[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 147 KB, 500x500, 2222523486_5e1894e314.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1970110 No.1970110 [Reply] [Original]

Why are people stupid? I'm a Technocrat who supports a science based social design. The material is presented in an 8th grade reading level. Yet, people are so badly brainwashed by abstract price system concepts they can't muster the critical thinking to understand this. Our social system is flawed to its very core, it doesn't take a
economics major or rocket scientist to understand this point.

Specifically, the idea is a non market, biophysical economy(energy accounting). That uses a science based system of organization. Tell me if you can understand this.

http://knol.google.com/k/technocracy-technate-design#

http://www.technocracytechnate.org/

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.technocracytechnate.org/technocracystudycourse.pdf

This idea originated in the 20's and was influence by Fredrick Soddy, and Joseph Willard Gibbs. What do you guys think about a social system based on science?

>> No.1970178

shamless self bump

>> No.1970185

>What do you guys think about a social system based on science?
I think it is something that doesn't mean anything but would sound attractive to someone who has no idea what science is.

>> No.1970192

>>1970185
I'm guessing you're one of the stupid ones then, huh?

>> No.1970202

>>1970110
I'm also a technocrat, but in the sense that the current level of technology makes parts of democracy obsolete.

But a non-maket society? Trade is absolutely necessary to the very progress of humanity. Simply refer to any society that did not develop trade in some form (hint: none). In fact, I think that much of what allowed us humans to be this far advanced was trade and its benefits.

>> No.1970213

i tl;dr'ed the articles you posted, but the basic premise is to replace politicians with engineers, right?

>> No.1970235

>>1970213
That would be one way to get your gay rights. Other than that, nope.

>> No.1970237

>>1970202

Trade is fine, just not the price system(money). Technology makes the entire system obsolete. They are just debt tokens. They have no physical value. It worked well in an agrarian society, it just can't work applicably today. It relies heavily on growth.

http://mkinghubbert-technocracy.blogspot.com/

>> No.1970238

>>1970110
can you explain some for those who are not technocrats

>> No.1970247

>>1970213
No, it replaces the government with a science based organization. It's anthropological.

>> No.1970262

>>1970213
That just means you're replacing politicians with more politicians.

We need to eliminate politicians completely.

I advocate an all-powerful, yet benevolent, despot who never ages.

I am of course speaking of Skynet.

>> No.1970277

>>1970213
Not OP, but I think it's more like keep the retards from voting, massive education and science investment, substitute politicians with smart people that are valued because they are smart and not charismatic.

The problem is that the current politic system does not reward nor value intelligence. If a politician agrees with scientific data too much (or even worse, is an atheist) he is immediatly shut out of the political halls.

Also, a politician is not allowed to experiment or to be wrong. If one makes a mistake, it is better for him to insist on a mistake to the death than to face the consequences of coming clean. Lastly, they are prevented from making the best decisions due to retarded masses thinking otherwise. This leads to the next problem.

Voters are not proficient enough to wield the power of vote. You don't allow everyone to do surgery or build bridges, why the fuck can anyone vote?
One not always pauses to wonder which candidate is best suited for the job, and may simply cast a vote in hope for continuacy of welfare or non-issues like religion. I'd be honestly surprised if more than 3% of the voters could properly explain what is capitalism and what is socialism.

And lastly, society cannot be shaped by the wants of a charismatic retard that does not comprehend the basis of human relations. In all honesty, human relations so far are not sufficiently understood or explored in order to lay down a proper system.

>> No.1970279

In laymen terms, energy accounting is when the energy consumption it took to create all goods within a certain time frame is divided by its citizens. Each individual now has an alloted amount of energy "units"(not credits, or debit) that is physically possible to consume. That is the basic understanding of it. You can't trade it, and it can't be lost or stolen. This can happen today if we have an energy survey and orgs. accurately describe their production.

>> No.1970296

>>1970237
You have it backwards. In agrarian society, we didn't have any such thing. We used things with intrinsic value as currency -- salt or cattle, or later copper or silver or gold. It's only in a fully complex economy that we can have pure currency and its benefits. Something that is a stand-in for value but has no intrinsic value of its own. That is the ideal kind of money. Gold-standard fags want to go back to the stone age and recreate great depression scenarios.

>> No.1970299

>>1970279
In other words, marxism. Go fuck yourself.

>> No.1970301

>>1970279
The problem with this is that it does not reward nor incentivate people to do shit.
If one studies hard and becomes an engineer, a physicist or a medic they are valued the same as a beggar.

I personally think of technocracy as a dictatorship of the inteligentsia.
It MUST have widespread and free education. All must be given the same oportunities. Those who excel, lead if they wish, those who fail, follow.

>> No.1970304

The world is so goddamn complex, trying to figure out some sort of system to run the whole thing perfectly is utterly futile. Just realize that laws are nothing but (attempted) enforced opinions and embrace the chaotic nature of the whole thing, you'll feel so much about life when you realize that politics and political thought is a joke.

>> No.1970316

>>1970304

What're we supposed to do instead, just shit on ourselves and hope that everything magically works out? Just because something is complicated doesn't mean you shouldn't make the effort.

>> No.1970318

>>1970277
>>1970277

OP here: I agree with you, specifically about the voting. In the design, it is based on a nomination from among them and appointment from above. There is no politics or laws. Only organizations that have a specific function, like maintaining continental hydrology, information systems, or what have you. The difference is Energy Accounting. It divorces the use of politics, governments and money as a means of distribution. The design is humanitarian and secular. I urge people to at least look into this.

