Re:Technocracy - a scientific approach to economics
« Reply #30 on: 2010-12-19 17:37:00 »
Kolzene - I think we'll need to agree to disagree on Technocracy for the time being. The conversation has gone full circle a few times over at this point.
I read the articles you pointed to and even quoted from them to make some clear objections, but you keep referring me to them. I'm just saying they are not convincing and they do not address my fundamental objections (no checks to monopolized control, no evidence of post-scarcity, no ability to plan a chaotic system, etc)
I respect your passion for Technocracy. I too long for a better world, specifically, a post-scarcity world. Despite your claims , I do not believe this world is possible with current technology, no matter how much planning we wrap around our industrial processes.
Re:Technocracy - a scientific approach to economics
« Reply #31 on: 2010-12-21 10:40:41 »
All right, if that's what you want. I would like to know something though, was I really that bad? It seems to me that the evidence is pretty clear, so that means that either I am way off base with this whole thing, in which case I'd like to know so I can stop wasting my time with it, or my presentation of it is lacking in some regard, in which case I'd like to know so I can try to improve. Normally on other forums I would have just given up by now as I know plenty of people are just stubbornly against it for any of a number of reasons, but here I was kind of hoping for some logical resolution either way. I mean, it should be possible to logically demonstrate that it is either possible or not, can't it? (I mean, unless I'm just irrational in my views on the topic, in which case I don't know how to help that.) This is supposed to be science after all, not subjective political or philosophical opinions.
So I don't know if the others that were involved (or any lurkers for that matter) have been following lately, or have already left for whatever reason, but I'd like some views on this, if that's alright. If not, and you're all just tired of it, I'll of course leave it alone.
All right, if that's what you want. I would like to know something though, was I really that bad? It seems to me that the evidence is pretty clear, so that means that either I am way off base with this whole thing, in which case I'd like to know so I can stop wasting my time with it, or my presentation of it is lacking in some regard, in which case I'd like to know so I can try to improve. Normally on other forums I would have just given up by now as I know plenty of people are just stubbornly against it for any of a number of reasons, but here I was kind of hoping for some logical resolution either way. I mean, it should be possible to logically demonstrate that it is either possible or not, can't it? (I mean, unless I'm just irrational in my views on the topic, in which case I don't know how to help that.) This is supposed to be science after all, not subjective political or philosophical opinions.
So I don't know if the others that were involved (or any lurkers for that matter) have been following lately, or have already left for whatever reason, but I'd like some views on this, if that's alright. If not, and you're all just tired of it, I'll of course leave it alone.
I am glad to have your point of view here, Kolzene. Of course I may be bit skeptical about it, but I welcome some diversity of opinion. I think our crowd here on Church of Virus has a slight tendency towards libertarianism. I use the small "l" on that because I don't think we are dogmatically so; it's just a North American intellectual cultural tendency and that's the crowd which initially seeded this community now a little more than a decade ago. Really we are more about the virtues and sins and our chosen saints.
Personally I've discovered in the last couple of years that I'm a bit more of a "socialist" in comparison to the rest of the US political culture - for example in our recent health care debates I came out firmly in favor of a public option. I've discovered along the way that some influential members of the CoV community are not unsympathetic to that point of view when it comes to things like health care. To some extent I think I may see a public option as something like a limited "technate". Yes, it gets measured in the currency of the dominant economy in terms of the tax dollars that we would choose to allocate towards it, but I think a certain minimum level of public health is something we ought to be viewing as an abundance - a public good we really shouldn't be denying anyone based on their ability to pay. And actually it really already is. Everyday people show up to emergency rooms and are provided with some minimal care, but because we choose to play this money game where we treat it like a scarcity, our system leads to some absurd inefficiencies that no intelligent economist or public servant should tolerate. And so as a result we needlessly force otherwise productive members of society into bankruptcy and foreclosures on property that end up hurting everyone.
The main problem I see with your advocacy is that you focus a bit much on an end model for every economic problem. That's an awfully large solution for anyone to swallow no matter how elegant you otherwise believe it to be. However, I wonder if there aren't some very reasonable ways to pitch your solution towards some of the more salient problems without trying to solve everything all at once. Although I tossed out the "communist" word myself, it's not really a label which frightens me in considering case by case practical solutions. I certainly am open to pragmatic solutions that way when they actually work and we can at least theoretically test them out on limited parts of the economy. At least here in the US, I think we have almost run the limits on capitalistic solutions to general public health. I can see some cases where it may still work for wealthy people striving for the extremes of health and wealth, but that's a rapidly shrinking part of our national community.
