Is this the century of Technocracy?

The word "technocracy" was recently thrown around in the media in an attempt to describe Obama's approach to pragmatic government, but "pragmatism" does not fully describe the idea of a technocratic government. I'll let wikipedia do the talking:

"Technocracy is a form of government in which science would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers and technologists who have knowledge, expertise or skills would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists. In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field." ~wikipedia's article on Technocracy

In short, Technocracy is a government in which the scientific method is involved in all levels of the decision making process. It uses the power of reasoning and logic based on observational data to come up with efficient and practical ways to provide the services that government is meant to provide. To that end, the technocratic society somewhat resembles communism, in that it is expected to provide all of its citizens with the necessities of life for free - food, clothing, medicine, shelter, and especially high levels of education. In a technocratic society, knowledge would be the basis of one's merit, and instead of focusing on material goods as a form of wealth, the tecnocratic society would emphasize sustainability and wholeness with the resource base - namely, it would strive to protect the environment while still ensuring that all citizen's physical needs were met.

The concept of money would vanish in such a society, and instead citizens would strive their utmost to improve and advance the arts and sciences, for the betterment of all. Your station in society would be determined not by the quantity of wealth you amass, but by how you benefit society.

Some would argue that this is a form of oligarchy, but keep in mind that education would be free to all - if you wish to rise to the top, you will have the opportunity to do so through hard work and dedication. There is no way for a citizen to have some kind of advantage over another starting at birth. So yes, while elections would no longer occur, it wouldn't matter, because there would be no barriers to rising to lead the nation based on wealth, or race, or physical appearance. Though talent would give someone an advantage in society, it already does so in a capitalist society as is, so there should be no objections based on that alone.

So why technocracy, and why now? Technocracy's merits are that such a society avoids some of the major pitfalls of a capitalist society - namely, the wealth of the nation would not be wasted on trifles. Because all citizens have guaranteed access to the basic necessities, they can focus all of their energy and time on truly improving the human condition, leading to rapid and apparent progress in the sciences and the arts. I feel that now is the time to think of such a society, especially as the obvious pitfalls of our current capitalist republic system are becoming more and more apparent - namely, corruption and waste.

While corruption will always exist, it would never be so obvious and yet still accepted as it is in our current form of government in a technocracy. All citizens would be well educated, and understand how social manipulation can occur, and attempt to put a stop to it wherever possible. Also, instead of rewarding people for manipulation of the markets or other forms of illicit monetary speculation, technocracy rewards citizens for advancing science and the arts - there's an inherent incentive to strive to improve society, rather than an incentive to manipulate the people to your own advantage.

Waste would be largely eliminated in a technocracy. A true technocracy would almost immediately strive to eliminate manual labor with robotics, as manual labor will be seen as a waste of a human life. Humans were meant to be explorers, to paint works of art, to sculpt, to sing, to dance, to experiment - not to clean toilets and to wash dishes. With the labor force now free to pursue the higher arts, the technocracy would focus on preserving the environment - as any scientist recognizes that without the environment, humanity will surely perish in time. Big geo-engineering projects - unheard of in a capitalist society, which would see no profit in it - would become a reality under a technocracy. We would move farmland to vertical farming in cities, develop alternate energy fuels that are better for the environment, and eventually move out into space and terraform other worlds - because it is scientifically feasible and because it benefits our world and our species in particular.

I believe that this century might see the rise of such a society, if only because the first requirement is widespread knowledge of the scientific method and its merits, a requirement that we are fast approaching. There are, however, some basic problems that must be overcome. First, scientists must strive to make their world accessible to all. While the internet is certainly helping, the widespread scientific illiteracy that our society currently suffers under must be addressed. The rising costs of education are also a dangerous hurdle, as there is a real danger of universities and becoming inaccessible to the average American family, and such a development would destroy the foundation upon which technocracy is to be built.

Anyways, that is my spiel, feel free to voice your own thoughts, concerns, questions, etc.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Seeing all these piss ant tropers trying to talk tough makes me laugh. If Matrix were here, he'd laugh too.

