/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4167283]

What are the flaws of a technocracy? It seems like science ruling the planet would be universally good.

[Anonymous No.4167292]

Good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.4167305]

>>4167283
Technocracy means appointed specialists instead of elected representatives. It only implies science ruling the world by the loosest definition of science.

[Anonymous No.4167309]

Flaw No1: The majority is against it.

That's the only flaw you need, baby.

[Anonymous No.4167306]

>>4167292
There is a reason I asked for possible flaws, I cannot see them. Care to explain why you believe it would be a bad system?

[Anonymous No.4167314]

>>4167283
Rampant corruption. But seeing as we have that already, I would be willing to give technocracy a go, even though it will never happen.

[Anonymous No.4167324]

>>4167309

>implying democracy

[Anonymous No.4167328]

We have technocracts at the helm in italy and greece now. They are financial technocrats. It surely will be for the good of the people...

I would welcome it if politicians were required to make informed decisions, but it's very hard to implement. The pirate party has a concept for that, where every citizen has a direct vote but they can delegated to more knowledgeable people on a case by case basis. They call it liquid democracy.

[Anonymous No.4167341]

>yfw China is a technocracy
>yfw China is going to be the lone superpower

u mad? Whites and blacks? jelly of azn supremacy?

[Anonymous No.4167344]

>>4167306
Those who are appointed to positions could be corrupt, or those that appoint the people could appoint people for reasons other than what is good for "humanity."

[Anonymous No.4167350]

>>4167306

It would be impossible to get in place. Even if by some miracle it was instituted, science is expensive; the same rich fuckers running shit now would still be running it in your technocratic utopia.

[Anonymous No.4167361]

>>4167324

Well if you weigh government by any criteria other than utilitarianism you are dumb. Government should exist for the sole purpose to make as many people content with the system as possible. If that means a government that instates people who don't know what their doing and is governed by bureaucratic nonsense, then so be it, as long as the majority is content with it.

[Anonymous No.4167363]

The biggest problems would be choosing the Technocrats and ensuring accountability.

[Anonymous No.4167365]

>>4167361

You are so dumb.

fo real

[Anonymous No.4167369]

>>4167341
I don't know what electron tube engineering is, but it sounds cool.

[Anonymous No.4167375]

Technocratic solutions mean shit living conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses

[Anonymous No.4167379]

>>4167283
the world goes through cycles, and different groups sit atop the power pyramid at different times. sometimes it's the warrior class; sometimes the priests; sometimes the scholars; and sometimes the workers.

so far, nothing has worked well; just some things have worked less poorly than others.

the ultimate government is a benign dictatorship where the dictator is unchanging and immortal

[Anonymous No.4167393]

>>4167365

Is your picture referring to the special american flavor of democracy? It seems fairly specific. That don't really apply to democracy in general.

[Anonymous No.4167397]

Because we already live in a semi technocratic system anyway.

Judges and Magistrates are technocrats
The board of the reserve bank are technocrats
The top brass of the military are technocrats
All the presidents advisers and secretaries are technocrats
And probably most importantly, the management of every single corporation are technocrats

Technocracy does not mean putting rocket scientists in charge of stuff, it doesn't even mean putting smart people in charge of stuff. It means putting people who specialize in a particular field into positions of power. It still means that politicians are in charge of everything, only you dont get to vote them out of office when they fuck up.

[Anonymous No.4167402]

>>4167379
I believe robots and computers should be increasingly phased into decision making processes. The goal would be a world run by machines and maintained by machines.

[Anonymous No.4167412]

>>4167393

Sure it does. Imagine being a wealthy person from europe and having over HALF of your income confiscated by the majority. Its sickening.

[Anonymous No.4167413]

>>4167402
say goodbye to mercy and mitigating circumstances; that's a pretty cold society

[Anonymous No.4167429]

>>4167412
imagine the Beatles paying a 95% royalty tax.

"that's 1 for me, 19 for you...taxman!"

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.4167430]

>>4167413

Here we go again with hollywood AI...

[Anonymous No.4167438]

>>4167402
Oh boy have I got a documentary for you
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace/

[Anonymous No.4167444]

What technocracy means
>appointed specialists instead of elected representatives
What the faculty of science and engineering faculty thinks it means
>we in charge now

I often wonder if the science faculty even notices the rest of campus sometimes.