>> No.1970324

>>1970304
So doing nothing will surely fix shit in a magical way.
I would never have figured. Looks like rocks have the perfect system.

The basis of technocracy is a rejection of politics. Politicians are unfit for rule because they are politicians, devoting so much to politics that they do not comprehend necessary issues in sufficient form, and are forced to either make shit up, vote on bias or have a team of people to think for him, so why do we have him anyways? Let the smart rule.

>> No.1970329

>>1970316
Solve problems without politics, ignore the government. You want something done? Do it. You want something built? Build it. Feel like rich people have too much money in a world where the poor can barely fill their stomachs? Steal it. The United States government (and in many other nations as well) has become tumorous, it no longer serves the needs of society and it no longer heeds society's commands.

>> No.1970338

>>1970318
>There is no politics
YES
>or laws
WAIT.
Laws must still exist. Yes they may be maleable, but rules must exist or its fucking anarchy.

Again, my problem with energy accounting is that it does not reward hard work. One could just sit by and get credits, the world becomes a lazy cesspool of least-effort-necessary thinking and we eventually fail.

There must be rewards. Money is just one way, but seems to work out pretty fine in motivating people to do shit, so keep it.

>> No.1970347

>>1970329
Declaration of fact, no argument proposed.
Nothing accomplished.

Try again.

>> No.1970359

>>1970296

OP here: You are right about that, my mistake. What I meant was the price system as a whole sufficed well, because there was no technology.

Price system: is any economic system that effects its distribution of goods and services with prices and employing any form of money or debt tokens. Except for possible remote and primitive communities, all modern societies use price systems to allocate resources

>> No.1970362

>>1970338
I like the economic aspect of futureguy's society myself. People get a basic sustenance wage to live comfortably from, and can work on things that robots can't for extra money. I think they have things like painting and sculpture, music, writing, scientific research, etc.

>> No.1970377

>>1970362
A basic substance for living is ok, but it must be the very basics and that's it. I maintain my argument that a reward system must exist so that real shit gets done.

>> No.1970384

>>1970338
>>1970338

If you understood and researched the design, you would understand why laws are useless. There is a judicial system, just not like todays system.

Also, 98% of our laws today have to do with price system functions or money.

>> No.1970394

>>1970384
Refer to Sam Harris a bit. We need laws and they can be maleable, it only depends on their design.

>> No.1970414

>>1970377
>I maintain my argument that a reward system must exist so that real shit gets done.

Are you willing to change your beliefs? Because as it so turns out, reward systems do not actually encourage people to "get shit done".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

>> No.1970432

Well a reward and punishment system would be going backwards. I agree shit needs to be done, but who is to say things won't be done just because there is no reward? Shit gets done non rewarded all the fucking time. I mow my lawn...no reward, I help people out...no reward. There is no one specific "human nature"

>> No.1970451

>Well a reward and punishment system would be going backwards.
Never implyied punishment

>I agree shit needs to be done, but who is to say things won't be done just because there is no reward?
Behavior analysis and evolution. If you do something for nothing you waste resources and die.

>Shit gets done non rewarded all the fucking time.
Oh let's see.
>I mow my lawn...no reward
You reward is a nice lawn which you were conditioned to think it is better than a savage wasteland.

>I help people out...no reward.
Studies have already shown that the brain fires out rewarding neurotransmiters just for helping people out. It's kinda in our genes as a species to help each other.

>There is no one specific "human nature"
Yes.

And that still does not disprove that money or acquiring power does not serve as a good reward for productive behavior. While people may do things because they like it, why should you not add another reinforcer?

>> No.1970456

>>1970414
Aww yeah. I'm not usually one for psychology, but I'd love to run some experiments to test human motivation. Only way to get post-scarcity societies to work.

>> No.1970474

>>1970414
This disproves that money is not efficient in specific situations, not that it fails at everything.

>> No.1970479

1) People like to be paid for their labour
2) People want to keep their capital

Now I agree the second is a problem (and could concievably be fixed, possibly through Friedman's idea of a lump sum handout in your '20s to ensure everyone has enough capital to get by), but the first means we're going to have to deal with prices until someone creates an AI that doesn't want to be payed which just opens up another can of worms.

>> No.1970483

All people are good at heart, just like you. And like others, it seems you haven't figured that out.

Don't worry though.

>> No.1970487

>>1970451

Well what is productive behavior within the price system? Acquiring more debt tokens and gobble up resources unsustainably. That seems like an overall bad plan. I get your point, but I guess a reward in this system is seeing your contribution help in the overall functioning of the Technate. The more people contribute the more effective it can be. Like your mowing the lawn answer.

>> No.1970495

>>1970479

OP here: You are WAY off the track here. Try understanding this a big more.

>> No.1970500

>>1970279
This describes their cost, but it doesn't account for their value.

>> No.1970502

Does economy matter at all?

Aren't our current communications technologies aimed at a goal of sharing "experiences" rather than information, in effect perfecting communication?

And aren't 50 minds all in perfect communication the same thing as 1 mind in 50 locations?

Do we need to worry about economics if we behave as a body rather than a society? Which do you guys think is the way we're heading?

>> No.1970506

>>1970487
A productive behavior would be something that facilitates or adds value to the system, whereas a destructive behavior does the opposite.

Allow me to refrase. If one is capable and is engaged in attempting to do something positive, they should earn more than one who simply sits by.

