What is a Technocracy

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

Can anybody tell me a little bit about what technocrats are and what the deal on all that stuff is?

[Cult of Reason]

Technocrats advocate an economic system called a Technate which, among other things, accounts for production and consumption with a system called Energy Accounting, which is one of the most fundamental parts of it. In this system, everyone gets equal access to goods and services and has an ability to consume more than they reasonably should be expected to consume, as it would be an abundant economy. Personally, I have worked out that it would not be unreasonable for people to expect a standard of living equivalent to someone in the USA who had an income of about $75000 per year.

More information can be found at the following sites:

www.technocracy.ca
www.technocracy.org

There is also information on Wikipedia. If you have more specific questions then I would be happy to answer them, but with such a general question such as yours I do not quite know where to start, so my apologies.

[Technocrat]

Cult of Reason,

I would be very interested in seeing these calculations, as I have also heard these claims but never seen any math to back it up. I'm not saying that I don't believe you are correct, just that I would like to see the proof myself. I have also read that with energy accounting, the individual's share of purchasing power would be equivalent to $200,000/year, or equal to what the top 2% now make. I'm not sure if this includes the cost of things like housing, medical care, education, etc, or if the $200,000 is entirely expendable. Just wondering if you had any additional info on this.

[Bitter Ashes]

The shortest answer is to watch Aeon Flux :lol:

[Cult of Reason]

I would be very interested in seeing these calculations, as I have also heard these claims but never seen any math to back it up. I'm not saying that I don't believe you are correct, just that I would like to see the proof myself. I have also read that with energy accounting, the individual's share of purchasing power would be equivalent to $200,000/year, or equal to what the top 2% now make. I'm not sure if this includes the cost of things like housing, medical care, education, etc, or if the $200,000 is entirely expendable. Just wondering if you had any additional info on this.

Well, the exact figure depends on how much energy is allocated per person, which has different costs in terms of land-used, materials locked up and so on. My calculation works for concentrating solar power in deserts where, as an example, 1.5 billion people in Europe, North Africa and parts of Asia would require an area the size of France in the Sahara to be covered with concentrating solar power plants.

My calculations should be seen in this file, which determines what areas of the world could currently support a technate:

http://rapidshare.com/files/218497002/Post_Scarcity_Societies_paper_version_1.0.pdf.html

This is part of the relevant section:


As stated in the introduction, it is assumed that, after the transition period, a PSS would primarily use renewable energy and would be carbon neutral. This is both in order to mitigate climate change as fast as possible and to make sure that the PSS itself would be sustainable in the long term.

Dacid MacKay, in his book Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air, says that the energy consumption of the average (mean) resident of the UK (ignoring imported goods) is 125 kWh per person per day. MacKay’s affluent person consumes about 200 kWh per day including imported goods, or about 150 kWh per day not including imported goods (which he estimates as ”48+” kWh per day).[25] Of his affluent person, he says, ”It is indeed true that many people use this much energy, and that many more aspire to such levels of consumption.” Any PSS would need to provide affluence to its population. It will be assumed, then, that the average (mean) person consumes 125/150 = 5/6 times as much in imported goods as the affluent person, or about 40 kWh per day, so the average person consumes 165 kWh per day while the affluent person consumes 200.

Affluence will be defined here as the ability to consume a large amount of goods and services. Since all actions done in the physical world, including consumption (for the purposes of this article, ”consumption” does not apply to the purchase of permanent goods, such as real estate, only to things that can be considered personal possessions: after all, most proposed PSSs abolish private property), involve the degradation of energy from low entropy (such as electricity) to high entropy (such as heat), there is a strong correlation between levels of consumption and levels of energy degradation. So how affluent is MacKay’s affluent person? The GDP(PPP) per capita of the UK was about $35 000 in 2007[5], about £23 000, so the gross (before tax, and therefore including that person’s share of the collective ”consumption” of defence, education, healthcare etc.) annual income of MacKay’s affluent person is:

6/5 × 35000 = 42000 dollars, or £28 000, per year. For comparison, the median income in the UK was almost £19 000, or a little more than $28 000, in 2007[37] while the median income in the USA was about $35 500 in 2007. The USA mean income was $46 000 in the same year. According to data from the United States Census Bureau, 73% of over 25s in the USA would benefit if there was an equal income of $42 000 per annum.[38] It
should be noted, however, that the $42 000 per year that the 200 kWh per per day is equivalent to is for all residents, not just for those over 25.