I think we can still stay on the cutting edge of medical innovation without settling for #37 and bankrupting everyone else in the process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4
So if I could suggest anything for technocracy to provide practical katascopic solutions, I'd like to point you that way. But if we are all going to just have to swallow the technocracy solution for everything as a whole, then I think you will experience a lot more of the same ideological resistance which you have apparently become accustomed to.
All right, if that's what you want. <snip> .... <snip>So I don't know if the others that were involved (or any lurkers for that matter) have been following lately, or have already left for whatever reason, but I'd like some views on this, if that's alright. If not, and you're all just tired of it, I'll of course leave it alone.
Hey Kolzene, Sorry I haven't been able to get in up over my waist in this thread, my internet accesses is limited again as I am relocating yet again.
I think you have added a great new dimension I truly hope you will hang in with us and challenge us. I found your offering has got grey cells firing I had forgot I had. I look forward to your contributions.
Cheers
Fritz
PS: stumbled across this in researching Technocracy
FINAL 2: Egalitarianism vs. Hierarchy: Are we wired to rank each other? This topic submitted by Ann Petlow (petlowae@muohio.edu) at 1:55 am on 5/2/00. Additions were last made on Wednesday, August 9, 2000. Section: Myers.
Ann Petlow
NS T/R 11am
Final Project Egalitarianism vs. Hierarchy: are we wired to rank each other?
(A study of ownership, possession, and societies)
Introduction
Do social structures have to be hierarchical, individualist, consumerist, and masculinist to be successful? This is the American ideal, and anyone with a narrow view of the world and human nature might believe that it is the only model for human organizations. However, this is not the case. Feminist historians argue that pre-historical societies were egalitarian, matrifocal, and peaceful. History is the period of time that encompasses the last 5,000 years and pre-history is all time preceding this present era. When one has this information, the necessity of hierarchy in societies and its membership in "human nature" are easily contested. My project will examine the practices of modern-day egalitarian societies and compare their policies to American hierarchical culture. 

Relevance
Riane Eisler, author of The Chalice & the Blade, argues that since these peaceful societies predated patriarchy, they can emerge once again, when patriarchy fails. These two ways of being have many titles, and are often labeled with the language of gender. A hierarchical society can be called a patriarchy or a matriarchy- it is the suffix "archy" that means inequality. Heirarchical societies are based on inequality, usually that of the sexes. Women lose status in male-dominated societies, and so these hierarchies are labeled with male terms. We do not want anyone to think that this project is about asserting the value of one sex over another. As Eisler says, "The underlying problem is not men as a sex. The root of the problem lies in a social system in which the power of the Blade (masculine power) is idealized.
The polar attributes of both types of societies are listed below: Mother-identified societies Father-identified societies Affiliation Dominance
Equality Hierarchy
Linking humans Ranking humans
Power comes from giving life Power comes from taking life
More peaceful Higher degree of violence
Women &Men have power Women are subservient
Sexual freedom Sexual repression/taboo At this period in time, many would argue that white-male-capitalist-patriarchy isn't working, and that society must evolve beyond it. With such a high level of technology and no value seen in peace, the destruction of society because of its hierarchical values is imminent. Eisler and others argue that there is a better way, the matrist way. She theorizes that, rather than "breaking down" with patriarchy, we can "break through" to matrism and the equality and peace that come with it. 
The Breakdown/Breakthrough Theory:
Affiliation/partnership models of society are more peaceful than dominance models because of their emphasis on equality. Riane Eisler, author of The Chalice and the Blade, says that patriarchy, today, in such a technologically advanced civilization, is threatening to destroy itself. Instead of having a breakdown, Eisler says that we have the power to break through to affiliation societies, whose peaceful ways are a pleasant alternative to "the logical consequences of a dominator model of society."

Materials and Methods
I have decided, because of the difficulty of my questions, to do qualitative research in the form of 16 in-depth interviews. Half of these interviews will be over the phone with individuals (adults eighteen and up) living on various communes, and the other half will be with Americans (adults) that have not removed themselves from hierarchy. It is difficult to measure the "egalitarianness" of a community, and so I have had some obstacles in deciding what to ask. It seems impossible to measure whether or not people are controlled simply by asking them questions, so instead, I will ask about what they control, specifically, possessions. 