>> No.1970513

>>1970479

I'm sorry, I get your point now. Those would be problems.

Actually, Technocrats helped create the early FEMA system. In case of a collapse, FEMA would basically abolish all rents, loans, affectively destroying the price system. From there the Technate could be instituted. This is where the Conspiracy crackpots get that certain aspect from their stupid ass theories. However, Bush mutilated FEMA the first day he was in office.

>> No.1970526

>>1970500

You are stuck in price system abstract concepts about "values". Peoples power in this design is consumption. That is their vote. What they consume is what will be created. It is that simple. Research will be done by the research sequence to improve products.

>> No.1970533

>>1970474
The classical "reward someone for a job well done" succeeds in two ways:

1. If people *don't want* to do the work, paying them can motivate them to do it.
2. If people are doing purely mechanical, robotic tasks, paying them for making more widgets more quickly, does work.

What is important to point out here, is that the purely mechanical tasks are all being taken over by robots.

>> No.1970552

>>1970506

Then that would no longer become humanitarian, and would be allowing "decision makers" to decide who gets more resources than others. What objective value can you give? There could be corruption problems too.

If there are leechers, then I would hope their family would persuade them to do something that interest them. If it gets worse, then wouldn't that be considered a psychological problem? In that case, they would have medical treatment.

>> No.1970611

wait, so you are all saying that i can drop out of my phd program and get paid a similar stipend but not be expected to do anything ever? fuck engineering, i'd much rather sit at home and watch tv all day.

where do i sign?

>> No.1970626

>>1970611
>implying anyone with half a brain would get a PhD for economic reasons

>> No.1970639

>>1970611

You're no better than a janitor, it's pretty true.

You don't wish to change, create, explore. You simply wish to make money so in the end you can be a lazy fuck.

It would be a great thing for you to drop out of school and become a shut in. Leave the advancement of society to people who actually give a fuck. People with vision.

>> No.1970650

>>1970611

You really don't have anything that interest you than T.V.? Don't want to go out? Have interests in music? I'm not denying there will be leechers. I just don't understand that as a legitimate argument against this idea. I'm also not saying this idea is perfect by any means. Its just a science based social design that FUNCTIONS in a humanitarian and secular way. Our current system is flawed any number of ways. So why not change it.

>> No.1970660

>>1970526
Except you can't possibly make enough of everything to satisfy everybody's wants and needs. How then, do you plan to distribute things for which there are greater demand than supply? Things do have value - you can expend some amount energy to create two different objects, but have different utility. Under your scheme, these two objects have the same cost, but this does not reflect how useful they are.

>> No.1970677

>>1970301
>I personally think of technocracy as a dictatorship of the inteligentsia.
>It MUST have widespread and free education. All must be given the same oportunities. Those who excel, lead if they wish, those who fail, follow.
That's exactly what we have right now. We have an oligarchy in place comprised of businessmen and lawyers who dance political puppets in front of the masses to create the illusion of rule by the people for the people.

We need a democratic republic backed by popular consent. It's what we lack at the moment.

>> No.1970696

>>1970660
>Except you can't possibly make enough of everything to satisfy everybody's wants and needs.

Maybe not their wants. Because some people want the universe...

But needs? There is more than enough energy produced by the sun, and more than enough resources scattered among the millions of asteroids, nevermind planets and comets, within our solar system for us to satisfy the needs for triple the current population.

Hell, more than that even. We could probably reliably sustain tens of billions of people with the resources within just our own solar system.

Tangible goods are going to the same destination that digital goods have already reached.

>> No.1970705

>>1970660"Except you can't possibly make enough of everything to satisfy everybody's wants and needs."

Thats a bit of a generalization, I've never said that it will. If certain products require more material which can't be created, then there are other alternatives that can be devised. Material Engineers can do this. There are always alternatives. The science can allow ways out of this problem.

>> No.1970742

>>1970677

Education is free until age 25. Also, you still do not get the point. The price system is the core of the issue. It will NOT sustain us in the future. Also, popular opinion doesn't help elect capable people. Do you really want to vote for an airline pilot based on popularity? Or knowledge and appointed by others in the same field?

>> No.1970789

>>1970696
Some areas are already having problems sustaining their agricultural output, but that's for another discussion. Defining the difference between a want and need isn't that easy.

>>1970705
It's not just physical resource limitations, but also expertise, infrastructure, etc. Unless you're in a post-scarcity society, this will always be a problem, and if you are, then there's no need for such a scheme in the first place.
I like how you neatly sidestep all the other points I've made.

>> No.1970805

is it me, or is this just the dumbest idea ever. from what i saw the historical basis of this movement is that our energy supply is going to run out if we don't take control.

the obvious logical step is that energy is "abundant". Abundance implies no scarcity which implies no value. therefore we should implement a valueless system where everyone is given a depletable energy uncurrency.

also, i'm confused. are there no luxuries, or does everyone have infinite luxuries? or are there value to luxuries?

and of course the best fundamental reasoning is physics->biology->psychology->understanding of human nature. it only makes sense that anyone who is smart and knows science can govern a continent. The skill set for conducting experiments and regulating a mob mentality is essentially the same of course.

>> No.1970854

You guys behave as if no one has spent 70 years of their life studying society and scientifically designing a Sustainable society in which the main goal is to better the lives of all the worlds people and the worlds environment, after taking all Relevant factors into account...