[Anonymous No.4167446]

>>4167412

You're still talking about specifics. Democracy by any definition doesn't have anything to do with that.

[Anonymous No.4167468]

>>4167402
I definitely agree that computers should be used a lot more. Statistical analysis is a tool modern governments cannot afford to take lightly

[Anonymous No.4167477]

>>4167444

My school's CSE is the same way. They get the most funding and have the most elaborate benefits. The smug assholes pretty much run the school.

[Anonymous No.4168157]

This thread is in my interest :3
Keep discussin!
Also postin quote from the "sunshine" movie:

"We're not a democracy. We're a collection of astronauts and scientists, so we're going to make the most informed decision available to us." - Searle

[Anonymous No.4168173]

A world ruled by logic might be good for man as a whole, but might not be so good for the individual. Individuals are motivated to be part of society by having a say, or at least the illusion of a say.

[Anonymous No.4168176]

no flaws, if scientists were to vote their leaders.

[Anonymous No.4168195]

Humans, being the diverse creatures we are, have a gaussian distribution of inteligence.

When it comes to decision making, it makes very little sense for us the majority to be in charge. Compare the intelligence of the smartest person you know to the average joe you would meet at a gas station.

Since some of us are so much smarter than others, we need to concentrate power into the hands of the smart ones. This is why hierarchies tend to develope everywhere, from churches to corporations to tribes.

The point of a technocracy is to get the absolute best decision makers in position of power. To consolidate authority on the right side of the bell curve.

Technocracy is the future. If it can be implemented properly.

[Anonymous No.4168211]

>computers
>programmed by humans
>making complex decisions humans are supposedly bad at
>mfw

[Anonymous No.4168219]

>>4168195
Right so how it is exactly that you'll convince the "average joe" to do as you say, pay taxes and such? Will never work.

[Anonymous No.4168235]

>>4168219
Force? Stripping of benefits? Exclusion from society? Neutering? The possibilities are endless!

[Anonymous No.4168239]

>>4168219

You put a gun to his head. Same way any government does anything. People pay their taxes because they know they will have a gun pointed at them if they dont.

might makes right, and I believe the intelligent can be more mighty than the majority

[Anonymous No.4168242]

>>4168195
My sperm has a Gaussian distribution on my fap rag.

>implying you have a meaningful measure of intelligence
>implying those in power would really be smarter than those out of it, and not just lucky, spoiled fucks.

[Anonymous No.4168245]

>>4167283
Knowledge is useless without goals. The job of a scientist is to attain knowledge, not create goals.

[Anonymous No.4168250]

>>4168245
I think you misunderstand technocracy. Science =/= technology.

[Anonymous No.4168260]

>>4168250
I think you didn't read the OP's post.
>It seems like science ruling the planet would be universally good.

[Anonymous No.4168264]

>>4168260
Well then he is an idiot and I would agree with you.

[Anonymous No.4168266]

>>4168235
Kim Jung il reborn!

[Anonymous No.4168270]

>>4168266
But kim jung il wasn't the scientist of everything. I doubt he had a degree in anything besides terrorizing citizens, even that was probably done by an underling.

[Anonymous No.4168273]

Any government with leaders that cannot be periodically replaced is a bad one.

[Anonymous No.4168292]

I have a solution for how to make a technocratic direct democracy work.

Use a series of public mental tests, neurological screenings and physical trials to act as a permanent standard for any would-be nominee. If you cannot pass this test of knowledge and physical fitness, you cannot run for a position until you do; anyone can try their hands at the test at any time.

After this the candidate must present their intended plan in office in the form of a detailed essay under a certain word count; this will act as their platform in the series of debates that follow.

After that, there are then three different voting periods; the second two act as redundancy measures in case of falsification or inconvenienced voters. Since all citizens will have a SSN, a DLN, and one or two other forms of unique identification, the servers should be able to detect any voter spam if there are any repeats, and the two redundant time periods provide for physical confirmation messages to be sent to the negated voters to report to a government office to physically and electronically reconfirm their vote.

All citizens will be required to vote on any candidate or bill that they have the power to vote on, though they will be given the option to officially abstain, or even vote 'against' any of these topics. Of course, you can only pick one, so you can't support one candidate and attack another at the same time during the voting cycle for that topic.