However, while this figure is above what most USA residents currently earn, it is not out of reach: the median USA resident with a Bachelor’s degree (and no more) earns $47 000 per annum, while one with a doctorate degree earns about $75 000 per annum. An income (in energy/electricity terms) equivalent to $75 000 (£50000) per annum, on the other hand, would benefit 90% of USA residents and even the USA’s academic doctors would typically be able to expect to have about the same standard of living as before. In other words, an
income equivalent to $75 000 per year would make all but a small minority of the populations of the PSS areas have it in their interest to have a PSS built.[38] Since the establishment of a PSS would probably need to have a majority strongly in favour of it, which would probably mean that a majority would benefit hugely from it, an income equivalent to about $75 000 per year is probably enough, as it is more than double the median income in the USA. This would entail an average energy consumption rate of:
75000/35000 × 165 = 15/7 × 165
≈ 353.6
≈ 355 kWh per person per day

This amount, though, is vastly above that consumed by the world and even by the USA (250 kWh per personper day[25]). Fortunately, there are measures to reduce this, such as those discussed in MacKay’s book (which the author of this article recommends). In that book, the 125 kWh of energy per day consumed by the average (mean) person in the UK, not including imported goods, was reduced to 48 kWh of electricity, 12 of pumped heat, 5 of wood burning, 2 of biofuel and 1 of solar-heated water per person per day (and the electricity figure is higher than it would necessarily be because he assumes further economic growth). So, with sufficient reengineering of the transport system to virtually eradicate the necessity of liquid fuels (so that large parts of the countryside need not be given over to fuel production) and the replacement of wood with more electricity and pumped heat, it would probably be reasonable to assume that an energy consumption, not including imported goods, of 125 kWh per person per day could be feasibly reduced to 50 kWh per person per day of electricity, 14 kWh per person per day of pumped heat and 1 kWh per person per day of solar-heated water.

Since recycling reduces the energy needed to produce aluminium by 95%, plastics by 70%, steel by 60%, paper by 40%, cardboard by 24% and glass by 5-30%, it might be possible to reduce energy costs of goods production by half.[39] Assuming this, to give the equivalent of $35 000 per year per person would need 70 kWh per day per person. Therefore, to give the equivalent of $75 000 per year per person would need an average electricity consumption of 150 kWh per person per day.

It will be assumed, therefore, that, after efficiency measures like the complete electrification of all transport, the use of heat pumps for space heating and the use of solar water-heating panels and after the repatriation of all necessary industry to the PSS area, electricity production of 150 kWh per person per day will be necessary.

This section will not consider nuclear fusion power, as this article is meant to consider current technological constraints (though if it did become available it would be an obvious choice). Nuclear fission power will probably be used in addition to renewables; after all, the former Soviet Union, Canada and Australia are the three largest producers of uranium in the world.[17]

According to MacKay[25], concentrating solar thermal power in deserts is the renewable electricity source with the highest average power per unit area: 15 W/m2 (apart from solar photovoltaic, which ranges from 5 to 20, and which uses much more expensive materials, whereas CST is mainly cement, steel and glass[30]). In addition, concentrating solar thermal power can produce desalinated water as a byproduct, for either human or agricultural consumption, especially if it is near the coast.[25] If there is a lot of land available with little competing use, then it would be feasible to use it for electricity generation. Deserts, since they are effectively wasteland, are perfect.

In addition, CST systems have another advantage against solar photovoltaic and wind turbine systems: they use heat to make electricity, so heat storage can be used for lulls in sunlight (most notably night time!) rather than comparitively more expensive electricity storage (though pumped (water) storage can be used as well).


The parts of the article following this then verify that the $75 000 standard of living is possible for different hypothetical technate areas, in terms of land needed for solar power and the steel, aluminium/copper, glass, concrete and coal needed to build the power generation equipment. So, it would be more accurate to say that certain technate area X could support a standard of living equivalent to at least $75 000 per year.


The shortest answer is to watch Aeon Flux :lol:

Your ignorance has brightened up my day, well done.:)

[Communist Theory]

It seems complicated. :confused:

[Cult of Reason]

If you have any specific problems, I will try to address them.

[Communist Theory]

Why is it called a Technate?
It seems to me like something you would see while reading the Scientoligist's Bible.

[cb9's_unity]

So I read some of the technocrat website and though I'm sure it can be done, how exactly does someone go about combing the super centralized and un-democratic technocracy with any form of anarchism?

[Cult of Reason]

Why is it called a Technate?
It seems to me like something you would see while reading the Scientoligist's Bible.

I do not know/remember the reason, but I can speculate:

1. It is meant to differentiate a Technocratic area from a state, as it would not really be a state as we know it. Or...
2. It could simply be a contraction of Technocratic State.

I think 1 is the most likely. It is not a state, but you need to call it something. There is probably an explanation somewhere, but I cannot think where, right now.


So I read some of the technocrat website and though I'm sure it can be done, how exactly does someone go about combing the super centralized and un-democratic technocracy with any form of anarchism?

I do not see Technocracy as being particularly undemocratic as, for a start, energy accounting means that everyone has an equal say in what is produced.

If you are referring to the technate structure, most of it can be made consistent with Syndicalism after trivial changes.

More detailed analysis of this question can be found in my first (and currently only) blog post on RevLeft: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=39

[Yazman]

So I read some of the technocrat website and though I'm sure it can be done, how exactly does someone go about combing the super centralized and un-democratic technocracy with any form of anarchism?

undemocratic? super-centralised? What are you talking about? It is all about the implementation of existing technology in order to bring about a much more democratic society. We aim to:

-drastically reduce the amount of labour required by society to the extent that leisure time drastically outweighs labour time. Actual labour will be limited and will be assigned to everybody on a rotating roster - there will not be anywhere near as much as there is today however as we will automate and improve the current systems with an eye towards efficiency and abundance, rather than "creating jobs and profit" for the sake of generating more value.