Read this short essay:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/essay
http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/essay
http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/essay

>> No.1970866

>>1970742
You seem to be hung up on the concept of "capable people" and economic systems. I don't care about economics systems because they're malleable. So are humans, but not to the same extent. I'm all about responsibility. Social and personal responsibility. If you don't like the way something is, you try to improve it, and if you fail you suffer the consequences.

A dictatorship is devoid of responsibility. All blame for failure is placed on one individual, and perhaps their advisers. There is no personal responsibility for failure because "it's above me" and "it wasn't my fault".

In a democratic system, however, the burden of failure falls on the people. It's your fault when something goes wrong because you either voted for an idiot or you were not able to convince others to vote for someone competent.

Also, don't give me that "all choices are inadequate" bullshit. If that's the case, run for office yourself. In a democratic society, you could do that, but we live in a corporate oligarchy where people fund their elections out of pocket.

Campaigns should be financed publicly and without approved support from private establishments.

inb4 some pipe dream about the "price system" like that can be wished away overnight.

>> No.1970882

>>1970854
Go fuck off somewhere else with your Venus nonsense. We've all read it and we're not impressed. You're as bad as those LaRouche assholes who flood universities with their "impeach Obama" shit.

>> No.1970936

>>1970789
>>1970805
>>1970866
>>1970882
Finally, sensible people.

Now, I just want to live somewhere free from intrusive people, be they government people or just regular people, where I can practice science in peace. I don't care about who is in charge because I doubt they have as much influence as we ascribe to them, just that they remain as harmless and distant as possible.

What team am I on? My physics professor says that libertarian socialism is the best for scientists, but he's a bit of a loon outside of science (I go to UC Berkeley, so it comes with the territory).

>> No.1970951

>>1970936
Sounds about right. Libertarian means you won't get ethics laws and socialism means you don't have to go begging for grants.

>> No.1970962

Sounds far too clever to actually work.

>> No.1970971

>>1970882
U mad

>> No.1970987

To many retards in the world for this to actually work.

And that's the sad truth

>> No.1971009

>>1970882
When I was 13 and going to college, some LaRouche asshole made me sign up for their email list (I didn't know anything about them, and I felt kind of intimidated, so I thought "what the heck"). They believe in a lot of crazy shit. The first thing I saw on their website was a video about how England is controlling American schools, restricting knowledge, and that Newton was either a wizard or didn't even exist.

>> No.1971044
File: 64 KB, 558x450, photo_lg_china.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1971044

what do you think of china? basically as close to a modern technocracy as you get. + they're laying the wood when it comes to economic growth.

the problem is that a technocracy does not solve the division between the labourer and he who owns production.

solve that, in the 21st century, my friend

btw time traveler dude from a few days ago says global technocracy was established in 2065 or something

>> No.1971046

>>1970987

>To many retards in the world

>to many

>to

Yup, far too many retards.

>> No.1971065

>>1970805
i didn't mean my previous post as a troll post; i'm sure all of my points are false, but i simply don't understand how these are dealt with.

if someone could please explain to me how this system eliminates the need for value either in terms of luxury goods or energy, i would appreciate it. or if i'm completely wrong on this, please explain this idea of "energy accounting" better

>> No.1971076

Fuck, who cares? Why can't we talk about science in /sci/?

Politics are shit.

>> No.1971087

The world is too big for this stuff to actually work. There's no way you could get everyone on board unless you started a cult and it just kept growing and then you started your own country and shit. By that time the guy with the biggest dick would be raping all the woman to spread his seed and your little energy bullshit would be taken over by the thugs and mafia. It's science fiction and not practical.

tl;dr

>> No.1971089

>>1970110
Freshly exposed to this idea, I of course have a few questions, mainly concerning a practical implementation of a Technocracy.

One must keep in mind the present political state. How does one instigate this paradigm shift towards a much much much more logical form of governorship?

From a specific angle, the United States. If, hypothetically, one were to strive to set this process in motion, how would they go about creating a workable, publicly presentable, and let's keep in mind, legal, model?

To me it seems that it would be rather difficult to shift from our diseased, broken system to this. It would require starting anew. There hardly seems to be a way to work this idea around the Constitution, although given time I might be able to come up with ideas.

Does technocracy imply a revolution?

>> No.1971121

>I'm a Technocrat who supports a science based social design.
I'm a scientist who would make a fine dictator. What's your point? Oh, wait. You don't have one.

>> No.1971141

>>1971089

No revolution was ever proposed. Just education and when the system collapsed then the system could be implemented by total conscription. FEMA was also another proposition, which was good until Bush ll changed it. Education has been the main goal though, and its hard to do unless you have people who see the system as broken, as today.

>> No.1971145

>>1971121

As a scientist, you are objective, which you hardly seem to be. Maybe just an over educated troll? or passing off as one?

>> No.1971178

>>1970936
>>1970805

These people hardly seem smart with their comments. Especially when they come to uninformed conclusions. I guess their are stupid people here too, wasn't really expecting otherwise.

>> No.1971283

I know everyone here worships intelligence, but limiting the ability to rule to a select group of people with high IQs is a terrible idea. That's just asking for a despotic shithole. Being smart doesn't make you a good person.

>> No.1971313

>>1971283

Please read more about this. It isn't some High IQ Oligarchic government. It's about who is the most capable in their respective fields of work. Be it electrical engineering, Agriculture, Educators, architects, etc. The best in their fields aren't selected by the most popular, but the most capable in their field and voted amongst themselves. Architects only know if other architects are good or not.

