamic adjustment take place if individuals are content with their current positions and all consumption levels are fixed regardless of their response to a dynamic economy? 5. How will non-accounted for externalities be priced in? 6. How will individuals well-being be maximized under energy based optimization when it conflicts with utility maximization? etcc etc ....Dont respond with it will just happen.It wasnt correct the first time and it wont be correct this time.
by the aid of technology. What is human innovation and creativity for? Wars and commercial manipulation of societies? I assume not, but history fails to show me that, as humans, we have done anything to move past the slave state of society, so to speak.
@axe863 In 1934, a week of 16 hours for everyone between 25-45 was estimated as sufficient to maintain the social mechanism. Mechanization has since compounded several times. The social mechanism has the capacity to furnish everyone with the market equivalent of at least $80,000/yr of purchasing power, and do it sustainably by eliminating useless redundancy and obsolescence. Take a look up. Over 200b stars in the MW, and ~50m earthlike planets in habitable zones. You'd choose janitorial work?
@AceObrin "Over 200b stars in the MW, and ~50m earthlike planets in habitable zones. You'd choose janitorial work?" o_O Ok....... anyway. You think that individuals perform equally independent of incentive. I would love to see your evidence against the well established fact that individuals alter their behavior to different incentives.
@axe863 Despite what you may have convinced yourself, you're incapable of reading thoughts. Not once did I say or allude to the idea that individuals perform equally, ever, under any conditions. If everyone had equal consumption rights, the people with natural proficiency would be allowed to have their talents flourish, rather than struggle just to stay alive. The social mechanism (in a Technate) would exist to support the highest standard of living possible with current tech and resources.
@AceObrin I meant perform equally within their potential. This is what I meant when I said "You think that individuals perform equally independent of incentive.I would love to see your evidence against the well established fact that ====> individuals alter their behavior to different incentives"
Socialized gains and socialized losses.Beautiful lol. What is the mechanism by which inefficiency is reduced ====> lets say a huge number of people want to make art even though 95% of the people who partake fully in that venture ...are horrific artists. What is their downside risk of being completely horrible at their chosen profession........ absolutely nothing.
"Yes, in a transition period(few years), you could not consume more energy than is allocated to you."
Then why will everyone be given energy certificates. If the ability to consume will be unbounded, why set up a system that dictates the quantity that can be consumed.
"However, in a fully operable Technate, I wouldn't see how anyone could even consume more than is available to them."
How in the world can we produce infinite goods/services? LOL
Do you have the brain power to even think about this yourself?
Do you know what supply and demand is? Well there is your answer. There will be a measurement of what is consumed. It will take a few years to develop the information needed. THAT is the reason for the Energy cards. After that, demand can be measured and then we can reach equilibrium. However, there will still be a little leftover created just in case someone or some people need extra things. Understand?
@axe863: There's nothing that says that you can't have a democratic technocracy. It seems to me that any time someone introduces a political idea that is different it automatically gets labeled as communist.
@LTS1287 There are no "kinds of Technocracy". There is only one that was developed by the Technical Alliance and later became known as the Technocracy Study Course. Decisions are NOT made by a democratic process of elections. That is clearly stated in the Study Course. So you are completely wrong and most likely given incomplete or wrong information on Technocracy.
@LTS1287 Decisions will be based on the requirements of society as determined by continuous research, within the prudent use of resources and the conservation of energy. It is an administration of science.
The appointment of the administration uses a method of nomination from below and appointment from above. So, It is democratic but not in regards to the operation of the Technate. Also, people in their own fields of work are qualified to vote for the position.
Does Technocracy believe in Genetic Engineering, Social Darwinism, and Eugenics? Does it support Systematic Genocide and forced sterilization of the unproductive human beings in society?
Human Rights, ethics, and morality would go against many things that a total scientific system supports.
@plutocratarianism This is a science administration...Their is NO believing. Only facts and open source information to get things done. Facts cannot fight facts. This is the most humanitarian, secular idea if there ever was one. Forcing people to do things is just a part of the contract society, price system construct. It seems you are WAY too deep into conspiracy crap. I suggest you give that up. Besides, you are missing the biggest point. The price system isn't capable of working long term.
@plutocratarianism Please read more and or go to the technocracy Technate website if you have many questions. But there is a warning. We do not welcome trolls or people who are lazy and do not read the information. Serious discussions are welcomed.
Before I discovered this movement, I was a socialist, but, socialism has a bad track record, and is outdated for our society. A society that is ruled by those with intellectual credibility is our portal to the future. No more people like sarah palin running for positions of authority. We must unite, in order to advance as a society.
Thanks for the comment. Though, I think the socialist track record is deserved cause it doesn't work. Intentions are a lot better than a Capitalist system. However, they still share the same body of the price system.
Daikini0 is correct about some aspects of the Technocratic system. If the people of the North American Continent have to be willing to accept it and it does seem to disregard the human element. After all, is that not what made this country what it is, people wanting a better life for themselfs and more material goods then working hard to get it.
People will need to agree to this idea. That is why we need people to spread the information. Human element? Wrong. Technology and resources made this country what it is. The price system isn't capable of handling a high energy conversion society. There are other odds and ends that contribute to it's own demise. If people want a better life, and survive, then the only solution for them is Technocracy Technate design. Otherwise, chaos replaces the their greedy ambitions at some point.
This is the first point in technate theories what I disagree. Chaos will never replace price system. The reason why I think this, is simple. A system's vitality is depending only on one thing. The people's will to keep it up. And if a class of a power hungry man can convince the masses that this is good, it will kept up. Good or bad, but won't destroy itself. It will have crysis, but will be renewed by it's politicans, and people will assist blindly. Even if there is a lot better alternative.
So, you think constant degrading of materials and energy in the most inefficient methods is sustainable and wouldn't cause chaos at some point?
Well, your wrong again. We either turn into something else, or go into chaos. Chaos, meaning millions will die because of our available resources will not be distributed adequately because of a system money collapse and the fact that the price system destroys our resource base in the name of more growth. So, I don't understand your point.
No, no, I agree that chaos occurs, yes, you can see the crysis and remember 1929. But the order is always restored by the masters of money. The system is emerging again from the chaos, and that is mainly because they have the support of the population, the people need only few new face to believe everything will be better. That's what I am saying. You are right about the chaos, but it won't cause the collapse.
So, This is all a worthless cause because people are stupid and controlled by disinformation and political belief systems? I'm not denying this. However, you are wrong when you say this way of life will continue. When the system collapses, as it must...who will have the "power"...it would be with people who can get things done...who would that be?...but technicians, teachers, engineers, etc. SKILL will be the most important 'commodity' Politicians have none, so your argument is moot.
