What does Sup Forums thing about a techocratic goverment? A world where every political decision is being made by a scientist, after proven and logical calculations.
This will prevent stupid politicians making stupid decisions because they have no fucking idea what they are doing. Instead every decision will be numerically optimized for the sake of people who live in that country.
Without stupid religions, and people with shitty genes will be forbidden to breed.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Government is literally the only business in the world whereby the decisions are made by the people who are most popular, instead of the most competent.
I don't really understand what Technocracy has to do with Eugenics though?
I love science but knowing about X does not mean you know about thing Y. Running a nation =/= research/experimentation
back to r/atheism
>Technocracy and Eugenics
Well, scientists can already make some predictions about future children from the medical history of their parents. Some illnesses/defects can or will be given to their offspring. Wouldn't it be better to prevent it? (If you want to optimize the future)
Basically an underage atheist's fantasy.
Now start with the Greeks instead.
Basically what Tesla was telling. By 2100 we should sterilize most dimwits as their traits are inheritable, or at least they make for horrible parents.
A technocracy isn't really about it, it's just about going beyond politics to hire the right people for the job.
It isn't simply about getting the best educated people, but, say, get a former energy corp CEO or manager at the helm of the energy sector, get a dean or so to run Education etc.
We already have it ruling the EU and it's a disaster.
Religion is a much better system of population control.
That doesn't sound like a technocracy. Though the govt should be investing many fold more into science
Yes of course, but that has nothing to do with Technocracy. While a technocratic health minister might decide to implement such a policy, it doesn't go hand in hand with the method of government itself.
In what way exactly would research and experimentation not aid in the running of a nation?
I wonder what the ethnicity of these (((scientists))) will be
>Already technocracy in EU
You call THIS shit a technocracy? Just look at germany and their foreign and defence ministers, they have no fucking clue what they are doing or what the hell is their job at all.
And first of all they aren't even scientists. How can you call this corrupt bureaucracy system a technocracy?
(China is much closer to technocracy to be honest)
So a country run by 97 Bill Nye's? No thanks
1. OP is faggot
2. Everything a faggot says is wrong
3. OP supports technocracy
Therefore
4. Technocracy is wrong
And now the technocracy has logically proven to itself through calculation that it is a bad system.
> I am a faggot
Now if I am really a faggot then what I said just now is wrong and I am not a faggot
there goes your logic, get cucked
>Without stupid religions, and people with shitty genes will be forbidden to breed.
assumes we can predict what genes would be best fit for a future environment.
eugenics seems like a really great way to reduce genetic variation, which could be catastrophic.
pretty sure elites are working towards having the world controlled by robots. great source for absolute tyranny. horrible idea.
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
>is being a mindless slave to the government a good idea?
No thanks jew boy
>technocracy
You'll need to add radical traditionalist to that in order balance things out.
So we become the Foundation led by Harry Seldon's psychohistory calculations? No thanks I'm good.
>(((scientists.jpg)))
>(((Technocracy)))
Jews are severely over-represented on your pic.
There is your answer.
>A world where every political decision is being made by a scientist, after proven and logical calculations.
Whoever owns the companies that produce the data will be the true rulers of that society.
Much like people try to push things like climate change vs no climate change, or trends in crime by race/ethnicity in Europe over the past few years as they relate to migrants. The sources of data are used as "credible" and are suddenly above all questioning and criticism as long as they follow the narrative.
>I don't really understand what Technocracy has to do with Eugenics though?
Everything. Technocracy is almost complete dependence on technology. Once you can prevent the creation of humans with specific diseases, what else will you control about human genetics? Control over race, susceptibility, physical abilities. And then you get into biomechanics and fusing biological processes with mechanical ones. That turns into a complete dependence on tech for more extreme forms of transhumanism.
You're an idiot if you think someone can't know two things at once
>not a real country
This.
Technocracy is good to filter out most shitskins but too much technocracy will be an advantage for kikes and gooks.
idk man the technocrat jewish rulers already decided to eliminate the white race and it's not going so well for me.
>The sources of data are used as "credible" and are suddenly above all questioning and criticism as long as they follow the narrative.
Which is why I suggested traditionalism be added to balance things out. If the (((jew))) decides faggotry is scientifically beneficial to the nation, as traditionalist we can deny them entry
Sceintists can be corrupt too. And since they'll know more than most people about their given set of calculations very few people can cross check and make sure they are correct. It's a simple matter to pay off or kill everyone who could oppose you. Technocracy is just despotism with more competent autocrats.
>A world run by Amazon, Google, and American Express
We're already there friendo
Only a fascist, militaristic nation can survive, scientists should serve the people and improve military and defense systems.
No not at all. Science doesn't have morality
Bertrand Russell goes into this in great deal in papers like "the Scientific Outlook" . You should check that out user.