Hypothesis: If egalitarian societies are more peaceful than hierarchical societies, and war is fought over possessions and property, than the more egalitarian a society is, the less emphasis there is on individual ownership. 
Basic Interview Questions: 
Do you own your own car? If not, how do you get around?
Do you own any properties/land? If not, who owns your home?
Do you own any personal electronics?
Do you have a boss at work/ Leader in your community? If not, how is your
job/community organized?
Do you pay for child-care? 
What is the gender of those who provide child-care? 
How often do you see violence in your community?
You may ask yourself, how does this prove whether or not we are hard-wired into hierarchy? Well, if something is completely programmed by its genes to act a certain way, it implies that the being is therefore incapable of operating in another, opposite way. In other words, human beings prove they are not genetically forced to act out hierarchy by living in egalitarian communities. Those who disrupt the status quo show us that it is not necessary to organize our societies into hierarchies. 
Observations 
The average egalitarian member that I spoke to did not own any property or cars, and shared all income from their job with other commune members. Properties at the communes usually weren't owned by anyone in particular, and all members had free access to all properties once they became members. The average hierarchical member in my interviews owned a car and their own home, and did not share any assets with neighbors. The egalitarian communities eschewed "power-over" type leadership, and made decisions by consensus. Facilitators preside over meetings, but all members take turns facilitating. Hierarchy members all reported to some type of boss, and made family decisions by discussion with their partner -which could be the same as consensus in some families. Child care in the communes was shared between the sexes and was either in the form of rotating commune members doing duty or children working alongside their parents at all times. Women and men reported sharing child -care duties. Violent acts and crimes were fairly prevalent in the hierarchy group, and not a problem in most communes. No one that I talked to in the egalitarian interviews could think of any recent crimes or violence. Virtually all the people interviewed had access to a computer and the Internet, but the computers in the communes were shared community wide, and in the hierarchy group computers were shared within families. Most hierarchy members owned their own television, while the communes shared one or, more often, chose not to buy a television. 

Analysis, Discussion & Conclusions
These behaviors are integral to the kinds of societies that the participants live in. Extreme individualism, the American way, mandates that everyone be an independent, self-sufficient machine, independent of any need for a community. This translates, eventually, along with hyperactive consumerism, to each person purchasing their own complete set of goods (house, electronics, car, computer) so that dependence on a neighbor can be eliminated. This, in turn, leads to overproduction of unnecessary goods, and an increased sense of isolation in communities, to the point that humans are being eliminated as the vendors of goods, so that interaction with others is lessened. (atms, machine check-outs at grocers, Internet shopping) It is easy to see what communes are trying to avoid. The connections between people, however unpleasant or meaningless some of them may seem, must be preserved and encouraged in the future in order to have healthy, humble lives. Thus, the attachment to possessions is weakened in hopes that attachment to humans will occur. 
The sharing and integration of child- care is another way of fighting isolation. Child-care programs in hierarchical societies have to serve the necessary parent-child separation and would go out of business if that gap were eliminated. Egalitarian societies, which often have a more family friendly employment strategy, seek to eliminate this separation. They also attempt to free themselves from gender hierarchy and share parental duties as a community. Women in hierarchy are often expected to bear and raise children independently from their husbands, save financial support. However, when the class system, gender restrictions, and the money system are pushed away by a community, everything is shared. 
The widespread use of computers in my study is, sadly, a result of hierarchical privilege. The decision to break free from hierarchy is often made by upper middle class white folks who have had the education to see systems of oppression and their solutions. Those who are most oppressed by hierarchy do not get the inkling or information about ideas like communes. They are left to fend for themselves at the bottom of a system that works against them. Thusly, commune members, though they share it, have high-end items like computers because of the class base of their members. Televisions, on the other hand, increase isolation and can foster anti-intellectualism when used improperly, and so are out of place in the egalitarian group. 
Violence is also out of place in these societies. Egalitarianism reduces crime simply by making the idea of sharing societal, because there are, ideally, no have-nots. Egalitarianism may be the primary cause of this, but I would like to point out that in the interviews, the egalitarian people were members of many different, tiny communities, and the hierarchical people were members of the same sprawling country. Small communities have less of the sort of crime caused or fostered by isolation, because everyone recognizes each other. 