There would not be any emergence of another price system if this information is shared and hopefully breaks into the mainstream. It is possible that after a collapse we will create another price system, maybe a little bit different or just the same as before. However, the sustainability of our world will be at a very very high risk. That is the point I'm trying to get across. It is will cause more chaos if we don't get this sustainability under wraps.
Right, this video is part of spreading information, Technocracy would need much more like this. I am absolutely sure, a collapsing price - or money based - system creates another, because people got used to it. Sustainability I think is easier. People also got used to poverty. It is part of the history, so they will take it natural if there will be famine, suffer. Just look at 2nd world war. Everyone fought and suffered for some stupid ideas, and more power just because politicans said.
The problem with Technocracy is the same what was with marxism, they told many intelligent thing about how to make a new, highly efficent system of an economical world. But obviously misses the human view. Technocracy should be revised to make it more close to human being, make realistic ideas, how to create this society, how to start, what to compromise in first times, where to begin. And of course what to do with human nature, what always was selfish. These won't change only by circumstances.
@Daikini0 We have answers to most of those questions. If you wish to join as a social activist, then do so.
Aren't you being presumptuous, arrogant, in "knowing" the 'human' aspect? Or even judging it as a fallacy of this kind of system?
We have VERY realistic plans. As for plans of social activism, transition, etc...I suggest you visit the technocracytechnate website. Ask your questions their, for the answers are too long and numerous for Youtube.
I visited the website. You are right, youtube is not the best for discuss such complex things, but this is more popular site, and more people come here. For example, I would never gone to that website by myself. Technocracy needs the majority of people. I doubt it will reach the majority of people, and I think most of the people can't be convinced by rational conversations. And this could mean big problem. I don't want to be arrogant, just be realistic. This movement is wonderful.
And I support it with all my thoughts. But this enthusiasm shouldn't be blind. I guess you are rational man too. And if you are, you can see the politics won't just give up the rulership. It is few to create a good alternative. Even if the politicans' system fails, they will keep their power, because they have the most important strategical resource: the ability to control the masses.
@Daikini0 We will not, and you can't change the design. It is a scientific social system. Meaning it's based on science....Real stuff. No beliefs, voting on ethics, etc. Problems would be dealt with FACTS. Facts cannot fight facts. It would change and evolve into whatever science sees fit. Otherwise you have beliefs fighting beliefs. Understand? Revised? how can you revise science???
There is nothing bad with facts, science. I am mathematican. It is matter of theory and practice what I am talking about. What I am pointing on, that most of the people can't be convinced by facts. Not because Technocracy is wrong, people are wrong. Just think about that if I tell that most of the people never realize that there are problems with society, and not with leading politicans. Politicans will never do it a lot better. Simply because they are as uneducated and...
... unaware of the problems' roots. And as long as people blame the persons themselves, they won't desire the change in society level. Fact: no politican would do it better. People's belief: If I choose an another one, everything will be fine. Rational conclusion: Masses will support political based system with voting rich people instead thinking what to do better on higher levels. I miss a serious communication level between masses and technocratic people. One proof...
... just look at your video's popularity. Now it has 2833 views. Search only one Obama or G. W. Bush video and click any of them. The have videos over 1 million views. The masses are with them. They are fed by hate, love, speculations, but not by facts. None of them are good, their will of having change efficenty of society is weak, they need power. And they have the masses. Is what I wrote clear?
You mean like they have all the fake information and may be brainwashed? That is too bad for them... but has nothing to do with information presentations on Technocracy technate material.
If you want to educate yourself and be of some use in getting this information out... then do so.
But... otherwise you are part of the problem and there is no shortage of 'parts of the problem'.
So. Do something positive and be a part of some change.
There would be no differences in any industrial function currently applied today if a technate were established. We have the current capabilities to produce an abundance with little wastage or ecological consequences whether it be the in a democracy, fascism, capitalism, or technocracy....science is science. So your question is foolish. Now, about the Soviet Gosplan...there is no correlation to such an idea....they are completely different things. Please read the Technocracy Study Course.
You've studied the course, if it's worth it i'll do that after I'm done with my bacchelor.
From what I grasped, through the buzzwords, is that the technocrats intend to hand over the command over natural resources and over the means of production to a pannel of mathematicians, engineers and scientists (i.e. "technical experts").
But the Soviet Gosplan was exactly that. Therefore I ask what makes them different, newb2yutube.
There are no buzzwords that we use. It is what it is...technical experts. Since you have not read the required reading for understanding, you are wasting my time and showing your real ignorance. As I've said before they are different. One is a Price system, and the other is NOT.
So, you are asking something that is completely frivolous. Why, I wonder.
Please, if you wish to make wild assumptions, I suggest you READ the study course before coming to these conclusions/assumptions.
what is it you propose then? a distribution system like the one that the British had during the war? the study course is bloody long. it would be great find out first what it is about.
not a minute of your is wasted if advertise it properly here in public on the net.
I understand your point. Still, our job isn't to make this information 'sexy' or brainwash people with it. It is an entirely different system. It is completely independent of ANY ideas. It is also a must that people read to understand this. If you want to understand the technate design then look at the other videos with Arvid Peterson and/or read the last 2 chapters in the technocracy study course. That is the best shortcut I can think of.
This is about a new Technological social design. that IS expressed in this video. So, advertisement is correct. If you want to understand the design then follow my previous comment.
The Soviet plan was based on a Price System.. the ruble. It also was run by politicians, particularly Stalin. There was a person named Alexander Bagdanov that predated what you are talking about as to Gosplan. His ideas originated the ideas of systems theory. The idea of energy accounting is connected with Technocracy technate concepts. Very different than Gosplan. Check into Bagdanov and take a look at the broader information on the technate design.
I deleted you previous comment...sorry. I pressed the wrong thing.
Remember that Technocracy is a distributive method that would take advantage of the technology currently available. Where the current price system fails(efficiency, jobs, creativity) because of technology, the Technocracy Technate would take advantage because of its' scientific design.
Hitler and the Nazis could be described as Technocrats, but their Greed and Lust for Power lead them to wage countless wars to exterminate millions of people.
If it wasn't for the human nature aspect of the technocratic system, it would be a utopian system.
Wow, that is some very strange logic Xion. It's like comparing apples to your shit stains. Very different things.
The nazis were a political organization/militia. They did not have specialties in certain fields of science. They did not employ an energy accounting system nor wanted one. Technocracy is an administration of Science based on thermoeconomics.
Please read the Technocracy Study Course, you do not understand the material.
Psychology or behavior of Humans has no connection to these ideas. This is a proposed functional system. Wasting time thinking about how humans would react in this system is like staring at a blank wall. Nothing is gained in the experience and you're just wasting your time.
Utopia is a misnomer. Doesn't exist. Functional governance...YES!