>> No.1971337

>>1971178
At least try to hone your grammar before you insult the intelligence of others. Also, to paraphrase your rebuttal/post:
>You guys are stupid. You didn't reach the same conclusion I did. You didn't see things the way I did. I knew you wouldn't understand.
Sorry. Looks like we disagree. Deal with it.
>>1971313
Great, so it's about letting tiny circles of so-called "experts" run the world?

That's oligarchy. That's bullshit.

>> No.1971344

>>1971337
>1337
Awesome.

/thread.

>> No.1971357

>>1971337

So, what about the 250+ people who rule the U.S. Today? isn't that oligarchic? what about the fact that those with the most money sway political decisions? isn't that oligarchic? I guess Everything is oligarchic.

Oh, I'm sorry I spelled a word wrong. Which has shit to do with grammar.

I don't care if you disagree, just don't come with uninformed decisions. A few glances at some articles doesn't make you an expert.

>> No.1971360

Political demagoguery will exist no matter the form of government. People always want to know what kind of things are being done for/to them by their governments, and whoever is able to provide better answers will win out. Politics on a scale of millions of people will always boil down to a mob mentality. It doesn't matter if the currency is paper we pretend has value, or energy, or flower pedals, it is simply too easy to manipulate people en masse.

Read Dune 1-6

>> No.1971373

>>1971360

I don't know how that would be applied to this design. It is non political. It operates on facts and information. What political stance can you take within this government? I can't think of any.

>> No.1971415
File: 6 KB, 251x251, 7327328722.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1971415

>>1971373

A nation exists to represent and advocate for the wellbeing of its population as a single unified body(which should be uniform, if the population ceases to be uniform I consider the nation to no longer exist).

What one defines as beneficial is subjective and ultimately up to the population to decide.

Nothing is based purely on perceived facts.

>> No.1971420

I don't like it. It would be hard to fight a robot army if we let them take over, so rebellion wouldn't be an option. If they wanted to kill someone for being circumcised, they could, and there would be no one there to stop them.

>> No.1971437

>>1971373
ocracy: government by a particular sort of people or according to a particular principle.

So I'm assuming this is a political movement of some sort, not just an economic one. Also, I think your definition of politics may be a little narrow, but an example that comes to mind:

A guild or collective of scientists with similar interests come together, and through the use of a political puppet who's job it is to represent said guild, attempt to forge a monopoly on new technologies. Say they make a better system of transportation that obsoletes everything else, and withhold their information from general use unless they receive something of value. The puppet in charge smiles and puts on a nice face, and convinces everyone else that it's in their best interest to give this guild/collaboration better treatment (be it luxuries, money, anything of value), benefiting himself in the process as well. Suddenly inequalities, inequalities everywhere, and in the end Joe Schmo loses out, while the luxuries and valuables all steadily flow to the aristocratic bureaucracy which inevitably forms in order to guarantee the benefits gained by this guild and its eventual competitors.

Luckily, humanity has this nice balancing factor called "violence" in which 300 million enraged Americans could more than easily take down a few thousand technocratic officials.

Tell me if I'm misunderstanding the basic principles of a technocracy.

>> No.1971440

And when I come to /sci/ to see some moderately intelligent discussion I see a completely retarded thread like this.

>>1970279
>In laymen terms, energy accounting is when the energy consumption it took to create all goods within a certain time frame is divided by its citizens. Each individual now has an alloted amount of energy "units"(not credits, or debit) that is physically possible to consume. That is the basic understanding of it. You can't trade it, and it can't be lost or stolen. This can happen today if we have an energy survey and orgs. accurately describe their production.

This is basically some sort of frankenstein Labour Theory of Value, but with energy replacing Labour.

Intuitively, the value that people give something has little relation with the energy used to create something. People pay shittons of money to hear Justin Bieber sing or whatever, but it takes comparatively little energy for him to do so.

So in the end what you are proposing are price controls based on a unit of value that, while not arbitrary, people do not care about.

Furthermore:
>This can happen today if we have an energy survey and orgs. accurately describe their production.

What, and then everyone can enter that data and make a 5 Year Plan? Yes, call me out for making the socialism accusation, but that is EXACTLY what you are proposing. This sort of system will be unable to react to changing economic conditions, and will be vulnerable to response bias, among other things.

>> No.1971444

we'll all be robots in a few thousand years anyway, if you want to fix the problem of human suffering then try to speed that up. As long as humans are humans, they'll be dicks to each other and life will suck.

>> No.1971466

>>1971415

Decisions are based on the information gathered through energy accounting, ecological economics, sustainability, and many other data. Research is also done by the research sequence. Pretty much the description of science. I don't know how political demagoguery can take place on an anthropological system.

>> No.1971475
File: 66 KB, 500x335, 1224651094192.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1971475

>>1971466

idiot, re-read what I wrote, maybe you will understand it next time.

>> No.1971504

>>1971440What, and then everyone can enter that data and make a 5 Year Plan? Yes, call me out for making the socialism accusation, but that is EXACTLY what you are proposing. This sort of system will be unable to react to changing economic conditions, and will be vulnerable to response bias, among other things.

Actually the Russians were VERY close to creating there version of a technocracy, unfortunately they(the engineers, technicians) were killed for sedition before any real change could be made.

There would be no 5 year plan. The information can change instantaneously with current technology.

>> No.1971530

>>1971440 This is basically some sort of frankenstein Labour Theory of Value, but with energy replacing Labour.