My main concern is that technical expertise is not, in general, correlated with personal integrity. An ill-intentioned "technocrat" could cause quite a lot of damage — even more so because of her or his knowledge.

I am certainly in favor of giving positions of power to people who have shown significant expertise in the relevant fields, and I am also obviously in favor or raising the cultural level of the general population; but without a carefully constructed system of checks and balances, a technocracy would plunge into corruption just as quickly as any other heavily centralized system.

Another note: whereas scientific knowledge is certainly desirable, I do not think that it should be pursued to the exclusion of other forms of knowledge. Historical or philosophical expertise can be just as valuable for a society, for example. But in any case, I am fairly optimistic about the spreading of knowledge in our society: whereas universities are both expensive and, for the most part, far too easygoing to be much more than "High School v2.0", online learning is for example becoming very big. Khan Academy and similar sites are doing a superb job, I think.

edited 3rd Mar '12 12:13:01 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Any society can be technocratic in the sense of placing higher value on expertise and scientific training. You could have technocratic democracies, or technocratic dictatorships. The only government model I don't see working with technocratic principles would be theocracy.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Unless you make science a religion.

While I expect that an understanding out how the internet and scientific advancements affect our world is going to be necessary to function, I don't think that's really going to lead to a technocracy of any kind. Generally, civil engineers and scientists like being civil engineers and scientists, and probably aren't interested in pursuing a public office that doesn't have much to do with their skill set. Plus, we would have to see our education system massively overhauled and the elimination of anti-intellectualism in our culture for that to happen.

As for Obama's approach; I don't think that's technocratic. I think he's just more skilled at using modern day tech to reach the people, and a little more aware than many current politicians of how this stuff can and does affect our society. Understanding these things will give many politicians in the future an advantage, because they can shape their platforms as such.

That would make it stop being science.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Man, I wish that we'd hire actual economists to make our economic decisions for us. I also wish that we'd hire doctors to make health care decisions for us.

Instead, we've just got a bunch of grumpy old guys that don't know how the internet works.

Yeah, totally a technocracy.

edited 3rd Mar '12 12:25:01 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

The main problem with strongly centralized systems of the sort that the OP is described is, I think, the ease with which they can be subverted. I do not think that this danger would make it, in principle, impossible to create a well-functioning system of that sort, but that would certainly be a concern that should be addressed while designing it.

Example: one simple thing that a "technocracy" could do is create textbooks of all main disciplines, provide them free of charge to all students, and require that these textbooks will be the ones used during compulsory education. On the face of it, this is not necessarily a bad idea: textbooks as they exists now are hellishly expensive and, frankly, generally of dishearteningly low quality. Skilled, dedicated people could do much better than that.

But in unscrupulous hands, that kind of power could be terrifyingly disruptive. It would literally allow the leadership of a country to rewrite its history, or to discourage progress in directions they disapprove of, and so on.

I am not saying that the idea has no merit; but if one wanted to implement it, they would need a very good answer to "OK, now what would prevent the leadership from abusing this power?"

For all its faults, the leadership of the Vatican is generally of superb cultural quality. And even from a strictly scientific point of view, they have some nifty observatories and quite the number of skilled scientists in their ranks. I suppose that something like that, but more, well, extreme, could easily count as a technocratic theocracy.

edited 3rd Mar '12 12:35:34 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

That about sums it up, discussion over.

Really, "technocracy" is just a buzzword, like meritocracy (though unlike meritocracy usually negatively connotated). Technocracy is no actual system, that is, so there's nothing to discuss.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Also, you must not forget the amount of technocratic leaders in power. For example, Monti in Italy, who is not much of a politician, more of an economist (I think).

In times of crisis, possibly a technocratic government could work, considering that such would be needed to help weather the crisis.