Economics is, sadly, not a science. It's based on dogmas, unproven concepts, political currents and arbitrary abstractions. With every new crisis you will get a dozen of new concepts and theories and with each new policy implemented a dozen of unforseeable problems arise. Sadly noone will ever try an alternative.
Experimenting with alternatives fell out of fashion when the first peasant starved under Lenin's planned economy.
There is a difference here. This isn't an alternative that can be chosen. After long analysis and statistics proving your comment. It is realized that this WILL happen. FEMA was a good example of understanding this, it was after all created by technocrats.
@StruhDaehYm As I recall, there was an economic model based on real science, authored by Leibniz, not less. But since economy is too important to everyone, and since everyman has troubles comprehending calculus needed for Physical Economics...
I think we can get this off the ground. But for me the first step was to get healthy! I have learned from David Wolfe and Daniel Vitalis I have been drinking a superfood smoothie every day for a week and Im starting to feel amazing Now I have to fix my money issues (unemployed) then I will dig into technocracy and I think we can create the world we want LETS DO IT!
I am really interested in technocracy, and think that technocracy is the best way forward for society. However I live in th UK and unfortunately there isn't a technate for this country, I know that Europe attempted to create a technate for Europe in France in the early 20th centuary. If anyone knows of any information concerning recent technocratic developments within Europe please let me know thank you.
Hi, I'm catalan and I'm interested in Technocracy but it's difficult for me to understand english, so there's any explanation in other language like spanish or something like that?
The root of the word Technocracy and its meaning come from the word technique . The root of this word is the Greek, techne ("art","craft", or "skill"), which linguists have further traced to the Indo-European root, teks - (to weave, or fabricate). From the earliest times, technique has been distinguished from other modes of human action by its purposive, rational, step-by-step way of doing things.
Comment removed
11RisingPhoenix 1 month ago
@11RisingPhoenix Technocracy isn't a philosophy. It's just a science based social design. An idea thought up as a replacement for the price system. Technocracy is the next most logical step in the governance of the human species in this high technological era. It's the "next most probable".
"Logical reason"?...Well, if you download and read the Technocracy Study Course the well laid out facts and statistics should sway even the most logical of minds.
newb2yutube 1 day ago
@11RisingPhoenix Technocracy isn't something you can read about in a few pages and expect to understand it all. It's completely new idea and the frame of references for people to understand are unfortunately non-existent. People ask questions about one thing and all it leads to is more questions...soon the person answering the questions would be writing an entire booklet. This is why we ask people to read first...if you are truly intrigued by the idea. Otherwise we can't help.
newb2yutube 1 day ago
@newb2yutube My sincere apologies for that. I was taken aback by the response of one of the supporters of Technocracy regarding one of my questions. I have since read some about Technocracy, particularly the Technate design. I am keen to agree on the idea, if not the only downside is the excesive support of groups, otherwise it seems good.
11RisingPhoenix 1 day ago
@11RisingPhoenix What do you mean by excessive support of groups?
newb2yutube 1 day ago
@newb2yutube I mean that in Capitalism, the individual can put into effect an idea provided he has the funds for it. In a Technocracy this would require peer support.
11RisingPhoenix 1 day ago
@11RisingPhoenix I wouldn't see that as a criticism. Most lame, faulty, damaging products are produced/made with ignorant investors being sold an idea by ignorant people. A con artist can also sell an idea to a rich ignorant person. It's better if the peers reviewed the idea as it would lead to a better product/service. Those are my thoughts on it.
newb2yutube 13 hours ago
@newb2yutube Of course. But do not forget that some of the most important advances in science ocurred thanks to individual effort. Like Ford's assembly line.
11RisingPhoenix 13 hours ago
Comment removed
11RisingPhoenix 1 month ago
In reality, a society's economic well-being entirely depends on the biopsychosocial health of its individuals. This is why communism failed, and why the comparatively more "free" market systems of the west find themselves bewildered by an array of biopsychosocial health crises, whether it's heart disease or the highest per-capita murder and mental illness rates to be found anywhere. They make no attempt to account for any physical referent related to individual and hence societal wellbeing.
AceObrin 7 months ago
I like technocracy but why the FUCK did you have to use that annoying machine voice?
LTS1287 1 year ago
@LTS1287 Wanted the basic understanding of Technocracy articulated correctly. Sadly people don't want to read...much. So I put up this introduction with the best voice available at the time. There are better voices now, which I used in another requested video(History and Purpose of Technocracy)
newb2yutube 1 year ago
LONG LIVE Technocracy. but fuck Technocracy Incoperated a cCorporation CANT BE A TECHNATE.
MagnitudePerson 1 year ago
@MagnitudePerson Calm Down. Technocracy Inc. is a non-profit, non sectarian, research and educational organization. They also assume no power theory in any event of a transition to a Technate. They are only here to protect the ideas and present and educate them to the public. Technocracy Inc. would have absolutely no say or power in a transition. It would be up the public or some agency like FEMA to transition into a Technate.
newb2yutube 1 year ago
thx for the video
greenhell666 1 year ago
Technocracy: communism with a scientific twist.
axe863 2 years ago
Hey Axe, wondering were you've been. I wouldn't really say it's communism. It's more of its own thing. If you want to play it that way, that's fine. Technocracy can also be described as a democracy. Where more than half the vote means the person gets the responsibility of taking care of whatever sequence or function he/she is in charge of. It is also the freest market there will ever be. Each person has a choice in what they want to do, consume, and play with no restrictions, no boundaries.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
So, Technocracy is basically freedom with a scientific twist.
; )
newb2yutube 2 years ago
@newb2yutube
Will there be free elections in which individuals can revert to capitalism if they so wished.
Can individuals consume more energy that is allocated to them.
How can someone be free if something is allocated to them as opposed to be earned by them?
Can people speak out against technocracy if they so pleased?
axe863 2 years ago
Yes, people can start elections and revert if they want to. If people are that badly brainwashed into capitalism, then sure, I'd think they would deserve a failed, corrupt, boom and bust system with the illusion of control and freedom. I wouldn't expect much participation though.
Yes, in a transition period(few years), you could not consume more energy than is allocated to you. However, in a fully operable Technate, I wouldn't see how anyone could even consume more than is available to them.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
Why wouldn't someone be free in a place where they could choose their own vocation, choose what they want to consume without restriction and with the technological efficiency and effectiveness of an open source system?
Yes, dissent is fine so long as people don't hurt/kill anyone or sabotage any function of the technate.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
@newb2yutube
Why cant you choose your own vocation in a capitalist system.. I did.
