Technocracy

Has there ever been a technocratic society?
How would it work practically in a modern context?

It sounds like rather than having a senate/parliament, the government would somehow be composed of universities and tech firms.

So it seems that a technocracy is in every regard superior to democracy for every reason other than it hasn't been implemented yet, and emotional arguments over "muh freedumbs"
Why should the average plebshit be allowed to influence decisions relating to healthcare, public policy, environment, etc. Especially considering how easily they are manipulated by identity politics. Why not let departments of experts in their respective field call the shots?

I think in theory there would still be a central governing body. But rather than making policy themselves they would make legislation based on the votes of individual departments of experts in their respective fields, rather than basing policy on an open democratic system

Well, as you mentioned, "muh freedumbs".

>letting humans have freewill over their motor skills costing valuable energy doing uncalculated movements

not sure if purely meming..
but in all seriousness, too much freedom is literally a mistake. Not even trying to be edgy here. Its literally the root of all discontent

Modern day USA?
Its ran by military industry, fertilizer industry, pharma, oil, even fucking milk producers.
Every big business influences decisions, and then there is some theater to make it look like representative democracy.

In its modern iteration.

Technocracy is as impracticable as communism.

Literally just a fresh window dressing on the old ideas of aristocracy. It was shit then, and it'll be shit now.

Why?

Not a technocracy because the people who run the country are not knowledgeable in the technical fields that they oversee, especially in this administration.

If it was a technocracy, the Secretary of Housing and Urban development would someone with a degree in management/urban planning, who has overseen previous urban development projects, instead of being a Black guy with no experience in any of the above.

Because when there is power of decision, lies also politics. Giving the power of. Decision on a lesser number of people greatly increases the chances of corruption. Not that democracy is not flawed by corruption, but at least the government has to give something back to the less fortunate or it will be replaced by the opposition.

It will devolve into authoritarian abuse almost instantly.

>the administrators of the pharmaceutical giants are not specialists in selling drugs
>the administrators of the military industrial complex are not specialists in supplying armies

Huh? Lobbyists are exactly specialists. Its just that they act in their own best interest, not the people's best interest.
Like when corn flakes are pushed through education and childrens books and shows to be some essential breakfast for every healthy young human,when in reality they are probably the worst food you can eat in the morning.

if knowledge was power people wouldn't share it and that would cripple the advancement of science.

the only use of politicians is to govern so actually competent people don't have to bother with it.

Not that guy. But what prevents from a group of people convince the rest of population they are the most experts on the field when they only want to maintain power and have a good life?

Who decides if you are a specialist?
Whoever this person, or body of people, or mechanism, they can be convinced, bribed, lied to, or otherwise tricked into placing a conman with zero specialization in power.

Also, an actual specialist who is very, very good at his job can come into power and then rule in such a away that benefits himself and his friends, and call anyone who disagrees a layman, since he is after all the top specialist, he knows more than us plebs.

No, the vast majority of lobbyists are not technical in the field that they represent. Lobbying firms service many different industries with the same group of people. Lobbyists almost never convince politicians with technical knowledge of the issue they represent and a good risk/benefit analysis, but rather with political connections, campaign contributions, and bribery.

In a technocracy, the decision makers have at least a good technical knowledge in the subject that they are responsible for. That way, they can discern for themselves the validity of arguments and reports on an issue, and act in a way that is best for the nation, rather than best for the quarterly reports of the companies that hired lobbyists.

Pretty much.

That means that technocracy is totally based guy because muh evil plutocracy is evul.

In a technocratic system, if you don't achieve results, you get replaced. That would be their motive for advocating effective policy rather than just those than line their pockets

You have to be recognized in your field first . For example you can't just have a law degree and be a chairmen for healthcare.
I've heard that China is a good example but to what degree is it an actual technocracy?
I actually don't know just wondering

>lawmakers are lawyers instead of car mechanics

wooow, so corrupt

not any more so than now in a purely capitalistic system where there is every incentive to hamper the sharing of profitable knowledge, yet scientific advancement still goes on

>mfw

losing some money and losing at politics are entirely different things. in places without our decidedly un-technocratic political stability you might lose your money as a whole or even your life if you fuck up doing politics.