Prove to me that a true Technocratic state isn't perfect.
Technocratic Socialism is the future, in a few decades it will be the norm, the only thing holding us back now are capitalist memes that refuse to give into free energy because muh profits from oil.
its gay and so are you
face the truth my f a m
True we need this badly. Serbia bro
Best political system but nobody talks about it
I don't know about the socialist part, at least not right now. But technocracy, rule by technologists is totally awesome. Right now it is rule by lawyers and it's completely fucking retarded. Literally lawyers setting science and economic policies.
If you mean rule by scientists, the world would fall apart because not a single one of them has the first idea how to interact with normal humans.
If you mean rule by Silicon Valley-types, in 5 years your underwear will be spying on you and selling information to advertisers to pay the national debt but no one will give a fuck because they're busy playing Candy Crush VR on their government-mandated SmartRFID Smartchip Smarttracking Smartimplant while society crumbles around them because roads and buildings are luddite 20th century technology.
Yes, good goy, just get ruled by (((politicians))) instead
>Everyone does shit for the same benefit
Step 1 to having the world's highest janitors per capita
Yeah, because the people who invented microtransactions and respawn delays that you can pay to skip *aren't* honorary jews.
What do you even think "technocracy" means?
Its just the political class outsourcing decision making to specialists.
You elect a few politicians, they get some vague idea, and they hire a bunch of pros to make a plan, then consult with those pros and hire a bunch of technicians to enact that plan.
Its outsourced government, nothing special, and happens to some extent everywhere, since modern governments have to deal with things that untrained people don't comprehend.
The only thing it does is avoid the stupid comedy sections where a doctor or physician has to explain something to a senator in 5 minutes using his face as a prop.
At least you vote for Politicians — a technocrat is just some (((expert))) who got chosen by some other (((expert))).
In reality this would be the dream of every jew.
> Goyim, believe us, your government is totally doing the right thing for you, because they are (((experts))). Trust them, because they are smarter than you! And of course you can't vote for something different if he messes up, because they are smarter than you and you are too stupid to decide anything.
technocracy is not democratic in any kind of sense bro, it a meritocracy, only the best can be at the top!
Note that I said "true technocratic".
A degree in politics should be on the same level as a degree in philosophy, worthless.
True technocracy implies that only trained individuals in the fields of science can be elected in current political positions.
Meaning that if you don't have a, for example, degree in theoretical physics or mirco biology, you can't have ANY political title or position.
Yes, the democratic part implies choosing between equally trained individuals.
You elect who chooses the specialists that serve.
Technocracy is politicians hiring mercenary specialists to do their job, hopefully better than they would have themselves.
Thats all it is, stop memeing up shit like in this image
>thinking humans get a say in a technocratic society.
The foundations of technocracy are democratically elected congress of AI which do the legal debating or us and are flawless perfect machines.
Define technocracy
If it's an authoritarian-type of government where scientists are appointed, no
If it's a libertarian democracy with a huge budget dump in technological advancements (see: US during the Space race), absolutely
The only way the EU can become the USA of the 21st century is if they turn into a libertarian technocracy, which is still a relevant possibility seeing how they love science and are dumping budgets into stuff like CERN
>A degree in politics should be on the same level as a degree in philosophy, worthless.
It is. All the politicians are doctors, lawyers, historians and so on.
People who study politics as an academic pursuit are authors or consultants.
>True technocracy implies that only trained individuals in the fields of science can be elected in current political positions.
>Meaning that if you don't have a, for example, degree in theoretical physics or mirco biology, you can't have ANY political title or position.
Thats not what technocracy means. You don't need a physicists to run your agriculture reform. You hire a specialist in agriculture instead.
Technocracy = hiring specialists to plan and supervise policies in their specialist field.
You still vote for a politician, some lawyer type, who HIRES that specialist, and gives them the order or idea of what they should plan or execute.
Technocracy is about the EXECUTIVE power in the hands of specialists, not the legislative one.
Recently we had a "technocrat" prime minister. A guy who wasn't part of any of the elected parties was appointed as temporary prime minister. He was a mercenary, a specialist in politics and law, and was appointed by the party DPS to rule during their collapsing coalition. He wasn't much liked.
There are multiple definitions.
Some people, like OP, think that Technocracy means that an electrical engineer makes laws and that every "politician" is some engineer or scientist — and you don't vote for them, they get chosen by some university or other (((experts))).