Why would someone take the time, effort and risk to innovative a good/ service if the good/service is a public good? I hope you dont suggest everyone gets paid equally. I would not be obtaining a PHD if I wasn't differentially awarded than a HS dropout
"Yes, dissent is fine so long as people don't .....sabotage any function of the technate. "
If that means what I think it does, then its oppressive.
axe863 2 years ago
@newb2yutube
What if I didnt want to work? Why would I work if I can receive anything for free? Would you make laziness punishable, deprive these individuals of goods/services or give them a free ride? Why would I waste years of my life studying highly complex adaptive dynamical systems and working 80-90 hours/ week if I get the same benefits as a janitor.
axe863 2 years ago
Yes, sabotage... As in taking any action that could render any function of the Technate or its products or services inoperable. Like destroying a building, or damaging equipment.
Yes, people take "jobs" because they WANT TO, I like to design and build, so I become an engineer or an architect. Remember, this is about efficiency in a open source system, People just organize and join into groups, no jobs. If you don't want to, then fine. Go rock climbing, take some piano classes or whatever.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
@axe863
um, with the technology we have now, hypothetically, we won't need janitors if we have self cleaning buildings/facilities
furthermore, we would be able to eliminate a lot of monotonous work therefore rendering your comparison almost inapplicable
not trying to discredit you, just giving you something to think about, and possibly discuss...=)
grimslider75 1 year ago
@grimslider75 Complex system engineering is nowhere near cost effective. My comparison will become even more important with time as human capital becomes every increasingly more important. Technology is and will always be fluid. I don't see how a substitution for more knowledge intensive labor would diminish my point. In fact, the individual will have to investment in ever increasing education to be able to grasp every increasing complexity.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 If you want to study highly complex adaptive dynamical systems, it's your choice. It's not as bad as you make it seem. Usually you would have many people participating to share the workload and have better efficiency, if money wasn't an issue. Communications between groups and people is also important. This is why the Organizational chart is the way it is.
newb2yutube 1 year ago
@newb2yutube This is an extremely simple concept. You need simple signals to optimize. Monies mainly serve to simplify the optimization. You dont have to compare prices in X1 with prices in X2....X10000 for each possible combination.
The elimination of money would be highly inefficient & completely retarded.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 Why are you trying to sell me an antique system of erratic exchange? As you already know, I'm a Technocrat. The price system is doomed any number of ways. Plus saying something is "retarded" doesn't give you any credence, especially after providing nothing to the argument.
newb2yutube 1 year ago
@newb2yutube In the absence of monies, one must resort to barter in free markets. This is highly inefficient for individuals with heterogeneous preferences and specialized labor. No one will argue against that.
Of course, you don't value subjectively preferences. Elite scientists will forcefully allocate on the basis of objective "energy efficiency" measures. I shouldn't argue about massive inefficiency in matching peoples preferences when it has no value in your system.
axe863 1 year ago
@newb2yutube There exists competitive and symbiotic relationships in our current macro-economy. There is nothing revolutionary about this. Specialization & diversification occur and it has been a part of economic study for centuries.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 So, your point is?
newb2yutube 1 year ago
@newb2yutube If you assume the "net energy theory of value", you are merely generalizing the labor theory of value. It has been centuries since an objective theory of value has dominated economic theory. Why has it been disregarded? Because subjective theory answered all previous paradoxes.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 There is no "net energy theory of value". Net energy analysis is used as a tool for efficiency. There are many other factors to take into account.
Energy accounting is a tool to distribute goods equitably. Remember this is about a non market economic system. Whether its objective or subjective is irrelevant. Energy is a common denominator of all consumable things. Energy can be measured, accurately. So it made sense to use that concept. It's not a value theory.
newb2yutube 1 year ago
@newb2yutube I think you miss my point. If it is not used, how does optimization occur if prices will be eliminated? You wont optimize based on the preferences of individuals. You would optimize on the basis of energy usage (I thought everything was reducible to energy in the technocract mindset). I have not stated a false dichotomy.. it has to be either subjective or objective.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 Optimization occurs with consumption, yes.
I may have been unclear in my comment. There is an energy theory of value in the context of consumable goods and maybe a few services like cars and transportation in energy usage. This stuff isn't set in stone. However, this changes with maintenance, services, service buildings, housing etc. It wouldn't be used. As I said other factors need to be accounted for optimization.
newb2yutube 1 year ago
@newb2yutube Ok. You still dont fully understand my point. Those maintenance methods &services (etc) are also reducible to energy valuation under technocracy (where do you obtain a bi-segmented valuation method). Thus, it is a generalization of labor theory of value.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 No, you still don't understand. There is no value theory. It's science based, whatever makes the most sense. Energy accounting is for accounting purposes only. Durability, and sustainability are also factors. Optimization occurs with cooperation, data, and analysis. It's not that hard to understand. I "can" be viewed as a energy theory of value. I can understand that. But it's not a energy theory of value. It is a science bases social design.
newb2yutube 1 year ago
@newb2yutube Labor theory of value:Labor is a common denominator of all consumable things. Labor can be measured, accurately.
This is exactly what labor theory proponents believe. LOL
axe863 1 year ago
@newb2yutube "At the core of Scott's vision was "an energy theory of value". Since the basic measure common to the production of all goods and services was energy, he reasoned "that the sole scientific foundation for the monetary system was also energy""
Written about Howard Scott views: The first director of Tech Inc .
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
in regards to your last point, The Human Brain is capable of such complexity, and I'm positive that you are aware of that. As humans, we are biologically hard-wired to learn and assimilate new information as our innate curiosity becomes active with consideration towards the brains plasticity. This has both technological implications, as A.I becomes an important research initiative, and economical in principle.
grimslider75 1 year ago
@grimslider75 Will there be free elections(to accept or reject technocracy) under a technocracy regime every 4 years? It is a reversion to a static state of being, a mechanical stable view of the economy. Capitalism leads to evolutionary dynamics. Product differentiation, dynamic organization, agglomeration, specialization & diversification quasi-tradeoffs, market selective pressures etc lead to evolving dynamics and increasing returns to scale.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
Through technology we will be able to accomplish most of which you stated (evolutionary dynamics, Product differentiation, dynamic organization, agglomeration, specialization & diversification quasi-tradeoffs)
We can focus primarily on the change which occurs technologically through human innovation. We shall not rely on the inequality of capitalism for it is the very thing which profits from unethical and needless behavior.
grimslider75 1 year ago
@axe863
If people are conditioned to accept the market-economy as the supreme system than how can dynamics concerning the economy be more important than the dynamics which are inhibited by human thought after one has been socialized? Why must there be a leader to control the massive abundance of resources when it is easier to spread the power amongst the many so that we become almost self-dependent. BTW I am not an advocate for technocracy, more like Secular Distributism, and Technology.
grimslider75 1 year ago
@grimslider75 lol is all I have to say.