Ask the normal people in Silicon Valley how they feel about tech
in a technocracy science would first become ((science)) and then "science"
Kek
So you are all for hereditary monarchy then?
Monarchs are born and raised (literally by other monarchs) specifically to be skilled statesmen, they are objectively the most qualified people on Earth to rule, they are born leaders.
*(((science))) i may correct you
>raised (literally by other monarchs) specifically to be skilled statesmen
Under a technocracy there would still be test, exams etc to determine if in fact they should be in charge.
So no it won't lead to a monarcy nor is it similar
You can´t deny this logic.
Thanks for sharing your opinons anons
>Scientific Outlook
I will look up, thank you for suggestion
Well as I see you all mentioned that it provides some kind of danger since "scientists" will abuse their power and use it... but what would you like more, scientists who know what they do or some people who can only talk shit and don't even have idea about their subject? At least scientists will need to prove that their actions are supposed to be improvement for their country, politicians can just say "hey lets build a bridge in a fucking nowhere" and they won't even take responsibility for that
I mean first step would be already to have according scientific qualification (bachelor of arts isn't the thing) for their political role. A health minister should be doctor of medicine for example
>What does Sup Forums thing about a techocratic goverment? A world where every political decision is being made by a scientist, after proven and logical calculations.
you do know scientist make mistakes and shame other scientist who the do not deem worthy? like what happened to einstein.
the science community is full of stuck up elitist.
thinking the should rule the masses is retarded.
Technocracy is a horrible idea. The government's job is not to make the most logical decisions, but the ones that make the people happy. A purely logical society would make a large majority of the population very unhappy, and that means revolts. Machines also aren't as capable as we imagine, and there's no way we could have a computer smart enough to determine the best possible decision in every scenario.
You should watch Psycho Pass. It´s precisely what you talk about. Seriously, even if you don´t agree with the series, it still a good time.
We are a nation of laws. It stands to reason that the leaders would largely be lawyers
>So no it won't lead to a monarcy nor is it similar
You don't think someone raised from birth to rule would pass a test made to select someone who knows how to rule?
Your technocratic society would be ruled by a strict class of people raised specifically to be rulers, these people would likely be raised or extensively educated from an early age by other rulers, ideally. It very closely resembles monarchy.
Let me remind you China.
>politicians can just say "hey lets build a bridge in a fucking nowhere"
Politicians don't necessarily make arbitrary decisions like this. The people elect then based on their philosophy.so ifa politician were to make a bridge in the middle of nowhere, it would be because the people wanted it
China is aiming to be a technocracy but its higher ups are decendents of the original communist party and is very nepotistic and corrupt. The only reason they have survived in their current state is because american leaders are just as corrupt and less competent.
In a technocracy scientists would be doing science and be nowhere near the political process unless the ruler were making a decision that hinged upon certain technical details that only scientists would know.
Lawyers and diplomats would still be the ruling class, as they are now.
The world obeys laws of physics. Science too. So setting scientists on leading role would be logically same thing?
>these people would likely be raised or extensively educated from an early age by other rulers
Isn't the same thing with rich people now who can provide their offsprings good education? Of course they have higher chances, but it doesn't mean that someone from 0 can't raise himself up in the ranks if he is intelligent enough
>Psycho Pass
Done it, good thing
>Monarchs
As I have mentioned above, people can't get to king from 0, but if they are smart enough they can get up in the technocracy
>You don't think someone raised from birth to rule would pass a test made to select someone who knows how to rule?
No, temperament varies from person to person. Also, as the science evolves quickly, older ideas will die before the next gen can learn them.
>will be raised specifically
No they wont, they will all compete for a position of power. They'll have to prove themselves
this is socialism under a different guise
you have fucked up this continent enough times already, haven't you, germany?
being ruled by big goverment telling you what to do and what not to do.
the ultimate act of being a subservient cuck.
i assuming you like being ruled by commies and islam too?
>american leaders are just as corrupt and less competent
Holy shit chink, youre shitposting is straya tier. Guess the flag and statement checks out.
One king, who answers to a new pope (after this leftist one resigns) would be cool.
whoever is in power would literally redefine what science means and what good science is.
We need pure Capitalists with leadership skills to run the country. Based on people who are sucessful.
What do you call that? Meritocracy?
>Meritocracy
Sounds like corruption
>This will prevent stupid politicians making stupid decisions because they have no fucking idea what they are doing.
Yeah, politicians are famously bad at politics. Better to get someone who really understand politics, like a scientist.
Kek.
A mix is needed. Scientists should have a very strong say on scientific matters like space exploration, health, the environment, and technological investments while politicians control leadership in everything else. It makes no sense to leave the basis of the modern economy to the whims of a party seeking short term election gains and it makes no sense to put a chemist in charge of foreign policy.
