Technocracy: Yes/No?

[:) Smiley]

Alright, so having machines run the world may not be a good idea. However, every day the world gets more tech based. So, shouldn't it make sense that people who know how to deal with said machines govern?

Already the current lawyer-based system of government in the US is having major problems keeping up with the pace of technical advances.

[Asher]

I'd be okay with it if I could write the AI.

[Arnelos]

lord god, no

Engineers and CompSci's would rather likley be even worse at politics than the morons who say "I'm a businessman, not a politican" are

Don't get me wrong, most of my friends are engineers, CompSci's, pre-med's, and physical scientists, but (to a person), every last one of them would be completely lost if they were involved in politics... as with businessmen saying they "aren't politicians" running for public office, they'd get eaten alive by how much more vexing and difficult public policy is than they had naively took it for......

Now, as to whether our politicians should have some CLUE what a computer is and how to use it... well, yes, that would certainly help, wouldn't it?

[Skanky Burns]

Almost everyone knows how to deal with computers nowadays. Its required for most workplaces, even blue-collar jobs.

[superslug]

Considering that among the most elite skilled computer users are hackers and those who claim to be anarchists, I'm really not sure that founding a government off such individuals is even possible, much less feasible.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by superslug
Considering that among the most elite skilled computer users are hackers and those who claim to be anarchists,

I originally wasn't for the idea, but now that you mention it...

[superslug]

Well, I suppose there would theoretically be some benefits. For one thing, government would be smaller. I also expect that free speech rights would be rather hearty and healthy. Monopolies would also disappear quickly, nor would there be inexplicable power outages.

Privacy would also be more secure, as the 'technocrats' would ensure the maximum levels of protection available, just so hacking would be more of a challenge, hence satisfying.

Taxes would no doubt go down, as the government could simply raid bank servers when in need of funding.

If a technocracy does appear on our horizon, however, I plan to invest heavily in antivirus company stock...

[Pekka]

Of course CompSci's should run the world. Goes without saying. And some day they will...

[Eli]

Yes. I dont really know why, but yes.

[Whaleboy]

Open source AI government where we elect the program.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Almost everyone knows how to deal with computers nowadays. Its required for most workplaces, even blue-collar jobs.

Yeah, swearing and a quick kick to the chassis.

[Paddy]

make the people run to the high tech priests for peace, silver plates and honest work in the fields, sowing, weeding and reaping...



or we could just leave the citiesin ruins..... hahahahaha

[alva]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Almost everyone knows how to deal with computers nowadays. Its required for most workplaces, even blue-collar jobs.

You'd be surprised how many people still are completely computer illiterateare and they are not necesairly old folks either.

[MrFun]

Technocracy is a form of government for those who cannot get laid.

[Zkribbler]

On NPR this morning, they're carrying a story about new GPS-type computer chips that are down to about five cents each which are going to be incorporated into packaging.

On one hand, this will have a lot of advantages. When you get to the checkout stand at the supermarket, the store's computer will already know everything that's in your cart, and so getting through the checkout will be much faster. Losses because of shoplifting will become a thing of the past, lowering prices for the rest of us. Rather than paying hundreds of dollars for LoJack for your car, this system will cost a nickel.

On the other hand, do we really want computers --> computer systems --> government to know everything we have and its location? This pretty much throws the right of privacy out the window.

I'm not sure what the implication of all this is.

Maybe the question is: Is Big Brother a necessary component of the Information Age?

[Sarxis]

Politicians would never allow a technocracy- there's no way they are giving up their power.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
On NPR this morning, they're carrying a story about new GPS-type computer chips that are down to about five cents each which are going to be incorporated into packaging.

This is an old story that recurs every so often. It has almost reached Urban Legend status. I don't buy it, yet.

[St Leo]

Technocracy? Nah. It's a nice enough idea, but I don't think we techies would really benefit from it. Certain, ahem, distasteful ideas are prevalent among us that would effectively force future generations of potential techies to toil in clothing sweatshops instead making clothes for the degenerate descendants of this generation.

[DanS]

The lawyers are running the show. You're right. But it has been this way for a long time, and it seems to have worked reasonably well.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the pace of technological and way-of-life change was much greater than it is now. Chicago was built in a couple of decades, for instance. From cow pastures to high rises, the el, and automobiles.