Answer my previous question. Will there be free elections every 4 years that will allow the nation to de-convert from technocracy if they please.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 No free elections, my previous comment was sarcastic.
newb2yutube 1 year ago
@newb2yutube No free elections..... beautiful
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 Yup, cause it keeps morons from forcing other people into price system scams and contracts. The design is secular and humanitarian. What do people want in terms of freedom? Choices....check. Freedom from religion.....check. Freedom of religion.....check. Opportunity to the fullest extent....check. I'd say that is pretty hard to beat. Wouldn't you think? We all know how the price system works and where it's headed. So far this is the most viable solution available.
newb2yutube 1 year ago
@newb2yutube Checks & balances & free elections are there for a reason. Free elections serve as a first stage deterrent against tyrannical rule. You're giving a group of elites unlimited power. I know you will say something foolish to try to rebuke that. Trust me I know what you'll say and I will destroy that rebuttal ;)
axe863 1 year ago
Checks & balances, free elections and the price system are obviously not working well enough. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing the amount of discourse about it. Your argument about tyranny is a legitimate concern. Technocracy, if structured the wrong way or changed can be very tyrannical. The Technate design is not. Elections (for what?) are pretty useless. A "checks and balance system" is the scientific method, organizational chart, and the appointment method proposed in the Study course.
newb2yutube 1 year ago
@newb2yutube History is on my side. Please demonstrate 1 instances where checks &balances and free elections have been eliminated and there wasn't an abuse of power.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 the "group of elites" you are implicating, would, in technocracy be only administrators of function and have power only within the confines of their functional purpose. i.e., functional rather than political. Only political systems can supply absolute vertical and horizontal power. One of the functions of the social mechanism would be, in the first place, to insure the well-being of individuals and society. Free elections have, time and again, paved the way for demagogues.
AceObrin 7 months ago
@AceObrin "only administrators of function and have power only within the confines" Who ensures that they are confined to their functional purpose? Who establishes their functional purpose...the rules of the game? This statement either requires a power hierarchy or an assumption about perfect selflessness. Technocrats believe in energy based optimization, not utility based maximization. There are usually tradeoffs between individual and societal well being. Free thought has, time and again....
axe863 7 months ago
@axe863 No, it requires an understanding of the dynamic processes of the natural world. E.g., A continental director of transport would have no business specifying the mechanical particulars of a rail network, though he may discover its necessity in the first place. In a monetary society, your statement about indiv vs. societal well-being is exactly the false dichotomy that is set up as an unintentional result of the patchwork approach that is decoupled from all physical referents.
AceObrin 7 months ago
@axe863
i'm not sure about the exact system of technocracy and it's rules, but I would think that anybody willing to live outside of a system which allows them to be bountiful of both critical thinking skills and the creation of more abundance of resources through technological design, would be missing out, don't you?
If politics is to remain alive, The social sciences must be of the most importance to all "governments." We must understand ourselves before we conquer the earth...
grimslider75 1 year ago
@grimslider75 By eliminating free elections? How can organizational structures evolve conditional on real/perceived optimality conditions if we eliminate free elections? Technocracy is antithetical to revealing new forms of organization if it eliminates a mechanism which would allow that potential to be brought forth.
Do you understand my point?
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
Now that you mention it in such a way, i understand you completely! I am just not very aware of the true meaning of definitions such as "free" elections. Absolute freedom allows absolute chaos, unless objectivity becomes the norm.
Free elections in your sense seems to me as collaborative thought is to organization in general. So I would have to agree that free elections are needed for development.
I just would like to recognize the psychosocial factors which play into this.
grimslider75 1 year ago
@axe863 In a Technocracy, as proposed by the Technical Alliance, the organizational structures would evolve according to function, which in turn follows the progression of problem-solution relationships. This governance of function would render political elections irrelevant, as explicit functions must be executed and hence fulfilled by the most qualified candidates for specific positions of function. These problem-solution structures change as new solutions are developed though research.
AceObrin 7 months ago
@grimslider75 "be bountiful ..., would be missing out, don't you?
I seriously doubt it can come even close to the productive capacity/innovative potiental of capitalism and for good theoretical and historical reasons.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 In Capitalism, purchasing power is directly tied to the largely irrelevant labor theory of value. Therefore, in this system, technological innovation, however slow or gradual, invariably reduces the labor force and hence the purchasing power of an ever-increasing portion of the population. This is not a temporary dislocation, as definite human consumption limits and those imposed by dominant folkways invariably reduce the amount of work needed to maintain relevant societal functions.
AceObrin 7 months ago
@axe863 As innovation in capitalism continues, it dislocates an ever-increasing portion of the population. Leaving out microtrends of market oscillations, the general trend in capitalism is toward greater technologically-based energy transformation and less required labor. The method of applying consumption power, then, becomes entirely outmoded (i.e., labor theory of value) as people become unable to work a sufficient amount to meet all of their needs.
AceObrin 7 months ago
@axe863 Therefore, consumption power would be equitably assigned on the basis of available extraneous energy after maintenance of the social mechanism is taken into account. With the extant energy conversion capability of the social mechanism of the North American continent, 2x10^5 kg-cal per day per capita would be available--or roughly 100 times the amount of power a human being can perform. All basic needs would be met in abundance, with plenty to spare for leisure.
AceObrin 7 months ago
@axe863 As far as innovation, the intent would be to continuously minimize the amount of extraneous energy needed to produce maximally useful goods with maximal longevity and simultaneously minimize the use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals. Capitalism seeks to minimize "cost"--an abstraction of scarcity, literally a correlate of nothing. It seeks to make things more scarce and exclusive while appealing to dominant forms of psychological conditioning to maximize purchases and profit.
AceObrin 7 months ago
@axe863 Innovation in a technate would therefore be uninhibited by price system concerns, limited instead by the concerns of maximal sustainability, laws of nature, and satisfaction of function.
AceObrin 7 months ago
@AceObrin How will one tradeoff between numerous alternatives given individuals heterogeneous path/ spatially dependent inter-temporal preferences, risk/uncertainty aversion to multi-frequency non-diversifiable risk/uncertainty, etc under an evolving set of innovative potentials/uncertainty spikes that are endogenously/exogenously induced? Unlike you, I have actually solved stochastic optimization problems. Those problems required numerous unrealistic simplifying assumptions.
axe863 7 months ago
@axe863 Part of the point is to eliminate the risk and uncertainty on the part of the consumer. There's a definite number of needs and a definite number of solutions to them, these aren't random variables despite how a market system makes it appear. You seem to be asking 4 questions simultaneously, no doubt an artifact of the thorough understanding you derived from your experience with stochastic optimization. People have a finite consumption potential in terms of empirical referents.
