Since Sci-Fi was brought up, I'll use a Sci-Fi example to provide my two cents.

I have in the "Sci-Fi draught"-thread promised to give a run-down of the "Culture"-universe of Iain M. Banks, and have yet to do so, but I'll talk a bit about it here.

Banks' Galactic civilisation simply named "The Culture" is my personal Utopia. I would love to live in that society. And it is esentially a Technocrasy. But it works only because some very specific prerequisites are in place in that society which are the following:

- An economy of abundance (The Culture is a galaxy spanning civilisation that includes literally millions of solar systems, so they have lots of raw-materials available)

- An extremely advanced (an unrealistically advanced perhaps?) technological level. (The Culture has the means to extract and consume the above-mentioned raw materials with little waste of energy).

- Most importantly among these technological advances is sentient machines. The culture's technocracy is controlled completely by intelligent machines called "minds" that oversee everything on a given planet, spacecraft or spacestation. And this is what I love about the culture, and what some might have as the main reason for NOT wanting to live there.

And here's why:

The Minds take care of all the needs of the people (they aren't actually "human" in that the culture doesn't come from Earth, but they are humanoid) in the Culture, and everyone is free to do whatever they want. That is, people don't have to work, all work is done by drones that are controlled by the minds (think of them as an extension of the minds "Body", they are like the arms and fingers of a mind). The Minds also "see" practically everything, and so can always be called upon for help with anything, and can save anyone who is in peril. In many ways the Mind of any given planet or spacecraft is like the "God" of that particular world.

But unlike any deities here from Earth, the minds don't demand anything of anyone. There is no law, no money, and no expectations in the Culture, which means that people can murder and rape if they so choose (and are not stopped by the Mind, or someone else nearby, like a robot or another person. By the way "Robots" in the Culture are just like people. They are individuals, with thoughts and emotions of their own, and live among the people as equals).

The only consequence of doing something "wrong" is that it will be known. It is almost impossible to do something that the Mind doesn't notice, and if you do something that others don't approve of (rape and murder would certainly fall into that catagory), then people will know, and you will likely be shunned for it. But you won't be punished in any literal way.

The Culture is sort of a Technocracy, since the Minds make sure everything is done as efficiently as possible, but in another sense it is an anarchy, since everyone, including the Minds, can do whatever they want. The only real restriction is privacy. You are unable to do something that noone will know of. At least the Minds will know. So you can't plot and exploit and manipulate others, because since minds are also sentient, emotional individuals, they aren't going to sit idly by, if someone is being a dick, and ruining the party for everyone else.

And if a mind is the one being a dick, which is theoretically possible, since they are individuals, the other minds will know and object. I have not read any books in which that happens, though I understand that his book "Excetion" deals with this theme.

So basically, somewhere deep down, I am a Technocrat, just like I am an Anarchist deep down. Because this is my ideal world.

But I am also a pragmatist, and I can tell the difference between a Sci-Fi thought-experiment, and what is feasable in real life (for the moment). Which is why I am just a good old fashioned Scandinavian Social Democrat, because it is, in part, what has made my little corner of the world one of the safest, one of the richest, and one of the happiest places in the world.

I will always back anything that can help bring us closer to a society resembling the Culture, but if it could ever happen (which I am not convinced it can, though I believe it is possible), then it will not happen for another thousand years by any stretch of the imagination, so I will live in the present, and prepare for a brighter future, only when it makes the present better too.

And supporting the implementation of Technocracy here and now, because I like the vision of the Culture, would be really daft, because it will not make a better, more free, and more caring society, here on this planet, at this point in history.

Give me an economy of abundance, and sentient, emotionally compassionate machines that can run the show, and I'll get back to you on wether I'm ready for Technocracy.

Yes, I consider it a positive lesson that was taught to me by my parents. It taught me not to rely on instant gratification. Only by saving and waiting could I get what I desired. It was the kiddy version of working and handling money.

I am in college and I am young. NOT getting anyone pregnant is high on my list of things to do. Though I am within 9 months of graduating, so I suppose it wouldn't be the end of the world if I did get someone pregnant. I won't pretend to understand child raising (how do you parents manage it?), but I do know that some parents engage in economic activities that I as a child knew not to engage in.

