Technocracy

[Graceheart the Leopard]

Has anyone heard of this concept? Basically, a Technocracy is a government where scientists and engineers are the rulers of a country, while decisions are made by application of the scientific method. To quote Wikipedia:

The term technocracy was originally used to designate the application of the scientific method to solving social problems, in counter distinction to the traditional economic, political, or philosophic approaches. According to the proponents of this concept, the role of money and economic values, political opinions, and moralistic control mechanisms would be eliminated altogether if and when this form of social control should ever be implemented in a continental area endowed with enough natural resources, technically trained personnel, and installed industrial equipment so as to allow for the production and distribution of physical goods and services to all continental citizens in an amount exceeding the individuals' physical ability to consume. In such an arrangement, concern would be given to sustainability within the resource base, instead of monetary profitability, so as to ensure continued operation of all social-industrial functions into the indefinite future.Technical and leadership skills would be selected on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than democratic election by those without such knowledge or skill deemed necessary.

If a technocratic state arose today, would it be feasible, or would it rapidly degenerate into an elitist ogliarchy? Could a high standard of living and HDI be maintained? It was also apparently quite popular in the US in the 1930s before FDR implimented the New Deal.

 

[Cutlass]

No elite group will likely govern well over the long run. The smaller the group who calls the shots, the more likely it is to be corrupted or out of touch. Technocrats are the people you want running the agencies and advising the leadership. Not people you want making the top level decisions.

 

[Integral]

Oh God, no. There are areas of government where technical expertise is valuable and valued, but I know of no reason why a bunch of engineers should have special expertise in lawmaking.

 

[Flying Mathias]

All hail Billy Nye?

 

[Ajidica]

Didn't Singapore have a brief flirtation with Technocracy back in the 80's and 70's, along with several othe SE Asian countries?

 

[uppi]

The "make an experiment to test your hypothesis" part of the scientific method might have disastrous results when applied to whole countries.

 

[Tee Kay]

China is the closest we have to a technocracy at the moment.

Oh God, no. There are areas of government where technical expertise is valuable and valued, but I know of no reason why a bunch of engineers should have special expertise in lawmaking.

Indeed. We need diversity in government to be able to see the big picture and tackle problems from different perspectives.

 

[Core Imposter]

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The gist of the American constitution was to prevent a strong central government so as to preserve liberty. It is failing.

OP: scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

It is painful to me to think that you are open to the idea of scientists running our government by adopting hypotheses, experimenting upon us, measuring and then modifying us. Wait, isn't that what is already going on?

Where does liberty stand in such structure?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

OP: scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

It is painful to me to think that you are open to the idea of scientists running our government by adopting hypotheses, experimenting upon us, measuring and then modifying us. Wait, isn't that what is already going on?

No, because scientists are not running your government. From what I've been seeing in recent months, most of the people running your governments (state and federal) are scientifically illiterate, and they refuse to listen to people who are (scientifically literate, I mean).

Of course that doesn't stop the government from running social experiments. It just stops it from being done in an ethical manner, with due diligence to the proper form of the scientific method. If your results are consistently inconsistent with your hypothesis, you don't modify the materials (unless you made a mistake and used the wrong materials, ie people). You modify your hypothesis and try again, until you get results accurate enough to formulate a theory.

Like any kind of science, this can be used for either good or evil. If used for good, we could undo so much harm that has been perpetrated on this world. If used for evil, we get a new round of eugenics and a quest for "perfection"/"the final solution."

 

[Lillefix]

Has anyone heard of this concept? Basically, a Technocracy is a government where scientists and engineers are the rulers of a country, while decisions are made by application of the scientific method.

The current Italian government has been described as "technocratic" since it assumed office last year.

 

[kramerfan86]

Strange, I seem to remember that the current constitution was actually created because the prior Articles of Confederation had a laughably weak central government and it was a concept that was failing miserably. Bit odd in that light to claim its "gist" was the limit central government.

On the subject of technocracy it really is a bit flawed. Much better system would be elected officials who listen to experts when make decisions and at worst have a basic understanding of key concepts themselves so the advice actually makes sense and doesnt just sound like gibberish.

 

[Borachio]

I'm certainly in favour of better informed politicians - if we must have them at all.

Good scientific, engineering, political science, economics, etc educations seem to be sorely lacking in the political classes. At least in the UK.

In fact, I don't think they have any qualifications at all, apart from an ability to get up on their hind legs and spout a bit.

 

[Samez]

A democratic technocracy might be worth thinking about. You should have some kind of qualification before you become part of the government. E.G. the German foreign minister (Westerwelle) did not speak English when he got his job. Or we had a minister of defense without serving in the armed forces. Things like that should not be possible.

Also frequent switching of chairs in the government should be limited. Today your resort is economic affairs tomorrow you will be minister for education and after that we could need a minister of the interior.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Countries (or the whole world) should be governed by a huge computer running an open-source democratically designed program.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Technology is purely about positive questions. Politics is most of all about normative questions. The emphasize of normative questions is also a symptom of the abhorrent superficial character of public political discourse, but in any case normative question will remain crucial.

 

[Crezth]

Has anyone heard of this concept? Basically, a Technocracy is a government where scientists and engineers are the rulers of a country, while decisions are made by application of the scientific method. To quote Wikipedia:

What? How do you get that from this:

The term technocracy was originally used to designate the application of the scientific method to solving social problems, in counter distinction to the traditional economic, political, or philosophic approaches. According to the proponents of this concept, the role of money and economic values, political opinions, and moralistic control mechanisms would be eliminated altogether if and when this form of social control should ever be implemented in a continental area endowed with enough natural resources, technically trained personnel, and installed industrial equipment so as to allow for the production and distribution of physical goods and services to all continental citizens in an amount exceeding the individuals' physical ability to consume. In such an arrangement, concern would be given to sustainability within the resource base, instead of monetary profitability, so as to ensure continued operation of all social-industrial functions into the indefinite future.Technical and leadership skills would be selected on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than democratic election by those without such knowledge or skill deemed necessary.

And yeah, China's the best example of a modern-day technocracy.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Has anyone heard of this concept? Basically, a Technocracy is a government where scientists and engineers are the rulers of a country, while decisions are made by application of the scientific method. To quote Wikipedia:



If a technocratic state arose today, would it be feasible, or would it rapidly degenerate into an elitist ogliarchy? Could a high standard of living and HDI be maintained? It was also apparently quite popular in the US in the 1930s before FDR implimented the New Deal.

Isn't this what a meritocracy is?

 

[Core Imposter]

Strange, I seem to remember that the current constitution was actually created because the prior Articles of Confederation had a laughably weak central government and it was a concept that was failing miserably. Bit odd in that light to claim its "gist" was the limit central government.

Well you need to refresh your memory or maybe read some history.

 

[Borachio]

Countries (or the whole world) should be governed by a huge computer running an open-source democratically designed program.

Perhaps it is. I have my suspicions.

 

[Cutlass]

Well you need to refresh your memory or maybe read some history.

Well, he's basically right. The government under the Articles was an abject failure because it was incapable of doing really anything. So the new Constitution was written to give the country a functional government. What that government actually does is political decisions which change over time. But by design the Constitution makes most choices political choices. Where the choices weren't available at all under the Articles.