Technocracy

What if machines did our work for us?

Technocracy movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• technocracy
• energy
• accounting

[TBonePickensetc]

Its not a money system. It is not 'energy credits'. It is an accounting system only.

Do some more reading off Wikipedia.

Also you miss pretty much all of the larger points of why a technate is a good future... sustainability within the resource base. Ha ha.

Keep reading.

Thanks.

[silversoul7]

I'm well aware of the sustainability aspect of Technocracy. I didn't mention that because there are better ways to attain that. As I said, I don't go all the way with Technocracy. I believe there should still be some form of market economy.

[newb2yutube]

@hitssquad Funny.

The price system is economically absurd. Yet you stick with it? Technocracy is not. It is about distributing an abundance at a sustainable level, which money cannot do. No planned obsolescence, shoddy goods, advertising for profit. The T.S.C. helps explain this. Have you read the book?

[MacabreManifesto]

@silversoul7 I think that we could get rid of money if and only if all of our reasonable demand could be met with abundance, this includes labor automation. I don't honestly think that the advancement in automation is there yet because when we have the technology to implement robots for a job then the business owners usually do it to cut costs and increase profit. That's pretty much gospel in capitalism.

[dollarability]

I suspect that the arising technocracy of the future will be constituted by a fusion of a comprehensive global industrial technocracy that will operate as a central coordinating body of the global industrial energy-resource infrastructure that maintains all of the requirements of urban living. Disemployment should be widespread in 20 years given the acceleration of ephemeralization. Within this infrastructure individuals will be able to exchange goods and services as they choose.

[hitssquad]

@newb "The price system is economically absurd."

Please explain.

"The T.S.C. helps explain this. Have you read the book?"

No. Technocracy's exponents and their religious tracts do not seem to be very sophisticated. Why would I read it? In other words, what problem is technocracy seeking to solve?

Have you read this book that explains why technocracy-like attempts to order society from the top down always end in poverty and grief?:

juliansimon. com/writings/Ultimate_Resource

[hitssquad]

"arguments regarding the costs and feasibility of those solutions and by pointing to the possible trade-offs. Cost-benefit, efficacy, efficiency, and effects-assessment become a part of the debate. In addition, a sound analysis takes into account not just . . . the obvious and immediate effects of an economic event, but also the indirect and long-run effects as well (Simon 1998, 681-83)."

[hitssquad]

@newb "No [...] shoddy goods"

When we arbitrarily prevent "shoddiness" of goods, we waste resources. Trade-offs are important to consider. You should read this:

ejsd. org/public/journal_article/16

"Simon was among the first to criticize radical environmentalism for basing its conclusions only on arguments that neglected the logic of opportunity costs, trade-offs, and feasibility. In doing that, he inaugurated a tradition of responding to its proponents and their radical solutions with

[hitssquad]

@newb2yutube "No planned obsolescence, shoddy goods, advertising for profit."

These things involve tradeoffs, and advertising can be censored. For example, cigarette advertising is censored apparently because of a perceived unfairness involved in the fact that it is addictive. Since children are easily manipulated, it might be reasonable to also censor advertising aimed at children -- especially, enticing ads promoting sugary breakfast cereals.

[hitssquad]

@newb2yutube "a lot of what technocracy is all about [is] freedom."

One of the primary purposes of technocracy seems to be to prevent people from consuming very much of something that happens to be naturally cheap and abundant: energy. Besides being economically absurd, since it is fundamentally about arbitrary restriction, it doesn't seem to be all about freedom.

[StopTheMorons]

Who says? I see no reason for it to come to an end, or even why anyone should want to be so badly rid of it. And if replaced, replaced with what exactly? That I find suspect. Admittedly all forms of logo are "just symbolic", but if the symbols still carry valid or important meaning then I think that is a very big deal.

[vman456]

The flag will be replaced or come to an end eventually, so what's the big deal?