Another good thing to remember is that technocracy is "science applied to the social order" but this is not necessarily the same thing as "social engineering." In fact, "science applied to the social order" might show us that social engineering doesn't work and that other models are needed, so this alone shows us that social engineering is not the same thing as "science applied to the social order." Since science applied to the social order is technocracy, technocracy is not social engineering.
(continued from below) To this extent, things like shelter, food, clothing, education, medicine, etc would all be free. So you can see without needing to go into any further detail how the concept of Social Darwinism does not apply to Technocracy. I'd be happy to answer any other questions or objections you may have. Hope this helped.
Hey, just saw your message so sorry for the late reply. A "vote of no confidence" could be called by an individual's coworkers if they failed to perform their duties adequately. I also fail to see how it is "social darwinist," I think that is coming from a misconception of yours. Social darwinism is the idea that "survival of the fittest" applies to social theory as well, not just evolution. Ignoring the fact that Darwin himself never argued for "survival of the fittest" per se, the basic idea is that the rich must have gotten there because they are more skilled (i.e. more "fit") than everyone else, and society should not offer any aid to the poor as they should be weeded out by natural selection, thereby improving the fitness of the entire race. Technocracy holds instead that people are products of their environment and so seeks to create an optimal environment for every human being where they can thrive and reach their fullest potential.
Hello, I am interested in technocracy, but skeptical. My main concern is that those at the top of the meritocratic ladder would begin to feel as if they were entitled to more and would become dissatisfied and corrupt. Technocracy seems incredibly social-darwinistic and anti-democratic. What sorts of popular checks would be in place to prevent a bureaucratic class with more accumulated power and resources than the rest from forming? I think some form of participatory political structure with Nested Councils, such as that proposed by Stephen Shalom, would need to put in place. Otherwise, technocracy and the entire idea of meritocracy and social engineering just seems like bourgeois "socialism from above". Or am I completely missing something?
