heiss93
11th July 2010, 07:06
I found this hilarious thread over at LibCom. I loved the idea of organizing society around the Dewey Decimal System.
Basically one of our revlefters tried to introduce libcom to technocracy most of them shot it down, but the real drama came when a "real" anti-commie Technocrat Gregg came to reclaim the proud name from the Red infiltrators.
http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/fao-technocrats-technocracy-sympathisers-31052009?page=2
Gregg, Gregg, Gregg...
I'm actually going to post some of the choicer gems from that article you keep linking to, for the entertainment of the wider audience:
Quote:
the conductivity characteristics of carbon coding with a modified Dewey decimal system enables one to devise a Continental accounting system and medium of distribution, becoming at once a Continental accounting system and continuous inventory of both production and distribution on an hourly basis, Continent-wide.
Fantastic. I haven't a clue what carbon coding is, and Google hasn't either. Fuck knows what its conductivity characteristics might be, assuming that phrase has any meaning whatsoever. The Dewey system is a system for the categorisation of non-fiction books in libraries. It is not designed for, nor could it conceivably be applied to either accounting or resource distribution. The whole sentence is actually meaningless. Literally. It is simply a reel of pseudo-scientific jargon stuck together with little regard for even grammatical sense.
Quote:
What Technocracy has always contended is that if sufficient energy consuming [sic!] devices are installed and the total amount of extraneous energy consumed per capita [sic!] reaches or exceeds 200,000 kilogram calories [sic!] per capita [sic!] per day, toil and workers alike will be eliminated[sic!]
This one is great because it works on so many levels...
1) You can't consume energy, because energy can't be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed. Basic thermodynamics.
2) You can't have a 'total amount of x per capita'. You can have the total - all of it - or you can have the amount per capita.
3) Energy is usually measured in Joules, or sometimes in Calories. It is not measured in kilogram calories. Fuck knows what those are, I don't.
4) Per capita is repeated, even though it didn't make sense the first time.
5) The whole idea that you can define human toil in such a way that it can be quantitatively eliminated. If there is any kind of reasoning behind this, and I suspect there isn't, it could only involve arbitrary definitions of 'toil', which would amount to simply assuming the problem away.
Quote:
Neither Russia nor China has as yet developed the design to handle even the production of wheat in their area, let alone other commodities.
This one has to win the prize for Most Blatant Display of Ignorance By A Self-Proclaimed Expert. Russia and China not producing wheat, eh?
Quote:
Understand, human toil and hand tools, from at least Hammurabi's time (about the 19th Century, B.C.) down to the present time, the annual increment of physical production, under human toil and hand tools was so small that it required a century to amortize the principal and interest of any major debt. Therefore, without technology, there would be no possibility of any social renovation, only a perpetuation of human toil and hand tools.
Yeah. Right. All those 19th century BC debtors, working away for centuries just to pay off the mortgage... imagine...
Quote:
It is only when the load factors of operations and complete design are altered according to energy factors that a resultant comes about which would be beyond the dreams of all social philosophers.
A resultant comes about? Resultant was an adjective, last time I checked. A resultant what? A resultant spoon? A resultant banana?
And energy factors? Who knows.
Quote:
it is well to realize here and now that Technocracy, like science, has no truth
And the Telling It Like It Is Without Meaning To award goes to...
Quote:
the system of tomorrow will be a system of operation and control of energy and things, wherein decisions will have to be rendered as the closest approximation of the next most probable energy state, made at the speed of energy transmission
A system of operation and control of energy and things? Remarkable. Wonder what that would look like...
Energy states are chemical concepts, and have to do with the fixed amounts of energy that can be absorbed or given out by electrons. (Sort of).
The speed of energy transmission of course depends upon the method of energy transmission. Shining a torch transmits energy at the speed of light. Throwing a ball transmits energy at the speed at which the ball is thrown.
There's more, but I think I'll leave it there. The full article can be found here (http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm).
Interestingly, the author of the article does seem of a rather similar mindset to our very own Gregg. He doesn't really understand grammar, but likes to use long, sciency words. He doesn't really understand communism, but likes to dismiss it out of hand to avoid thinking about it. He doesn't really understand science, but likes to think his understanding of science can solve the world's problems. He doesn't really understand energy, and I mean at all, but thinks that an economics vaguely based on it would be a good idea.
