Technocracy ascendant
- Thread starter Charles II
- Start date
Admiral Canaris
Banned
I thought the very point of technocracy was putting the technocrats in charge.
Appeal to ignorance; you could use the same argument to claim that a Communist system wouldn't necessarily be corrupt. The reason democracy works better against corruption than authoritarian systems is that power isn't concentrated to the top. There is transparency and responsibility not merely to your superiors, but to the people.
I'm just a dumb Swede; could you give me a clearer example of how you suppose that would work?
Agreed, while it has not ever been really implemented on a large scale, it is erroneous to talk of all of this as completely theoretical stuff and never before tested in some form.
Vault-Scope
Banned
Technocracy is about putting the most competent in charge, systematically. It is 2 + 2 = 4.
I wonder what self-declared "democrats", like tony blaire for example(who managed to pull out a war opposed by 90-80% of britons), would think about that.
These arguments are not quiet correct. The struggle of power is about option, whever one win throught being skilled or by cheating.
Technocracy is 100% taking the first option. Democracy? Democracy is just an another ground for this struggle.
Last edited:
Admiral Canaris
Banned
And in practice, that means a small elite of scientists, big business and what have you. And small elites rule the way that's good for the small elite. Whenever the government isn't responsible to the people, it's only responsible to itself.
In a democracy, compromises must be made. The voters are required to elect the candidate that best represents their views, not the one that does so perfectly (because unless they launch their own candidacies, that won't be an option). If people are very opposed to the war, they can elect anti-war Congressmen (or MPs, for Britain).
china?
I think modern (since Nixon in China) China might count as a technocracy. IMHO, Chuckie II and Trebuchet're right; IMHO the Bush II Administration HAS done a better job, despite its underperformance in our context.
I think the best you could hope for would be for it to be like modern China. Like all Communist countries, you have to be smart to be part of the elite. It hardly kept them from oppressing their people over the Olympics by enforcing a work holiday around Beijing and letting companies and the people pay for it, or letting all-too-many be die or displaced to build the latest-and-greatest Three Gorges Dam. I'm not trading pebble-bed nuclear reactors for Tibet, no thank you. They will continue to see innovation disadvantages vs democracy because of the lack of freedom of speech and conscience, albeit fewer than when they were economically communist.
The idea that we can easily figure out the optimal response to any situations has been known to be wrong since the introduction of chaos theory (google the Butterfly Effect). It boils down to a simulation problem. Because reality's vastly complicated, to get a good enough model to do that kind of thing, you need a level of computing power that we won't see for at least a century.
Vault-Scope wrote
I think modern (since Nixon in China) China might count as a technocracy. IMHO, Chuckie II and Trebuchet're right; IMHO the Bush II Administration HAS done a better job, despite its underperformance in our context.
I think the best you could hope for would be for it to be like modern China. Like all Communist countries, you have to be smart to be part of the elite. It hardly kept them from oppressing their people over the Olympics by enforcing a work holiday around Beijing and letting companies and the people pay for it, or letting all-too-many be die or displaced to build the latest-and-greatest Three Gorges Dam. I'm not trading pebble-bed nuclear reactors for Tibet, no thank you. They will continue to see innovation disadvantages vs democracy because of the lack of freedom of speech and conscience, albeit fewer than when they were economically communist.
The idea that we can easily figure out the optimal response to any situations has been known to be wrong since the introduction of chaos theory (google the Butterfly Effect). It boils down to a simulation problem. Because reality's vastly complicated, to get a good enough model to do that kind of thing, you need a level of computing power that we won't see for at least a century.
Vault-Scope wrote
Yeah, we know we can produce a system that makes the most tanks, if you don't care about shoes or food or glue. Just think about it a bit, what's the right allocation between...everything? How do you implement innovation in food and shoes while doing your tanks? If you have answers, tell the Chinese so they can know what to do with their burdensome state factories.
Ok...