In short, my hypothesis was proven correct, but only because the difficulty of my project limited the depth of the information I could possibly collect. Measuring societies is incredibly risky business, and it would take me a few degrees and years of research to get any respectable reporting done. So, I did the best with what I had, and though I proved my own suspicions about how egalitarian societies resist hierarchical influence, I hope that I have interested and engaged your brain at the same time.
Thank you.
Project Sources

1. Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade. HarperSanFrancisco:
San Francisco. 1987. 2. Eisler, Riane. Sacred Pleasure. HarperSanFrancisco:
San Francisco. 1995. 3 Goodall. Jane. Through a Window. Houghton Mifflin Company:
Boston. 1990. 4. MacKinnon, Catherine. "Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech." Morality In Practice. Ed.James P. Sterba. Wadsworth Publishing Company: Boston. 1997. 5. Scheir, Miriam. Feminism In Our Time. Vintage Books: New York. 1994. 6. Walker, Barbara G. The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. Harper: San Francisco. 1983. 7. Wright, Robert. The Moral Animal. Vintage Books: New York. 1994.
All right, if that's what you want. I would like to know something though, was I really that bad? It seems to me that the evidence is pretty clear, so that means that either I am way off base with this whole thing
FWIW, Here's where you lost me...
Quote:
I guess I am having a hard time imagining what it is you think Technocracy is proposing here. A difference in quality? If you are speaking of objective quality, then no. Only the highest quality foods (or any product or service) would be available, because why would anyone want something of lesser quality?
If you think that is remotely within the realm of possibility (everyone gets to live in a mansion on the coast), then we don't have much common ground to work with.
Re:Technocracy - a scientific approach to economics
« Reply #35 on: 2010-12-27 11:46:02 »
Hey Kolzene -
You say: "Was I really that bad". I hope you don't see any of the discussion we had as a reflection on you personally. From reading your posts, my impression of you is quite positive: you're not satisfied with the status quo, you seem to have an open mind, and you are passionate about what you believe in. That's all good stuff!
Now, you haven't succeeded in convincing me on Technocracy, but that's hardly your fault. On the contrary, I read more of technocracy.ca than I would have, had you not refered us to the site. I like the goal of being able to provide in abundence to all, but I think Technocracy is missing the mark on some fundamental socio-economic factors.
So hang around with us and let's not let Dogmatism get in the way of Vision!
You say: "Was I really that bad". I hope you don't see any of the discussion we had as a reflection on you personally. From reading your posts, my impression of you is quite positive: you're not satisfied with the status quo, you seem to have an open mind, and you are passionate about what you believe in. That's all good stuff!
Now, you haven't succeeded in convincing me on Technocracy, but that's hardly your fault. On the contrary, I read more of technocracy.ca than I would have, had you not refered us to the site. I like the goal of being able to provide in abundence to all, but I think Technocracy is missing the mark on some fundamental socio-economic factors.
So hang around with us and let's not let Dogmatism get in the way of Vision!
Re:Technocracy - a scientific approach to economics
« Reply #37 on: 2010-12-30 20:33:08 »
Ok, back from holiday madness. I have many replies to make.
First of all, thanks guys. It was beginning to look like people were dropping out of the thread, making fun of it, etc. Things are easy to mistake on the 'net.
Second, just in case I have not made it clear before, I just want to establish my stance on this stuff. I am not here to "sell" Technocracy, nobody likes a pushy person. I just want to make people aware of it, and help anyone interested in learning about it. I have no problem with discussing whether it would work or not, but there are a couple of points about that I'd like to make first:
1) Most of the time, many of the "problems" people find with Technocracy are not problems at all, just holes in their knowledge of it. For example "Technocracy doesn't take into account such and such" when it really does, they just haven't seen that part of it yet. This is part of the problem I've mentioned with trying to teach it over forums. Technocracy, like any technical subject, is much better learned in a more structured way, like a class. Since no classes exist right now (they used to), the next best thing is assisted self-education, which is what I try to encourage. I know that this isn't for everyone, but until we can get the movement big enough to provide classes again, it's all we have.
Thus, until a person is aware of all these points first, discussing whether or not it would work is really awkward. It's like trying to discuss the feasibility of a machine without looking at all its parts first.
2) I do prefer to separate the discussions of whether Technocracy would work as an end result, and the topic of transition, or getting there, making it happen. The reason for this is because if it does not work, then there is no need to discuss how to get there. However, if it is possible, and it is worth striving towards, then we can work on the problems of transition. If we throw out the idea just because we haven't worked out all the problems in making it happen yet, then we'll never know if it would have been worth trying or not.