~J.
Basically one of our revlefters tried to introduce libcom to technocracy most of them shot it down, but the real drama came when a "real" anti-commie Technocrat Gregg came to reclaim the proud name from the Red infiltrators.
http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/fao-technocrats-technocracy-sympathisers-31052009?page=2
Gregg, Gregg, Gregg...
I'm actually going to post some of the choicer gems from that article you keep linking to, for the entertainment of the wider audience:
Quote:
the conductivity characteristics of carbon coding with a modified Dewey decimal system enables one to devise a Continental accounting system and medium of distribution, becoming at once a Continental accounting system and continuous inventory of both production and distribution on an hourly basis, Continent-wide.
Fantastic. I haven't a clue what carbon coding is, and Google hasn't either. Fuck knows what its conductivity characteristics might be, assuming that phrase has any meaning whatsoever. The Dewey system is a system for the categorisation of non-fiction books in libraries. It is not designed for, nor could it conceivably be applied to either accounting or resource distribution. The whole sentence is actually meaningless. Literally. It is simply a reel of pseudo-scientific jargon stuck together with little regard for even grammatical sense.
Quote:
What Technocracy has always contended is that if sufficient energy consuming [sic!] devices are installed and the total amount of extraneous energy consumed per capita [sic!] reaches or exceeds 200,000 kilogram calories [sic!] per capita [sic!] per day, toil and workers alike will be eliminated[sic!]
This one is great because it works on so many levels...
1) You can't consume energy, because energy can't be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed. Basic thermodynamics.
2) You can't have a 'total amount of x per capita'. You can have the total - all of it - or you can have the amount per capita.
3) Energy is usually measured in Joules, or sometimes in Calories. It is not measured in kilogram calories. Fuck knows what those are, I don't.
4) Per capita is repeated, even though it didn't make sense the first time.
5) The whole idea that you can define human toil in such a way that it can be quantitatively eliminated. If there is any kind of reasoning behind this, and I suspect there isn't, it could only involve arbitrary definitions of 'toil', which would amount to simply assuming the problem away.
Quote:
Neither Russia nor China has as yet developed the design to handle even the production of wheat in their area, let alone other commodities.
This one has to win the prize for Most Blatant Display of Ignorance By A Self-Proclaimed Expert. Russia and China not producing wheat, eh?
Quote:
Understand, human toil and hand tools, from at least Hammurabi's time (about the 19th Century, B.C.) down to the present time, the annual increment of physical production, under human toil and hand tools was so small that it required a century to amortize the principal and interest of any major debt. Therefore, without technology, there would be no possibility of any social renovation, only a perpetuation of human toil and hand tools.
Yeah. Right. All those 19th century BC debtors, working away for centuries just to pay off the mortgage... imagine...
Quote:
It is only when the load factors of operations and complete design are altered according to energy factors that a resultant comes about which would be beyond the dreams of all social philosophers.
A resultant comes about? Resultant was an adjective, last time I checked. A resultant what? A resultant spoon? A resultant banana?
And energy factors? Who knows.
Quote:
it is well to realize here and now that Technocracy, like science, has no truth
And the Telling It Like It Is Without Meaning To award goes to...
Quote:
the system of tomorrow will be a system of operation and control of energy and things, wherein decisions will have to be rendered as the closest approximation of the next most probable energy state, made at the speed of energy transmission
A system of operation and control of energy and things? Remarkable. Wonder what that would look like...
Energy states are chemical concepts, and have to do with the fixed amounts of energy that can be absorbed or given out by electrons. (Sort of).
The speed of energy transmission of course depends upon the method of energy transmission. Shining a torch transmits energy at the speed of light. Throwing a ball transmits energy at the speed at which the ball is thrown.
There's more, but I think I'll leave it there. The full article can be found here (http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm).
Interestingly, the author of the article does seem of a rather similar mindset to our very own Gregg. He doesn't really understand grammar, but likes to use long, sciency words. He doesn't really understand communism, but likes to dismiss it out of hand to avoid thinking about it. He doesn't really understand science, but likes to think his understanding of science can solve the world's problems. He doesn't really understand energy, and I mean at all, but thinks that an economics vaguely based on it would be a good idea.
~J.