Technocracy document

[Cult of Reason]

Here is Technocracy's main text, as it were:

http://haraldur.mysticsoftware.net/etsc1_3.pdf

Please keep in mind that it was last printed in 1947, and has not been updated since then, so some parts will be outdated (or possibly completely wrong, I do not know), and in some cases politically incorrect.

Something which (as far as I can remember) for some reason this text does not include stuff on Urbanates:

http://technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modlo...artid=24&page=1 (http://technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=24&page=1)

I hope you find these (particularly the first one) of interest.

:)

EDIT: Forgot to add this: due to its age and the location of its publishing, many quantities in the first document are in either the Imperial system, which some here will know, or the gcms (gram, centimetre, second) system, rather than the kgms (kilogram metre second) or SI system. Hence 1 Newton (kgms) = 1 kg m /s squared = 100 000 dynes (gcms) = 100 000 g cm /s squared.

EDIT: Here is an indication as to the content of the first document:

Table of Contents

* Preface
* An Introduction to Science
* Lesson 1: Introduction
* Lesson 2: Matter
* Lesson 3: Units of Measurement
* Lesson 4: Energy
* Lesson 5: The Laws of Thermodynamics
* Lesson 6: Engines
* Lesson 7: The Human Engine
* Lesson 8: The Flow of Energy on the Earth
* Lesson 9: Dynamic Equilibrium Among Energy-Consuming Devices
* Lesson 10: Energy in Human History
* Lesson 11: Early Stages in the Use of Extraneous Energy
* Lesson 12: Modern Industrial Growth
* Lesson 13: Industrial Growth Curves
* Lesson 14: Mineral Resources
* Lesson 15: More About Growth Curves
* Lesson 16: The Price System
* Lesson 17: Rules of the Game of the Price System
* Lesson 18: The Flow of Money
* Lesson 19: Why the Purchasing Power is not Maintained
* Lesson 20: Operating Characteristics Under the Price System
* Lesson 21: The Nature of the Human Animal *
* Lesson 22: Technocracy: The Design
* Lesson 23: Industrial Design and Operating Characteristics
* Bibliography and References

* This section is, according to a Technocrat who is also a psychologist, very dubious due to its age: apparently psychology has advanced in the intervening decades in such a way as what was thought true at one time no longer is (or at least is termed in more PC language. I do not know, I know pretty much no psychology). So beware, this section should be looked upon with a critical eye.

Enjoy!

[apathy maybe]

My understanding of Technocracy (which I admit comes from reading a book a number of years ago) is that it is rule by the Technologists. The engineers as it were.

Now I don't see how you can claim to be an anarchist and want the rule of anybody.

Could you just give a brief rundown of what technocracy is (rather then force me to have to go to a site outside revleft :)) and explain how your beliefs fit with it.

Thanks.

[Cult of Reason]

One of the more common Technocracy slogans is "Advocating control of technology, not people." One of the fundamental ideas is that the best environment for human beings is one that is totally anascopic in nature, one of absolute freedom, or near that. That is, individuals and groups of individuals organise themselves, rather than being organised by some other entity. Another is that for technology and machines, the opposite is true, that a katascopi organisation is best. Things are more efficient if all the large technology (train tracks, train operating, factories etc.) is designed with goals in mind.

For an example of anascopic planning, or near that, consider a city. You start with a ore of buildings, then more and more stuff is added as more people live there, business comes there, etc.. You end up with a mess. You have roads, great wastes of space for inefficient vehicles to travel on. You end up with a system which, if it ever needs to be updated or repaired, causes total disruption to everything. Just look at the chaos that ensues when roads are dug up to put new (or replace) telephone lines down, or repairs roads, or sewer pipes.

An example of katascopic design would be cargo ship. There will first be a few goals in mind: speed of delivery (depending on the intended cargo), capacity, fuel efficiency etc.. It is then designed to accomplish those goals as best as possible.

