Technocracy

Can technocracy be nationalistic/racist?
What are the cons of tecnocracy beside ussr like utopian society will be eventually ruled by old farts who know nothing about real world but "good" at theory

It can discriminate against non-technical individuals, like, a technocratic regime going all like "aight y'all non-tech/science people are useless, you will all be executed or donated to science while alive, and your remaining organs would go to organ banks for when tech-literate people need them" or something.

I honestly dont know what the cons would be. I am studying computer engineering, and I dont see the cons. Science and technology are basically solving ALL problems in life. You can solve everything trough methods scientists/engineers use.

It's the most successful thing in the world, science and technology, so I assume a state led by 'technocrats' would also be the most successful thing.

Technocracy is letting engineers -the kind of people who post in /sci/ and Sup Forums- run an entire country. Picture a national policy based on pure statistics and calculated efficiency without taking into account that the numbers represent real live human beings who need food and basic services to survive.

>Can technocracy be nationalistic/racist?
if that furthers the interests of the nation then yes

>What are the cons of tecnocracy
- everyone and their mothers dislike dictatorships
- corruption and nepotism slowly creep into the system compromissing its sustainability
- bureaucracy will become overwhelming
- social reforms are unlikely to happen at all (although that is not really a con)
- imcompetent people will still find ways to climb the ladder
- countries suffering from brain drain will likely have incompetent leaders anyway
- the state remains vulnerable to bribes

people from social """""sciences""""" would crash the plane. Areas like economy, education or foreign affairs wouldn't be headed by an engineer or a scientist, yet they are of extreme importance for the well-being of a nation.

>scientists/engineers wouldnt be able to figure out food and basic services
what?

I never understood utterly unessential, borderline worthless peoples/majors (zimbabwean hip hop feminist studies of empowerment) going all like "nah, you just dont get it, you simply wouldnt understand, there's this "mystic aura of friendship" (or whatever) that hard science people simply dont understand".

>stems dont get economy
The most successful commercial businesses on Earth are ran by engineers and scientists (google Google, Elon Musk, consumer electronics, etc).
>dont get education
STEM related schools teach skills that are the most employable and highest paying or at least among the best right now.
>foreign affairs
What source do you have for this? Also, who needs foreign affairs when you can build missiles..
It's like saying a civilization would need a foreign affairs ministry to handle those African/Amazon uncontacted tribes who didnt figure out how to start a fire yet.

But there are also non- qualified geniuses like Faraday etc etc etc. who had no "needed papers" aka diplomas but were more smart than official school trained people who spent 4 years of their life

Yeah, true, but that was before the day and age of formal education.

This with technocracy is, it's like a meritocracy, just the merit is tech/science literacy.
For example, if you claim you are more technocratic/meritocratic than a guy with 7 phd's in hard sciences (none of which being honorary), its simple to prove it: you just take a test and score better than him. Or you invent something no one figured out before. And so on.

Tho capitalist model is good enough. Smart people are making money, stupid people are being stupid, etc. Works just fine, even if governments take stuff by force from time to time from worthy people who generate wealth.

So as I understand to prevent technocracy become another ussr like illusional old fart ruled state, it should have parts of direct democracy like swiss

Maybe it sounds idiotic but since we are now going to have revolution this week
I wanted to at least try to improve my country.
National-technocrat party would sound cringy and like teenager party?
I know our people still living in stone age but I want to change something.
Jacque Frescp is too utopic but anyways i like him

>The most successful commercial businesses on Earth are ran by engineers and scientists (google Google, Elon Musk, consumer electronics, etc).
a country is not a bussiness, you can't downsize a country just because there's too much spending. Also for every example of sucess you'll have lots of faillures, It's no coincidence most stem founded companies sell off as soon as they grow big enough (as in more than a small office).

>STEM related schools teach skills that are the most employable and highest paying or at least among the best right now.
I work (and studied) in chemistry and I can tell you that's completely meaningless when it comes to the knowledge of the procedures. Education in itself has nothing to do with STEM, STEM stands for sciences, tecnology, engineering and math. Teachers in STEM are tutors and not actual teachers, just like craftmanship, medicine or any other practical subject.

>What source do you have for this? Also, who needs foreign affairs when you can build missiles.
and then they end like serbia did, alone and borbarded to hell.

because average folk obviously know how are the most competent leaders, even though they do not possess the knowledge to do so, right?
democracy generaly gives populism too much power for a technocracy to be implanted

Yeah, a real world technocratic party sounds extremely cringy, just like... anarchistic party, sounds like something an angry teenager would make up.

