Rapid development plan

In a socialist society, workers will control, manage and direct economic and social development. So it's not really matter of what 'we' can do to benefit 'the people'. Top down technocratic control - in the sense of a society led by technical experts - is definitely not what socialism is about.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but outside their fields of expertise, most people are complete idiots. That's why you get mechanical engineers supporting creationism because their lack of education in the field of biology and geology has blinded them to the flaws in their arguments.

I don't see the problems with limiting actual decisions to those who know what the fuck they are talking about. Non-qualified people can have their input, but the actual mechanics of a given decision should be decided by those in the know.

Let science education be decided by scientists. Let dam building be decided by civil engineers. And so on. Current society is based on voting in a group of people to power whose only skill is convincing the voters to vote them into power. That does not sound to me like a good way of running things.

Well, in a socialist/communist society all workers would need to be educated in a variety of things, but especially in their particular field and interests so they know how to manage the means of production for themselves. Ideally all workers would be experts at what they do. I don't see why setting priorities for research/development couldn't be a democratic process. As for what should be prioritezed, I think sustainable food production, making sure we have a secure source of water, and advances in medication to deal with diseases like AIDS, Malaria, Ebola, etc.

Edit: or at least the management of the infrastructure of society.

So, how much do you know about maintaining an efficient infrastructure?

This is stupid, like someone whining that all the designs for new buildings being done by architects is creating an "architectural elite".

The intellegentsia - technical experts, engineers, doctors and so on - need to be accountable to the democratic rule of the working class. Otherwise what you have is technocratic dictatorship - society ruled by an elite of 'experts' who think that they know what's best for everyone else.

You misunderstand. The point of technocracy is not to rule over people, but things. The people are free to do what they want, even make demands of this "elite" - for example if the people decide that housing space is inadequate they cannot, and should not, decide how to most efficiently solve this problem - that is the duty of the civil engineers, the structural engineers and the architects.

So for someone new to technocracy, the idea is that the people decide what needs to get done, and the experts in the particular field decide how to do it?

Well, yeah, because a construction worker couldn't really get directly involved in technological research, advancement, and what not. It's a cooperative cycle that best utilizes both technological potential and technological talent.

well if i had to put down the top 3 of most important development issues these three would be the ones that had to be worked on right away.

1 energy (development of nuclear fusion)
2 expansion of means of production (foodstuffs and goods)
3 transhumanism

3 obviously would make everyone an Einstein (probably much better) and you can imagine what that could do for the other 2 on the list.

well if i had to put down the top 3 of most important development issues these three would be the ones that had to be worked on right away.

1 energy (development of nuclear fusion)
2 expansion of means of production (foodstuffs and goods)
3 transhumanism

3 obviously would make everyone an Einstein (probably much better) and you can imagine what that could do for the other 2 on the list.

I imagine most development in a future technocratic society would feed into other developments and that cycle would continue. Improved energy sources means more efficient production, which leads to better and greater production, which feeds into transhumanism, etc and the cycle goes on. Progress in one general field can feed progress in another field and make everything far more efficient and of better quality.

I imagine most development in a future technocratic society would feed into other developments and that cycle would continue. Improved energy sources means more efficient production, which leads to better and greater production, which feeds into transhumanism, etc and the cycle goes on. Progress in one general field can feed progress in another field and make everything far more efficient and of better quality.

true most scientific advancements affect other scientific fields aswell.
but instead of increasing efficiency we should also build more powerplants and more factory's and farms.

but transhumanism wont flow from standard scientific advancements its actually something that needs to be developed on its own otherwise it would take too long.
if we are capable of transhumanism then our lifespans would easily reach over several century's and then technology would advance so rapidly that we would live long enough to reach immortality.

true most scientific advancements affect other scientific fields aswell.
but instead of increasing efficiency we should also build more powerplants and more factory's and farms.

More efficient production means we can build better and more numerous power plants, factories, farms, and so on. These will also be more efficient as well. There's little use in having tons of factories or power plants when they're inefficient, that would be totally counterproductive. I'm attracted to technocracy because I believe Communism should and will be a far more efficient model of society than capitalism, and to do that we have to focus society's resources on maximizing efficiency of production, energy, and quality.

As a follow up to that, it wouldn't work well to just have efficient energy production without efficient material production. If you don't have efficient material production, you won't get efficient energy consumption, which makes efficient energy production fairly useless. You've got to have as much efficiency as possible in all areas of production and consumption in order for things to run smoothly and in a sustainable manner. Inefficient production can result in over or under production, both of which are bad and needlessly waste (or deprive people of) resources.

increasing efficiency is ofcourse a given but we should also build new factory's to expand the industrial capacity more rapidly.
relying only on increased efficiency would restrict growth too much.

increasing efficiency is ofcourse a given but we should also build new factory's to expand the industrial capacity more rapidly.
relying only on increased efficiency would restrict growth too much.

There I do agree with you. Increasing both production capacity and efficiency go hand in hand.