Technocracy

What you call "slaves for the state", I would call.
A happy collective, safe in their position within an efficient administration system.

Individualism and "free thinking" are not positive traits, nor are they conductive to long term social stability.
I think you should read some-more Shang Yang.

That is a straw-man.
The idea of simply having a nation run by an oligarchical group of scientists and engineers is Veblenism, not Technocracy.

Technocracy advocates placing people into the positions they are most suitable for.
For example, a top level agricultural administrator being a person with an extensive background in agricultural administration, rather then it being a portfolio handed off to a politician.

you don't even know heinlein lmao, stop talking you nerd.

...

That absolutely sounds like slavery to me. The human race would be better off nuking itself to extinction than to accept a future like that.

Individualism is the one thing that separates the great from the herd. We cannot allow the herd to claim absolute power and drown mankind in the waters of their own resentment. Great individuals are what drags the masses kicking and screaming through history, and without this caste of the human race we'd still be living in Ethiopia banging rocks together.

>Shang Yang.
I think you should read JS Mill.

The Chinese are a perfect case study in what not to do as an advanced culture if you want to avoid becoming a soulless husk of a civilization.

>For example, a top level agricultural administrator being a person with an extensive background in agricultural administration
This is literally how it works now.

In a Technocracy how do you choose the people who will choose your leaders?

It isn't really though.

dude great addition to the discussion

The people in the higher levels of the civil service are almost invariably extremely experienced and qualified in the fields in which they work

>That absolutely sounds like slavery to me.
I would say that our modern system is far more slave like.

The difference is that rather being slaves to an organization with a positive agenda, or even an organization with the best interests of the slaves at heart.
We are slaves to those that prey upon the weak and vulnerable, and hold the rest of us back.

>I think you should read JS Mill.
While may bookcase is rather thin-on-the-ground in regards to JS Mill, I do own a copy of his speech on utilitarianism.
Indeed, Technocracy operates upon a utilitarian ethical system.

>The Chinese are a perfect case study in what not to do as an advanced culture if you want to avoid becoming a soulless husk of a civilization.
Abandoning Legalism is what killed China.
They have been a mere shadow of the great Qin for most of their history.

>
Not at all.
In most western democracies for example.
Agriculture is a rather low-to-mid level portfolio that is often bundled with other things and given to a person within the winning party as little more then a token.

Democracies to not select for skill or ability in anything beyond rhetoric.

A Technate would have a function selection department.

This is an interesting discussion op keep adding more information and pics please!! :)

...

>Agriculture is a rather low-to-mid level portfolio that is often bundled with other things and given to a person within the winning party as little more then a token.
If you're talking about cabinet ministers (which isn't at all clear from the original post, which refers to "administrators", which would suggest civil servants rather than politicians are being discussed to me), their function is to make political decisions, not technical ones, and thus there is no real need for them to be experts in the field. They often are, anyway. It is very common for politicians with a background in economics to be appointed to economic portfolios, those which a background in medicine to be appointed health minister, and so on.

>A Technate would have a function selection department
That doesn't really answer the question. Who makes up the "function selection department"? Who decides what criteria they use to choose between candidates?

I fully agree that our current system is very slave-like. This is precisely why I don't consider it a good thing, rather we should aim for a system that isn't slavish at all.

>Indeed, Technocracy operates upon a utilitarian ethical system.
Utilitarianism I would say is one thing Mill was wrong about. Ironic I know considering it's probably the most fundamental part of his philosophy, but then again maybe not given that the challenge to Mill was reconciling freedom with utilitarianism.

The real value of JS Mill is his ideas on how a system could cultivate free people.

>Abandoning Legalism is what killed China.
tbqh I'd hazard that since communist rule the Chinese have taken great interest in legalism and it's been effectively a step backwards.

This guy said it.

I would say that in the case of both the civil service and in regards to politicians, Technical ability to perform a role is rarely considered.

Most politicians have backgrounds in law, yet they occupy top level positions, well outside of what could reasonably be considered to be their skill background.