Then there is a definition which says that it means that the politician who is minister in one resort has an degree and a good reputation in that resort and gets chosen by the people of that resort.
So the army will choose the minister of Defence. The minister for energy will be some electrical or mechanical engineer.
Then there is your definition, which is basically the most realistic one.
Politicians still get chosen by the people, but they have to hire people of the specific field if they have to make decisions regarding this.
The only country in the world which is best fitting to any definition of Technocracy is South Korea. They worship their scientists and let them make their decisions.
...and South Koreas government is shit...
>Note that I said "true technocratic".
Thats just like "true communism" faggot.
It's some imaginary dream land and system which just works in your fantasy book.
"Free energy"
Nothing is free you dense nigger.
This.
The most successful politicians are NOT the ones who studied something with politics.
People who have some political degree just get some minor position in some ministry. They are not in charge.
Singapore do something like that. The government doesn't carry out reforms with its state owned... anything, they just hire a consulting company, and the consulting company hires executive companies, and things get done.
Like if you want to reform education to focus more on informaitcs and IT, so you hire a company that contracts Microsoft and Intel for the hardware and software, and some local IT company for training teachers, and so on.
And if you want to do something like move sand from the sea to the beaches to preserve them, normally you do that with the military, but in a "technocratic" society you contract some company that specifically does that thing - specialists, and you let them handle it.
en.wikipedia.org
Its not "free", but it is tremendous, and long lasting, and currently going to waste. Might as well start collecting it some time soon, and the reason we aren't is capitalism.
>people not getting power because wealthy
>people not getting power by kissing ass
choose both
Pol is Cyber Technocratic Meritocratic National-Socialism board now. /thread.
Yes, specialists should supervise policies.
What I'm saying is that the ""lawyer""" should be replaced by someone with a degree in science.
Just completely remove him from the equation.
This is (((the future)))
Keep sucking that capitalist dong, user.
If we wanted to we could have free energy for half the world in a matter of years.
>>>what is energetics
Again, you're focusing on the meme definition of technocracy that the technocracy movement hijacked in the US during the 30s. That's not a technocracy. A technocracy is a technologically-oriented government regardless of who controls it.
For an example, historically there have been two types of technocracy:
>US during the space race
>SU during the space race
The US was a regular democracy with lawyers getting political power, yet the budget was hugely redirected towards science (NASA)
The Soviet Union was a communist state that appoints experts at will (like what people claim to be a technocracy nowadays), but still, the budget was hugely redirected towards science like the US
Both of them are technocracies, even if the US wasn't appointing people like Feynman or Von Neumann as senators. It's not the political structure that defines them, it's the budget surplus allocation.
>not divine mandate
Come on user, don't you want to transcend?
National Socialism was supposed to be technocratic socialism anyways dumbass. Read Gottfried Feders work.
researchgate.net
It would suck because most of smart people are completely disconnected from the real world.
They're retarded utopist and can't understand people are very different from one another
Most susceptible to external actors, much less resilient to external influence, much lower bound of scalability than current situation in msot european countries
It's a nice statue, but it's made of glass
>A technocracy is a technologically-oriented government regardless of who controls it.
Thats what the USSR said about communism, and allegedly the USSR was a country "ran by engineers", as opposed to the fascist "ran by soldiers" and the capitalists "ran by merchants".
Your definition of technocracy appears a lot in Soviet literature and sci-fi.
Note that they were totalitarian regimes, and that they weren't actually very scientifically looking, neither the population or the leaders.
Its just that "science", and specifically the space physicists, were weaponized during the ideological conflict.
The singularity will never happen, a post-scarcity society will never happen, human-level AI will never happen.
You're gay.
And I was supposed to have a bright future.
Things don't always turn out how we wanted them to.
well, better not touch that glass, scientist can do really bad shit, just ask japan.
Technocrats are the high-priests of Scientism. It's just another self-destructive anti-human cult. Utopias have a funny of way of always turning into dystopias. You want to see what a technocracy looks like read Brave New World.
>the reason we aren't is capitalism
Thats bullshit.
> Muh, ebil capitalism is the reason why we don't live in paradise, Muh! Capitalism is the reason for everything bad!
Which form of "free" energy do you mean?
For example solar power plants are not profitable except in some real desert state — but we still have solar power in countries where it's basically useless in winter.