Knock technocracies all you want, but they saved Italy numerous times. I'd rather have an educated individual who has experience in their field in chrage rather than someone voted into office based on advertising or popularity.
Sure it seems cold, if there is a problem the technocrat gives a solution that may appear cold. But still, an educated solution is better than a thought out one, i.e. based on voters' opinions. Many think along the ridiculous liberal agenda, that the educational system will put out the worst leaders, but ifthe system is merocratic, then those who can't achieve positives is removed and those who can't are removed. So those who know what works will achieve leadership and know what is best fo0r society. I could care less if this means I be sterilized as long as future generations achieve their greatest potential.
Knock technocracies all you want, but they saved Italy numerous times. I'd rather have an educated individual who has experience in their field in chrage rather than someone voted into office based on advertising or popularity.
Sure it seems cold, if there is a problem the technocrat gives a solution that may appear cold. But still, an educated solution is better than a thought out one, i.e. based on voters' opinions. Many think along the ridiculous liberal agenda, that the educational system will put out the worst leaders, but ifthe system is merocratic, then those who can't achieve positives is removed and those who can't are removed. So those who know what works will achieve leadership and know what is best fo0r society. I could care less if this means I be sterilized as long as future generations achieve their greatest potential.
I reject your view of a technocracy in practice. Why? Because:
Technocracy : A form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control; "technocracy is described as that society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge".
Simple logic dictates that it's hard (if not impossible) to scientifically prove that having a few people in charge (example: one guy to do all the economics stuff, one guy to do all the health care stuff) in stead of a system in which there are many specializations, many commisions and many parts that correct/regulate each other.
People also (conviniently) forget that it would be against the ideology of a technocracy to ignore the man in the street.
Example: How do they calculate the consumer confidence index? They ask people.
IMHO that depends entirely on your priorities. And in "good" government all decisions are being made in the best interest of the people.
So one could make the best possible projection to determine if there are any tanks needed. Included in this projection could be numerous war-time sistuations and in the case of China they could possibly notice that their economic might (and the dependency of the world on China) is possibly more of a defensive weapon than 10K tanks. I'm not an economic/military specialist so I'm just guessing possible approaches. But frankly I think it could be possible to calculate a little more and guess a little less.
Anyways, back on-topic, sorta.
I believe there are more than enough reasons to merit a distrust of populism/democracy. So more than enough reasons for a technocracy to emerge at any point in the past.
I suppose since there's almost no popular basis for the smart guys to design the system it would have to be a situation in which there's an absolute NEED for experts in charge. Apoclayptic situations perhaps? Oncoming meteors? Pandemics? (a more rampant Spanish Flu?) Rampant pollution? (different industrial revolution?)
Or maybe the scientific could have been a counter-weight for reactionary (religious?) powers? I can see resistance movements centering around universities and such.
Grey Wolf
Donor
You CAN'T elect someone when a crisis blows up. You'd have to be clairvoyant to know in advance, when you get your once-in-five-years chance to vote
And when all the parties are the same anyway, it really doesn't make any difference
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
I think this perfectly captures exactly what is wrong with technocracy. (and also communism and even democracy) You say that it is against the ideology of technocracy to ignore the common people, but surely it is also against the ideology of communism to ignore the common people. Even in feudalism, the ideology calls for the lords to defend the people as well as provide capital for improvements, etc, in exchange for a share of the crop. However, ideology means little in practice. What really matters are incentives.
What is the incentive structure for leaders in democracy? It rewards leaders for actions leading to reelection. Note that this does not equal what is good for the country/people, which is why democracy is not perfect, but with an educated and motivated citizenry, it is quite close. The incentive for technocrats is to maximize their own welfare, which would preclude actions that destroy the country that pays them, but allows for a whole assortment of other actions that benefit no one but them. Why would a technocrat care about whether the commoners are better off? Plato would say that the technocrat has to be brainwashed from youth and prohibited from possession of wealth, but I doubt even that would work.