-drastically increase the level of democracy. Existing networking technology and security thereof shows that democratic centralism is no longer necessary nowadays and "representative" systems are a slap in the face to us when we can simply overhaul existing institutions to allow for direct democracy via the aforementioned networking technology.

-Completely abolish the price system. It is an inefficient method of distribution and it is obsolete now. We aim to build a post-scarcity economy - also sometimes called a "resource based economy." When we talk about a price system this is our definition, provided by Technocracy, Inc:


Technocracy defines a Price System as any system whatsoever which effects the distribution of its goods and services on a basis of commodity evaluation, and which employs any form of debt tokens or money.

This movement originated in the early 20th century with its cause championed by the organisation called the Technical Alliance which later became Technocracy, Inc. If you're sounding a bit wary of a movement that incorporated itself early on, don't worry - this was only done as a measure to give them legal protection from the excesses of early 20th century paranoia of revolutionary movements. Today there are a few organisations that promote technocracy and there is an increasingly popular trend in anarchist and communist tendencies. If you're interested, join the Anarchist and Communist Technocrat forum linked in my signature. The technocracy movement has traditionally had a broad appeal, but it is less concerned with dogma and theory. We are generally more concerned with maintaining a firm scientific grounding.

To put it simply - we advocate building an economy of superabundance, or post-scarcity. This would be implemented via mass automation and implementation of existing technologies on a level and scale not done before. Most scarcity in the world today is artificial - it is the result of wasteful practices and inefficient practices propagated in order to keep things "profitable" for capitalists, not to mention abundance is generally a very bad thing for the market (for a number of reasons) and is often discouraged greatly. So we advocate using and implementing existing technologies to their fullest in order to achieve maximum efficiency and minimal waste, as well as encouraging abundance. This also includes automating as many tasks as possible and eliminating jobs that contribute nothing (in a post-scarcity society without a price system for example, stock traders, the entire banking industry, finance, etc is totally obsolete). So to this end we also advocate abolition of all jobs that either do not need to exist, or can be done by machines.

We advocate a complete abolition of the price system. This means abolishing the price system in all forms, including all types of currency and analogues such as labour time vouchers, etc. Energy accounting is not a price system.

To borrow something from the venus project's description:


Earth is abundant and has plentiful resources. Our practice of rationing resources through monetary control is no longer relevant and is counter-productive to our survival. Today we have highly advanced technologies, but our social and economic system has not kept up with our technological capabilities. We could easily create a world of abundance for all, free of servitude and debt based on the carrying capacity of Earth resources. With the intelligent and humane application of science and technology, the people of the earth can guide and shape the future together while protecting the environment. We don’t have enough money to accomplish these ends but we do have more than enough resources.

To put it quite simply - monetary/price systems are obsolete and are no longer needed for effective provision and distribution of resources.

Again, to further illustrate the point I will borrow another piece from the venus project:


To better understand a resource-based economy, consider this. If all the money in the world disappeared overnight, as long as topsoil, factories, personnel and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we needed to fulfill most human needs. It is not money that people require, but rather free access to most of their needs without worrying about financial security or having to appeal to a government bureaucracy. In a resource-based economy of abundance, money will become irrelevant.

The monetary system system was designed hundreds of years ago as an extension of the barter system, to augment its capabilities. It proved to be quite efficient back then when the ability to produce resources and distribute them was not at the level it is today, nor did they have the ability to automate entire industries like we can today. The price system is essentially obsolete given modern technology and equipment - we have the resources to abolish it entirely and be more efficient as a result.

We should also note that the technocracy movement does not require a "global revolution." Current survey data shows that a complete post-scarcity technate can be established in the Americas, Australia, and other parts of the globe. This doesn't mean we aren't internationalist - but it does mean that the entire world doesn't need to undergo revolution for our system to be viable and operating at optimal capacity.

Technocracy inc notes this in their FAQ:


In the Technate, no group will wield political or economic power over the citizens. Everyone will have economic security, a high standard of living, more leisure and greater measure of personal freedom than has ever been provided by any society previously.

We generally are more about decentralisation than a super-centralised bureaucracy. This is one of the reasons why the technocracy movement and its program has been so compatible with anarchists and libertarian/anarcho-communists in particular.

[Technocrat]

Cult of Reason,

I haven't yet read your paper in detail but just from skimming it I can tell it is very good work. I had no idea that Australia was capable of supporting a Technate/PSS. I think it should also be noted that the equivalent of $75,000 in a PSS would buy a lot more goods than $75,000 in a Price System, because there would be no artificial scarcity of goods.

I wonder what the PSS areas would be if you didn't include education as one of the criteria? It seems like of the three criteria for a PSS, education is the most easily addressed. After all, you can teach people how to read and operate machines, but you can't move mineral deposits from where they are located in the earth (without mining them anyway).

I have also thought that solar thermal and nuclear fission would be the best way to go until fusion is developed. I read somewhere that you could provide 60% of America's electricity needs with $2 trillion in solar thermal plants. $2 trillion is about what we have spent on the war in Iraq thus far.

