When I first saw Techno's screen name, I thought it was a joke and that he made up the name of an ideology since I had never heard of it. When I did a net search, the terms Technocracy and Utilitarianism came up but I never could find a definition of those two terms used together.

So what the heck is it?

__________________


Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

I didn't know much about it either until I pmed Techno. From what I understand it is a system of government which is administered by technocrats. These technocrats come mainly from scientific and academic backgrounds. Politics and wasteful government is kept to minimum by streamlining efficiency through proven scientific methods. Since everything eventually comes down to energy, the technocrats pay close attention to how energy is consumed and spent. Wasteful things like programmable obsolesce and cutting corners to ensure high profit yields would largely be done away with. The economy would essentially be replaced with a form of socialism where individuals would receive money based upon how much they return or give to society. In effect, the wealthiest would wind up being the scientists and inventors.

However, things like how much individual freedom a person maintains or how much private property one could own, I'm unsure about. Also, in order to streamline the economy, an individuals purchases and consumption becomes less private.

In may ways, I like the idea of a technocracy as I think it would definetly quickly solve our energy problem and get humanity into intensive space and underwater exploration by 2050 as scientific progress and education would no longer fall prey to inefficient capitalism.

To read more, you can begin here:

Technocracy (bureaucratic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Technocracy movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Official Web Site For Technocracy Inc.

If I have misstated anything, hopefully Techno will come around correct me.

__________________

Thanks for answering my question and providing those links, Skeletom. I liked this definition What a concept - to put people skilled in their fields in charge instead of bumbling nitwits! That part sounded good. This part, though, didn't sound so good: I'd like to see us get away from having any kind of ruling elite. What you wrote, though sounds intriguing:That seems fair! I'd be interested in seeing what Techno can add. We have discussions going on about capitalism and socialism and I'd like to learn more about this new (to me) ism, too.

__________________


Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

I really do not see how this form of government would put us any better off then where we are now. I am curious to know what would happen to people that are disabled or mentally challenged. They cannot contribute as much as everyone else so do they become surfs or what?

I can see where it would be an improvement in some ways. FEMA's disastrous handling of the Katrina catastrophe comes to mind. Under technocracy, the head of that agency would have been an expert in the field of emergency management, not some incompetent with expertise in race horses who was only given that job as a political favor by an equally incompetent president.

__________________


Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

Yeah, but we kinda already have a ruling elite and like you pointed out many of them are incompetent nitwits.

My primary concerns with a technocracy in charge would be to what degree can an individual maintain freedom. Would individual and small organizational expressions of religion be repressed? What sort of controls would be in place to prevent abusive power?

__________________

Well, I do subscribe to some of the ideas of Technocracy Inc, but I am a bit skeptical of their economic programme. It could be that I am just not educated on all parts of it to make any decisions about energy accounting. I haven't finished reading their Hubbart's Study Course.

But that's only one form of Technocracy anyway.

Edit:

Technocratic_Utilitarianism really isn't an ideology. Technocracy is a type of government and Utilitarianism is just an ethical theory. I think that Technocracy, or at least components of it, would be better for society and maximize utility.

There would probably be some limitations on office-holding, inherently, as a result of the above, and limitations on potential voting ability. But it would be basic things related to the ability to vote. Given that all the candidates would hypothetically be qualified, the actual choice of the people would be relatively for show anyway. They couldn't go wrong among a panel of equally qualified technicians.

A technocracy could be a government of technical experts as someone mentioned. The legislature would be arranged as a soviet of technicians in different fields, selected on the basis of their technical knowledge. It could be a multi-step quasi-democratic process, though.

For instance, the candidates running would be selected originally by vote from the professional organizations representing different disciplines related to legislative decisions. Now, we have committees on X made up of politicians. In a Technocracy, the legislative committees would be made up of these experts.

Once selected by the professional organizations, they would be put up for election in each state and on the national level by popular vote, somewhat like representatives and senators. The organizations would provide perhaps a small panel of candidates to vote on.

Right now, we already have a selection system, but it's based largely on money and media attention. The party selects some candidates, lets you vote on them, and then narrows them down when you make a final vote.

A technocratic judiciary would consist of roving circuits of professional jurors. It would abolish the peer jury system for a more effective professional jury system with isolation mechanisms to maximize impartial decision-making. I don't think that your average person is really qualified to be a juror: lawyers should be jurors, as they are most familiar with the laws, legal loopholes, and argumentative rhetoric other lawyers employ.

A Technocracy would also promote a positivist culture. I don't see why religion would be banned or impeded privately, though. It's got little to do with the function of a Technocracy.

__________________

I fail to see how an engineer would be qualified to run a government.

But then, I fail to see how most of the current presidential candidates are qualified to run our government, so carry on!

__________________
An' it harm none, do as ye' will.


Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level of intelligence and beat you with experience.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily be an engineer, or an engineer only. Engineers would have a role in decision-making depending on the types of decisions or needs they will serve in subcommittees.

__________________

So again, what happens to all the dumb people? I should not say dumb but any of us compared to most experts in a field are about as smart as a 2 year old.