We both have a partial point.
In reality ANY form of government, when suffering faulty design, can ignore its own reason of existence/ideology. Hence why there should be checks and balances to ensure that the government steps over a certain line. If for example a government violates the constitution by passing an anti-religion alw, then there should be someone/something to force the government back in line. Hence the separation of branches.
In my opinion it's perfectly possible to design a system in which it is "impossible" to step over the line. Even better. I think it's also perfectly possible to design a system in which the "politicians" (a profession that has no reason to exist) don't WANT to step beyond the boundaries.
In about the same way that a civil servant can't/won't start calling shots concerning a completely different department.
IMHO it isn't. I, even with all my effort and time dedicated to it, will not be able to educate myself enough to know enough about every possible thing to form funded opinions about the issues that are important for my country.
The world has gotten too complicated. There's too much information. There are too many factors. The world is quite different than it was 100 years ago.
I reject the idea that in a technocracy, there would be any actual technocrats. There don't have to be.
Listen. Why do people want to do a good job, at any job? Because, if they're working somewhere efficient, they have incentives. If for example you clean toilets then you probably haver a supervisor who'll check your work. Hence why you want to do a good job. Otherwise you won't get paid or you get fired.
Exactly the reason why the members of a technocratic government will want to do a good job. Because they'll get judged by their work. And if they don't meet the objectives set forth, they get fired. Simple as that.
And logically if anyone (common people, a group, a lobby, ...) can prove that any part of the technocratic system could do a more efficient job, then this part should be held accountable for their inefficiency.
Admiral Canaris
Banned
Of course; that is part of the necessary institutional inertia of the democratic system which provides us with some stability. This is important if we want a functioning government; democratic systems are always a balance between popular power and governmental efficiency.
If it is something like the war, you can vote against it in the next five-year period.
Valid point; I'm Swedish, so I know.
And God knows I complain about this a lot. Still, this would be a sign that the people approve of the party lines, or else it would leave room for new parties.(Unless it's like in Sweden, where we have a proportional system and certain parties have a monopoly on power...)
Admiral Canaris
Banned
I reject your view of a technocracy in practice. Why? Because:
Technocracy : A form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control; "technocracy is described as that society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge".
Simple logic dictates that it's hard (if not impossible) to scientifically prove that having a few people in charge (example: one guy to do all the economics stuff, one guy to do all the health care stuff) in stead of a system in which there are many specializations, many commisions and many parts that correct/regulate each other.
People also (conviniently) forget that it would be against the ideology of a technocracy to ignore the man in the street.
Example: How do they calculate the consumer confidence index? They ask people.
So the model is competing bureaucratic agencies? That doesn't usually work very well, see Nazi Germany for an extreme example (I'm not talking about crimes, the Holocaust or anything here right now, just sheer inefficiency). You either have some coordinating authority above that (which then still forms the embryo of a ruling elite) or it's chaos if everyone attempts to enforce his views against those of the others.
Just how large would this "upper class" of scientists and experts to make up the bureaucracy be, anyway? It'd still be a pretty small percentage of the population.
I think I can sum up my opposition in two points without wading into quotes.
1. The imperfectability of knowledge. As you have repeatedly said, "popularity" isn't a determinant of whether something is the best action, but it will have an impact, since in the example of building a tunnel or a bridge, if everyone hates the tunnel (for reasons unknown) then the tunnel is likely to have less utility than a bridge everyone would use.
Now I am sure you have changed your mind at some point. Most people do. Now its possible that once they built this tunnel, people would lose their opposition and find that actually it is quite acceptable. Or they might not. How do you go about calculating this beyond guess work? You can ask people yes but as I just said people are subject to change.