[Cult of Reason]

I haven't yet read your paper in detail but just from skimming it I can tell it is very good work.

Thanks.


I had no idea that Australia was capable of supporting a Technate/PSS.

Well, to be pedantic, my paper only ,areas with the highest probability of achieving a PSS," so it is not definite that Australia is viable. If there was some definitive source that would effectively say, "The average single person who earns $75 000 per year* consumes this much iron each year and this much aluminium and this much chromium etc.," then it would be possible to to quite easily say what areas have sufficient resources.

Another possibility I have been considering of late is the USSR as was, since of the Eurafrasian area's most important countries, resource-wise, three were in the USSR: Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan. It would appear that the mineral resources are sufficient, at least, but I do not know about agriculture and, of course, the USSR has no tropical areas. So, the USSR may support a technate, but only if it is feasible to build enough greenhouses to provide tropical produces. Whether that is the case, I do not know.

*or any other high salary


I think it should also be noted that the equivalent of $75,000 in a PSS would buy a lot more goods than $75,000 in a Price System, because there would be no artificial scarcity of goods.

Really? I factored in the reduction of waste, and apart from that I do not see the energy cost of items decreasing too much too quickly.


I wonder what the PSS areas would be if you didn't include education as one of the criteria? It seems like of the three criteria for a PSS, education is the most easily addressed. After all, you can teach people how to read and operate machines, but you can't move mineral deposits from where they are located in the earth (without mining them anyway).

I do not think it would make much difference. Education correlates strongly with development so that most of the countries with high literacy also have high electricity consumption, including Russia and the Ukraine, two of the countries with the highest number of university graduates per 1000


I have also thought that solar thermal and nuclear fission would be the best way to go until fusion is developed. I read somewhere that you could provide 60% of America's electricity needs with $2 trillion in solar thermal plants. $2 trillion is about what we have spent on the war in Iraq thus far.

Well, if that valuation was made in the last few years, then that figure has probably fallen a bit due to the bursting of the commodities bubble. As an example, just in the last year, Nickel has fallen from $30 per tonne to $10 per tonne!

In my signature you should see a link called Sustainable Energy - Without the hot air. This is a book by a Physics Professor, free on the internet, that compares different power generation technologies numerically to determine which is best in the UK, and then Europe and then the rest of the world.

[Technocrat]

Another possibility I have been considering of late is the USSR as was, since of the Eurafrasian area's most important countries, resource-wise, three were in the USSR: Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan. It would appear that the mineral resources are sufficient, at least, but I do not know about agriculture and, of course, the USSR has no tropical areas. So, the USSR may support a technate, but only if it is feasible to build enough greenhouses to provide tropical produces. Whether that is the case, I do not know.

It seems like you could use vertical farms to grow tropical products.


Really? I factored in the reduction of waste, and apart from that I do not see the energy cost of items decreasing too much too quickly.I guess I am just trying to figure out how Tech, Inc. arrived at a figure of $200,000/year. If you got rid of name brands and other forms of artificial scarcity you would be able to buy a lot more. A pair of shoes for example costs 10 times more than the actual cost of producing it. I apologize if you have already considered this, like I said, I have not had enough time to read your paper in detail.


In my signature you should see a link called Sustainable Energy - Without the hot air. This is a book by a Physics Professor, free on the internet, that compares different power generation technologies numerically to determine which is best in the UK, and then Europe and then the rest of the world.Cool, thanks for the helpful link.

Btw, are you a member of NET or of Tech, Inc?

[Cult of Reason]

It seems like you could use vertical farms to grow tropical products.

True, but that is not really current technology, is it? It has not really been tested. My paper only considers current technology (fusion would, after all, change a lot). At the moment I consider it interesting speculation until it has been proven, one way or the other


I guess I am just trying to figure out how Tech, Inc. arrived at a figure of $200,000/year. If you got rid of name brands and other forms of artificial scarcity you would be able to buy a lot more. A pair of shoes for example costs 10 times more than the actual cost of producing it. I apologize if you have already considered this, like I said, I have not had enough time to read your paper in detail.

I have not considered the effect of brands at all. I assume so-called "designer" clothing and high-end sports cars are the type of thing you have in mind? I suppose it is conceivable that $75 000 is an underestimate, taking these things into account, but how would you find out the spending habits of the average person on $75 000 per year? Without that, it would be difficult to estimate the distorting effect of brands on the model.

Also, it should be considered that many will not consider the sharing of cars (or the exclusive use of public transport, which I propose), of certain seldomly used appliances (such as washing machines and tumble-dryers) and other efficiency measures consistent with such astronomical salaries as $200 000 per year. Such ridiculous sums are generally associated with a certain level of extravagance and waste that is promoted along with the lifestyle. In the minds of most people, I suspect, a standard of living equivalent to $200 000 implies exclusive ownership of several sports cars (that are hardly ever used), having a huge house and garden walled off from the outside and having other humans to do tasks for you (secretaries, gardeners and so on) etc..Most, if not all, of this is not consistent with the original Technocratic design, and not with my conceptions either.

