|
|
Post by Clockwork on Apr 10, 2012 20:15:59 GMT
Would Technocracy be a sound form of government? Personally, I think no, I agree that a nation should be ran not by politicians or businessmen but rather scientists and engineers, and would only be in command of their field. Unfortunately, I do not believe that these people would fully comprehend the importance of money. As in they wouldn't be able to successfully distribute funds and I think they would consume more than they would generate.
|
|
|
|
Post by D_M-01 on Apr 10, 2012 22:46:17 GMT
Science and engineering are entirely different when compared to politics and business. They are two separate fields in the educational department and rarely do you see scientists who also happen to be politicians. They are separated for a reason.
Of course, scientists have the knowledge to create products and technology, but they normally would not have the know-how of where to distribute the product or how it should be given within society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Apr 10, 2012 23:46:20 GMT
They could.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Apr 11, 2012 0:04:44 GMT
I really don't want a technocracy per se, I want a government controlled by a machine without person motives.
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Apr 11, 2012 0:38:25 GMT
How is a technocracy supposed to work? Scientists are scientists so they can research, and politics is a completely diffrent field requiring a different life experience. How would the government be run?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 11, 2012 2:23:39 GMT
I believe that Omni is right for the wrong reason, so to speak.
Although a big part of the American republic, "money" is not the only concern of politics and would not be the main barrier to whoever is running the nation. As a matter of opinion, money might be the one thing that researchers would know about since they know all too well the pains of competing with others for funding and know very well that funds must be distributed to different projects and different parts within any given project. Half of academic and industrial research is being an accountant, from what I can tell, since funding plays such a significant role in all serious research. I'll let you know if I ever do undergraduate research, in which case I will then be able to do more than speculate and observe.
The problem I see for scientists and engineers who do not co-specialize in political science would be identifying social problems, addressing ethical concerns, and interacting with other nations. Maybe they can learn how best to run a government, it's just that I doubt they would be able to do so before the nation collapses unless these technocrats also have knowledge of political science or are guided by those with knowledge of political science, which I presume would defeat the purpose of a technocracy? Another problem is that, if the technocrats are only to govern in their own fields, then who will be dealing with the social interactions and consider ethical questions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Apr 11, 2012 14:04:24 GMT
Woudln't political sciences fall into science? As such, people who are the leaders of their field in political science would also have a say in the government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 11, 2012 19:41:48 GMT
Oh, so you do count political science as science? I guess that changes part of my argument...
|
|
|
|
Post by D_M-01 on Apr 11, 2012 23:52:20 GMT
If you called political science an actual science, then theoretically a technocracy is possible.
But then you also need to consider social sciences such as religious science, economic science, and whatever other "sciences", way over-complicating the system and in one way or another eventually boiling down to a poor form of democracy because so many people are engaged in a type of "science".
You can also argue that with political science being an actual science, hypothetically politicians are scientists themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Apr 12, 2012 1:49:10 GMT
All the sciences would only be in charge of their field, it doesn't overcomplicate things. It just gives better leadership to a specific part of the state.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Apr 12, 2012 3:19:09 GMT
I think the idea of technocracy is more of that your have smart people who were actually trained for the job in charge instead of people who are picked due to birth right or popularity rather than strict rule by scientists.
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Apr 12, 2012 23:12:46 GMT
Who decides who's best qualified?
|
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Apr 13, 2012 21:35:33 GMT
Other scientists in that field.
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Apr 14, 2012 23:50:24 GMT
Couldn't that be quite biased?
What if the scientists in that field turn out not to be so qualified after all and make bad decisions?
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Apr 15, 2012 3:10:30 GMT
Couldn't that be quite biased? What if the scientists in that field turn out not to be so qualified after all and make bad decisions? Well that is how the world already works. |
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Apr 15, 2012 3:36:29 GMT
They can't gain anything, fixed wages and no lobbyists allowed. That sort of thing. So nothing to gain, they can only accomplish as much as possible for the benefit of their people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Apr 16, 2012 20:45:19 GMT
Excluding that, they wouldn't need anything, as they already have enough. Hmm, maybe you should read the ENTIRE wikipedia article? Here's a copypaste
According to the proponents of this concept, the role of money and economic values, political opinions, and moralistic control mechanisms would be eliminated altogether if and when this form of social control should ever be implemented in a continental area endowed with enough natural resources, technically trained personnel, and installed industrial equipment so as to allow for the production and distribution of physical goods and services to all continental citizens in an amount exceeding the individuals' physical ability to consume.[2] In such an arrangement, concern would be given to sustainability within the resource base, instead of monetary profitability, so as to ensure continued operation of all social-industrial functions into the indefinite future.[2] Technical and leadership skills would be selected on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than democratic election by those without such knowledge or skill deemed necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by clockwork on Aug 17, 2012 19:29:23 GMT
I think a technocracy sounds quite nice to me.
Although maybe just not scientists, clever people in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Nov 24, 2012 5:39:32 GMT
If a technocracy here is being defined as a government run by scientists and generally smart (in technology and medicine and the like), then I'm not really all for it. While those are really important skills with real-world applications, they don't really apply as much in a government role. I mean, sure, the president should have technological skills, but they need experience in fields that have to do with what a government needs.
|
|