Yes there is a consumer confidence index. Its a guide rather than a hard and fast rule. If it was so accurate people would not make mistakes in business. It should be apparent, as demonstrated by the recent activities as anything else, that this is not the case. The fact scientists repeatedly pour money into researching dead ends is another. Before you try something you cannot know the results with complete certainty. You say you can solve unknowns by walking over hills. Yes you can. Walking over hills however is expensive. For an optimal result you want to walk over the ones which will give you the best result rather than wasting time and resources.
Bureaucracy already runs all this. The scientific method obviously works fine for determining how something should be done but it is not the optimal question of determining "what" should be done. You can draw up probabilities, which is what economists and scientists do all the time, and go with what is the most likely outcome, but that shall not always be the route which gives the "best" output.
Faced with two rival plans one with a 60% chance of success and another with 40% chance of success, but with a greater payout if it comes off, which should you go with? Your scientific method has led you to those numbers but it will take you no further. This is where you have to make a political choice to gamble based upon your convictions.
2. The lack of leadership. Who judges these technocrats if there is no leadership? You have said you do not know how to judge what is the best policy:
So what stops a technocrat telling you everything will be fine in five years and everything is going according to plan even if your conditions are apparently getting worse? You don't know any better right, because your perceived self-interest may not actually lead to your best outcome. You might imagine things could be better and yet be wrong in that belief.
I think if you begin to argue the public are incapable of reason your on very slippery ground. You may be correct in some instances as people often make stupid choices but it is the point of freedom to let them do so. People are also convinced to make stupid choices by technocrats every day. You say I accept the scientific method for modern medicine. I can however judge if my medicine worked or not. If it didn't I will try a different doctor. With government I can determine to elect someone else if the current bunch are not performing to my satisfaction.
You say the army will exist to enforce the "best" option is enforced. But it presumes that this army will be unbiased to its only policy choices. You are effectively creating a system where the bureaucrats judge their own performance. See the Soviet Union for how well that works. Corruption will be rampant and your "best" option will be laid aside for what is popular, but instead of the popularity of the masses what shall matter is that of this technocratic elite.
You say everyone has a supervisor. Well, in a democratic society that almost works, under the premise that the voting public "supervise" the elected officials who are meant to supervise the bureaucracy which flows downwards. In your system the bureaucracy just exists. It has no elected supervision and the public get no say about whether something is truely the best or no.
After all if they do get such a vote you have effectively just produced a democracy.
1. The imperfectability of knowledge. As you have repeatedly said, "popularity" isn't a determinant of whether something is the best action, but it will have an impact, since in the example of building a tunnel or a bridge, if everyone hates the tunnel (for reasons unknown) then the tunnel is likely to have less utility than a bridge everyone would use.
Now I am sure you have changed your mind at some point. Most people do. Now its possible that once they built this tunnel, people would lose their opposition and find that actually it is quite acceptable. Or they might not. How do you go about calculating this beyond guess work? You can ask people yes but as I just said people are subject to change.
Yes there is a consumer confidence index. Its a guide rather than a hard and fast rule. If it was so accurate people would not make mistakes in business. It should be apparent, as demonstrated by the recent activities as anything else, that this is not the case. The fact scientists repeatedly pour money into researching dead ends is another. Before you try something you cannot know the results with complete certainty. You say you can solve unknowns by walking over hills. Yes you can. Walking over hills however is expensive. For an optimal result you want to walk over the ones which will give you the best result rather than wasting time and resources.
Bureaucracy already runs all this. The scientific method obviously works fine for determining how something should be done but it is not the optimal question of determining "what" should be done. You can draw up probabilities, which is what economists and scientists do all the time, and go with what is the most likely outcome, but that shall not always be the route which gives the "best" output.
Faced with two rival plans one with a 60% chance of success and another with 40% chance of success, but with a greater payout if it comes off, which should you go with? Your scientific method has led you to those numbers but it will take you no further. This is where you have to make a political choice to gamble based upon your convictions.