In regards to the civil service, most roles are given on a seniority or crony model, rather then even a basic meritocratic one (let alone a Technocratic one).

>Who makes up the "function selection department"?
Well as with all other positions in a Technate.
The people with the best technical ability to perform the functions of any select role within the department.

>Who decides what criteria they use to choose between candidates?
Well the primary factor that would be considered is technical ability.
This would mean: Skill background, personality, previous performance (if applicable), past infractions etc.

The Function Selection Department would develop their own criteria for any given role beyond that.

>we should aim for a system that isn't slavish at all
Any advanced society is going to have an inherent hierarchy.
Rulers and ruled.

Given that inevitability.
I would say that we should strive to form the best, most benevolent hierarchy possible.
Ones that aims to help and better us all, rather then exploit us.

>Utilitarianism I would say is one thing Mill was wrong about.
Funny.
I have the opposite opinion.

>I'd hazard that since communist rule the Chinese have taken great interest in legalism and it's been effectively a step backwards.
I disagree.

The red Chinese government has actually been taking steps to re-float Confucianism (or at-least elements of it).
Legalism has been taboo in China since the fall of the Qin.
Even the damn reds are not about to step on that hornets nest.

>Any advanced society is going to have an inherent hierarchy.
>I would say that we should strive to form the best, most benevolent hierarchy possible.
I agree. But the thing is I would assume we have different ideas on what a benevolent hierarchy would actually do.

As I see the goal of a state should be to gradually elevate the masses to the point where mankind has effectively evolved to a level where everyone can handle freedom. Similar to Mill's idea that colonialism was justified in the pursuit of advancing underdeveloped parts of the world with western supervision countries should be colonized in this sense by their own elite. The vast majority of people in western society are also underdeveloped, but we have a class of people more advanced than the rest and it's this class that should be empowered to guide the future.

>The red Chinese government has actually been taking steps to re-float Confucianism (or at-least elements of it).
The PRC is very Confucian, of this there is no doubt. But equally legalism is has achieved a level of interest that it hasn't received for a long time.

>In regards to the civil service, most roles are given on a seniority or crony model, rather then even a basic meritocratic one (let alone a Technocratic one).
Well you'd be totally wrong if we're talking about developed Western countries, most (all?) adopted meritocracy in the civil service at least a century ago.

You didn't respond to the point about ministers not needing technical expertise because they make political, not technical, decisions.

>The people with the best technical ability to perform the functions of any select role within the department.
Non-answer. What are the "technical skills" involved in picking people to run the government?

All the criteria you list are very, very subjective, and just further kick the can down the road (how is "past performance" evaluated)

>elevate the masses to the point where mankind has effectively evolved to a level where everyone can handle freedom.
I don't believe that such a thing is possible.
Humans (as a social mammal) are simply not built like that.
As with all other social mammals, we evolved to be either followers or leaders.

While I am a post-humanist.
Even I do not think that we would ever be able to "evolve" to such a degree that all of society would be able to handle any real degree of freedom.

>The PRC is very Confucian
>But equally legalism is has achieved a level of interest that it hasn't received for a long time
Just because legalism has regained a small degree of interest.
Does not mean that the government of the PRC has been adopting any elements of it.

>Well you'd be totally wrong if we're talking about developed Western countries
I think you have to consider the difference between how organisations should operate 'on paper', and how they actually operate in practice.

Corruption, nepotism, cronyism etc.
Are systemic in both the civil service and political systems of just about every nation.

>You didn't respond to the point about ministers not needing technical expertise because they make political, not technical, decisions.
Well I would argue that to make an informed political decisions, a relevant background in the field would be a necessity.

>What are the "technical skills" involved in picking people to run the government?
That depends entirely upon what specific function is in question.
The required skill set of the Director of the Research Sequence would be quite different from that of the Director of the Armed Forces Sequence.

>subjective
Subjectivity does not exist, friend.

>how is "past performance" evaluated
Past performance records are examined to see if the candidate in question had met past performance targets.