Not at all. Everything is free as a right of citizenship. The flow of energy in the system is measured and accounted for and distributed equitably. That's it. It's not a "value" idea.

>> No.1971567

>>1971504
>Actually the Russians were VERY close to creating there version of a technocracy, unfortunately they(the engineers, technicians) were killed for sedition before any real change could be made.

So Socialism failed because they murdered all the engineers? Ha ha ha, oh wow.

>The information can change instantaneously with current technology.

No it can't. Even if you had some sort of amazing mindreading device that could know the exact thoughts of every human in the economy at all times, you CANNOT aggregate individual utility functions.

>> No.1971610

>>1971567 So Socialism failed because they murdered all the engineers? Ha ha ha, oh wow.

Never said that, but go ahead still being a dick.

>>1971567 No it can't. Even if you had some sort of amazing mindreading device that could know the exact thoughts of every human in the economy at all times, you CANNOT aggregate individual utility functions.

WOW, just goes to show how brainwashed you really are.

>> No.1971642

ITT: Extreme elitism
If anything, I think we should severely restrict the ability to have legal ownership of ideas.

>> No.1971650

I ain't letting anyone hurt this world.

Destroy the atheists.

>> No.1971696

>>1971610
>Never said that, but go ahead still being a dick.
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking" -- John Maynard Keynes

>Actually the Russians were VERY close to creating there version of a technocracy, unfortunately they(the engineers, technicians) were killed for sedition before any real change could be made.

Please let me know where I made an error in interpreting your argument.

1. A technocracy requires engineers in order to be created and maintained. (T -> E)
2. The socialist rulers in Russia had engineers, but they were killed for sedition. (~E)
3. Therefore, they were unable to create a technocracy. (~T)

>> No.1971808

A few questions for technocrats, they might sound stupid but I don't give a fuck..

So price-system is apparently outdated, or not the most efficient one, fine but what units would you be using in an energy/physical system?

Also, politics is a science of it's own, and our current policies promote competition within politicians. so are you considering the removal of current political theory & thought? Let's say that happens in a controlled manner, how can you possibly test the detriment or benefit of that action? What if the people are unhappy with the authority you're providing?

Also,
Can you explain a PRACTICAL point of view within technocracy?! I mean, at the current political system we have something like this:

There's authority, we democratically vote for authority since their election affects all of us.

The politicians have political capital which they raise, and use it for their campaigns, this bit I don't necessarily agree with but how is technocracy capable of promoting & electing leadership? Or should ordinary citizens not be concerned with this?

>> No.1972331

>>1970110
>Technocratic
>supports science based dogma
Man, did someone just hit you over the head, or have you always been retarded?

~reads first link~
Full of shit, full of buzzwords, lacking substance.

I won't bother wasting my time on the second two.

Let me ask you this though, how do you solve the collective action problem? If people are not driven by personal profit, what is the motivation for work?

>> No.1972338

>>1972331

Why is motivation even a question? It's easy for anyone that cares. You work as a human being to build a better future for your progeny. We are all tasked with advancing our species. End of story.

>> No.1972350

>>1972338
Sorry, I live in the real world where people are lazy, greedy, and will steal if given the proper scenario. People need motivation to work (or punishment when not working). If people need to work, and you don't have an incentive for work or a disincentive to not work, then you have a pipe dream, and a very stupid one at that.

>> No.1972354

Oh no, you're going back to page 15.

>> No.1972363

Authoritarian Technocrat here, do any of you actually know what the definition of Technocracy is? It means having a system of Government where Scientists and Engineers are in control.

Also, abolishing money is a bad idea enjoy looking for your double-coincidence of wants. OP reminds me too much of Neo-Serfdom/State Property.

>> No.1972366

I cast Manna upon this thread.
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm

>> No.1972367

>>1972363
So, a state is technocratic iff the techno people are in charge? That seems like a rather flimsy definition. Perhaps you mean instead a particular change in the voting system? Or some other way to appoint who has power in government? Have any more specifics?

>> No.1972369

>>1972350

All I hear is blah blah blah I wont do it because I'm inherently fucking lazy. The fact that your single purpose for living is to make money paints you as pretty pathetic in the first place.

Enjoy your bleak, meaningless existance.

>> No.1972376

>>1972367
>So, a state is technocratic iff the techno people are in charge? That seems like a rather flimsy definition.
So is the one for Democracy (The people are in charge). No but seriously, there are many variations of Democracy including Direct Democacy and Representation.

>> No.1972377

>>1972376
Democracy implies voting and an implementation. I don't understand what implementation a technocracy would have. Please explain. Is it like Plato's Republic? How does it work?

>> No.1972384

>>1972363
They don't. They don't understand that what they want is a dictatorship lead by people like them.

Or maybe they're too scared to admit it. Not sure why though. What's wrong with coming out and admitting you wish to rule the country?

>> No.1972388

>>1972369
>I can't construct a convincing rebuttal, so I'll just kick this straw man out the window and throw in an ad hominem for shits and giggles.
Classy.

>> No.1972389

>>1972384
Well, if we're talking about getting rid of all incentive to do labor, then we're already into Utopia land, aka pipedream land, and it deserves no further discussion.

I'm just wondering if there's people who call themselves technocrats and still believe that personal incentive is required for laborers.

>> No.1972394

>>1972377
You're pretty dense, kid. Technical experts (scientists and engineers) run the country. They decide what happens. They make it happen. That's it. It's a system that believes in substituting corporate oligarchy with technoligarchy.