2. The lack of leadership. Who judges these technocrats if there is no leadership? You have said you do not know how to judge what is the best policy:
MadAce said:
So what stops a technocrat telling you everything will be fine in five years and everything is going according to plan even if your conditions are apparently getting worse? You don't know any better right, because your perceived self-interest may not actually lead to your best outcome. You might imagine things could be better and yet be wrong in that belief.
I think if you begin to argue the public are incapable of reason your on very slippery ground. You may be correct in some instances as people often make stupid choices but it is the point of freedom to let them do so. People are also convinced to make stupid choices by technocrats every day. You say I accept the scientific method for modern medicine. I can however judge if my medicine worked or not. If it didn't I will try a different doctor. With government I can determine to elect someone else if the current bunch are not performing to my satisfaction.
You say the army will exist to enforce the "best" option is enforced. But it presumes that this army will be unbiased to its only policy choices. You are effectively creating a system where the bureaucrats judge their own performance. See the Soviet Union for how well that works. Corruption will be rampant and your "best" option will be laid aside for what is popular, but instead of the popularity of the masses what shall matter is that of this technocratic elite.
You say everyone has a supervisor. Well, in a democratic society that almost works, under the premise that the voting public "supervise" the elected officials who are meant to supervise the bureaucracy which flows downwards. In your system the bureaucracy just exists. It has no elected supervision and the public get no say about whether something is truely the best or no.
After all if they do get such a vote you have effectively just produced a democracy.
How long did the first world war take? You could start a horrible war and finish it, within the time between two elections. Easily.
Even more now than before. How long does it take to destroy civilization? 40 minutes?
And how long for a conflict to errupt that will harm the global economy for decades to come? A few weeks?
I'm Belgian, and I should know too. My country is in an "unprecendented" political crisis over nothing. Honestly. NOTHING. Not a single political party (nor a single newspaper or TV station) is willing to break the issue down and thus negate the war-mongering (literally) language of various party leaders.
This while polls point out people don't give a fuck. Note that this game has been going on for at least 15 years now... The evolution leading up to the "problem" even longer. The electorate apparently never saw it coming.
Frankly, it's painfully obvious the people are so easily manipulated that politicians can do whatever they want... So it's politicians who are dictating the political agenda. Not the people.
Did I say "competing"? Can't remember... Well, maybe competing in about the same way as the legislative and executive branches are "competing" in your beloved democracy.
I also never said there wouldn't be an coordinating organs. But that would be their job. Coordinating. Not leading. Logically those organs that coordinate are purely advisory organs and nothing else. Besides. If anyone can prove that they're working against the aforedecided objectives then the people responsible (or the departments) can be put out of "power" (for the sake of easy communication I'm pretending there would be individuals with actual power).
So as far as I can see there would be far less of an upperclass than in a democracy. Please, don't try to deny that families like the Kennedy's and the Bushes aren't aristocratic families with immense amounts of power. And please don't tell me people like the Clintons and Dick Cheney aren't part of an upper-class... BTW, we have a name for this upper-class. They're called "politicians".
With all my experience in bureaucracy (I'm a clerk
) I can only tell you that the non-politically appointed members of the system are so very afraid to mess up and lose their job that they're in fact very, very efficient. And too swamped in work to be going after any power. Of course it has an impact. The opinion of people always has an impact. Why do you think I'm suggesting it would be a major factor in the technocratic decision making?
But I'm most certainly also saying that the opinion of the people isn't all that valuable either. Look at the Eifel Tower. Everyone in Paris hated it while it was being built. I challenge you to find 100 people in Paris today that want to have that tower demolished. And I'd say it has more than made up for any costs made to build it.
Also if that bridge in my town ever gets built I promise you that it WILL be used to the fullest. Even by people who previously opposed it.
So your strange suggestion that people will use a much needed bridge less because they opposed it is kinda weird. And it most certainly isn't a major factor.