AceObrin 7 months ago
@AceObrin Well put Ace. Thanks for the comments.
newb2yutube 7 months ago
@AceObrin o_O...This is your response to my profound rebuttal against technocracy. I will reply later tonight
axe863 7 months ago
@AceObrin 1. I am talking about a non-ergodic/open dimensional system==> highly non-linear and stochastic. In a complex system, idiosyncratic risk reduction leds to fragility. I love how you say that stochasticity is merely an artificial of the market system when it is in fact ubiquitous to all complex systems. 2. That was a single question. It was a complicated question because it is a realistic question. 3. The consumption potentials are endogenously induced by market dynamics.
axe863 7 months ago
stochasticity is an intrinsic property of all systems, but its bounds, variables, and bounds thereof can be more precisely measured and dealt with when a physical referent is used as the basis for making economic decisions of optimization, rather than something infinitely scalable and with no prescribed utility (i.e., money). Consumption potentials would be exogenously induced by the total energy degradation capacity of the entire social mechanism. Voodoo economics vs. thermoeconomics.
AceObrin 7 months ago
@AceObrin "Physical referent" ... aka an objective theory of value. :) Untested assertions. "Technocracy science" .... reach a conclusion before any experimentation. Given the the superiority of marginalist position, objective value theory effectively died with Karl Marx. Fyi, money utility exists due to time varying uncertainty. Fyi, there have been countless research papers that demonstrate that money exhibits approximately long run neutrality. So why the money drama?
axe863 7 months ago
@axe863 Depends on what you mean by theory of value. In energetic terms, an individual cannot perform the amount of work sufficient to compensate society for the extraneous energy required to produce all the goods s/he consumes, and the total extraneous energy degraded per capita is over 200 times the work equivalent of a human being operating for 24 hours. By maximizing the standard of living equitably and using physical referents, time-uncertainty would be kept at a minimum.
AceObrin 7 months ago
@AceObrin "By maximizing the standard of living equitably and using physical referents, time-uncertainty would be kept at a minimum."
Im sorry but I dont understand how that's possible in a dynamic macro-economy. The scientific elite in your hypothesis world would have to transcend the reality of endogenously induced uncertainty cycles.
axe863 7 months ago
@AceObrin Another example...Pre 2007, Individual risk levels were significantly reduced via well diversified Gaussian optimized portfolios, insurance derivatives etc whilst network densification spiked, agents structured on low risk, concave error optimization accrued etc... led to ever increasing systemic fragility.
This is the same general dynamic that occurs in ecosystems after prolonged periods of excess natural or induced stabilization make the structure fragile to x type colored noise
axe863 7 months ago
@AceObrin 4. How will dynamic adjustment take place if individuals are content with their current positions and all consumption levels are fixed regardless of their response to a dynamic economy? 5. How will non-accounted for externalities be priced in? 6. How will individuals well-being be maximized under energy based optimization when it conflicts with utility maximization? etcc etc ....Dont respond with it will just happen.It wasnt correct the first time and it wont be correct this time.
axe863 7 months ago
@grimslider75 You're not an advocate, yet want secular distributism? How will you distribute?
newb2yutube 1 year ago
@newb2yutube
with the help of technology
grimslider75 1 year ago
@newb2yutube
by the aid of technology. What is human innovation and creativity for? Wars and commercial manipulation of societies? I assume not, but history fails to show me that, as humans, we have done anything to move past the slave state of society, so to speak.
grimslider75 1 year ago
@axe863 In 1934, a week of 16 hours for everyone between 25-45 was estimated as sufficient to maintain the social mechanism. Mechanization has since compounded several times. The social mechanism has the capacity to furnish everyone with the market equivalent of at least $80,000/yr of purchasing power, and do it sustainably by eliminating useless redundancy and obsolescence. Take a look up. Over 200b stars in the MW, and ~50m earthlike planets in habitable zones. You'd choose janitorial work?
AceObrin 7 months ago
@AceObrin "Over 200b stars in the MW, and ~50m earthlike planets in habitable zones. You'd choose janitorial work?" o_O Ok....... anyway. You think that individuals perform equally independent of incentive. I would love to see your evidence against the well established fact that individuals alter their behavior to different incentives.
axe863 7 months ago
@axe863 Despite what you may have convinced yourself, you're incapable of reading thoughts. Not once did I say or allude to the idea that individuals perform equally, ever, under any conditions. If everyone had equal consumption rights, the people with natural proficiency would be allowed to have their talents flourish, rather than struggle just to stay alive. The social mechanism (in a Technate) would exist to support the highest standard of living possible with current tech and resources.
AceObrin 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AceObrin I meant perform equally within their potential. This is what I meant when I said "You think that individuals perform equally independent of incentive.I would love to see your evidence against the well established fact that ====> individuals alter their behavior to different incentives"
axe863 7 months ago
Socialized gains and socialized losses.Beautiful lol. What is the mechanism by which inefficiency is reduced ====> lets say a huge number of people want to make art even though 95% of the people who partake fully in that venture ...are horrific artists. What is their downside risk of being completely horrible at their chosen profession........ absolutely nothing.
axe863 7 months ago
@AceObrin the only thing that keeps your "proficiency"
alive is your own version of HARDCORISM. you wana make
beautiful art in this world prepare for a war from birth with
everything simply cuz its not set up to KNOW how to SUSTAIN
the amazingness within the system..........you gotta kick ass
and take names (when did we not?) AND MAKE ART!!!!!!!!!!
McmullenEJ 5 months ago
@newb2yutube
"Yes, in a transition period(few years), you could not consume more energy than is allocated to you."
Then why will everyone be given energy certificates. If the ability to consume will be unbounded, why set up a system that dictates the quantity that can be consumed.
"However, in a fully operable Technate, I wouldn't see how anyone could even consume more than is available to them."
How in the world can we produce infinite goods/services? LOL
axe863 2 years ago
Do you have the brain power to even think about this yourself?
Do you know what supply and demand is? Well there is your answer. There will be a measurement of what is consumed. It will take a few years to develop the information needed. THAT is the reason for the Energy cards. After that, demand can be measured and then we can reach equilibrium. However, there will still be a little leftover created just in case someone or some people need extra things. Understand?
newb2yutube 2 years ago
@axe863: There's nothing that says that you can't have a democratic technocracy. It seems to me that any time someone introduces a political idea that is different it automatically gets labeled as communist.
LTS1287 1 year ago
@LTS1287 There are no "kinds of Technocracy". There is only one that was developed by the Technical Alliance and later became known as the Technocracy Study Course. Decisions are NOT made by a democratic process of elections. That is clearly stated in the Study Course. So you are completely wrong and most likely given incomplete or wrong information on Technocracy.
newb2yutube 1 year ago
@LTS1287 Decisions will be based on the requirements of society as determined by continuous research, within the prudent use of resources and the conservation of energy. It is an administration of science.
The appointment of the administration uses a method of nomination from below and appointment from above. So, It is democratic but not in regards to the operation of the Technate. Also, people in their own fields of work are qualified to vote for the position.
newb2yutube 1 year ago
Does Technocracy believe in Genetic Engineering, Social Darwinism, and Eugenics? Does it support Systematic Genocide and forced sterilization of the unproductive human beings in society?