Overall, I think the $75 000 figure is better since it is more conservative and easily provable. It already is an improvement for over 90% of the population of the technate areas, and for most a huge improvement, and, when we are greeted with incredulity, we can easily demonstrate that what we say is true. This would be more difficult with $200 000, I think.

Of course, if it was possible to put a dollar value, or kWh value, on an abundant lifestyle, that would be great. Aside from silly prestige stuff (sports cars...), do those earning $75 000 per year have all they could reasonably desire? I would expect that to be the case. Personally, I cannot conceive ever having that amount of money (at its current value).


Btw, are you a member of NET or of Tech, Inc?

I am not in North America, so I doubt Tech. Inc. would take me. No, I am not a member of Technocracy Incorporated and, apart from their website, I know nothing about their current activities or plan of action.

Am I a member of NET? I am registered on their forum and I post there occasionally, which seems to be the only requirement for membership, so I am not sure. I do not think their proto-technate idea has any chance of progressing to take any of the areas in my paper, and I think its usefulness as a test will be constrained by the fact it probably cannot achieve abundance in a significantly smaller area than a full technate. I still think the results will be interesting, however.

Overall, I consider myself independent at the moment, in every practical sense.

[Dimentio]

True, but that is not really current technology, is it? It has not really been tested. My paper only considers current technology (fusion would, after all, change a lot). At the moment I consider it interesting speculation until it has been proven, one way or the other



I have not considered the effect of brands at all. I assume so-called "designer" clothing and high-end sports cars are the type of thing you have in mind? I suppose it is conceivable that $75 000 is an underestimate, taking these things into account, but how would you find out the spending habits of the average person on $75 000 per year? Without that, it would be difficult to estimate the distorting effect of brands on the model.

Also, it should be considered that many will not consider the sharing of cars (or the exclusive use of public transport, which I propose), of certain seldomly used appliances (such as washing machines and tumble-dryers) and other efficiency measures consistent with such astronomical salaries as $200 000 per year. Such ridiculous sums are generally associated with a certain level of extravagance and waste that is promoted along with the lifestyle. In the minds of most people, I suspect, a standard of living equivalent to $200 000 implies exclusive ownership of several sports cars (that are hardly ever used), having a huge house and garden walled off from the outside and having other humans to do tasks for you (secretaries, gardeners and so on) etc..Most, if not all, of this is not consistent with the original Technocratic design, and not with my conceptions either.

Overall, I think the $75 000 figure is better since it is more conservative and easily provable. It already is an improvement for over 90% of the population of the technate areas, and for most a huge improvement, and, when we are greeted with incredulity, we can easily demonstrate that what we say is true. This would be more difficult with $200 000, I think.

Of course, if it was possible to put a dollar value, or kWh value, on an abundant lifestyle, that would be great. Aside from silly prestige stuff (sports cars...), do those earning $75 000 per year have all they could reasonably desire? I would expect that to be the case. Personally, I cannot conceive ever having that amount of money (at its current value).



I am not in North America, so I doubt Tech. Inc. would take me. No, I am not a member of Technocracy Incorporated and, apart from their website, I know nothing about their current activities or plan of action.

Am I a member of NET? I am registered on their forum and I post there occasionally, which seems to be the only requirement for membership, so I am not sure. I do not think their proto-technate idea has any chance of progressing to take any of the areas in my paper, and I think its usefulness as a test will be constrained by the fact it probably cannot achieve abundance in a significantly smaller area than a full technate. I still think the results will be interesting, however.

Overall, I consider myself independent at the moment, in every practical sense.

The requirement for membership of NET is 15 € a year and to fill in a form :)

[Technocrat]

True, but that is not really current technology, is it? It has not really been tested. My paper only considers current technology (fusion would, after all, change a lot). At the moment I consider it interesting speculation until it has been proven, one way or the other

I have not considered the effect of brands at all. I assume so-called "designer" clothing and high-end sports cars are the type of thing you have in mind? I suppose it is conceivable that $75 000 is an underestimate, taking these things into account, but how would you find out the spending habits of the average person on $75 000 per year? Without that, it would be difficult to estimate the distorting effect of brands on the model.

Also, it should be considered that many will not consider the sharing of cars (or the exclusive use of public transport, which I propose), of certain seldomly used appliances (such as washing machines and tumble-dryers) and other efficiency measures consistent with such astronomical salaries as $200 000 per year. Such ridiculous sums are generally associated with a certain level of extravagance and waste that is promoted along with the lifestyle. In the minds of most people, I suspect, a standard of living equivalent to $200 000 implies exclusive ownership of several sports cars (that are hardly ever used), having a huge house and garden walled off from the outside and having other humans to do tasks for you (secretaries, gardeners and so on) etc..Most, if not all, of this is not consistent with the original Technocratic design, and not with my conceptions either.

I also support the exclusive use of public transport, as well as the complete replacement of cities by urbanates. I'm not sure you would need to share washing machines and driers with the standard of living you are proposing. I'm not sure how Tech, Inc. arrived at $200,000/year, I thought maybe you would know something about it. I read on one of the Venus Project web pages that they also estimate a standard of living equivalent to $75,000/year.