Now onto specific responses,
Mo Enzyme:
"Personally I've discovered in the last couple of years that I'm a bit more of a "socialist" in comparison to the rest of the US political culture - for example in our recent health care debates I came out firmly in favor of a public option. I've discovered along the way that some influential members of the CoV community are not unsympathetic to that point of view when it comes to things like health care. To some extent I think I may see a public option as something like a limited "technate". Yes, it gets measured in the currency of the dominant economy in terms of the tax dollars that we would choose to allocate towards it, but I think a certain minimum level of public health is something we ought to be viewing as an abundance - a public good we really shouldn't be denying anyone based on their ability to pay. And actually it really already is. Everyday people show up to emergency rooms and are provided with some minimal care, but because we choose to play this money game where we treat it like a scarcity, our system leads to some absurd inefficiencies that no intelligent economist or public servant should tolerate. And so as a result we needlessly force otherwise productive members of society into bankruptcy and foreclosures on property that end up hurting everyone."
While I am a little confused by your use of the terms "technate" and "abundance", otherwise I certainly agree with you. In fact, I usually take it one step farther and say that if you want the best country in the world, with the best citizens, then you need to have the healthiest and best educated citizens as well. Thus, make sure that they all have the best health care and education possible. Then you have eliminated two big limitations on people's ability to contribute to society.
"The main problem I see with your advocacy is that you focus a bit much on an end model for every economic problem. That's an awfully large solution for anyone to swallow no matter how elegant you otherwise believe it to be. However, I wonder if there aren't some very reasonable ways to pitch your solution towards some of the more salient problems without trying to solve everything all at once. ... So if I could suggest anything for technocracy to provide practical katascopic solutions, I'd like to point you that way. But if we are all going to just have to swallow the technocracy solution for everything as a whole, then I think you will experience a lot more of the same ideological resistance which you have apparently become accustomed to."
Yes, I understand well how much more difficult this is to swallow whole, rather than in parts as you suggest. This is a fairly common concern, and I wish it were really that easy. However, in all my experience so far I have not seen any way to do Technocracy "piecemeal", and there are really many reasons for this. I will go into them if you like, but for this post I will just finish up the rest of my responses, which I'm sure will make a big enough message for now. Let me know. A quick analogy though would be like trying to strengthen a chain by only making some of the links stronger. You have to do them all or else you get no benefit.
"Mo feeds Kolzene + 1 Meridion Scooby Treats!"
Thank you?
Fritz:
"Hey Kolzene, Sorry I haven't been able to get in up over my waist in this thread, my internet accesses is limited again as I am relocating yet again.
I think you have added a great new dimension I truly hope you will hang in with us and challenge us. I found your offering has got grey cells firing I had forgot I had. I look forward to your contributions."
Thanks for saying, Fritz.
"PS: stumbled across this in researching Technocracy"
I've heard of some theories regarding pre-historic, matriarchal societies before, but not this particular line of research, so thank you for this. It is interesting, particularly when combined with the research I mentioned above about motivation. It's too bad we don't have anything more solid along this line yet though.
Ophis:
"You say: "Was I really that bad". I hope you don't see any of the discussion we had as a reflection on you personally. From reading your posts, my impression of you is quite positive: you're not satisfied with the status quo, you seem to have an open mind, and you are passionate about what you believe in. That's all good stuff!"
Thanks for saying. No, I wasn't taking it personally, I suppose I should have been more clear. By "bad" I was referring to my performance, or how well I was doing. I only mentioned because you mentioned me going around in circles, and in general your post combined with other people's lack of posting at the time gave me cause to wonder if I was just doing a poor job, or have possibly been blinded by my "passion" as you call it. Obviously not as good of a job as I'd like, and I fully realize that this is a big and strange pill to swallow. So if I am making logical errors, I would like them pointed out.
"Now, you haven't succeeded in convincing me on Technocracy, but that's hardly your fault. On the contrary, I read more of technocracy.ca than I would have, had you not refered us to the site. I like the goal of being able to provide in abundence to all, but I think Technocracy is missing the mark on some fundamental socio-economic factors. "
It's my fault if I'm supporting an idea that doesn't actually work though. I know that in political discussions there is a lot of philosophy and opinion that people just plain disagree on, but I consider this to be a matter of science, and either it works or it doesn't. One of the things I like about the Technocracy Study Course is that the very first thing they go into is the differences between a fact, truth, opinion, definition, and postulate. It helps frame the discussion in a way that is different from most political and economic discussions (which frequently like to confuse these terms).