You literally sound like a cartoon or comics villain, senpai.

If corruption is endemic in every form of government than it clearly would exist in technocracy too. Can't compare technocracy on paper with democracy in practice, that's inconsistent.

And political decisions are basically value judgements have little to do with technical knowledge.

Precisely, which is why the goal is to be something better than human. But you might be right, mankind might never be able to be truly independent. However the independence enjoyed by men is astonishing compared to that of say chimps, just as maybe someday humans will be primitive and weak compared to their successors.

Maybe we'll never all be great and equal, but we can aspire to a point where hierarchy is not necessary anymore as even the lowest of society could take care of themselves without degrading the quality of the system.

>Does not mean that the government of the PRC has been adopting any elements of it.
Honestly I'm not so up to speed on contemporary Chinese politics as to know.

>Subjectivity does not exist, friend
What an idiotic statement. Back it up.

All your """answers""" are just vague nonsense and buzzwords. It all sounds nice in theory (like many failed forms of government) but the devil is in the details. For instance, who sets "past performance targets", and on what basis? You can't provide a straight answer other than to kick the can further down the road, because there isn't one.

Fundamentally, the problem with technocracy is technical expertise can tell you how to reach certain goals, but not what your goals should be, which is really what politics is all about.

>Subjectivity does not exist, friend.
*tips fedora*

Thank you.

I would ask that you reflect on why such benevolent positions would be demonized by the system that we live under.

>we can aspire to a point where hierarchy is not necessary anymore
The point is that we will never reach such a point.
Why waste effort on a fools hope?

Well are built to work under hierarchies now.
Simply creating the best possible hierarchy to live under is a much more achievable task.

>The point is that we will never reach such a point.
I think we can though. Honestly a distant future future non-hierarchical system isn't that unfeasible. It would just require each individual to be capable to taking care of themselves and minding their own business, which on a grand scale isn't all that much to ask. It by no means requires people to be equal, just to be independent.

>Simply creating the best possible hierarchy to live under is a much more achievable task.
Of course, but that would just be aiming for the path of least resistance at the cost of the greatest gains.

>Simply creating the best possible hierarchy to live under is a much more achievable task
You haven't proved your system is that at all though

>I think we can though.
I disagree
The vast majority of people are 'built' to follow.
To even attempt to 'evolve' them past that, would amount to attempting to rob the majority of humanity of one of its best aspects.

Even if such a thing were possible.
I would see it as a Pandora's box.
If it ever was achieved, humanity would no longer be a social species.
It would be the end of society, and likely our species as a whole.

>a distant future
That does not do us much good now.

>that would just be aiming for the path of least resistance at the cost of the greatest gains
While I agree that it is the path of least resistance.
I hold that it is also the path of the greatest gains.

To be part of a hierarchy is an essential part of ones 'humanity'.
A benevolent, strict hierarchy allows us to maximize both efficiency and the best elements of our humanity.
While minimizing the worst aspects of it.

Technocracy is human paradise engineering.

I disagree, the servile nature of people is probably mankind's most disgusting defect. And ultimately the source of a lot of problems.

Would it be the end of society? It would certainly be the end of our society, so is the case when one thing evolves into a higher form. But this isn't an ending so much as a transition, just as man is in a very transitory period right now.

Further I would say that this is the only way any human future can be secured. If we can get to the point where hierarchy is no longer necessary we're at the point where progress can flourish and war can be left behind.

>That does not do us much good now.
You're not wrong. As already mentioned earlier in the meantime hierarchy is an absolute necessity.

>To be part of a hierarchy is an essential part of ones 'humanity'.
This you see is the source of the disagreement. As I see it humanity isn't something to be embraced shortcomings and all, humanity is something to be overcome and replaced with something better. Just as once man's ancestors first started to stand on two feet man itself is going to have to start to be free.

I may have this wrong, but don't we basically have technocracy at this moment?

There are few areas of government that aren't subject to objective testing and revision.

