Dimentio
30th December 2006, 21:08
NET website (http://www.technocracyeurope.eu)
Technocracy Incorporated website (http://www.technocracy.org)
Something which have begun to confuse people who reads the boards of NET and tech.ca, is the general perception of a vagueness pertaining what technocracy is and what our goals are, and which methodologies should be used to reach these goals. Therefore, it should sooner or later be asserted that NET and Technocracy Incorporated not are one organisation, but two distinctivelly separated movements which in some cases shares the same ideas about how the society of the future could be organised, but in other areas, especially concerning the foundations of value, the analysis of power, the analysis of the human being as a social actor, the analysis of technocracy itself, and the projected methodologies to reach the stated goal, i.e a technate.
We who are members of NET do not denounce Technocracy Incorporated or condemn their work, since they have provided a valuable fundament to continue to build the discipline of technocracy with. It would be a great tragedy if Technocracy Incorporated, and especially their archived material, ceased to exist, would represent an irreperable loss of knowledge and information. That is one of the reasons why we have been sceptical to some recent - and sad to say - not so recent policies undertaken by members of Technocracy Incorporated. One example is how Bill DesJardins unintentionally but hardly surprising killed the tech.ca forums (http://www.technocracy.ca) by implementing bureaucratic procedures, allegedly to close off fascists, but which had the result on gradually slowing of forum input and killing the forums.
One of the main reasons of the frustration that NET members have felt in dealing with the North American contemporaries, is the total lack of interest the North Americans have shown in continuing to research and develop technocracy, and reach out to the world. At least since 1947, apparently very little progress have taken part within the North American movement.
In order to elaborate what the differences are between Technocracy Incorporated and NET, we must show attention to what the two movements have in common.
1. Both NET and Technocracy Incorporated are analysing economical, social, ecological and infrastructural progress by the analysis methodology known as the thermodynamic interpretation of social phenomena.
2. Both NET and Technocracy Incorporated analyses and studies the relationship between the flow of the price system and the technosphere [the total infrastructure system progress] from a critical and unorthodox viewpoint.
3. Both NET and Technocracy Incorporated are studying the system of distributionism known as Energy Accounting, as an alternative to the current price system.
Those are the main similarities between the two movements.
When we talk about the differences, we must remember that Technocracy Incorporated was funded in 1932, after the publication of the energy survey made by the Technical Alliance, as a group advocating the formation of the technate. NET is a significantly younger organisation, officially recognised the 6th of May year 2006 as an independent association. Thus, a lot of the differences are structural, and the main one of these differences are that Technocracy Incorporated was founded on the mandate of advocating a design made possible by an Energy survey, while NET was founded on the mandate of conducting an Energy survey and in the same time advocating technocracy.
Technocracy Incorporated is hence a social movement, while NET is both a research organisation and a social movement, which have put rather hard strains on our neutrality. Hence, it is demanded that NET is as pure and beyond doubts in the intentions, conduction and presentation of it's research results, as the wife of Caesar.
The foundation of the goals are different as well. Where as Technocracy Incorporated in their stated mission desires "the highest possible standard of life for the highest possible amount of people", they are mainly focusing on consumer abundance, while NET, though it uses the very same operational goal, puts a lot of more of it's focus on environmental sustainability.
As for Technocracy, while Technocracy Incorporated refuses to even recognise the fact that it could be defined as an ideology, NET willingly defines technocracy both as a scientific design and as an ideology, and hence, it is important that we keep these two aspects of Technocracy divided. The ideology states the operational goals, but science is what drives us there.
The North American technate, as envisioned in the TSC, is an integral unit designed for all aspects of human life [chapter 21, "The human animal"], while the European technate, although it has to be defined after the Energy survey is conducted in Europe, not yet have reached such a mature state. NET have remained critical to some of the ideas envisioned in the North American technate, for example the lack of a democratic sphere [even though the TTCD and tech.ca have envisioned some form of direct democracy dealing with social issues, it have never been manifested], while NET have formulated experimental schemes of a double structure of a European technate [administrating resources, infrastructure and distribution] and a European federation of autonomous communes combined with an independent judiciary.