Because the government is founding it.
And some other companies like Tesla don't even need the government.
They have huge debts and never made any profit in the whole history of the company. Based on the numbers Tesla would be already bankrupt.
But they are not.... and why?
Because other companies and people invest huge amounts of money in Tesla. They just have to ask for more many and some investor will give it to them.
tfw you can spot a mistake in that wall of equations
as if we aren't already living in a dystopia.
Shut up, it happened in almost all of my sci fi books.
>Not reading and learning what GOOD technocratic socialism looks like from the man who invented technocratic national socialism
Good job retard. Go read the document.
Or look up old nazi newspapers, they literally had 2 page articles convincing the reader why he should euthanize his old grandpa to save himself and the state resources and make room for his own children to live.
This is very heavily optimizing for scientific secular reasons, in the face of obvious ethical concerns. It didn't take off.
Don't forget that the nazis were the protestant party, and many people voted for them to spite the catholic democratic party they were running against. Even after the assassinations and purges the nazis were a populist party that had to also please christians, they weren't quite the secular scientific party you want them to be.
Neato, but there's nothing about that in Feder's work, and I don't give a fuck about Hitler and the Nazis, only Feder.
Well yeah, you can technically define National Socialist Germany during 38-43 as a technocracy as well since they dumped an insane amount of capital into R&D of pretty much everything - from rubber to synthetic fuel to alloys to rockets.
Which wouldn't be a false definition, because that's exactly what it was. It's completely irrelevant what party or ideology claims to control the country - if they drain the budget from social programs or other programs and congregate it for technological development, it becomes a defacto technocracy.
The government in Singapore is not Technocracy. It is the pure form of Capitalism and free market.
You have to do something? Hire some company. Don't let the state have too much power.
>muh ebil meme posting meme reddit meme tumblr meme muh muh
>thus you are wrong :)
1. We have the tech for it.
2. We have the manpower for it.
3. We have the hard materials for it.
4. We would benefit from it.
Yet we don't do it. Why? Because "money". We have everything except "money", even though money is supposed to be a measurement of what we have.
Capitalism will not take us into space, no matter how much that one Tesla guy tries.
>If we wanted to we could have free energy for half the world in a matter of years.
Thats just like:
> If everybody wanted, Communism would work
Muh overpopulation
Muh absence of nationalism
wtf i hate investors now.
Grow up and go read books.
You didn't even read his link.
Learn what a Dyson sphere is.
We literally could make one in the next 50-100 years.
Why won't we?
Because the capitalists would be out of a job.
>wah wah wah technocracy is communism
this is getting old.
Cool, invent strong AI and the technology necessary for a post scarcity sustainable mass welfare society. I'll give you 100 years.
Oh, you mean you just want to elect Mark Zuckerberg to gib one true communism? Well, good luck.
If it were up to me smartphones would be illegal.
Politicians and people with strong leadership skills will always lead you mongoloid.
Pretty sure that if your system could exist as you believe, it would already. And if it ever can, it will.
So i wouldn't worry about it.
The problem with any system is that someone will always try to skim off of the top until maybe you invent an incorruptible AI to run the whole thing for you...
It takes literally thirty seconds of thought to realize why this is retarded.
>Rule by "Experts"
>How do we decide what an expert is?
>I know, let's ask Professor Shlomo from the University of Shekelstein, he has a Doctorate in Applied Humanities!
Ten minutes later your country is run by a conclave of Yids. You know all those Jew rat professors we hate who control Academia? Congratulations, you just put them 100% in charge of the country.
No, this is a retarded idea. National Socialism is the only answer. We must raise up a single leader with vision to rule us justly with the interests of the people at heart, not the interests of a conclave of Jews.
Just barter at your local network exchanges with professionals who have experience in the industry.
Fuck money.
>Cool, invent strong AI and the technology necessary for a post scarcity sustainable mass welfare society. I'll give you 100 years.
Literally just stop considering human life holy, and kill the useless people, and we are there. Israel and China are on the way to such a conclusion.
Scarcity can be solved by increasing supply, or reducing need, and one is much easier than the other.
>Why won't we?
>Because the capitalists would be out of a job.
That's both how it works and how it doesn't.
We also could build space shuttles and colonize Space in the 60-70s. And we did. What happened? There wasn't a market backbone to take on the torch and keep the flame lit - the moment the state budget ran out it completely died and humanity stopped doing it for half a century.