The technology of a technate would be designed in a similar way. One idea is to construct what is termed a "Continental Hydrology". This would be a structure that links all the river systems of a continent together, with dams, canals etc.. One result of this would be that it would be possible to transport objects or people from one end of a continent to another without having to leave the water. An advantage of this is that water travel is very much more energy efficient than land travel, even train travel! In fact, I have eard that there were even designs for "water trains" on the hydrology, which would be fast and could transport passengers quickly. Unfortunately, I do not know how they would compare with maglevs, since maglevs did not exist in the '30s, as far as I know.

It would not be rule by technologists, since there would be no human authority. However, it would be necessary to oversee different parts of the integrated technology of the technate. For instance, to determine when to have trains running, and where, based on the demand of the inhabitants.

However, I must admit that there are some parts of the plans that I am uneasy about, since they seem to go against the goals. For instance, it is planned that there should be something similar to a police force. I disagree, I think it is unnecessary and harmful. However, that is no reason why we cannot take the "good bits" and discard the stuff we think is crap. I would discard the police, and several other things. However, for me there is nothing wrong with the basic plan, the basic idea.

From what little I have read by Redstar2000, it seems he is doing similar with Marxism.

I see myself as an Anarcho-Technocrat as there are some differences I have with Technocracy, one is application. Technoracy sees it coming from some sort of referendum, where the rulers give up their authority in the face of public opinion. I think that is naive. Also, I think that in order for the technate that I want to be implemented, it must happen after an Anarchist Communist revolution, where the people organise it themselves and where experts in different fields naturally get to be responsible for what they are experts on, having rational authority only, as Bakunin advocated, and not irrational authority. In fact, I think there is a small possibility that a technate, or something similar, would arise from Anarchist Communism anyway as a way to optimise production and distribution.

It might help to look at it this way: Technocracy is not really an ideology, but a system that can be applied by many types of society, both heirarchical or non-heirarchical (but always non-capitalistic, for reasons obvious for those knowing the basics of Technocratic economics, and I will not be patronising enough to assume that you are ignorant of them).

I think I am rambling. If stuff remains unclear, or I have increase the lack of clarity, do not hesitate to ask questions. I will attempt to answer them as best I can.

[Cult of Reason]

One more thing:

The word Technocracy does not mean "rule by technologists" or "rule by experts", but "rule by skill", in that those with greatest knowledge and skill in controlling something should be responsible for it. You wouldn't put a nuclear reactor in the hands of someone who was an English Professor, would you?

That is another reason why Technocracy despises representative "democracy": those who end up with control of things are not those best to do so, in all likelihood. A transport minister does not get the job due to expertise, but due to being elected by his or her constiuency and then appointed that job by an equally incapable Prime Minister, in the UK that is.

[Cult of Reason]

Edited the first post for a second time.

[apathy maybe]

Thanks for that. It seems that you wish to use technology to rule nature as it were. Is that correct?

I think also, that if you have it possible for people (experts) who know things that others don't, then they have the oppurtunity to do things that others might not like. (Not being very clear.)

And lastly, wouldn't a decentralised system fit more easily into anarchism?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Haraldur
For instance, it is planned that there should be something similar to a police force. I disagree, I think it is unnecessary and harmful.
I agree.

That experts on nuclear technology should 'oversee' nuclear power plants seems obvious enough to me.

But also, I agree with apathy maybe. Anarchism is all about decentralization, not centralization. Is 'technocracy' compatible with a decentralized system?

[red team]

In a pure technocracy with abundant amounts of energy you can be as decentralized as you want.

The thing to remember is that in a technocracy everybody is a consumer not a producer. This being made possible by the fact that production of material goods for the most part is already automated and with further research into emerging technologies like robotics and artificial intelligence it's not far fetched to imagine that every type of work involving manual labour can be automated.