Overall, I think the $75 000 figure is better since it is more conservative and easily provable. It already is an improvement for over 90% of the population of the technate areas, and for most a huge improvement, and, when we are greeted with incredulity, we can easily demonstrate that what we say is true. This would be more difficult with $200 000, I think.I agree. If anything, $75,000 is more believable and thus easier for people to accept.


Of course, if it was possible to put a dollar value, or kWh value, on an abundant lifestyle, that would be great. Aside from silly prestige stuff (sports cars...), do those earning $75 000 per year have all they could reasonably desire? I would expect that to be the case. Personally, I cannot conceive ever having that amount of money (at its current value).One thing that occurred to me is that you would also have to consider the amount of energy and resources needed for all the various infrastructure projects of the Technate, such as rail networks, canals, urbanates, etc. You would have to determine the total amount of energy/resources needed for this and then add this to the totals needed to attain a $75,000/year lifestyle.


I am not in North America, so I doubt Tech. Inc. would take me. No, I am not a member of Technocracy Incorporated and, apart from their website, I know nothing about their current activities or plan of action.

Am I a member of NET? I am registered on their forum and I post there occasionally, which seems to be the only requirement for membership, so I am not sure. I do not think their proto-technate idea has any chance of progressing to take any of the areas in my paper, and I think its usefulness as a test will be constrained by the fact it probably cannot achieve abundance in a significantly smaller area than a full technate. I still think the results will be interesting, however.

Overall, I consider myself independent at the moment, in every practical sense.Cool, just curious. I agree that NET's proto-technate would be unable to achieve abundance and therefore wouldn't be a true PSS.

[Cult of Reason]

I'm not sure you would need to share washing machines and driers with the standard of living you are proposing.

Well, I do not know about most peoples' habits, but I usually do only one clothes wash per week, which lasts, what, an hour? A load factor of 1/168 is not very impressive. I thought it would be more efficient, assuming Urbanates have structures that hold many people in one building, to have laundry areas like those that exist in many apartment blocs currently. I do not think one is needed in every kitchen.


I agree. If anything, $75,000 is more believable and thus easier for people to accept.

Indeed.


One thing that occurred to me is that you would also have to consider the amount of energy and resources needed for all the various infrastructure projects of the Technate, such as rail networks, canals, urbanates, etc. You would have to determine the total amount of energy/resources needed for this and then add this to the totals needed to attain a $75,000/year lifestyle.

The paper includes this. It assumes a scenario of a ten-year transition period where raw materials are put under great strain comparable with the recent commodities bubble, in order to start building new infrastructure (particularly in the less developed areas). After this ten-year period, most materials usage would be of recycled material. Of course, it would not happen exactly like this (after all, there would be scrap to recycle in the transition period) but it is a rough model.

Energy costs of maintenance of systems is already included as the $75 000 figure is before tax, and so includes all government spending on infrastructure.

[Technocrat]

Awesome, it sounds like you have done a really thorough job. I look forward to reading the whole thing, just as soon as "work" permits me.

[Dimentio]

The purpose of the proto-technate is to test out how energy accounting works, not to become a technate. NET has agreed that without testing the design out, we cannot just recommend a switch-over.

[Technocrat]

My problem with that is that energy accounting would work completely differently in a small proto-technate than in a true technate which was self-sufficient in resources. In fact, it is doubtful that a small area could attain the self-sufficiency in resources necessary to achieve an abundance, making energy accounting unworkable. At least that's how I see it.

Abundance requires energy accounting, scarcity requires a price system.

[al8]

Well, I do not know about most peoples' habits, but I usually do only one clothes wash per week, which lasts, what, an hour? A load factor of 1/168 is not very impressive. I thought it would be more efficient, assuming Urbanates have structures that hold many people in one building, to have laundry areas like those that exist in many apartment blocs currently. I do not think one is needed in every kitchen.


I take issue with this. I already live in an appartment block with shared laundry and its awfully inconvinient. People are always fighting and pickering over the best slots on weekends. Or more precisly when people generally aren't working and have free time.

This might change when people have different working schedules as proposed by Technocracy inc. but I still suspect it would be an unnecessary conflict zone.

I have a similar gut feeling about your proposal to have whashing machines communal as if you would have said; "Comfortable sofas only have load factor of 1/168 and should thus be communally shared to increase efficiency" neglecting that comfortable sofas stop being as comfortable when one has to bicker with other users or plan way ahead instead of it being assuredly available when one feels tired and needs to lie down.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Could someone say clearly what Technocracy stands for? And how this differs/is compatible with my ideology: Anarchist Communism.

[Technocrat]

Here is a good article explaining Technocracy as it compares with political philosophies:

"Technocracy Comparative":

The Best of Both Worlds

In order to do this we must first define a few terms. “Katascopic” is a term used by sociologists to describe any process that begins at the top and works its way down to the details, or “top-down”. Engineers frequently use this process when designing technology, such as a computer, or bridge. Quite simply it starts with a goal, such as “an inexpensive business workstation” or “to carry traffic over the such and such river”. The second step from there is create a list of requirements. In the case of a bridge, these would include the span of the river to be crossed, and the traffic expected to need to cross it. From there details are worked out, limited by first their goals and requirements, and then by available resources, including material, people, and (for non-Technocratic societies) money.