>> No.1972397

ITT: Wannabe scientists talking about technocracy, while completely ignoring the SCIENCE of economics.

>> No.1972399

>>1972394
Yes. I understand that's your desired outcome, but how do you make that happen? Do people vote on who they think are the experts? How do you decide who has the power?

>> No.1972403

>>1972399
UH...WELL...WE TALK ABOUT ON /sci/ AND...UH...WE...

It won't happen. It's full-fucking-retarded.

>> No.1972409

>>1972403
Actually, that's not quite accurate. Even if it did happen, no one would notice. It would be so gradual that only historians in retrospect would catch it.

>> No.1972411

If utopia doesn't work with mankind, we just need a better mankind.

FOR THE TRANSHUMAN UNITY !!!

>> No.1972416

>>1972411
Or we can be completely replaced by robots. I still don't see the problem people have with this.

>> No.1972420

>>1972411
In all honesty, I don't think scientists should ever bother with politics. Being a control freak isn't in our nature. I'd rather we focus our efforts on things like genetic engineering and nanotechnology than poorly defined, and largely unrealistic, political systems.

We'll take care of that shit down the line.

>> No.1972435

>>1972420

Actually I think by nature scientists are control freaks. By and large though for the most part a scientist realizes that you can't control a system you can't understand. Thusly, in seeking control, one must first obtain an absolute knowledge of a system.

>> No.1972436

>>1972420
We do need to make sure that we can have a utopia when we get there, not a dystopia. It can work either way.

>> No.1972450

>>1972388

How is it anyone's fault but your own that you refuse to acknowledge an outlying purpose for life outside of personal wealth? You asked what motivation one would have without currency, I gave you the only answer there is.

I get that a large majority of the population wouldn't do a damn thing if they weren't basically forced to, but I'd hope that someone engaging in an intelligent discussion would be a bit above that.

Quite frankly the way the system works as is, the intelligent minority does what it can to support the lazy/inept majorities who seek nothing outside of mounds of food and excuses to refrain from the use of prophylactics.

I don't see ditching the currency reward system and telling everyone they can quit their utterly meaningless service industry vocation as causing much issue.

>> No.1972453

>>1972450
Ok. Your idea is cool and all, except for being entirely not practicable. That's all we're saying bro. Generally on the science board we like the practical and practicable.

>> No.1972458

>>1972397
>Science
>Economics
Pick one, because Theoretical Economics only work with Ceteris Paribus which doesn't work in real life.

>> No.1972459

>>1972453

It's not really my idea. I don't really give a damn about much anymore, but that's beside the point. I was just trying to answer a question and someone chose not to accept the only logical answer.

>> No.1972468

>>1972399
Qualifications are here for good reasons.

>> No.1972471

>>1972459
The original point made was that it is not practical. You replied to me that that makes my existence bleak. That has no bearing on whether it's practical. That is not a reply or answer.

>> No.1972474

>>1972468
So, you need a college degree to be a politician? Presumably that's not enough. I'm looking for some more specific ideas on how you decide who is and who is not a scientist. I will bet that such a system will be so open to abuse that it will be indistinguishable from what we have now, or from a dictatorship.

>> No.1972484

>>1972471

Way to read what you want. I implied that if you can't understand a motivation for work outside of money, your existence must be bleak.

I wasn't arguing practicality, clearly in the last bit of your post you posed a question.

>If people are not driven by personal profit, what is the motivation for work?

I answered that question, nothing more. If you'd like to keep playing the inferiority complex and raise your hackles to everyone that responds, by all means proceed; I'm going to bed.

>> No.1972490

Socialism =/=> Communism
Communism ==> Socialism
ie its not biconditional

>> No.1972495

>>1972484
Ok. So we misread each other. Your idea is not practical, which means that I don't care about discussing it further.

>> No.1972500

>>1970262
>>1970262
>>1970262
>>1970262
I agree with this post completely. We just must make sure we won't piss it off.

>> No.1972501

Just want to say:
It's not oligarchy, it's meritocracy.

>> No.1972503

>>1972501
>not oligarchy, meritocracy
That's nice. That's the goal, not the system of government. How do you choose who has merit? Is it done like Plato's Republic?

>> No.1972506

It doesn't work.

We're not ready as a species. Perhaps our distant evolutionary descendants will be.

>> No.1972513

New plan.

Political parties have short policy booklets written up by numerous impartial judges. The party does not have any advertising, brand, or even name. The booklets are sent out throughout the country, and everyone chooses a party based on this. The parties are numbered for the election, and there's just one box to tick, for the party you support most.

This is an extremely flawed plan, and I would like to see some input. It solves the problem of advertising influencing votes, and also stops so many lazy/stupid people voting, who can't be bothered choosing a party. It raises problems such as how to become a member of a party so any individual can gain power if they wish, and making sure everyone knows which party is accountable for which failures.

>> No.1972517

>>1972513
Judges appointed how?

How the hell do you plan to prevent campaigning? Basically we lose freedom of speech? Not a good plan there.

>> No.1972526

>>1972517
As I said, it was flawed. For the judges I was considering professors from universities if they were willing to volunteer. The campaigning is an issue, in America at least, because the majority of the population just votes what their dad always told them to, or whichever one is badmouthed the least by their opponents. Obama isn't winning the next election because a large portion of your population think he's a communist, muslim and fascist. Not that I necessarily agree with his policies, but people are judging him based on media campaigns instead of his policies.