Why can't the parents learn just a little patience when it comes to impulse buys for toys? (and yes, the 'hot new toy!' for Christmas is a needless impulse buy) My parents had money and they choose not to buy me toys. Also pawn shops do not rob anyone, it is well understood that if you sell things to a pawn shop then you are loosing money. For people who sell things because they need to eat I can understand it. People who sell things at a pawn shop because they think that they need to get a toy invoke no sympathy in me. Though you are right that it is a little sad that some businesses build up hype for a product by making people think that their isn't enough to go around.

Also, I don't mean to use anecdotal evidence and I understand that my anecdotal evidence will persuade no one who doesn't already agree with me. It is just that I hold no sympathy for people have trouble securing toys because my parents correctly taught me that you do not get toys unless you wait and save for them. I mastered that concept as an eight year old. The fact that some adults have not gotten it saddens me.

I understand your point, Jormungander.

I think I have failed to properly convey mine.

What happens to children whom are denied the reward despite their work? Aren't those parents the ones that engage in the crazy ideal of giving their children everything they never had as a child?

Should they be exploited by the markets for ridiculous profit?

I was using toys as to be more delicate with this subject.

I am loathe to bring other commodities into the conversation because emotions run higher and hotter with some people regarding food, shelter(see housing crisis), gas, clothing, and even electricity(see TVA 20% increase despite record profits).

 Doomed soul, you sound exactly like a theist to me in an Athesit VS thesit debate. Totally ignorant of what you are talking about. there is nothing sci-fi about this plan. that is like saying the design for a computer is sci-fi. this was designed from facts and the basic plan was final in 1931. You just refuse to learn. god damn you are fucking stupid.

One of the Scientist M. king Hubbert even predicted peak oil!!! what the hell is wrong with you? oh thats right your the guy who was talking about the merits of lavey Satanism, pfft! no wonder....

THAT WILL BE QUITE ENOUGH!!!!

Debate the issue or count the moments until the mods call time out.

That means reasoned arguments and/or questions. Politics are heated enough.

Are we clear?

 yeah this thread is being hijacked by the doomed soul typing as much garbage as he can.

You're not helping, but it can be brought back to the subject.

Trust me, I used to be the ad hom king. It just kills the convo when you call someone a dumbfuck though.

If you're truly fluent in the idea then the fact that someone hasn't read the material shouldn't dissuade your argument in support of it.

Which definition is the 'true' definition?

From the site? wiki? answers.com?

From the technocracy.org site (which finally started working for me at 5am):

What i originally said;

What is written, as per encyclopedia (my most readily available non-paper at least )

Technocracy : A form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control; "technocracy is described as that society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge". A governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.

Technocrats are individuals with technical training and occupations who perceive many important societal problems as being solvable, often while proposing technology-focused solutions. The administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson theorizes that technocrats are primarily driven by their cognitive "problem-solution mindsets" and only in part by particular occupational group interests. Their activities and the increasing success of their ideas are thought to be a crucial factor behind the modern spread of technology and the largely ideological concept of the "Information Society." Technocrats may be distinguished from "econocrats" and "bureaucrats" whose problem-solution mindsets differ from those of the technocrats.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29

I suppose that''ll do as a refference for now

Now, notice my simplistic correlation?

----------

BUT, Mohammed's Technocracy from Technocracy, INC   (funny that its a business now... self defeatism ftw  )

Specifically states http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/isnot.htm  (which is the unfortunate canadian link i am forced to view from tech, inc)

Technocracy is not:

• A political party
• A political theory
• A financial racket
• A religious organization
• A philosophical concept
• A varient of Communism, Socialism, Facsism, or any other “-ism”
• Rule by a technological “elite”
• Putting scientists or engineers in “power”
• A corporate dictatorship
• A shadowy villain in a role-playing game
• A dead organization
• Seeking to overthrow the government and “take over”
• In support of violent change

-A political party...