Human Rights, ethics, and morality would go against many things that a total scientific system supports.
plutocratarianism 2 years ago
@plutocratarianism This is a science administration...Their is NO believing. Only facts and open source information to get things done. Facts cannot fight facts. This is the most humanitarian, secular idea if there ever was one. Forcing people to do things is just a part of the contract society, price system construct. It seems you are WAY too deep into conspiracy crap. I suggest you give that up. Besides, you are missing the biggest point. The price system isn't capable of working long term.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
@plutocratarianism Please read more and or go to the technocracy Technate website if you have many questions. But there is a warning. We do not welcome trolls or people who are lazy and do not read the information. Serious discussions are welcomed.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
Before I discovered this movement, I was a socialist, but, socialism has a bad track record, and is outdated for our society. A society that is ruled by those with intellectual credibility is our portal to the future. No more people like sarah palin running for positions of authority. We must unite, in order to advance as a society.
Blodslav 2 years ago
@Blodslav
Thanks for the comment. Though, I think the socialist track record is deserved cause it doesn't work. Intentions are a lot better than a Capitalist system. However, they still share the same body of the price system.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
Daikini0 is correct about some aspects of the Technocratic system. If the people of the North American Continent have to be willing to accept it and it does seem to disregard the human element. After all, is that not what made this country what it is, people wanting a better life for themselfs and more material goods then working hard to get it.
davedavedaveannoy1 2 years ago
@dave
People will need to agree to this idea. That is why we need people to spread the information. Human element? Wrong. Technology and resources made this country what it is. The price system isn't capable of handling a high energy conversion society. There are other odds and ends that contribute to it's own demise. If people want a better life, and survive, then the only solution for them is Technocracy Technate design. Otherwise, chaos replaces the their greedy ambitions at some point.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
This is the first point in technate theories what I disagree. Chaos will never replace price system. The reason why I think this, is simple. A system's vitality is depending only on one thing. The people's will to keep it up. And if a class of a power hungry man can convince the masses that this is good, it will kept up. Good or bad, but won't destroy itself. It will have crysis, but will be renewed by it's politicans, and people will assist blindly. Even if there is a lot better alternative.
Daikini0 2 years ago
So, you think constant degrading of materials and energy in the most inefficient methods is sustainable and wouldn't cause chaos at some point?
Well, your wrong again. We either turn into something else, or go into chaos. Chaos, meaning millions will die because of our available resources will not be distributed adequately because of a system money collapse and the fact that the price system destroys our resource base in the name of more growth. So, I don't understand your point.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
No, no, I agree that chaos occurs, yes, you can see the crysis and remember 1929. But the order is always restored by the masters of money. The system is emerging again from the chaos, and that is mainly because they have the support of the population, the people need only few new face to believe everything will be better. That's what I am saying. You are right about the chaos, but it won't cause the collapse.
Daikini0 2 years ago
@Daikini0
So, This is all a worthless cause because people are stupid and controlled by disinformation and political belief systems? I'm not denying this. However, you are wrong when you say this way of life will continue. When the system collapses, as it must...who will have the "power"...it would be with people who can get things done...who would that be?...but technicians, teachers, engineers, etc. SKILL will be the most important 'commodity' Politicians have none, so your argument is moot.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
@newb2yutube Well politicians are good at one thing, lying... lol you could call that a skill
Blodslav 2 years ago
@Daikini0
There would not be any emergence of another price system if this information is shared and hopefully breaks into the mainstream. It is possible that after a collapse we will create another price system, maybe a little bit different or just the same as before. However, the sustainability of our world will be at a very very high risk. That is the point I'm trying to get across. It is will cause more chaos if we don't get this sustainability under wraps.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
Right, this video is part of spreading information, Technocracy would need much more like this. I am absolutely sure, a collapsing price - or money based - system creates another, because people got used to it. Sustainability I think is easier. People also got used to poverty. It is part of the history, so they will take it natural if there will be famine, suffer. Just look at 2nd world war. Everyone fought and suffered for some stupid ideas, and more power just because politicans said.
Daikini0 2 years ago
The problem with Technocracy is the same what was with marxism, they told many intelligent thing about how to make a new, highly efficent system of an economical world. But obviously misses the human view. Technocracy should be revised to make it more close to human being, make realistic ideas, how to create this society, how to start, what to compromise in first times, where to begin. And of course what to do with human nature, what always was selfish. These won't change only by circumstances.
Daikini0 2 years ago
@Daikini0 We have answers to most of those questions. If you wish to join as a social activist, then do so.
Aren't you being presumptuous, arrogant, in "knowing" the 'human' aspect? Or even judging it as a fallacy of this kind of system?
We have VERY realistic plans. As for plans of social activism, transition, etc...I suggest you visit the technocracytechnate website. Ask your questions their, for the answers are too long and numerous for Youtube.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
I visited the website. You are right, youtube is not the best for discuss such complex things, but this is more popular site, and more people come here. For example, I would never gone to that website by myself. Technocracy needs the majority of people. I doubt it will reach the majority of people, and I think most of the people can't be convinced by rational conversations. And this could mean big problem. I don't want to be arrogant, just be realistic. This movement is wonderful.
Daikini0 2 years ago
And I support it with all my thoughts. But this enthusiasm shouldn't be blind. I guess you are rational man too. And if you are, you can see the politics won't just give up the rulership. It is few to create a good alternative. Even if the politicans' system fails, they will keep their power, because they have the most important strategical resource: the ability to control the masses.
Daikini0 2 years ago
@Daikini0 We will not, and you can't change the design. It is a scientific social system. Meaning it's based on science....Real stuff. No beliefs, voting on ethics, etc. Problems would be dealt with FACTS. Facts cannot fight facts. It would change and evolve into whatever science sees fit. Otherwise you have beliefs fighting beliefs. Understand? Revised? how can you revise science???
newb2yutube 2 years ago
Hey, relax :)
There is nothing bad with facts, science. I am mathematican. It is matter of theory and practice what I am talking about. What I am pointing on, that most of the people can't be convinced by facts. Not because Technocracy is wrong, people are wrong. Just think about that if I tell that most of the people never realize that there are problems with society, and not with leading politicans. Politicans will never do it a lot better. Simply because they are as uneducated and...
Daikini0 2 years ago
... unaware of the problems' roots. And as long as people blame the persons themselves, they won't desire the change in society level. Fact: no politican would do it better. People's belief: If I choose an another one, everything will be fine. Rational conclusion: Masses will support political based system with voting rich people instead thinking what to do better on higher levels. I miss a serious communication level between masses and technocratic people. One proof...