[Anonymous No.4168296]

>>4168292
>Who will make the knowledge tests?
The academia, I guess. The populace will also be able to submit their own materials for review.
>How will the physical trials work?
Think a combination of military physicals and a triathlon.
>What about the physically disabled or disordered?
If the disability does not impair them to the point of practical immobility, they can take the test, but the standards will neither be raised or lowered.
>What about the aneurotypical; the mentally abnormal?
Provided they do not suffer from debilitating syndromes (sociopathy, extreme schizophrenia) they are also welcome to try their hand at the trials and run for the nomination.
>How is this supposed to deal with corruption?
By ensuring that all major government positions are filled only by physically healthy and mentally disciplined people who have proven themselves knowledgeable in economic and political policies and administration, I believe that we can prevent some of the classic 'ignorant bureaucrat' and 'well-connected' corruption stereotypes.
That, and we also avoid the 'lazy jew syndrome' by making the salary of these government official permanent (with exception for inflation) and requiring that these officials constantly pass the same tests as everyone else at periodic times of the year.

[Anonymous No.4168303]

>>4168296
One failure is tolerable but politically unwise, two are grounds for removal and spark investigation, a third means immediate removal on the spot. The position will remain unfilled until the next election cycle, while the Research and Advisory Committee (aka the Akashic Council) indirectly fulfill the duties of that office by handling the paperwork either themselves or through their administrative staff, depending on the level of authority needed for the paperwork in question. The AC has no power to approve or deny anything that passes through their hands unless the full Council agrees on it, and in the meantime the topics are officially 'postponed' if the matter is not urgent. The AC is not permitted to have control over any one seat for longer than one election cycle, which should be all it takes for a new nominee to take over the duties of that office.

The AC is a government organization with no real 'power', but instead acts as a public, media covered group of masters in each primary field to warn the populace of impending issues, support scientific research of various sorts, and advise various government officials. They are also in charge of independently collating societal and economic data as a comparison with the official government reports. No government official has power over the AC.

[Anonymous No.4168313]

>>4168195
Lol, wtfamireading.
>2011
>a version of Plato's philosopher-king in disguise
Nothing guarantees that the technocrats are more fit to govern than any other ppl. In fact, many scientists are pretty much crap when it comes to politics and social relations in general.

Not to mention how many are asspies.

[Anonymous No.4168317]

>>4167397
>implying US senators and House members haven't fucked up.
>>mfw all the fuckers are still in office
>>wtf.jpeg

[Anonymous No.4168318]

>>4168292
This thread was 2/10, now 0/10

[Anonymous No.4168332]

>>4168292
>>4168296
>>4168303
>mental testing
>physical testing

I'm not sure which one is more stupid.

[Anonymous No.4168335]

>>4168332
How are they stupid?
What makes them dumb choices?
Isn't it preferable to have a healthy, fit president who has shown he knows economics and has read and memorized the constitution?

[Anonymous No.4168341]

>>4167283
What you call science, you mean logic.

And by Logic you mean determinism.

And by determinism, you mean to turn human culture into an ant-like, borg-like, collective.

undedse feeling

[Anonymous No.4168346]

>>4168341
>And by determinism, you mean to turn human culture into an ant-like, borg-like, collective.
Are you implying it isn't?

[Anonymous No.4168915]

The lack of morality

[Anonymous No.4168937]

>>4168915
That is the fundamental problem, isn't it.

>All religion, at the heart of the matter, claim to offer a fundamental truth.
>All science offers is fundamental skepticism and the exploration of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.4169032]

People in western world are not ready, they aren't even adjusting his religions/belives/moral values to the scientific paradigm of today. They also don't give a single fuck about the whole, they just want his car, drugs, sex and iphone. China goverment is so contradictory, for one part they have all the technocratic thing, but they are inflicting consumerism values towards the people. Africa is screwed up for ever, South hemisphere countries are sucking USA big media and values dick. Middle East just want moar Alla and India don't give a single fuck

[Anonymous No.4169047]

>>4168195
>>4168195
>>4168195
>>4168195


Human have distinct types of intelligent, the differences are little in a matter of cuantitie, it's the cuality. Go ask Einstein to play soccer, play the piano, or give a morality booster speak.