>> No.1972552

System of parties is bullshit. Establish direct democracy, and let everyone vote on ideas, not parties.

>> No.1972555

>>1972552
You must be new to political science. Enjoy your stay.

>> No.1972573
File: 29 KB, 454x300, barack-obama-angry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1972573

20% democracy, 30% Technocracy, and 50% Democratic technocracy.
Should I elaborate?

>> No.1972576

>>1972573
Does your post have anything to do with twitter or the internet in general?

>> No.1972591

>>1971313
>Please read more about this. It isn't some High IQ Oligarchic government. It's about who is the most capable in their respective fields of work. Be it electrical engineering, Agriculture, Educators, architects, etc. The best in their fields aren't selected by the most popular, but the most capable in their field and voted amongst themselves. Architects only know if other architects are good or not.

Ok, so we vote for the best scientist, the best architect. All we need to do now is vote for the best leader! Only now it's different! Because the leaders get to vote for the best leader! Woooooo

Derpy derp derp. Derp-derp. Durppp. Back to you John.

>> No.1972596
File: 46 KB, 720x360, 1272761202799.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1972596

>>1972576
I don't think so...?
H'okay. How about, no political parties, only candidates with ideas and then supporters that support their idea, and then all laws and shit are voted on by everyone, but the people in government positions that got there purely on the merit of their knowledge and skill in their profession count as 30% of the vote, ALL people that vote get 20% of the vote, and then the last 50% is decided by the people the laws and projects affect and involve, so i.e. A law about high-speed airplanes would have 50% of their vote decided by people that work in the field, so aerospace engineers, pilots and so on.

I concede that a pure technocracy, while the capability of it being the best government on Earth, also has a high risk to falling to corruption from the inside and being taken over and transformed. However, purely democratic voting is, well, usually uneducated masses flinging shit at each other.

A mix of both is best. Keeps out Hitlers, and promotes science and keeps the country running awesomely.

>> No.1972603

>>1972596
>but the people in government positions that got there purely on the merit of their knowledge and skill in their profession count as 30% of the vote
Can't happen. Either you Plato's Republic it up, which is an unpractical way of doing things, or you vote, which is the current system.

>A law about high-speed airplanes would have 50% of their vote decided by people that work in the field, so aerospace engineers, pilots and so on.
Who decides what's in that sphere and not? Who decides what is science and what isn't? That's the problem we're asking you to solve, to answer. We want to know more concretely what institutions, voting laws, representative selection laws, and so on, would be in place. We want to understand how people would not abuse the system. What safeguards are in place? How does individual self interest or groups of like minded people not corrupt the system? Concrete questions like these remain unanswered, and probably unanswerable, because you're living in a pipedream and haven't thought this through at all.

>> No.1972608

>>1972603
Hmmm.
There needs to be some TechnocratCon or something to go to for extra schemin- I mean refining our ideas.

>> No.1972654

>>1970377
Agreed, Reward/Punishment system must be put in place if this technocracy ever comes to fruition.

A technocracy won't be put in place in our lifetimes.
Politicians like getting insane amounts of money for doing almost nothing, and they're the ones who decide how a country is run in the end.

Perhaps once we spread to space in a few hundred years it may happen, but until then our system will be based on currency.

>> No.1972661

>>1972654
>implying mortality
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/forever-young/manhattan-beach-project-end-aging-2029
http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes

>> No.1972740

>>1972661
Only the rich will be able to afford this at first and thus they will be considered the eldest and thus, "most intelligent" by the masses.

They will rule. They will keep in place the system which allowed them to become rulers in the first place. Currency continues.

This is, however, merely speculation on my part, quote from Manhattan Beach Project:
"how much they think it will cost." [http://www.manhattanbeachproject.com/] (Line 33)

Again, it comes down to cost.

>> No.1972751

>>1972740
Note to self:
Proof read before posting so you don't look retarded.

>> No.1972755

>>1972740
>Only the rich will be able to afford this at first
>at first
You do realize that the price would be driven down fast as fuck by half the world demanding it and the fact that the cure won't be made out of antimatter?

>> No.1972780

>>1972755
Price may remain high for quite a while due to overpopulation issues...

>> No.1972790
File: 22 KB, 398x241, laughingbitches.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1972790

>>1972780
>he still believes in overpopulation

>> No.1972796

>>1972790
>only when a significant cause of death is removed

>> No.1972804
File: 255 KB, 2000x2000, 1287517771864.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1972804

>>1972796
Don't worry about it.
Besides, could always just have mandatory sterilization for people that want the treatment.

>> No.1972808

>>1972804
That is a very good point...

>> No.1972813

This should be easy, after everyone has their own personal molecular assembler:

Genetically-engineered super-furry lover first, technocratic dictatorship version of the Instrumentality of Mankind later.

>> No.1972823

>>1972813
>technocratic dictatorship version of the Instrumentality of Mankind
Sounds reminiscent of the Imperium of Man.

>> No.1972825

>>1972790
>He still believes he'll live to see men walk on Mars

>> No.1972827

>>1972823

Well, we get to be crime-fighting, interstellar-capable cyborgs at least.

>> No.1972828

>>1972825
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8623691.stm

>> No.1972845

>>1972828
>implying he'll be there next week

>> No.1972856
File: 482 KB, 800x1248, 1286652130966.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1972856

>>1972845
Doesn't matter if no existing countries decide not to do it.
But what happens when Japan get their space elevator up?