[:) Smiley]

Ture, politicians and lawyers currently rule, though this is mostly by inertia. The current system has become structured to favor them. However, I question how much longer the current law-based system can continue. Already, we depend more on engineers than lawyers.

In Iraq, you don't hear much about people complaining about a lack of a functioning governing council, but you do hear complaints over lack of utilities.

Over half of government funds go into things such as infrastructure, research and development, etc.

At my university the computer science student organizations provide more services to the average student than the main student government. The engineering student organizations have their own parallel government that funds its individual groups. The main student government itself made big gains when it got some techies into its offices.

China has gone completely technocratic in the last change of top leaders. For some reason this wasn't really talked of much in the U.S.

The admin/mod system is the typical method of governance on websites and online communities such as Poly. Unmoderated places such as AOL chats tend to get immobilized by spam.

What I wold much like to know though, is can technocracy and democracy coexist?

[DanS]

I wouldn't be so sure that the current structure favors them unfairly. The bread and butter for both is effective communication, so lawyers have tended to feel at home in politics. It just so happens that the politicians also write the laws in our system. Of course, you could make the argument that with the tools that are available to engineers, they are becoming much better at communicating. By the way, many companies hire lawyers as top management because they are effective communicators.

Another way of looking at this is the hourly rate of engineers versus lawyers. Your average engineer still makes a fraction per hour versus your average lawyer. Your average scientist also makes a fraction per hour versus your average lawyer. This is true in both China and the US, no matter that lawyering represents a smaller percentage of the economy.

Besides, China can hardly be considered for a prize for good government.

[Arnelos]

Being a proto-politician working for a political party early in my career with plans to eventually end up doing public policy myself, I'm admittedly somewhat partial to the current system.

That said, I think the key thing to note here is that law and public policy are a great deal more complicated and difficult than the average naive individual who thinks they can "do it better" believes. The graveyard of history is littered with businessmen turned politicans, generals turned politicians, doctors turned politicians, homemakers turned politicians, and the whole gamit of the rest who thought that governing couldn't possibly be that hard... that public policy couldn't be THAT difficult and politics itself wouldn't be THAT nasty.

The reality is that politics is and always has been an extremely cutthroat competition over power at the same time as regulating the process by which governing (itself an extremely difficult thing to do properly) is done. So whenever I hear some guy pick up and decide to run for public office on the grounds that "I'm an X, not a politician", I'll applaud them for their civic responsibility and their courage, but be rather suspicious of whether they have what it takes to do the job. Some do, some don't.

The bottom line is that most of them are hopelessly naive about how easy they think it will be... and end up being HORRIBLY shocked when they have absolutely no idea what they're doing, the realization of which begins to occur to them as they awake from their dream to find that they're living in an all too real nightmare.

Most state legislatures are full of these turkeys in states with term limits because the turnaround is so high that the entire d*mn legislature is doing training on the job the entire time they're in office. This does not make for a state closer to the people in any sense other than that it's run extremely poorly, as bad as if you'd picked a random 100 random people off of street corners and told them go maintain a nuclear power plant or manage the space program.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The technocrat's rallying cry-

"Power to the people with no people skills!"

[Az]

I'd like to point out that technocracy doesn't necessarily lead to leadership of computer geeks. What it is the choice of industrial engineers and system analysts and planners over lawyers and diplomats. You know, the "do stuff" people vs. the " talk a lot" people.

industrial engineers are certainly 'people' people, btw.

[Bosh]

"Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, the Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you, this will be much less breeding. For me, much, much more."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
industrial engineers are certainly 'people' people, btw.

They aren't considered engineers by other engineers

[Az]

true dat. They're still the people who'll rule a technocracy.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Azazel
I'd like to point out that technocracy doesn't necessarily lead to leadership of computer geeks. What it is the choice of industrial engineers and system analysts and planners over lawyers and diplomats. You know, the "do stuff" people vs. the " talk a lot" people.

Why not give power to taxidermists and pubic waxing consultants? They know **** all about running a country too.

[Q Classic]

politicians who don't know machines should not be in charge.

[Az]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Why not give power to taxidermists and pubic waxing consultants? They know **** all about running a country too.

About the same as politicians. Politicans get on top not because of good management skills, but because of good scheming and manipulation skills. Sadly, that's the truth.