Daikini0 2 years ago
... just look at your video's popularity. Now it has 2833 views. Search only one Obama or G. W. Bush video and click any of them. The have videos over 1 million views. The masses are with them. They are fed by hate, love, speculations, but not by facts. None of them are good, their will of having change efficenty of society is weak, they need power. And they have the masses. Is what I wrote clear?
Daikini0 2 years ago
They have the masses.
You mean like they have all the fake information and may be brainwashed? That is too bad for them... but has nothing to do with information presentations on Technocracy technate material.
If you want to educate yourself and be of some use in getting this information out... then do so.
But... otherwise you are part of the problem and there is no shortage of 'parts of the problem'.
So. Do something positive and be a part of some change.
TBonePickensetc 2 years ago
what differs the Soviet Gosplan from a technate "producing adundance for each citizen"?
StruhDaehYm 2 years ago
There would be no differences in any industrial function currently applied today if a technate were established. We have the current capabilities to produce an abundance with little wastage or ecological consequences whether it be the in a democracy, fascism, capitalism, or technocracy....science is science. So your question is foolish. Now, about the Soviet Gosplan...there is no correlation to such an idea....they are completely different things. Please read the Technocracy Study Course.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
You've studied the course, if it's worth it i'll do that after I'm done with my bacchelor.
From what I grasped, through the buzzwords, is that the technocrats intend to hand over the command over natural resources and over the means of production to a pannel of mathematicians, engineers and scientists (i.e. "technical experts").
But the Soviet Gosplan was exactly that. Therefore I ask what makes them different, newb2yutube.
StruhDaehYm 2 years ago
There are no buzzwords that we use. It is what it is...technical experts. Since you have not read the required reading for understanding, you are wasting my time and showing your real ignorance. As I've said before they are different. One is a Price system, and the other is NOT.
So, you are asking something that is completely frivolous. Why, I wonder.
Please, if you wish to make wild assumptions, I suggest you READ the study course before coming to these conclusions/assumptions.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
what is it you propose then? a distribution system like the one that the British had during the war? the study course is bloody long. it would be great find out first what it is about.
not a minute of your is wasted if advertise it properly here in public on the net.
StruhDaehYm 2 years ago
I understand your point. Still, our job isn't to make this information 'sexy' or brainwash people with it. It is an entirely different system. It is completely independent of ANY ideas. It is also a must that people read to understand this. If you want to understand the technate design then look at the other videos with Arvid Peterson and/or read the last 2 chapters in the technocracy study course. That is the best shortcut I can think of.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
This is about a new Technological social design. that IS expressed in this video. So, advertisement is correct. If you want to understand the design then follow my previous comment.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
The Soviet plan was based on a Price System.. the ruble. It also was run by politicians, particularly Stalin. There was a person named Alexander Bagdanov that predated what you are talking about as to Gosplan. His ideas originated the ideas of systems theory. The idea of energy accounting is connected with Technocracy technate concepts. Very different than Gosplan. Check into Bagdanov and take a look at the broader information on the technate design.
TBonePickensetc 2 years ago
I deleted you previous comment...sorry. I pressed the wrong thing.
Remember that Technocracy is a distributive method that would take advantage of the technology currently available. Where the current price system fails(efficiency, jobs, creativity) because of technology, the Technocracy Technate would take advantage because of its' scientific design.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
Hitler and the Nazis could be described as Technocrats, but their Greed and Lust for Power lead them to wage countless wars to exterminate millions of people.
If it wasn't for the human nature aspect of the technocratic system, it would be a utopian system.
XionXXXX 2 years ago
Wow, that is some very strange logic Xion. It's like comparing apples to your shit stains. Very different things.
The nazis were a political organization/militia. They did not have specialties in certain fields of science. They did not employ an energy accounting system nor wanted one. Technocracy is an administration of Science based on thermoeconomics.
Please read the Technocracy Study Course, you do not understand the material.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
Psychology or behavior of Humans has no connection to these ideas. This is a proposed functional system. Wasting time thinking about how humans would react in this system is like staring at a blank wall. Nothing is gained in the experience and you're just wasting your time.
Utopia is a misnomer. Doesn't exist. Functional governance...YES!
newb2yutube 2 years ago
i don't like hitler either but there's still no need to exagerate. there was only one war he started
StruhDaehYm 2 years ago
Economics is, sadly, not a science. It's based on dogmas, unproven concepts, political currents and arbitrary abstractions. With every new crisis you will get a dozen of new concepts and theories and with each new policy implemented a dozen of unforseeable problems arise. Sadly noone will ever try an alternative.
Experimenting with alternatives fell out of fashion when the first peasant starved under Lenin's planned economy.
StruhDaehYm 2 years ago 14
There is a difference here. This isn't an alternative that can be chosen. After long analysis and statistics proving your comment. It is realized that this WILL happen. FEMA was a good example of understanding this, it was after all created by technocrats.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
Or maybe I'm just TOO optimistic. ; )
Still, something needs to be done.
newb2yutube 2 years ago
@StruhDaehYm As I recall, there was an economic model based on real science, authored by Leibniz, not less. But since economy is too important to everyone, and since everyman has troubles comprehending calculus needed for Physical Economics...
Helltamirre 1 year ago
wasteful to the extreme...
djwaugust 2 years ago
don't worry about it, you'll make the right decision when the time comes
00AgentMan 2 years ago
I think we can get this off the ground. But for me the first step was to get healthy! I have learned from David Wolfe and Daniel Vitalis I have been drinking a superfood smoothie every day for a week and Im starting to feel amazing Now I have to fix my money issues (unemployed) then I will dig into technocracy and I think we can create the world we want LETS DO IT!
SCOTTDAVIDSON32 2 years ago 6
I am really interested in technocracy, and think that technocracy is the best way forward for society. However I live in th UK and unfortunately there isn't a technate for this country, I know that Europe attempted to create a technate for Europe in France in the early 20th centuary. If anyone knows of any information concerning recent technocratic developments within Europe please let me know thank you.
The study guide is good, check it out
lanxatdadisco 3 years ago 3
You should check the Wikipedia of your language for Technocracy that would be a first start
lvecsey 3 years ago
Hi, I'm catalan and I'm interested in Technocracy but it's difficult for me to understand english, so there's any explanation in other language like spanish or something like that?
Thanks!
McAko 3 years ago
Thanks TBone, for this video, also for those interested check out "BlogTalkRadio/Technocracy" wealth of info there also.
ngonea 3 years ago 4
Lots of fun getting good information out... As an all volunteer group.
TBonePickensetc 3 years ago 2
Technical Alliance information.
The root of the word Technocracy and its meaning come from the word technique . The root of this word is the Greek, techne ("art","craft", or "skill"), which linguists have further traced to the Indo-European root, teks - (to weave, or fabricate). From the earliest times, technique has been distinguished from other modes of human action by its purposive, rational, step-by-step way of doing things.
TBonePickensetc 3 years ago 3