It's a terrible idea and a misuse of the words "knowledge, expertise, or skills." Politicans and businessmen are those with the knowledge, expertise, or skills for managing a government or organization. Science is a method of deduction and discovery, not management and government. Scientists should be used for council and advice on matters pertaining to their fields of study, and politicians and businessmen should have knowledge on how to use existing technology, but those that govern should be chosen based on their ability to manage and govern people.

edited 3rd Mar '12 12:43:16 PM by Culex3

to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee

Didn't you already make this?

Thread

As I've said before, while increasing adeptness to respective technical fields, and actively consulting the resources for proper use, are good ideas, scientists simply aren't politicians. And science is a tool that gives you data, not something that makes decisions for you.

Now using Trivialis handle.

The principal area of expertise of most politicians, as far as I can tell, lies in their ability to look appealing to the general population. After all, that's what makes them more likely to get elected; but of course, such an ability is not directly related to the ability of governing well.

One possible solution, perhaps, might be to make these two abilities correlate: if people learned (and, I would argue, we are learning) to be less easily swindled by facile rhetorical tricks, to place higher value on the candidates' demonstrated expertise, and in hard data about their previous performances, then successful politicians would in general be able to demonstrate a greater level of competence in their tasks.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

And on the flip side, the skills of a lot of scientists are in their ability to make their studies look more legitimate and results to look more relevant than they are. The idea of a technocracy being better than a traditional government lies in a rather false assumption that engineers and scientists wouldn't fall into the same lies and deceptions of politicians if asked to fill seats of a government.

to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee

Oh, scientists are not incorruptible saints, that much is obvious. The scientific community generally holds them*

to stricter standards of behaviour, for the most part, but they can certainly slip and they are just as susceptible to the temptations of power as anybody else.

But still, I think that more scientific and technical knowledge among the policy-makers would be a Very Good Thing.

edited 3rd Mar '12 1:06:20 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Yeah, I agree. But that isn't a system. It's just, well, something that would be a good idea, nothing structural.

Really, Stars, you're blathering in your OP, and there is basically nothing at all of essence in there. So you say you want technocracy, but then you only give them lofty words about what you think it is, and not what it actually would be (according to you), how would function and so on.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

While I do respect your opinion, Stars, I think your idea of a technocracy is unrealistic in many ways.

No worries. And yes, I suppose I do blather a bit, .

Also, I kind of forgot that I had already written a similar thread, so let's try and focus this one on the shape of a technocratic government. Basically, to answer the criticisms rightly brought up in this thread.

Even though it isn't the best way to make an argument, I'll begin by addressing the charge that such a government would be far more prone to falling into authoritarianism and abuse than a democracy.

This is true, for a democracy - the problem is that there is no democracy on this planet, because it isn't feasible. Democracy is rule by the people directly, and simply does not work for large populations (perhaps in the distant future we will have a sort of Hive Mind that could generate consensus from thousands of individuals instantly, but that is far off). What we have instead is a republican system, in which representatives are elected by the people to serve as their leaders.

The problem with republics, however, is that people are NOT selected by their suitability as leaders, but by their physical attractiveness, charisma, and most importantly ability to amass the funds necessary to run a media campaign. I will concede that leadership does require those attributes (leaders must be able to convince people to follow a certain path, and that requires charisma, and as symbols of the state attractiveness is actually an important attribute, to a point), but that while having those three attributes alone can win elections, it does not address the other needs of our leadership - the ability to understand and carry out the best possible solutions to societies needs and wants. We have leaders running who are so inept when it comes to scientific inquiry that they claim that global warming is a scam by scientists to boost their paychecks, that coal scrubbers solve all our air pollution problems, that NASA is not worth the money because it "doesn't help us here on Earth". What I am calling on here is that we must breach this gulf between scientist and policy makers, until the two are essentially one and the same. But we can't do that in our present society, which places power into the hands of the materially wealthy rather than the cognitively and morally wealthy.