If you have remaining areas of work that includes manual labour then things get messy because of the all fallible nature of human beings. For one thing, performance of manual labour for rewards can be corrupted by those willing to perform the least amount of work for the most amount of rewards. The blunt instrument of monitoring the workforce for corruption can only go so far unless monitoring is all pervasive. But then, as well as the ethical/political problems this creates in implementing a virtual police state for monitoring the working population, it is also inefficient, ineffective as well as easily defeatable. If necessary manual labour still exists then having a monitoring agency to insure work quality would drain resources away inverse proportion to the number of workers actually doing useful work as well as needing to provide income to a sector which is essentially non-productive which will be a further drain on resources. This is ineffective because even if you can build the perfect monitoring system (which is an impossibility) you cannot guarantee that the police themselves will be corrupted with bribery and extortion because you'll have a layer of people guarding the integrity of the distribution channel. But the question then becomes, "who will guard the guards?" This problem of human manual labour directed and controlled by equally human government officials led to the downfall of the Soviet experiment in Socialism which ultimately rested on material conditions. Government policies and ruling structures only played a minor role in what was really a problem of human corruptability in an economic system that is basically a wide-open door for those willing to be corrupted.

For those directly involved in the production part of the distribution channel as well as those guarding the integrity of the distribution channel it pays to be corrupt as it gains you more rewards than those who are honest. This happens in both the bureaucratic Socialist system and the market Capitalist system. The only solution to this is not to rely on either market mechanisms or bureaucratic methods, but to democratize the distribution channel by making it self-sufficient and with minimal need for human interference either by CEOs, investors or bureaucrats and that can only happen by automating the distribution channel and decentralization would play a big part in this. In the end the only democratic and stable market is an entirely consumer driven market with no investors, profits, CEOs or commisars.

[anomaly]

With all of that, do you technocrats still want the 'old idea' of anarchism? That is, freedom to do what you want with your life, freedom to choose what 'job' you want to do, etc.

Also, do technocrats still support the old Marxist slogan "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?"

Until automated labor becomes abundant, I think time-labor vouchers or rationing would be an effective way to 'run things'. TLVs especially seem a reasonable approach. A while ago, I had a long chat with Gent about them. At first I was skeptical, but, once I read up a bit on them, I became much more 'open' to the possibility of using them.

But, I would agree, we should automize things as quickly as possible after the revolution.

[Cult of Reason]

It seems that you wish to use technology to rule nature as it were. Is that correct?

I do not understand your question. What do you mean by rule nature? If you mean making it so that there are the highest possible living standards for humans (and whatever we evolve into) for the longest possible time, then yes, and it implies many things, such as environmental protection.


I think also, that if you have it possible for people (experts) who know things that others don't, then they have the oppurtunity to do things that others might not like. (Not being very clear.)

What do you mean? Are you suggesting that individuals might restrict the free flow of information? If there is free information flow, then anyone can become an expert on anything.

[Cult of Reason]

With all of that, do you technocrats still want the 'old idea' of anarchism? That is, freedom to do what you want with your life, freedom to choose what 'job' you want to do, etc.

Why would we not?


Also, do technocrats still support the old Marxist slogan "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?"

I have noticed many similarities to the gift economy and that in a technate, with the only real difference being that the technate does most of the giving. The technate is just a production and distribution infrastructure, at its most basic level, which everyone takes part in (whether producing, consuming or both). "From each according to his abilities", yes. Whether it be in art, science, production management or engineering or any other thing. "To each according to his needs", definitely, that is the entire point of the automation, of the technate itself.

Another difference (which should just be viewed as a modification in my opinion), is the use of energy accounting to track production.


Until automated labor becomes abundant, I think time-labor vouchers or rationing would be an effective way to 'run things'. TLVs especially seem a reasonable approach. A while ago, I had a long chat with Gent about them. At first I was skeptical, but, once I read up a bit on them, I became much more 'open' to the possibility of using them.

I disagree. I think a traditionally Communist/Anarchist gift economy should be used in any intervening time. This is for two reasons that I can think of right now: 1. I personally support "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need", 2. It is closest to the Technocratic model.