The opposite of katascopic is “anascopic”, which basically means to do things from the “bottom-up”. That is, you begin with a single detail, add another, and keep going, detail by detail. There is no central goal, no unifying principles or requirements. The best example of this is how cities are developed. One begins with a single house, often by a water source. Then another family puts up a house nearby, perhaps related to the first one. Then another house. then perhaps a trading post. Then a few more houses, a general store, a mill, and still more houses. The point is that each “detail”, whether it be a house, store, or road, is built according to whatever seems best at that time. There is little, if ever, thought given to what might be needed down the road, or available. Growth occurs in sporadic, chaotic, and barely regulable ways.

For any society, two elements remain common to them that vary widely in their behaviour and use. These are human beings, and machines. Each of these elements can be handled in a number of different ways, but these ways can be categorized under the labels we have presented above, katascopic and anascopic. With these four ideas in hand, we can begin to compare our various social systems, including Technocracy, as well as their relative merits.

First let us look at the use of each process on each area. We will begin with the machines. As mentioned before, engineers typically design and operate machines in a katascopic way. This is because of the way machines are. The steamship Normandie, for instance, was the fastest ship in its day. The reason why is because it was designed specifically with that in mind. This was the katascopic 'goal' that her designers began with before a single detail was decided upon. From there began a list of requirements (number of passengers, level of comfort, safety concerns, and of course, minimum speed), which then led to the design of the details. These requirements, derived from its goal, dictated the shape of the hull, to the size and type of her engines, the layout of the decks and staterooms, etc. Once complete, every detail contributed to its goal and requirements, and none were included that did not.

Now imagine for a moment if such a ship were to be designed anascopically. There would be dozens of people, some engineers, perhaps others that are not. Each would work on some part of the ship, each one with their own idea of a what the ship should be like. One person would decide that it should be fast; another that it should be big. One decides that it should be spartan in comforts, another wants opulant accommodations. Thus each person designs their “part” according to their own thoughts, opinions, or needs. This may result in a front part of the hull made large, and the back end made small by another person, so that the two don't even fit together. Given this method is can be seen that such a ship, if it were able to remain afloat at all, would scarcely break any records, or achieve what all of its “designers” intended.

Human beings on the other hand are an entirely different animal, so to speak. Sociologists generally agree that people operate best when given the freedom to pursue their goals and dreams, and to develop at their own rates. This is not to say that each should be isolated at all, indeed socialization has many benefits. However, too many controls placed upon many areas of their lives tend to stifle not only the individual, but the smooth interaction between those individuals. To see this one only need to look at how “democracies” are so popular, at least in theory, while dictatorships are reviled for their treatment of human beings. It is largely regarded that such societies stifle creativity, human growth, and happiness, and result in many human atrocities, as exampled by Nazi Germany, the USSR under Stalin, and modern China.

So what we see here is that machines work best when operated katascopically, while people operate best anascopically. Now let us take a look at the various social systems often compared to Technocracy, and how they relate to it. To do so we will categorize each in terms of how it handles both the human and technological sectors as either katascopic or anascopic.

Let us begin with the dictatorship. We have already examined that they handle people in an katascopic way, but being a form of total social control, they also handle their machines that way as well. Since this is good for machines, the results of such a society include rapid technological innovation and high industrial output and efficiency. Unfortunately the aforementioned detriments to human beings make many people think that perhaps this is not worth these benefits.

Seeking instead a “freer” form of society, people endorse forms of democracy, libertarianism, even anarchy. These systems allow people some measure of “self-governance”, or anascopic control. This seems to result in happier people overall, but they do have their drawbacks, since they handle their technology anascopically as well. This leads to very little in the way of coordination, large amounts of overlap and competing interests. What results is a the same type of chaos that we see in today's cities, or in the hypothetical ship we discussed that was designed thusly. So given that each side has its various benefits and problems, we can see why people appear divided on which is better. As is the case in all scarcity environments, the only options are trade-offs, and compromises are often just as problematic as the extremes.

So where does Technocracy relate in all this then? Well, if you have not surmised by now, Technocracy is a design that separates the “controls” of the people and technology, so that each can be handled in the way that is best. With its katascopic administrative system, the industry and economy of the Technate is handled in the way that benefits it most, leading to high levels of efficiency and production. Coupled with the right technology and resources, this leads to a very high standard of living for the citizens of the Technate. However, this can be done under a dictatorship, right? This is often where people think that Technocracy is some sort of dictatorship, because they are used to seeing that if a society treats its machines one way, they treat everything that way, including its people. However, Technocracy instead asserts that it is a method for controlling machines, not people, and thus the people are left to “govern” themselves, anascopically, just as we have seen is generally positive. An good example of this is Technocracy's Energy Accounting system. In it, it is the consumers themselves who decide what each would like made, and thus their 'power' or 'vote' is counted in the manufacturing process (anascopic). In Energy Accounting it then becomes the responisbility of those operating the industrial and service sectors to meet that demand. However, exactly how they do so is determined using strict scientific and engineering principles generally best left to those qualified. This is the katascopic area of Technocracy at work. Thus we see that Technocracy has all the benefits of a dictatorial society, and a democratic one, with virtually none of the drawbacks of either. Technocracy is indeed the “best of both worlds.”