-A political theory... Bullshit, both are precisely what a fuckin Technocracy is

-A financial racket ... Energy Accounting Economics, REALLY help fuck that point over

-A religious organization... Got me there, i havent seen anything about saying 3 Hail R.A.M's before supper

-A philosophical concept... Blends in to much with politics and changing human society, so... Bullshit

-A varient of Communism, Socialism, Facsism, or any other “-ism”  I seem to recall it drawing from all 3 (especailly Socialistic ideals)

-Rule by a technological “elite” ... *Cough* "Some forms of technocracy are a form of de facto elitism, whereby the "most qualified" and the administrative elite tend to be the same." *Cough* Oh snap http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29

-Putting scientists or engineers in “power” ... ""technocracy is described as that society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge"." Guess they missed that.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29

-A corporate dictatorship ... Meh, depends how smart the corporation is, Zieg Heil Mirco$oft!

-A shadowy villain in a role-playing game ... You better fucking believe it is... and that list is damn near innumerable

-A dead organization ... dont care

-Seeking to overthrow the government and “take over”  ... and what would you classify mass Governmental, Economic, Social, and Technological CHANGE as?

-In support of violent change  ... if they could do it in a highly efficient manner that whats theorized to be better in the long run... yes they would.

Nao can i PWZ haz my fookin cookie?

Mohammed, i think you've been sold the wrong idea

 Glad to hear you will keep looking into it. its a great plan. not perfect but it is the FIRST attempt at designing a sustainable system. Do i think Technocracy will be what we end up with? no, i do not. but i know that the "price system" can only take us so far and we are pushing it to its limits. 

I think it is important to point out that these organizations you have mentioned(We can both name a few bailouts) seem to have been the natural result of deregulation. Would you concur?

No they don't. You are just factually wrong on that matter. They do not believe in God or the Devil. They do not worship any kind of devil or any kind of anthropomorphic being. Also you might be using a No True Scottsman fallacy. They are 'true satanists,' they just don't believe in an anthropomorphic devil. They use Satan as an extended metaphor. They expressly state that Satan is just a metaphor and not a being in any sense. Like I said: it is silly and pseudo-religious, but it is not actually devil worship.

But energy accounting IS money. It is just saying energy=currency. That is no better or worse than saying gold=currency. Making you currency tied to some resource won't fix all of society's economic problems. Technocracy Inc wants to pretend that their energy accounting will really mean something for the economy, but it won't. All it will due it turn energy into a unit of currency. Perhaps it is not even a bad idea to use energy as currency, but I still wouldn't support a centralized accounting system that tracks all purchases and controls production. I hate to bust out yet another sci-fi reference, but I remember reading about a futuristic society that used energy as its unit of currency. There is no fundamental problem with that concept, it just won't help us anymore then declaring that gold is money would help us.

I agree that they would not have our economic problems. Instead they would have different economic problems arising from trying to centrally run an economy. Also if energy became cheaper or more expensive, there would be a currency crisis under that system.

That is a tricky subject for me. On the one hand government interference seems to make things worse. On the other hand the private businesses by themselves made all these problems. If only we could outlaw bad decision making. I suppose this would have to be classified as one of the few acceptable regulations on the free market that I will accept. I like insured banking to avoid banking disasters, and now I suppose I might support regulated loaning to prevent loaning disasters. If businesses prove that they can not be trusted then it is time for Uncle Sam to let them fail (I endorse that option) or for Uncle Sam to regulate them to the point that they can not cause large economic problems. Both options are painful, but we are in a bind in this matter. If only there was a way to regulate them a little (to prevent the worst abuses), and still let them feel the pain caused by their poor decisions.

Also it is weird how everything brought up in this thread reminds me of sci-fi. I don't normally associate politics or economics with fantasy futuristic societies, but this thread is full of connects to them. And I haven't even brought up Frank Herbert's Ixian technocrats yet. Those are technocrats that I can get behind.

I totally called it. In post #30 I predicted this thread would go in one of two directions: more petty insults and no meaningful discussion with mohammed, or mohammed would start actually arguing for Technocracy Inc and we could have a meaningful discussion. Mohammed has chosen the petty insults path so I suppose he wants to alienate everyone from Technocracy Inc by insulting us.

What a coincidence, I have met a few True Scottsmen that never put sugar on their porridge. They assured me that the false Scottsmen who do like sugar on their porridge are just fakers. And yes, there are theistic satanists, but they aren't the True Satanists^TM, they are just one form of satanism. And The Doomed Soul was not arguing in support of theistic satanism anyways.