I'm Irish catholic. Most democratic leaders are less competent than autocratic due to inexperience relying on citizens to make an informed choice. America has legalized bribery though lobbyists and most new laws are heavily obfuscated. China has more open bribing though gifts.
>It makes no sense to leave the basis of the modern economy to the whims of a party seeking short term election gains
Under those circumstances wouldn't it be the responsibility of the people that elect the politicians to determine if those politicians should be in power?
>America has legalized bribery though lobbyists
So let me get this straight. The most successful corporations are bribing politicians to capture the advantage the can then use to expand operations and influence outside the nation and into other nations. Correct?
This assumes the people are rational and vote for more than their immediate best interest.
smells of autistic faggotry to me. every scientist i ever met is politically retarded and basically just jerks off about his own supposed intelligence, even-handedness and wisdom.
>This assumes the people are rational
So help me understand what you're saying.
So,if the people are not "rational" said system should be replaced with a system where people that know what's best for the irrational population should make decisions FOR the population without the populations consent because the population is "irrational "?
>A world where every political decision is being made by a scientist
President Nye. Yeah, great fucking idea.
>smells of autistic faggotry
Im surprised that you didnt catch a whif of that when you hit the 4chin homepage
>Nye
This name is an insult to all the actual scientists, you know.
Every retard can call himself a scientist, but it doesn't mean he is one, especially if he talks about bullshit (like that gender spectrum) without any credibility
Politicizing science is bad enough. Turning scientists into politicians would be a disaster for all mankind.
my point exactly
This guy knows precisely what is up.
it's all relative
The thing is that you are the sort of person that would be sterilized, so I am now in favor of technocracy.
Turns out it doesn't work, see: Soviet Union
The EU is a technocracy.
No its not.
The EU is a faggotocracy.
>and people with shitty genes will be forbidden to breed.
would that apply to stephen hawking?
Yes, fuck that faggot.
On issues of science and technology, yes. The reality of some problems aren't up for a vote. For instance if a majority of the population doesn't believe that climate change is happening then the majority of the population is just simply incorrect and this should not be reflected in public policy. On issues where you can't just run an experiment and there's all sorts of interpretations you can draw like immigration, or criminal justice that's where politicians should represent the public will because it's not a settled science.
do you think the alleged wizards of smart would really exclude themselves?
Yep.
Why are you defending our disgusting corrupt lobbyist system?
Scientists don't make laws fag.
This is why advisors exist and shit.
That's exactly it. Technocracy is just scientific arrogance manifest in politics. They are smartest, therefore they know best, thus they are entitled to the reins of power. The problem lies in the fact that they know absolutely fucking shit all about politics, diplomacy and the basic fundamentals of human interaction. They're very sheltered people that are incapable of making decisions about anyone because while they understand the mathematical basis of the world around them, they do not understand the value of humanity.
>Why are you defending our disgusting corrupt lobbyist system?
Because I'd much rather export Americanism than end up fighting in the emu wars on US lands
Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are shameless self promoters and would be able to effectively play the political system. These are the leaders you would end up with.
Do you want to get shot? Because that's how you get shot.
You're sturring up the leafs.
It wont work because science is amoral, so it wont be able to effectively solve our moral issues wich are a big part of what a government does
So, you think incompetent demagogues that can rile up the plebs are best suited to rule?
Fuck off, leaf.
Depends on the scientists in charge
>inb4 sociologists run the government now
Who decides which field of scientists gets to make the decision?
what isn't settled science is whether or not mankind can do anything to stop climate change, no matter how much we are taxed and controlled. Sounds like a dystopian nightmare.
>government
>moral issues
Are you stupid?
>flag
Yes you are. But humor me, what business does a government have in someone's moral views?
STEM. Angry nerds are a million times smarter and better than modern politicians.
exactly. we can cut carbon emissions by 95%, and all we have to do is kill 95% of the human population. let's get to work boys!
he didn't say that. you can have a competent leader that still understands ordinary people and treats them like people instead of robots.
>robbery, rape, murder, fraud, lying under oath
moral issues
>solve our moral issues
>a government does
Yeah, building bridges in fucking nowhere, building airport, then rebuildiung it, then rebuilding it again, then closing it (insert the expanding brain meme here) - just google the Berlin airport thingy - solves our moral issues very effectively
Inviting people from whole world to take a part in the state welfare system without giving anything positive in return is also solving our moral issues pretty well (NOPE)
You can fuck with morals but you can't fuck with numbers. If helping people from cuckistan is mathematically ineffective and brings nothing for it's own country - then cuckistan will be cucked, fuck morals
When has a professional politician ever cared about the people? Name ONE.
>the most basic NAP principles
>moral issues
Pick one.
>being a professional politician makes you not care about the people
>let's make scientists professional politicians, that'll change things
also, pic related
>technocracy
More like autistocracy, and it would be unbearable.
Please no.