NET have also criticised some of the quasi-ideological/quasi-scientific assertions of Technocracy Incorporated as expressed in the aforementioned chapter 21 in the TSC, because of their basis in the psychological school of behaviorism which today have been contested.
Another factor where we are heavily differing, is the implementation, where NET is more certain that the technocrats would have to make significant parts of the transition by themselves, while Technocracy Incorporated continues to assert their view that the scientific collective as a whole should make the transition, something which NET remains - mildly spoken - very critical of.
In addition, NET have started to develop technocracy both on a macro-level, with the introduction of a holonic structure of project groups cooperating in different levels [complementing the sequences], as well as wholly industrial concepts like modular design, and individual alterations . The intellectual progress - even if it may not be one hundred percent correct - which NET has undertaken during such a short time could be described as astounishing.
Some North American, as well as European technocrats, have raised concern that NET is diverging from "true technocracy", but what is then "true technocracy"? Technocracy is a word which means "rule by the skilled", but according to our meaning rather means "rule by the skill [i]over technology". Both Technocracy Incorporated and NET adjusts to that definition, but we are seeking out different theories in order to define how such a society should work.
From the viewpoint of NET, different methodologies, scientific questionings of the validity of the TSC or parts of the TSC, transparency, diversity and continuous updating and archiving of research are necessary components in yet again making technocracy into a strong and vibrant social movement. If we, from the viewpoint of Technocracy Incorporated, cease to be true technocrats, that is their issue and not ours.
We remain open for cooperation with Technocracy Incorporated, as well as any other scientific movement [like the Wuppertal university] which have as their goal a sustainable society. Scientists ought to solve their differences by research and not by ideology as a foundation.
MVH/Enrique, Director of the Functional sequence of Finance, NET
Technocracy Incorporated website (http://www.technocracy.org)
Something which have begun to confuse people who reads the boards of NET and tech.ca, is the general perception of a vagueness pertaining what technocracy is and what our goals are, and which methodologies should be used to reach these goals. Therefore, it should sooner or later be asserted that NET and Technocracy Incorporated not are one organisation, but two distinctivelly separated movements which in some cases shares the same ideas about how the society of the future could be organised, but in other areas, especially concerning the foundations of value, the analysis of power, the analysis of the human being as a social actor, the analysis of technocracy itself, and the projected methodologies to reach the stated goal, i.e a technate.
We who are members of NET do not denounce Technocracy Incorporated or condemn their work, since they have provided a valuable fundament to continue to build the discipline of technocracy with. It would be a great tragedy if Technocracy Incorporated, and especially their archived material, ceased to exist, would represent an irreperable loss of knowledge and information. That is one of the reasons why we have been sceptical to some recent - and sad to say - not so recent policies undertaken by members of Technocracy Incorporated. One example is how Bill DesJardins unintentionally but hardly surprising killed the tech.ca forums (http://www.technocracy.ca) by implementing bureaucratic procedures, allegedly to close off fascists, but which had the result on gradually slowing of forum input and killing the forums.
One of the main reasons of the frustration that NET members have felt in dealing with the North American contemporaries, is the total lack of interest the North Americans have shown in continuing to research and develop technocracy, and reach out to the world. At least since 1947, apparently very little progress have taken part within the North American movement.
In order to elaborate what the differences are between Technocracy Incorporated and NET, we must show attention to what the two movements have in common.
1. Both NET and Technocracy Incorporated are analysing economical, social, ecological and infrastructural progress by the analysis methodology known as the thermodynamic interpretation of social phenomena.
2. Both NET and Technocracy Incorporated analyses and studies the relationship between the flow of the price system and the technosphere [the total infrastructure system progress] from a critical and unorthodox viewpoint.