The world is already technocratic, people with tech/science skills are extremely well funded (if you focus on the industry, academia is kinda shit, almost no research or application) and today they decide who gets hired or not, since almost entire private sector is just tech/science stuff.

If you want a better life, become a doctor or an engineer. Politics is for people who cant become a doctor or an engineer and who never went past highschool tier math.

>what?
You're quoting a sentence that doesn't exist in my post. You're confused at something you wrote.

I don't suggest that a technocracy would be incompetent. I suggest that it would be indifferent to an inhumanly cruel degree. Technocrats would make people live in repurposed containers and eat protein powder made out of insects. Why? Because it would be incredibly cost-effective. It is the very competence in finding 'effective' solutions that makes technocrats frightening. Only technocrats could develop and operate something like the holocaust.

This is what I wanted to say whole thread but my english sucks.
Thats why I added national to tecnhocracy.
Kibbutz like society is the only way with our tribal people, at least this is what I think

You can quantify living standards and quality of life. Its a hollywood meme that people who are into technical fields are all... nerds who speak in binary to each other or whatever. If there is no good reason to implement 'protein powder made out of insects', why would anyone do this? Efficiency wouldnt be worth the decrease in living standards.

Only thing that would probably change in society is, there would be much less tolerance to bullshit welfare jobs that produce nothing at the end of the day, and manual laborers would either have to work cheaper than machines (and starve) or be a human and use their brain for once.
For example "women studies" wouldnt be a formal education option in technocracy, but a hobby you do in your free time.

See, your post is a good example of technocratic ideology: arguing that society is held back by inefficient leeches who must be expunged, workers don't deserve to be paid and should be starved to death, fetishisation of technology and tools, using rhetoric that links women to things of no value etc.

This is how I see it.
The main problem is the word tecnocracy
People will start thinking about technology and cybernetics when they hear it. But technocracy as today people and technocrates understand is 100% anti human ideology.
I just want technocracy work when its really needed.
I believe technocracy is the only system where a person can be really free not like surrogates of nowadays freedom.
The main problem with people is becoming succesfull in the eyes of other people but being succesfull is different in different peoples mind.
Thats where is the proble of technocracy they dont understand that if humans life becomes too rational whole population will start commiting massive suicides.

A country is exactly like a business. Yes you can downsize it.

You can treat a country like an enterprise, but it comes with disastrous results.

not really, maybe when there were kings and shit, but nowadays every government is too reliant in the lower classes to go full social darwinist on its population

If it was up to me, I'd never implement technocracy upon general population. It would be reserved for the people of skill and value and it would be like a private thing:
Highly skilled and highly educated individuals would self-finance their own private works, and only they would benefit from it, while general population just keeps doing its thing.

How is anyone too reliant on the lower social classes? Those classes are near useless, if they all disappeared no one would even notice because their work is extremely simple. Machinist's work is now done with a computer. Factories too use pre-programmed industrial robots to build simple stuff over and over. Meanwhile imagine if all the highly skilled and highly educated people disappeared, living standards would drop to medieval times.

>ussr like utopian society will be eventually ruled by old farts who know nothing about real world but "good" at theory
That wasn't their problem. The issue with technocracy like all authoritarian systems, is that the ruling elites incentives favour increasing their own wealth and power, society be damned.

I don't mean downsize the country, but the government, expenditures, etc, and use the surplus money to stimulate the small producers in a time of crisis without creating inflation.

modern democracies are engineered to extract/base the most power from the lower and uneducated classes (that can easely manipulated), ence why a democracy (at least in a modern fashion) cannot be a technocracy in any way

Why would you strive for a higher standard of living as a technocrat. Wouldn't be something like "fun" just a waste of resources. Like what's the purpose if you pendantically think all that through.

It's like the fantasy of pure capitalism where humans are replaced with machines that can invest and generate capital 24/7 without needing to sleep or eat and do not waste time for non-productive leisure activities.

The most technocratic thing you can do is to just kill yourself, since you wouldn't waste any resources that way

I dont know where do you people get this. I do computer engineering here and me and most of my colleagues go out drinking every other night, we play sports, half of the class are chicks, and people are serious hobby fanatics.
It gotta be a pop media meme about "nerds" or whatever, where people sit with bad posture and code stuff 24/7 or never leave their labs.