You must build a market backbone to absorb the technology you're creating and let them form their own independent companies to administer it. You can't just blitz into technology like that, which is exactly why you need a stable and continuous technocratic government which will keep the torch lit until the market can absorb it, while a non-technocratic one (the US case of backing away from NASA) simply runs away and stops spending in favor of >muh healthcare.
If the US didn't back away from NASA then what Elon is currently doing would've been long done by another private company in the 90s
Socialist only in form of social security. Everyone gets roof over their heads and food on the table but one must work for luxuries.
There would be no monetary system either or atleast not something that you can trade, inherit or give away.
fashwavocracy > technocracy
Honestly though whats to stop people from just saying "Ur science is bad."
Say if a large majority of people learned psychology then they will berate all the STEM fields so that they could keep more power.
>Technocratic Socialism is the future
No it isn't.
Best regards.
a technocratic socialist state
> 1. We have the tech for it.
For what? About which form of "free" Energy are we talking? If you are talking about 100% of all energy "production" in the whole world to be out of solar, water and wind power, then we don't have the tech for it.
The one thing which is missing is:
Good Batteries which are not hazardous waste and bad for the environment. Because your "free" energy is not constantly here all the time. There is less sun in the winter and there are times with less wind and water.
> 2. We have the manpower for it.
Yes, thats true
> 3. We have the hard materials for it.
If i consider the amount of rare earth we would need..... no... if we build your "free" power dream world with todays technology, we would need materials we don't have in that amount.
> 4. We would benefit from it.
No.
If we would benefit from it, then companies would do it.
If you are talking about some "Muh, environment" benefit, then again.... the hazardous waste of the batteries you need would destroy more nature than you benefit from a little bit less CO2.
You are full of shit.
Yeah, I'm sure the Swedish women will be glad they live in a technocrazy when they are being raped by refugees. Hey, their men are cucks, but at least THERE IS FREE INTERNET :DDDD
>EU
>libertarian, ever
Bwhahahahahaha
Maybe if we burn it down and start over
>>>>>A degree in applied humanities
Well nope, because technocracy implies only degrees in natural and theoretical sciences.
No gender studies.
No Social studies.
Just science, math and facts.
>And we did. What happened?
The Cold War happened. If the communists would go into space, and the capitalists wouldn't, then South American and African countries would be flying the red flags in a decade. And intellectuals in USA, Britain, everywhere would be asking to become communist too, see how fast they advance!
This was a necessary expense, like the big business working at a loss, selling bellow production costs, to chase off the new competitor they don't want.
>we could build a Dyson sphere in 100 years
Wew laddy
Then your waifu will never be real.
who said you have to ask a professor in a university?
Whats important is that people get a high education.
>Jews
If you let jews have the power because your country didnt have people with a high level of knowledge its your own fault.
>Note that I said "true technocratic".
This system never existed and is already making excuses like the commies
This is true. Nobody is going to make a pill that cures everything when you can make thousands and make sure that people have to take them for the rest of their lives. + for you if you make the pill addictive.
In capitalist society if it doesnt sell/make money its not worth it, this is why capitalism is a shitty ideology that stagnates the entire human race. Think about how gaming consoles are "upgraded" with each new generation. The technology is obviously there, but why use it when you can slap an ancient gpu a little better than the last one since idiots buy it anyway. Just recycle the same trash and slap a different colour while calling it "cutting edge tech"
I have actually come in contact with this and its horseshit. Some fresh out of college cunt with some bullshit degree making decisions on what i can and can not do "ethically". The fucking cunts can not even begin to comprehend my work and they have this much power over it.
>For what? About which form of "free" Energy are we talking?
Nigger did you even read my post? Go back and notice the link.
We can easily start building our Dyson Swarm project tomorrow, no new technology, materials, anything new required.
We can just explode-fart parts into space the way we do now, with retarded outdated fuel burning rockets, and it would still be worthwhile energy wise.
>Capitalism will not take us into space, no matter how much that one Tesla guy tries.
kek
Ok, i just realized that this is just bait.
Sorry for biting ^^
Anything beats this cluster fuck we currently have.
work for luxuries? you are overestimating humanity, they would only nag to have luxuries considered as non-luxuries.
Intellectual prowess is not a substitute for experience and knowledge, nor a sign of moral clarity.