There is a fourth option that bears mentioning as well. the last combination of the elements we are looking at, and that is where you have your technology controlled anascopically, and the people controlled katascopically. As we have seen in examination of the individual elements, such would be the worst combination we could come up with, with both people and machines being treated poorly, and thus society getting little benefit from either. What would such a society look like? Does one exist we can look at?

In North America today, our technology is basically under the control of corporations. The US Census has counted over 5 million separate US corporations of various sizes in various industries. While not all of them control big factories and power generators, even operating out of a simple office counts as the “control” of some bit of technology, that of shelter. With that many separate organizations, each lacking a common goal, and instead each with conflicting or competing interests, one can only conclude that our technology is being managed anascopically, exactly how we know it should not be.

But what about our people? We live in a “democracy”, so at least we are getting that much right? Despite my earlier comments, democracy does not actually fall under the category of anascopic society, like anarchy or even libertarianism does. Instead it can be better described as the “rule of the majority” which only makes it another form of katascopic control. Representative democracies, such as those common in the west, are even more katascopic since they put control in the hands of a few. Thus democracy is actually an excellent tool by those who wish to rule katascopically while maintaining the illusion of an anascopic or “democratic” society. This can be seen today with the increase in government regulations, gradual loss of personal freedoms, and more flagrant hypocracy on the part of our leaders. Perhaps America was anascopic at one time, but not anymore, and getting less so all the time.

So what does this leave us with then? We (in the west, anyway) live in a society that is exactly the opposite of what would actually benefit us, both as individuals, and as a society. Meanwhile, a perfectly reasonable new system, made up of all the right elements, sits right under our noses, waiting to be used. There is nothing to stop us but our realization of that fact, our future is ours for the taking. Technocrats never intended and were never meant to “install” Technocracy for you. It must be done “anascopically”; in other words, by the people, and for the people.

[Technocrat]

I have a similar gut feeling about your proposal to have whashing machines communal as if you would have said; "Comfortable sofas only have load factor of 1/168 and should thus be communally shared to increase efficiency" neglecting that comfortable sofas stop being as comfortable when one has to bicker with other users or plan way ahead instead of it being assuredly available when one feels tired and needs to lie down.

This statement shows a basic misunderstanding of the term "load factor".

Besides, washers and driers could easily be supplied to every dwelling unit, I see no reason why they should have to be shared. Although the load factor is low this does not waste a great deal of resources, and if people desire to have their own washer/drier than it is acceptable to have the low load factor. Even though it is unused most of the time and you can save resources with fewer washer/driers running all of the time, the resource/energy savings from this is not going to be all that significant to a Technate. It's definitely not as wasteful as a car which is parked 95% of the time.

However, this is a mere detail which would have to be determined at the time the Technate was implemented.

[Dimentio]

My problem with that is that energy accounting would work completely differently in a small proto-technate than in a true technate which was self-sufficient in resources. In fact, it is doubtful that a small area could attain the self-sufficiency in resources necessary to achieve an abundance, making energy accounting unworkable. At least that's how I see it.

Abundance requires energy accounting, scarcity requires a price system.

What we are interested in is to study user behaviour under conditions of EA.

Do you use to visit NET's forum?

[Technocrat]

I go by my name, Patrick, on tech.ca. I have visited NET's site but have not posted there.

The technocratic view on user behavior is that behavior automatically adjusts to match environmental conditions. With a proto-technate EA will work completely differently than if you had a true, self-sufficient technate. Therefore you are talking about two completely different environments. So, you might say that user behavior works a certain way with EA in a proto-technate, but this doesn't tell you much about user behavior with EA in a true Technate.

[Dimentio]

I go by my name, Patrick, on tech.ca. I have visited NET's site but have not posted there.

The technocratic view on user behavior is that behavior automatically adjusts to match environmental conditions. With a proto-technate EA will work completely differently than if you had a true, self-sufficient technate. Therefore you are talking about two completely different environments. So, you might say that user behavior works a certain way with EA in a proto-technate, but this doesn't tell you much about user behavior with EA in a true Technate.

The thing is that we have never seen technocracy implemented before. There are also other aspects we need to weigh in consideration.

[Cult of Reason]

I take issue with this. I already live in an appartment block with shared laundry and its awfully inconvinient. People are always fighting and pickering over the best slots on weekends. Or more precisly when people generally aren't working and have free time.

This might change when people have different working schedules as proposed by Technocracy inc. but I still suspect it would be an unnecessary conflict zone.

I have a similar gut feeling about your proposal to have whashing machines communal as if you would have said; "Comfortable sofas only have load factor of 1/168 and should thus be communally shared to increase efficiency" neglecting that comfortable sofas stop being as comfortable when one has to bicker with other users or plan way ahead instead of it being assuredly available when one feels tired and needs to lie down.

Well, when I was living in student accommodation on campus, "halls", there were washing machines in the basement and I had no problems. However, we students do generally have more free time than other people.