How does a technocracy avoid falling into a similar trap, though? The best way to avoid having a small group of "elites" taking over the government and abusing their power seems to me to reduce the distinction between "elite" and regular people. It isn't a perfect system, mind you, but if everyone had a quality education, was well informed of the various scientific literature concerning a particular problem, and could form rational deductions from evidence, it would be much harder for small groups of people to influence everybody. The textbooks example you brought up is a good one, but consider the fact that in a technocracy, part of being a member of society would be to develop the skills necessary to question and to consider the source of information as well as who could stand to gain some benefit from it. If a textbook came across as manipulative or false, people would recognize the problem and seek to correct it, likely by firing the publisher. It is much harder to manipulate educated people, especially those trained to recognize and question the source of information - still possible, mind you, but harder.

Would corruption still happen? Certainly, no system is perfect. But I submit that whatever corruption does occur, it would have to overcome a public trained to think and to recognize bullshit for what it is, so the cheaters in our technocratic society would have a much higher hill to climb than they do in our current republic.

Well technocracy and democracy aren't mutually exclusive concepts. I should think that one way to defend against entrenchment of power by an elite clique is to have democracy while maintain a technocracy by promoting individuals up in political rank based on their technical skill.

Today what we have is a reverse-technocracy democracy. Basically the people most incapable of understanding the technical issues of the departments they run are put in charge. They rely on advisers and bureaucrats to make decisions. It's a people-person job taken to the extreme. But, anybody who's worked a day in a large corporation knows, people-person jobs are total deadweight in the company and really are just a way of swindling everyone else of their money, concentrated to them, while they do absolutely nothing.

That's where the appeal of technocracies come from. Technical managers that know their stuff are capable of making decisions, directing product development and understand feedback from subordinates. People-person managers know nothing and delegate everything to everyone else and so in effect add an unnecessary layer to the company because they don't even make decisions anyway (and if they do, that's even worse).

So, rather than having some blanket government body such as a House of Commons, a Senate, a House of Representatives and so on, what you have are more like councils built out of each government organ. Say there are basically 6 super-departments, people vote for their head bureaucrats in each, we use technology (such as Digg, or forums, message boards and so on) to post up their 5-year plans, their budget ideas, the issues and their priorities. We vote based on this detailed information. We have a high level of government transparency via a wiki that posts up everything from a complete transparent budget (where you click down through it to see every expense reported in a computer system, down to salaries and equipment, or move back up to as general as the total department spending/revenue). We'd still need economists, of course, to direct tax policy.

There are still problems:

• Technical problems aren't really a democratic issue, there's generally only a few ways to resolve it, however the presumption is made here that only the best and brightest in each department has been promoted up based on merit and the people vote for one of them and their 5 or 10 year plan.
• It is likely we'll have much longer terms and differing terms for different pieces of the government. For instance, health initiatives may only make sense to have 10-year terms since it's such a long-term issue. That may cause significant entrenchment at the cost of competent long-term policy.
• You can't place limits on terms here, as technical experts are technical experts. That trade-off may be entrenchment of power. But really, if you had Einstein in charge of your science division, limiting him to two terms (or whatever) would be much more detrimental than allowing him to lead on for his entire life.
• Voters still have the same issue as before; lack of good technical knowledge in a wide range of fields. That might not be a big issue, since people are elected into (for example) a Health Council, a Economic Management Council, a Foreign Affairs Council and so on, so really you'd only vote if you knew what was going on. Your vote would otherwise be pointless anyway.
• General corruption and intentional power-grabbing is not stopped, and is not any better than today's democracy (but I wouldn't say it is any worse)
• Changes to the government structure may be difficult, since you'd have this Super Council, which is much like a president's administration. I tend to like to shy away from such centralisation of power. On the other hand, people could vote on government infrastructure rearrangement, and not a particular person, so there's only a band of bureaucrats carrying out the will of the people and have zero power to do anything else.

In fact, thinking about it, we could just have the experts in each field post up policies and plans, and people vote on which one a department should carry out. The main issue here would be the overall budget and divvying of tax revenue between the government organs.

edited 3rd Mar '12 2:57:32 PM by breadloaf

From https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=djq0e46i6s3ccbcr5itgd5d6&page=38

I apologize for the wall of text.

This was an attempt by tropers to write a new constitution.