>About to be ruled by a right wing nationalist bimbo
>Technocratic socialism
Are you sure about that?
Please learn to READ.
We are specifically talking about the DYSON SPHERE.
Look at british authors and scientists, 90% of them are aristocracy, they don't NEED to do anything, yet some of them work very hard.
Look at how hard fucking Christiano Ronaldo works, despite being a multi-millionaire.
Successful people don't make enough to live on and then start getting lazy, they work more. People who work, they will work, regardless of if they need to. And lazy bums will slack, even if they are starving.
>This was a necessary expense, like the big business working at a loss, selling bellow production costs, to chase off the new competitor they don't want.
Well yeah, that's why we need an *actual* technocracy, not an US that gets scared off into being a technocracy just temporary. We need a government that will open up a NASA-like program and keep it fully operational for at least 4-5 decades, until the market has lit their own torch from the state's and it can care for itself.
A little bit like growing up a kid - you're not supposed to take care of it and just let it go when it gets 6 years old, you should care for it until it's mature enough to do it on its own, and the free market is immature enough to have a need to be cared for.
Capitalism:
> make one pill that cures everything
> immediately earn enough money that every single employee of your company can live their whole life in complete luxury without them and every single one of their descendants ever having to work again.
Socialism:
> make a pill that cures everything
> earn nothing
> the government closes your department because they don't need you anymore
> be unemployed and live on socialism gibs
Science autists are possibly even worse than the current political caste, not at all fit to run a country. Muh beta education sounds nice but law and economics people is what you want, just only select the best.
I like the Dyson Swarm idea better, a full sphere requires specific tech and materials to make areas that large. I know its semantics, but don't give him any ways to cheese out of the conversation.
And you think these people are going to take over by revolution? Are the scientists going to arm up and storm the white house?
No, it would have to be by referendum, and that referendum would include the question of WHO exactly gets to run the government. Since the intellectual and academic community is ruled entirely by kikes and Marxists, the less of a say you give to normal people, the more likely you are to get what I have described.
>b-but in my infallible perfect v-vision of Technocracy it would be perfect!
Yes, that's the point of utopias, they're perfect. But reality isn't perfect, reality means you have to go through steps in a process to bring about a result. Explain to me the process that gets us to your utopian government where only highly qualified people without ulterior motives handle the fate of the nation.
And then explain to me why we haven't already implemented that process in a regular democracy. At least my utopian movement actually existed, it was called the NSDAP, Every group of "Technocrats" I've ever seen are stargazing retards who think that democracy is bad because there are fewer of them than there are rural and suburban retards.
technocracy wouldnt let rapefugees in since they do no good for the country.
Yeah, just ignore everything i said....
Right
this
It is thanks to people like this the Green Party is so big in our country
>And you think these people are going to take over by revolution? Are the scientists going to arm up and storm the white house?
The only way for specialists to get into power is for the military to put them there.
They would let them in, since its literally free power - muscle power. They'd just settle them away from cultural centers and work them to an early grave.
This specialist rule scientific system would be very unethical, if we take the USSR example. Humans as resource, for the greater good.
We already have exactly that in most of Europe.
Hint: It's not enough to prevent the collapse of our societies.
Our main problem RIGHT NOW is not housing, food, funding for science or benefits for those who work hard. Not at all.
It is the collapse of our institutions. Of the traditional family, of our nation, of our culture, of our race and people.
Have you even seen the birthrates for native europeans? They are LOW. Lower than those of Japan.
Have you seen the fucking divorce rates?
Have you seen the immigration numbers?
The rise in crimes like rape?
Do you realize how marxist our schools have become?
>b-b-but no free housing and internet!!!
Fuck off.
I dont think you know how much of an undertaking making a dyson sphere would be. I dont think there is even enough material on earth to make it, we'd first have to start mining asteroids. And just moving the raw material to its designated spot could easily take 100 years on its own.
We could start making a Dyson swarm soon though.
That's the problem now too, hacing kikes and marxists ruling the intellectual and academic community affecting everyone who studies since they are, as we have said, ruled by kikes and marxist.
We need to end communism.
> talking about a science fiction
I want to build a death star.
And there are already calculations about how expansive it would be and some experts already said that it would be possible.
If we all focused on it as a collective, yes.
I agree it would never happen tho, it would take world wide communism to complete it.