And as regulatory/administrative law increasingly takes power away from Congressionals who have never heard of the internet and places it into the hands of subject matter experts who present policy white papers backed by empirical results;

Why not say that -is- technocracy and any shortcoming is the result of the particular field of study lacking sufficient data and analysis to produce reliable policy?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

You must produce the resolution to that recursion to satisfy the prerequisites of your proposed social model.

Or else you must embrace on faith that paradox as superior to the cohesive body of knowledge known as science and technique.

thinly veiled communism

>If it ever was achieved, humanity would no longer be a social species.

That's fucking stupid. There are several social species without obvious hierarchies. Peccaries for instance.

>To be part of a hierarchy is an essential part of ones 'humanity'.

Humanity is a meaningless concept of no intrinsic worth. There is nothing in particular that makes us "human" and nothing in particular makes being "human" valuable.

>Technocracy is human paradise engineering.

The idea of letting a bunch of STEM turbo-spergs rule humanity is the second most idiotic thing I can think of. The problem with technocracy is the implicit assumption capability in a field having nothing to do with human beings and functioning with purely rational actors (i.e. physical sciences and their roots in mathematics) will transfer over to being capable in constructing a society designed for humans, which are not only not purely rational actors, but not actually rational actors in any substantial capacity.

I'd even add that STEMfags are some of the most delusional people I know. Many of them seriously have 0 clue of what normal people are like.

What makes you any more than thinly-veiled Futurists hoping we all forget how poorly that went?

How poorly did Futurism go?

>I disagree, the servile nature of people is probably mankind's most disgusting defect.
It was the servile Egyptian labourers that built the Pyramids.
It was the servile Qin peasant-farmers that build the Qin's grand road systems.
It was the servile nature of people that built the grandest empires to ever grace our planet.

Servility and respect for authority/hierarchy are our species greatest virtues.

>ultimately the source of a lot of problems
Individualism, exploitation and mismanagement are the sources of just about every problem to ever face our species.

>As I see it humanity isn't something to be embraced shortcomings and all
Oh I do agree.
As a post-humanist, I would love to see us abandon the worst aspects of our species.
At the same time however, I want us to hold onto and treasure the best aspects.

>don't we basically have technocracy at this moment?
No.
Much like 'Fascism' or 'Communism', people often misuse the term.

No.
While Technocracy has always distanced itself from the silly left/right spectrum.
Out of any other ideology, it resembles Orthodox Fascism the most.

Technocracy and Stratocracy are just systems trying to do what fascism does, but in a worse way.

What works on technocracy should I read to be informed enough to discuss its doctrine?

I'm honestly surprised the discussion continued past that post, given how succinctly he summed up technocracy

>It was the servile Egyptian labourers that built the Pyramids.

Yes, and? What did the pyramids ever actually do for humanity?

Also protip: You only believe this shit because you assume that you'd be the top. You would not be, you'd just be a peasant.

Rationalism is what got us in this shit we're in to start with. Eat shit cancer.

>he accepts the single-handed-individual reading of history

Yeah Alexander the Great was kickass dude

>JS Mill
>American """"""""""""""""""philosophy""""""""""""""""""

I dont think technocracy is a fantasy. Arent Singapur or China basically that?

>Arent Singapur or China basically that?

No. They have a lot of people with technical and scientific knowledge in positions of political power, but these people are still primarily politicians.

The Technocracy Study Course and Technocracy and the American Dream.

The study course is rather easy to find online.
Technocracy and the American Dream is more difficult, I had to buy and import a physical copy.

>What did the pyramids ever actually do for humanity?
My point was that servility begets great things.

No.
Both states are not organized along Technocratic lines.

China is meritocracy. Late USSR was one and we all know how it was ended.

>great things
>giant structures in the middle of the desert that don't do shit
>great thing

Hmmm, that might be because comics have always been written by liberals who put ideas they don't like into the villains mouths

>Implying benevolent nerd dictators wouldnt be the goat rulers

Meritocracy =/= Technocracy

Regardless of the lack of utility of the pyramids.
For people to build such large structures with the level of technology available, that is a great achievement.