The "National Citizens Council" was our version of a national legislature. Just read "Congress".

Article VI.A. discusses the creation of a series of bureaucratic organizations staffed by government employees who implement regulatory policy. Article VI.B. discusses how the national legislature selects scientific experts to advise these bureaus.

''Article VI A. The Department of Public Welfare: A Department of Public Welfare shall be established at the national level to provide for the regulation and promotion of certain domains of the public welfare. These domains shall include the following:

1. A Bureau of Public Health and Safety to provide regulation of activities, substances and other such items as may constitute a threat to the health and safety of the general public. Regulations may include, but are not limited to, items such as substances that are proven to be addictive, debilitating or toxic, commercial products that may be used dangerously, weapons, explosives, and public media. Regulations may extend to such requirements as licenses, fees, criteria of ownership, possession or participation as are necessary to minimize the rate of death, injury, debilitation or other dangerous outcomes. Outright banning of such activities, substances or commercial products is to be undertaken only in response to overwhelming evidence of a direct and present danger to the public.

2. A Bureau of Education to provide nationally recognized standards of testing and assessment in schools and educational institutions, such standards to act as the basis of certification and funding through scholarships, grants, loans and other forms of support to individuals and institutions if such support is provided for in the national budget. In addition, to provide recommendations for curriculum, instructional and administrative excellence and to provide such support to institutions attempting to implement these recommendations as is provided for in the national budget.

3. A Bureau of Military Procurement which shall combine the recommendations of the nation’s military commanders with the latest research on technology and intelligence on potentially hostile powers and their capabilities to determine long-term equipment development and deployment programs in the best interest of the nation. The legislature shall determine the military budget as part of the government budgetary process, and the Bureau of Military Procurement shall dispense those funds in accordance with it’s own recommendations.

4. A Bureau of Public Physical and Technical Infrastructure which shall make plans for the long and short term development of means of distributing shared resources, including, but not limited to transportation, communication, energy distribution, and information sharing.

5. A Bureau of Economic Management shall be responsible for setting the interest rate by which the government shall loan money to private banks, the selling and purchasing of government bonds, the amount of currency to distribute, and revenue sharing arrangements between the national, provincial, and local levels of government. Further powers can be conferred upon this Bureau by the legislature.

B. The National Policy Panels: Each of these bureaus shall have a policy panel consisting of experts in that field who shall be empowered to make and implement that bureau’s role and responsibilities, including any rules, regulations or provision of support. Other such bureau’s may be established by the National Citizens’ Council on any public policy issue using the standard consensus and ballot process.

1. The National Citizens’ Council shall charter a National Association of Science and Research for the purpose of establishing and providing institutional support to the scientific and research community within the country. This association shall include as members all citizens who possess the appropriate degree of education and a professional position within the science or research community. The charter is to be considered for renewal every ten years, at which time the charter itself may be revised. This association shall otherwise operate independently of any branch of government.

2. These members shall establish a committee for the purpose of inviting nationally recognized leaders of research or education to serve on one policy panel attached to a bureau of the Department of Public Welfare. The members of each panel shall serve for any number of two years terms, provided they are non-consecutive. The Policy Panels shall review all research relevant to an issue relating to that particular bureau, and using that research, shall have the power to establish standards, regulations, fees, fines, grants, and other such rules, policies, or procedures as are deemed necessary to fulfill the bureau’s responsibilities as set forth herein.''

edited 7th Mar '12 9:52:25 AM by DeMarquis

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I'm impressed. The only main issue I worry about is a sort of caste system forming, or possible competition between the councils over resources. And while some division of government makes sense from a management perspective, it is still useful to have "umbrellas" in which all relevant groups can interact on issues that involve more than simply one group.