"So hang around with us and let's not let Dogmatism get in the way of Vision!"
I do absolutely believe that.
David Lucifer:
"FWIW, Here's where you lost me...
Quote:I guess I am having a hard time imagining what it is you think Technocracy is proposing here. A difference in quality? If you are speaking of objective quality, then no. Only the highest quality foods (or any product or service) would be available, because why would anyone want something of lesser quality?
If you think that is remotely within the realm of possibility (everyone gets to live in a mansion on the coast), then we don't have much common ground to work with."
So let me see if I am understanding you correctly here: You thought that this is what I actually believe, decided not to ask about it, and just left it, thinking I must be crazy or something? That doesn't sound very logical, so I am guessing that I am wrong, but that is what this message seems to say to me. If you really think that I am proposing that everyone gets a mansion by the coast, well, I'm not sure how you got that out of that quote, but I think that you have greatly misinterpreted something. For instance, notice in that quote I said "objective quality". That means that all dwellings would be made from the best materials, strong enough to withstand most foreseeable problems, fireproof, soundproof, pest-free, and with comfortable indoor climates. What you are talking about, mansions and living by the coast, these are subjective qualities, and would vary between people. I hope that this helps clear up any misunderstanding. If not, I then hope that you will let me know so we can sort it out.
Re:Technocracy - a scientific approach to economics
« Reply #38 on: 2011-01-21 12:59:44 »
I'm sorry I seemed to have missed this post and then it got buried, and now I seem to have just now found it.
Quote:
Mo Enzyme:
"Personally I've discovered in the last couple of years that I'm a bit more of a "socialist" in comparison to the rest of the US political culture - for example in our recent health care debates I came out firmly in favor of a public option. I've discovered along the way that some influential members of the CoV community are not unsympathetic to that point of view when it comes to things like health care. To some extent I think I may see a public option as something like a limited "technate". Yes, it gets measured in the currency of the dominant economy in terms of the tax dollars that we would choose to allocate towards it, but I think a certain minimum level of public health is something we ought to be viewing as an abundance - a public good we really shouldn't be denying anyone based on their ability to pay. And actually it really already is. Everyday people show up to emergency rooms and are provided with some minimal care, but because we choose to play this money game where we treat it like a scarcity, our system leads to some absurd inefficiencies that no intelligent economist or public servant should tolerate. And so as a result we needlessly force otherwise productive members of society into bankruptcy and foreclosures on property that end up hurting everyone."
While I am a little confused by your use of the terms "technate" and "abundance", otherwise I certainly agree with you. In fact, I usually take it one step farther and say that if you want the best country in the world, with the best citizens, then you need to have the healthiest and best educated citizens as well. Thus, make sure that they all have the best health care and education possible. Then you have eliminated two big limitations on people's ability to contribute to society.
"The main problem I see with your advocacy is that you focus a bit much on an end model for every economic problem. That's an awfully large solution for anyone to swallow no matter how elegant you otherwise believe it to be. However, I wonder if there aren't some very reasonable ways to pitch your solution towards some of the more salient problems without trying to solve everything all at once. ... So if I could suggest anything for technocracy to provide practical katascopic solutions, I'd like to point you that way. But if we are all going to just have to swallow the technocracy solution for everything as a whole, then I think you will experience a lot more of the same ideological resistance which you have apparently become accustomed to."
Yes, I understand well how much more difficult this is to swallow whole, rather than in parts as you suggest. This is a fairly common concern, and I wish it were really that easy. However, in all my experience so far I have not seen any way to do Technocracy "piecemeal", and there are really many reasons for this. I will go into them if you like, but for this post I will just finish up the rest of my responses, which I'm sure will make a big enough message for now. Let me know. A quick analogy though would be like trying to strengthen a chain by only making some of the links stronger. You have to do them all or else you get no benefit.
specifically "However, in all my experience so far I have not seen any way to do Technocracy "piecemeal", and there are really many reasons for this. I will go into them if you like, . . ."