You never made an argument about it. You made the unsupported assertions that our pricing and growth system must fail. You can't make unsupported claims and then call them arguments. I have read other sources on growth-free economics, but they did not attack our pricing system. They either proposed static currency or meaningless inflation in which money is slowly devalued but there is no true growth. I don't think that our pricing system has to fail. I know you think it does, but you never argued in favor of your side, you just stated it as though it were the truth. First convince me that we can't have a no-growth economy with static currency AND convince me that we can't have a no-growth economy with money having a shifting arbitrary value that has meaningless inflation. If either of those options are possible then we don't even need to end the current pricing system; we would just need to adjust it a little as conditions change. Also I think we can learn a lesson from Terry Pratchett: "'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'"

That is money. You trade energy units for goods and services; how is that not money? It is not even the first time that I have heard proposals to make money expire after a certain amount of time. You are just saying that: money=energy (so energy availability determines the value of currency) and money expires every two years. Also it is not a 'real value;' it is just as arbitrary as saying money=gold and expires every two years, or money=gold and never expires, or money=energy and never expires, or money is purely arbitrary and is tied to no commodity.

That is not an argument. You still have not argued in support of your system. At best you insult or say that the current system is doomed. Argue in support of your system if you want us to believe in it.

I addressed this in post #35. Should I quote what I already wrote on this? Or can I trust you to read it the first time I wrote it? People have theorized zero growth markets. It is just that a zero growth market does not necessitate Technocracy Inc's method of economic control. That is the main problem here. Even IF you proved that our market system is doomed, most people would not accept Technocracy Inc. They would support other methods of altering our economy instead. Argue in support of Technocracy Inc, or you will never convince anyone to see things your way.

Money that expires is still money. As I previously said: some people already support expiring money to prevent hoarding. It is still money though. If these energy units can be traded for goods and services then by definition it is a kind of money. Your claims that it is not does not change the fact that it is.

money n., pl. -eys or -ies. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values.

It seems the dictionary agrees with me.

I never said that we are on the gold standard, by claiming that I do hold that position you are putting words in my mouth. I do not support a gold standard. I am just saying that a gold standard is no more or less arbitrary than an energy standard.

Other way around: energy account is a form of money, not that money is a form of energy accounting.

Wow, those petty insults really showed me. Truly your wit has a rapier's edge.

 wow you guys are sad... Part of the Dune Universe? from something that was created in 1918... stupid...

BTW Jormungander  I wasnt trying to rip you apart i was just being honest, there is a big difference. you just dont have a logical mind.

Doomed soul, i can not believe you think you have done anything other than prove your stupidity. give it up, you are challenging people that are way out of your league.  now with threats you have crossed the line imo.

Mods is there someway to put him on ignore?

Darth  already had to step in and say enough is enough to you.  You have not presented any reason, and i have had enough. Maybe there should be an age requirement here because i think i have had my fill of debating with children.

 OK Doomed, If you think you can handle it i challenge you to a moderated/judged debate in the debate forum.

I will argue that systems like our current one that are based on growth will fail and that we need a new system based on sustainability the form of distribution will be one that can be measured (energy). And that the system will be based on thermodynamics. you can argue the opposite.

Says the man who throws insults in nearly every post at either me or The Doomed Soul. Also you still have not in any way argued for Technocracy Inc, just more insults against us.

You don't even argue for your system here, so why should we hear you argue for it in another thread? You make unsubstantiated claims that our current system must fail, but that is about it for your "argument." That and a man who can't resist ad hominems such as yourself just doesn't belong in the debate forum. If by some horrible twist of fate there really was a moderated debate on this issue I would want to be involved. Perhaps then you would automatically be declared the loser when you whip out at least one insult per post.

Looking around online gives me multiple definitions for it. There is no one definition, in fact there seems to be quite a few. But for the purposes of this discussion I suppose we can simplify it to our version of technocracy vs Technocracy Inc's central planning/energy accounting system.

I for one will welcome our new technocratic overlords. Perhaps if I can impress them with my engineering abilities they will welcome me into their fold. /sarcasm