Exactly! So the only thing you CAN calculate is the projected traffic congestion and the NEED for that bridge. Trust me, if it's needed enough then it WILL be used.
Did you know that there are indexes that "predict" in how much peoples' opinions will evolve? I've tried finding info about them but I've actually only seen it being used in practice.
BTW, your argument that peoples' opinions are subject to change (depending on mood, hunches, ... anything but cold hard fact, otherwise the opinions would be predictable) completely supports the idea that democracies aren't the most efficient system for exactly this reason.
I'll take "a guide" over blind populism any day. And truly you are aware people make mistakes while having all the info? Otherwise people would have stopped smoking a long time ago. They would at least not start smoking.
I'm quite sure the errors of businesses aren't completely to blame on that consumer confidence index...
Actually the reason why scientists pour money in "dead end" research is mostly because that way they don't have to try it in practice. If you want to know if a medecine works then you try it on rats first. This will give you an idea of how it will work on humans. That's one of the major points of science...
I'm happy you finally start to see sense. I agree completely that we should all walk over hills that will give us the best results. Not the hills people want to walk over because the charismatic guy said they would yield the best results.
So you're comortable with science (opposed to populism) determining how something should be done. GOOD!
Now on to the "what" should be done. I agree that's a tricky one. IMHO this would actually depend on the short, mid and long term plans set forth by the government to serve the constitution.
Obviously the plan which best serves your goals. You could have come up with that.
BTW, a government should NOT gamble. Of course a voter shouldn't either. But hell, we all know they do that all the time.
Lack of leadership is a purely psychological barrier in my opinion. People want faces and want leaders. They can not comprehend something can work perfectly fine where the leadership isn't concentrated in one or a few people.
Like I already said. Saveguards. About the same ones you find acceptable for democracy.
BTW, I keep rejecting the notion that there would be a group called "technocrats".
I most certainly did not say the people aren't capapble of reasoning. Many people are. And I even know 2 or 3 people (not including myself) who vote with great care.
I said people, even the smartest ones, can not even BEGIN to know enough to make choices that are funded enough. They have to get 20 university degrees. And that ignoring specializations. They'd have to study 24/7. That's what I said. I said people aren't superbeings. Curse me.
Modern medecine is almsot completely a product of "technocratic" processes. The reason WHY medecine (usually) doesn't kill you is because in stead of the most popular people the most qualified and best trained people got to design the medecine. It's exactly the same as if you would live in a technocratically designed city and you'd choose for the subway in stead for the ground-level maglev after which you would credit the perfectly working subway to your own choice.
The army was just an example of an organ that helps enforce the constitution in some democratic countries. See Turkey where the army has vowed (and acted upon it) to interfere when the seperation between church and state would be broken.
You seem fine with the saveguards present in democracy so why not use the same ones in a technocracy?
The democratic kind of supervising doesn't seem to be working very well...
It's a bit like the employees of a paper mill can decide with "yes" or "no" whhether the scientific staff of a nuclear plant will eat pizza or Chinese. (that comparison is suprisingly accurate)
Yet again you base your opinion on nothing but assumptions. Pretty ironic actually. You assume that the people are able to suprvise the politicians. You assume they have all the info/knowledge to do so. You assume that in "my" (since when did it became mine?) system bureaucracy just exists. You assume the public gets no say. If you would have less selective reading skills you'd realize that I numerously proposed that ANYONE (even that guy in your street who thinks we should overthrow the Lizard Overlords) can dictate policiy if they can prove theirs is most efficient.
EDIT: ON-TOPIC
I think we can all agree (finally) that there are at least good reasons for any shift in a country that would lead to a technocracy. At least in name.
Last edited:
The only way I could see this happening is if some massive catastrophe happens in which the only hope for survival is to grant scientists power to the exclusion of all others. Examples: widespread fatal disease, environmental destruction (whether self-inflicted or not, and may occur from space, such as an asteroid impact), nuclear annihilation, alien invasion.