People who do tech and science, whether for industry and self interest/high paychecks, or academia and pursuit of knowledge/self fulfilment... they all do it out of emotion. You gotta be emotional if you are ever going to read a 700 pages book about math and nothing else than math, to pass your course.

The kind of downsizing I was refering to had very little to do with government slackers. It was an euphemism for killing/deporting the old, the infirm and the mentally chalenged so that the country could focus on the functional members of the society.
government workers are only a small part of the spending, and in an utopian technocracy (which was the base for discussion), they would be pretty efficient so it was all good on that sector.

not really, most people I've met went to STEM because they were good at it. Passion dies quickly when you see your life going on reverse gear because you can't stand at the same level your peers are.
STEM fields have higher-than-usual dropout rates for a reason, you either are very good, or you'll find yourself teaching kids for a living (thankfully I'm not in the second group).

The point is that technical knowledge acquired by studying engineering and shit cannot be applied as the foundation for social policies that concern human beings, which places technocrats at the same level as a person with no education whatsoever. A cashier has an emotional life too, but he's unqualified to govern.

Eh, not sure if you understand scientific method. It goes something like this:
You make an axiom/hypothesis/idea/what ever, and than scientific community tries to find an theoretic example where it wouldnt work.
So if it works in theory than let's say a half of scientific community decides to keep proving trough testing while the other half keeps disapproving it trough testing and than they all see if it works or not.
You can get a Nobel prize/Fields medal for disapproving stuff as well as proving.

So anyway, why would social policies not work with scientific method? The whole point of it, is to work. Not to work only on.. screws and code and Newtonian ideal gasses and chemical elements or what ever, but to work on whatever you are working on.

because we scientists have quite the feud with the humanitie's folk.
Most social engineering is based on social sciences "studies", and thus, it's a bunch of pseudoscience that holds very little ground from a purely scientific prespective. Just so you know, the scientific method is shunned upon in the social ""sciences"" because it fails to properly induce "critical thinking" in your "data"

Yeah, not my kind of technocracy.

this kind of stuff generaly comes tied to "national resurgence" times, just like most other dictatorship formats.
For instance, our Estado Novo dictatorship was a moderately technocratic. During it's initial phase, the government was composed by people with solid knowledge and capacity for their positions, but unlike many people nowadays think technocracies work, not only they went full corporist but they also disregarded almost completely the lower classes.
The quality of life improved for everyone due to the economic reocvery, but nice things generaly came last for the weak and vulnerable. Starvation was a real thing back then, those without work had no safety nets whatsoever.

Yeah but who is seriously paying attention to social "sciences"? Those people:
Dont even use math (all they know is highschool math)
Their work is extremely easy to falsify
Their theories and works rely on chances/percentages that are not 100% or 0%, meaning its already not even a science
At the end of the day they produce nothing, build nothing, solve no actual problems
And also their work can not be measured, touched, objectively analyzed, criticized, its almost worthless work

I didnt know there even are people who pay attention to social sciences. They publish their work on facebook, like "studies show [...]bullshit[...]", maybe they can fool general population but most people know their work is bullshit.

Studying sciences doesn't prepare a person to make ethical decisions concerning the lives of others. Ethical decisions are about how people are treated, the fundamental values that shape society. You don't need to study math to know that it's not ok to leave a third of the population to starve to death, and there's something very wrong if studying math makes one more likely to suggest that people should be intentionally deprived of food. If you're willing to be cruel and sentence people to death based on calculations of economic value, there is no guarantee that anyone is safe. The examples don't have to be that extreme to remain unacceptably unethical , dehumanisation of others and general lack of empathy are bad, period. There is no point to an unethical society.

But "ethical" is a meme word, unless you are able to clearly define it. I mean what stops one from... I dont know, banging a head against a wall till he dies, and saying "but its unethical to bang your head against a wall".

If we keep it simple, and define "ethical" as stuff that works, that guarantees highest quality of life, that makes most sense according to fundamental laws of physics that no one ever broke, than it would be unethical to not implement technocratic regime.

tl;dr technocracy is more ethical than all other regimes and no one can prove the opposite

THX 1138
just watch it

Best quote from the move
>How shall the new environment be programmed? It all happened so slowly that most men failed to realize that anything had happened at all.

technocracy is racist where i work. normal people does the engineering and cheap slavs do the grunt work :^)

homosexual technocracy WHEN?

USA is quite gay and close to technocracy.