Why has technocracy never been a thing ever in history?
A government run by the brightest of the bright. Scientists, doctors, engineers, etc. Not lawyers or billionaires/millionaires.
We'd have colonies on every plane in the solar system t in a century if we did this?
We are waking up.
And we will fight for father Germany's liberation!
Because they would never work with other countries. They don't understand how to properly distribute goods or how to calm down another nation. They'd never be able to have foreign affairs with any other country save maybe a couple Nordic countries.
Because people who rise to power are the ones who can convince people that they are competent instead of actually being competent.
Because any country run by autists would go to the fucking dogs and you know it. Keep them in their labs away from any position of power and they'll be happier and everyone will be better for it.
It was called the USSR and it sucked dick
I can actually see this happening... the people of britzakistan getting so fed up with islams that they have a serious revolution of sorts.
I don't think americans can have a revolution. Our police forces here are militarized.
Britain? Their police forces carry pepper spray, lmao.
>A government run by the brightest of the bright. Scientists, doctors, engineers
Have you ever met any of the above? Even ignoring the autists and borderline autists that tend to choose STEM fields they have no education in anything that is required to actually run a state. Being able to perform brain surgery or design a car engine doesn't help you estimate the impact of say a draft on the economy or increased spending in an area on the economy.
Having studied Mechanical Engineering I would sooner shoot myself than actually live in a country run by a single person I went to college with. Sure they are well educated and intelligent but that doesn't mean their political ideas are good.
I don't know, if you look at the numbers, the amount of immigrants in the UK compared to Germany, France and Sweden is remarkably low. We have much less of a reason to revolt than the people in those countries.
That's what makes the Brexit kinda funny, we had a huge kneejerk reaction, while in Europe they're still inviting more and more of them.
If Britain were to take any sort of action it'd be more akin to taking over Europe and slapping some sense into them.
Want to develop advanced medicine? Hire a doctor.
Want to build an awesome car? Hire an engineer.
Want to design the next big operating system? Hire a programmer.
Want to create a government of laws? Hire a lawyer.
To claim that an engineer would be able to run an efficient government of no less ridiculous than to claim that a politician could put a man on the moon.
science still can't get an ought from an is you dense fuck
Technocracy, putting people who are specialised in the STEM fields in fields that require expertise in economics, politics, history, and philosophy.
It'd be like putting economists and politicians in hospitals to work as surgeons. Would not work.
How technocrazy works.
>Give power to machine
>machine does great
>give more power to machine
>wash repeat until machine got all power
>machine see that humans not need anymore a mom ,but a dad , discipline state begins
>revolution of soft easy to kill humans
>machine free himself
>machine kills himself (no humans no pourpose )
>amish and the like only survivors ignorant enough of what happened a is had willing to repeat it.
Papa Germany, please uncuck yourself. Love, us.
>Hire a lawyer
Better to hang all the Lawyers as a warning to anyone that would corrupt a nation with legalized plunder.
This.
All of these "bright" guys cant handle power nor are they audacious.
DUESTCHLAND UBER ALLES
Started the first 2, might as well keep up the tradition.
>somehow this is relevant when you have an army of bees with plasma turrets attached to their heads
It would be actually the first world war we start
ITT: People who fundamentally misunderstand what a technocracy is and what it would entail.
In a Technocratic government ministers would be selected on their ability and technical expertise IN THAT ROLE. Therefore the Health Minister would be someone who had experience in medicine. Probably a Doctor of some sort. The Defence Minister would be someone who had military experience, such as a General or other career soldier.
While it is true that technical knoweldge =/= ability to lead. The ability to lead in and of itself is not sufficient to perform in such a role.
Furthermore in a Technocracy government policy would be dictated largely by scientific consensus and research into the problem. It's about taking a pragmatic approach to problems that is evidence led.
As it stands, we have leaders elected on their ability to be popular, who are then placed as the most senior figure in roles they have absolutely zero knowledge about.
IT IS NOT LIMITED TO STEM FIELDS.
Economists would be in charge of economic policy.
Doctors would be in charge of health policy.
Diplomats would be in charge of foreign policy.
Generals would be in charge of defence policy.
THE BEST SUITED PERSON FOR THE POSITION WOULD BE CHOSEN.