Yes, indeed I would like! I was probably being less than explicit in my earlier posts, but I think this was actually the major point of all of them in some form or another. I'm a very political animal at the end of the day, and since I see politics as an alternative to violence, I need to see how you imagine you are going to convert/defeat/undermine/subvert/distract the heavily armed tea-party/militia/second-amendment-remedy nut-job folk here in the United States who have extreme anti-communist and even violent reactionary memes. I've had a few days in my recent life where I was surprised they didn't just shoot me. Thankfully I'm not a member of the US congress . . . not to put too fine a point on recent events or anything. I guess it might not suck for the rest of the world, as it seems I'm not that important yet, but in terms of not being collateral damage and my own self-interest, it still seems like some ideological cover might not be unwise before I just swallow the whole pill like you suggest. I appreciate your chain link analogy, though I still don't know why the piecemeal approach won't work in terms of not getting shot in the head and avoiding that violent civil-war/revolution etc. issue.
Re:Technocracy - a scientific approach to economics
« Reply #39 on: 2011-01-21 18:38:00 »
And just a p.s. on Kolzene's last post . . .
Quote:
Ok, back from holiday madness. I have many replies to make.
First of all, thanks guys. It was beginning to look like people were dropping out of the thread, making fun of it, etc. Things are easy to mistake on the 'net.
. . . certainly here on the Church of Virus, this is less of an issue than you might imagine. I think I know all of the major contributors on our forum such that you don't need to worry about us making fun or ridiculing you this way. I can't speak for everyone since this is a fundamentally open forum, but at least for those regular contributors I know who may disagree with your approach on ideological grounds I know they wouldn't fall back on cheap and petty ridicule in an attempt to casually dismiss you. We embrace reason and empathy that way . . . even the more libertarian/capitalistic amongst us know that the rest of the community demands sound and sincere reason before we will seriously entertain criticism one way or another. And if you have any concerns about our audience having too parochial a viewpoint, I think we have at least as many active members outside the US as within. I know I mentioned my own political circumstances within the US in my last message, but mostly I pointed that out because your political agenda/website seems to concentrate on the continent of North America.
I hope that gives you some better reference for any further discussions you may wish, but for what it's worth I don't think anyone in this thread is simply ridiculing you even if some may be otherwise disagreeing with you. I know how that can be difficult to know in just a few rounds of internet discussions, but I think I know the participants so far well enough to dismiss that concern. I suppose it could still happen since we try to remain relatively open to all comers, and such a things remain a plausible concern on any such open internet forum, but I think you can feel rest assured that any participants with any significant meridion influence have either learned better, or arrived with better instincts in the first place.
Anyway, I don't want to speak too much for anybody else here, but suffice it to say I haven't seen anyone responding with such lazy or apathetic hypocrisy yet.
Re:Technocracy - a scientific approach to economics
« Reply #40 on: 2011-01-24 01:44:07 »
Quote:
I think I know all of the major contributors on our forum such that you don't need to worry about us making fun or ridiculing you this way.
No worries. I have a better idea now, but back then, since I didn't know people here, it did look like a possibility. Not that it mattered much, just made me less inclined to post here. Thanks for clarifying that though.
Quote:
Yes, indeed I would like! I was probably being less than explicit in my earlier posts, but I think this was actually the major point of all of them in some form or another. I'm a very political animal at the end of the day, and since I see politics as an alternative to violence, I need to see how you imagine you are going to convert/defeat/undermine/subvert/distract the heavily armed tea-party/militia/second-amendment-remedy nut-job folk here in the United States who have extreme anti-communist and even violent reactionary memes.
Very well, but it could take a while, as this is a big topic. Actually, it represents the subject of two article ideas I've been wanting to do for a while now and haven't gotten around to yet, so this will give me a good excuse to get on those. So I'll get to writing those right away, I'll post the links here, and we can take it from there. If we end up hashing anything new out, I can always modify the articles (or write new ones entirely).
Quote:
I appreciate your chain link analogy, though I still don't know why the piecemeal approach won't work in terms of not getting shot in the head and avoiding that violent civil-war/revolution etc. issue.
Oh it would probably help with that, but my point is that it wouldn't help much in any sort of Technocratic way; that is, that you wouldn't see much of the benefits of Technocracy by doing it this way. Some of the parts may confer some of their own advantages, sure, and indeed many of them already get used today for exactly those reasons (as general as "efficiency" or as specific as energy accounting). Thus I think that it would be hard to introduce these changes because the ROI would be so little, and people today are usually in the habit of wanting a quick return, rather than looking to the long term. If the return is indeed good, then chances are that they are being used already, and like now would fail to demonstrate why further changes to make Technocracy would be beneficial.
Author
Logged