However, that is just me, and what happens after the revolution will, unless authoritarians distort it, most likely be what seems best at the time.

NoXion: :blink: ???? What?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Haraldur
I think a traditionally Communist/Anarchist gift economy should be used in any intervening time.
This would certainly be ideal. However, physical limitations in production capacity in the immediate post-revolutionary society may not allow for this. We just don't know yet how advanced production capabilities will actually be. So, in my opinion, we have to keep all of these possbilities ('gift economy', TLVs, rationing) on the table. We really won't know which to use until we get to post-revolutionary society.

But, yes, I agree that technocracy is compatible with anarchism. As this is such, I think technocracy is a very good idea. :)

[Cult of Reason]

This would certainly be ideal. However, physical limitations in production capacity in the immediate post-revolutionary society may not allow for this. We just don't know yet how advanced production capabilities will actually be. So, in my opinion, we have to keep all of these possbilities ('gift economy', TLVs, rationing) on the table. We really won't know which to use until we get to post-revolutionary society.

Physical limitations? Do you mean the result of any disruption and/or destruction of production and distribution infrastructure during the revolution. If so, how long would you see it lasting?

My prediction is that things would happen thusly:

General discontent in a large area, say, Europe -----> Revolution sparks off in a country, say, France -----> The Revolution spreads accross Europe -----> After the revolution, there is ad hoc organisation by the people to get production and distribution up an running -----> Anarchist Communism -----> Through direct democratic process, the people of Europe determine to construct a technate -----> Energy accounting is introduced -----> Construction work to get final state technate up and running, Continental Hydrology, Urbanates, etc. -----> Fully functional technate, within some decades, possibly after 20 years or less. Who knows?

Maybe a naively optimistic prediction, but it was fun.


But, yes, I agree that technocracy is compatible with anarchism. As this is such, I think technocracy is a very good idea.

Good. Are you reading the book linked to at the beginning of this topic? If so, what do you think?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 08:57 PM
NoXion: :blink: ???? What?
What are you talking about? this is my first time I've posted in this thread!

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by NoXion+Mar 28 2006, 07:21 AM--> (NoXion @ Mar 28 2006, 07:21 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 08:57 PM
NoXion: :blink: ???? What?
What are you talking about? this is my first time I've posted in this thread! [/b]
Oh. I was sure that you had posted something just before my post, but it is not longer there. Maybe I am confusing threads.

Sorry.

[apathy maybe]

There were a bunch of posts under NoXion's name in a number of threads. I reported them, and now it seems that they have gone. Maybe you should change your password NoXion.

[Cult of Reason]

There were a bunch of posts under NoXion's name in a number of threads. I reported them, and now it seems that they have gone. Maybe you should change your password NoXion.

Oh, right.

By the way, does anyone have any comments on the first link yet? I am feeling insecure and am wanting feedback on something which is definitely not my own work! :(

[apathy maybe]

Basically the thing is too long to read. What you need to do is provide an intellectual incentive for people to read it. Currently you have not done that.

Can you give a brief definition of technocracy that should stand up on its own (e.g. communism is a classless stateless society where property is owned in common, anarchism is a set of theories promoting a society based on non-hierarchy). It does not have to be accurate, but it has to get people to think. If people say, "I agree with that" then they might be more interested in reading further.

From the FAQ in your signature, http://technocracy.org/?p=/FAQ/section2/

2.1: What is Technocracy?
Briefly, Technocracy is science applied to the social order. Science concerns itself with the determination of the most probable in any field of knowledge, be it chemistry, engineering or social phenomena. Technocracy, then, concerns itself with the determination of the most probable in the field of social science -- the determination of the most probable state of society. It has to do primarily with that part of the social mechanism relating to the production and distribution of goods and services, but it has many far-reaching implications.

2.5: What are the conclusions of Technocracy?
There are three basic conclusions. The first is that there exists on the North American Continent a physical potential in resources to produce a high standard of goods and services for all citizens, and that the high-speed technology for converting these resources to use-forms in sufficient volume is already installed, and that the skilled personnel for operating it are present and available. Yet we have unprecedented insecurity, extensive poverty and rampant crime.