I would divide it up as follows, into various "spheres" and "halls", with ultimate leadership resting in the council of three, consisting of the leaders of the three spheres. Each hall elects its own leader, the Hall Master. The Hall Masters then elect from amongst themselves a leader of the sphere which their particular hall is associated with, the Sphere Master. And finally, the three Sphere Masters select from amongst themselves a Paladin, who acts as leader of the nation (I am borrowing the word "Paladin" from the French version of the word "Palatine", latin for "high level official"). Instead of, say, belonging to the state of Florida, you would be a citizen of the sphere of your expertise, with the spheres acting the role of the state in a federal system. Below is just a brief taste; obviously there are many more halls than what I list, this is just to give you a general idea.

I. The Sphere of Science

A. The Hall of Life: The hall of life covers anything falling under the purvey of the biosphere. Examples include medicine, biology, agriculture, environmental regulations, etc. Specialists falling under such fields can apply to the Hall of Life, and when they attain sufficient rank in the qualifying exams are permitted to vote on leadership (as is the case for all halls). Governs any large scale geoengineering projects.

B. The Hall of Technology: Concerns the development and implementation of things of a mechanical nature. Produces the robots that make manual labor obsolete, transportation, electronics, and engineering in general.

C. The Hall of Knowledge: Preserves historical treasures, manages free public libraries, and runs the public education system.

D. The Hall of Mystery: Concerns itself with theology and the study of faith.

II. The Sphere of Law

A. The Hall of Justice: Covers anything that could be considered "jurisprudence", studies society and law as a science, with the goal of achieving a balance between human happiness and the need to maintain societal integrity. Helps to form the laws with input from the other spheres, and manages law enforcement.

B. The Hall of Prosperity: Maintains infrastructure, builds cities, and runs the power plants. Think of the Hall of Prosperity as the civil engineering sphere. Works closely with the Hall of Technology.

C. The Hall of War: Covers espionage, tariffs, and defense. The state would not conduct open war unless all other options had been exhausted, or if it proved necessary for the survival of the state.

D. The Hall of Peace: Diplomacy.

III. The Sphere of Art

A. The Hall of Lore: For writers and poets. Think of it like an uber TV Tropes, if you want to.

B. The Hall of Sound: Produces music for the betterment of society.

C. The Hall of Vision: The film and television industry would be rolled into this, with the state providing studios and production staff for numerous aspiring artists.

E. The Hall of Weavers: Produces clothing and runs the fashion industry of the nation.

That sounds like a cheesy fantasy story set up there. Also, that "sphere of art" cheesy crap could all go under one department. Having more than one for what is basically education and historical retainment or whatever is redundant and wasteful of the government. We sure as fuck don't need a Hall of Theology; people would rightly point out that we already have colleges and such devoted to that, and that it would smack of the government getting into our religious business. Hall of Knowledge could be put in with the sphere of art, because they are entirely related and the same thing. They, as far as I'm concerned, would be all in the department of education. A "hall of weavers" would be fucking stupid for the government to get into. The fashion industry is and should be free market, free of the government except in that it should obey the government standards for fair treatment of employees and ethical business practices. There is no practical reason for the government to involve itself in the fashion industry like that, and anything about preserving it can again be mashed in with the rest of the sphere of art and hall of knowledge stuff.

Anyway, why is there any particular need to reform our government so drastically? That doesn't happen without outside pressures like war, rebellion, or societal collapse. That's not going to happen. What's going to happen is an alteration to the system we already have, because the system we have has proven to be sturdy enough to last over two hundred years.

Basically, what's going to happen is at some point the technologically incompetent and unaware are going to die out and those who are better equipped to deal with it are going to rise to power. None of this will stop corruption, that's a symptom of any government being run by people. The thing we need to do is shift our culture to A) ditch the anti-intellectualism that's take route in our society, which is a long haul endeavor, and B) vote for the guys who show that they have a damn clue when it comes to technology and how it effects our lives.

edited 3rd Mar '12 6:42:19 PM by AceofSpades

Okay this actually made me laugh. Rest of the description feels like it belongs in 1984 or something.

to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee

Wait, so you've got taxpayers, spies, and the military in one Hall, but state-controlled fashion design gets a whole one to itself?

MGIFOS, I think I'll just leave this little quote from someone who actually ran a country here.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." — Abraham Lincoln.

What's precedent ever done for us?