3. Both NET and Technocracy Incorporated are studying the system of distributionism known as Energy Accounting, as an alternative to the current price system.
Those are the main similarities between the two movements.
When we talk about the differences, we must remember that Technocracy Incorporated was funded in 1932, after the publication of the energy survey made by the Technical Alliance, as a group advocating the formation of the technate. NET is a significantly younger organisation, officially recognised the 6th of May year 2006 as an independent association. Thus, a lot of the differences are structural, and the main one of these differences are that Technocracy Incorporated was founded on the mandate of advocating a design made possible by an Energy survey, while NET was founded on the mandate of conducting an Energy survey and in the same time advocating technocracy.
Technocracy Incorporated is hence a social movement, while NET is both a research organisation and a social movement, which have put rather hard strains on our neutrality. Hence, it is demanded that NET is as pure and beyond doubts in the intentions, conduction and presentation of it's research results, as the wife of Caesar.
The foundation of the goals are different as well. Where as Technocracy Incorporated in their stated mission desires "the highest possible standard of life for the highest possible amount of people", they are mainly focusing on consumer abundance, while NET, though it uses the very same operational goal, puts a lot of more of it's focus on environmental sustainability.
As for Technocracy, while Technocracy Incorporated refuses to even recognise the fact that it could be defined as an ideology, NET willingly defines technocracy both as a scientific design and as an ideology, and hence, it is important that we keep these two aspects of Technocracy divided. The ideology states the operational goals, but science is what drives us there.
The North American technate, as envisioned in the TSC, is an integral unit designed for all aspects of human life [chapter 21, "The human animal"], while the European technate, although it has to be defined after the Energy survey is conducted in Europe, not yet have reached such a mature state. NET have remained critical to some of the ideas envisioned in the North American technate, for example the lack of a democratic sphere [even though the TTCD and tech.ca have envisioned some form of direct democracy dealing with social issues, it have never been manifested], while NET have formulated experimental schemes of a double structure of a European technate [administrating resources, infrastructure and distribution] and a European federation of autonomous communes combined with an independent judiciary.
NET have also criticised some of the quasi-ideological/quasi-scientific assertions of Technocracy Incorporated as expressed in the aforementioned chapter 21 in the TSC, because of their basis in the psychological school of behaviorism which today have been contested.
Another factor where we are heavily differing, is the implementation, where NET is more certain that the technocrats would have to make significant parts of the transition by themselves, while Technocracy Incorporated continues to assert their view that the scientific collective as a whole should make the transition, something which NET remains - mildly spoken - very critical of.
In addition, NET have started to develop technocracy both on a macro-level, with the introduction of a holonic structure of project groups cooperating in different levels [complementing the sequences], as well as wholly industrial concepts like modular design, and individual alterations . The intellectual progress - even if it may not be one hundred percent correct - which NET has undertaken during such a short time could be described as astounishing.
Some North American, as well as European technocrats, have raised concern that NET is diverging from "true technocracy", but what is then "true technocracy"? Technocracy is a word which means "rule by the skilled", but according to our meaning rather means "rule by the skill [i]over technology". Both Technocracy Incorporated and NET adjusts to that definition, but we are seeking out different theories in order to define how such a society should work.
From the viewpoint of NET, different methodologies, scientific questionings of the validity of the TSC or parts of the TSC, transparency, diversity and continuous updating and archiving of research are necessary components in yet again making technocracy into a strong and vibrant social movement. If we, from the viewpoint of Technocracy Incorporated, cease to be true technocrats, that is their issue and not ours.
We remain open for cooperation with Technocracy Incorporated, as well as any other scientific movement [like the Wuppertal university] which have as their goal a sustainable society. Scientists ought to solve their differences by research and not by ideology as a foundation.
MVH/Enrique, Director of the Functional sequence of Finance, NET