The second conclusion of Technocracy is that the Price System can no longer function adequately as a method of production and distribution of goods. The invention of power machinery has made it possible to produce a plethora of goods with a relatively small amount of human labor. As machines displace men and women, however, purchasing power is destroyed, for if people cannot work for wages and salaries, they cannot buy goods. We find ourselves, then, in this paradoxical situation: the more we produce, the less we are able to consume.

The final basic conclusion is that a new distributive system must be instituted that is designed to satisfy the special needs of an environment of technological adequacy, and that this system must not in any way be associated with the extent of an individual's functional contribution to society.

I see that there are some interesting ideas there, but I wonder why they claim that technocracy is not an ideology. Care to explain Haraldur?

[Cult of Reason]

Basically the thing is too long to read. What you need to do is provide an intellectual incentive for people to read it. Currently you have not done that.

At the very least its analysis of the Price System and of history of human society is likely to be quite different to those found elsewhere, and refer more to the amount of extraneous energy use in society than in other analyses (though admittedly I have yet to read such things as Capital, but that is my impression).


Can you give a brief definition of technocracy that should stand up on its own (e.g. communism is a classless stateless society where property is owned in common, anarchism is a set of theories promoting a society based on non-hierarchy). It does not have to be accurate, but it has to get people to think. If people say, "I agree with that" then they might be more interested in reading further.


A technate is the integrated infrastructure of production and distribution, the purpose of which is to optimise those two functions to provide the highest possible standard of living for the longest possible time.

Hmmm... does not sound so catchy as your two. Notice I say "technate", not "Technocracy", as Technocracy is really just the system, the way of thinking as it were. Hence, the design could be radically changed if it was more Technocratic than the previous one. (Which is why myself and a few others (with different ideas to me) consider ourselves more Technocratic (whether justified or not) than others because we want to change a few things. There is even one person who I have labelled, in my mind, as a "Technocratic" Statist (shudder) (though I may have misunderstood his ideas).)

As for Anarcho-Technocracy, which I am trying to make more than just thoughts in my head (disorganised thoughts, currently), it can probably be summarised by adding your two to mine.


I see that there are some interesting ideas there, but I wonder why they claim that technocracy is not an ideology. Care to explain Haraldur?

If I remember correctly, the logic seems to be this: Technocracy is the application of science to society. Application of science is technology. Hence, Technocracy is a technology. There are probably a few other things as well. However, the way I see it is that for all intents and purposes you might as well look upon it as an ideology regardless: it has goals for the improvement of society, and it has proposed methods for acheiving those goals. If that is not the definition of an ideology, or close to that, would someone please tell me what is?

I suppose I can at least be pleased that this is generating disproportionately high interest. :)

[apathy maybe]

So it is an ideology, and I think that it is not really an application of science to society, Marx had the same idea and he was wrong too. The physical sciences cannot be applied to human society. Social sciences are different, and I doubt that any one would claim that the application of social sciences is a technology :).

The technocracy that I was thinking of seems similar to this, but different. See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9071526 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%...sambiguation%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28disambiguation%29) especially the second and third from the Wikipedia site.

[Cult of Reason]

The physical sciences cannot be applied to human society.

I disagree, but fair enough. Maybe I am a "greedy" reductionist. Also, keep in mind that Technocracy does include social sciences as part of science, at least in the way it uses the word. It does make reference to psychology, for example, though as it seems that psychology then was quite different to today I do not know how positive that is.


The technocracy that I was thinking of seems similar to this, but different. See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9071526 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%...sambiguation%29 especially the second and third from the Wikipedia site.

There are a number of conspiracy theories relating to some of the entries on that page, mostly about the use of the word "technocracy" for such things as being a subtle (and indeed successful) attempt by the establishment to distort what Technocracy means completely and hence defame it. :lol: