Technocracy

by **JohnDenver** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 08:00:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '
')Welcome to the world of Technocracy, Energy based currencies and all that stuff. The only reservation I have with fully adopting their values, is how to assess the impact of a scientist/engineer and possible reward.

by **JohnDenver** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 08:07:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'H')ubbert's point about equal distribution of goods is interesting. Strictly speaking he's correct (we're all getting freebies from stored energy, therefore cut the charades about individual contributions and distribute equitably), though that ends up leading to something like socialism, which isn't my idea of utopia.

by **EnergySpin** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 08:12:30

Nope ... I think that Hubbert was right. I do think that incentives like peer acceptance and social status (akin to the way the ancient Roman and ancient Greek cities were ran before money turned them into aristocracies) is the way to go. As a scientist, I need no other incentive to work (provided someone feeds me).
The limited focus of Technocracy in the NA continent is problematic though . I do see it as a model for the whole world

by **JohnDenver** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 08:25:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'A')s a scientist, I need no other incentive to work (provided someone feeds me).

by **EnergySpin** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 08:33:55

One year ago I wrote a piece of software to do calculations on a certain statistical problem in computational biology.
So one day I received an email; someone wanted to use my software.
It made me happier for about 2 months. I received much more pleasure compared to my first pay check or me buying my first car (which I gave to my brother for free, now I am a car-free person).
Research the ancient Roman and Athenian democracies; anyone could attain status (and lead the army btw) based on their participation to the commons. The slave issue had to do with the lack of machinery and it is unrelated to the whole project for a new world (hehehe). Similar values are driving the free software movement and the rest of science. The whole concept of consuming actually was considered a negative modus operandi till recently. Rifkin's book: The European Dream (who sometimes is unrealistic idealistic about EU) has an excellent review on the historical development of consumerism as an ideal behavioural norm.
The more I research Technocracy ... the more I become convinced that something along those lines is concerved. We can power the machines off the oil produced by thermally depolymerizing all the Nazi-Fascists :-D

by **WhistleWind** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 08:51:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow much did Newton get paid for the calculus? Nothing!

by **JohnDenver** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 09:09:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WhistleWind', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow much did Newton get paid for the calculus? Nothing!

by **thor** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 10:55:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'A')s a scientist, I need no other incentive to work (provided someone feeds me).

by **EnergySpin** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 14:56:10

Hi,
It is not just mathematics .that has been "open source" for ever. Biology is going there as well. There is an initiative for open-source biological research (even IBM is funding it, cause they get to sell us the computers we use for our compbio work). Looking back in the last 100 yrs I think that all this move to commercialize science hurt science. Remember the cold fusion fiasco (note, I am not taking positions for or against the existence of the phenomenon)? Any attempts to make it an object of inquiry were shot down when the IPR Officer of Utah university twisted the researchers into turning the announcement in a PR circus to get more money.
I believe that Newton developed the theory before he became a fellow of the Royal society - his main "income" was to use his position among his peers to advocate alchemy and paranormal research but I strongly believe that anyone reaching Newton's position should be able to "play" at will in the scientific playground.
The OS biological movement website: http://www.bios.net/
BTW one of the IPR lawyers I got drank with in a conference told me that with the use of computational tools/mathematical techniques, multiple patents on the same gene sequence are possible (they qualify as unique ways to come up with the gene) ... I dont know if this is true or not, the guy and myself were pretty drank

by **Licho** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 17:08:54

I was living under pre-technocracy for many years .. it was called communism. And it didn't work well :-)

Ultimate goal of communism was very similar to technocracy, society of abundance where is everything for free and work is voluntary.

Allocation planning didnt work well, there was huge overproduction on one hand (serving no good, only hurting ecology and filling landfills) and lack of certain good on other hand. Because there was lack of direct consumer drive, goods were often inadequate or too generic. (2 models of TV must suit all. And why do you need soap with nice aroma? Central planning commision was unaware of such needs).
While in terms of income society was far more equal than it's now in market economy, there were huge problems with corruption. Holding important post could help you at getting house built faster, acces to non-generic "rare" western goods and other privileges.
Centrally allocated research was well funded, but badly operated, unlike market operated research which is forced towards results.
Workers were generally poorly motivated - hard working people earn same money as lazy people - and you couldnt be fired (worst thing was, that you were given different job, there were no jobless or homeless). Propaganda did maximum to make you proud for your work and to make people interested in science and research, but it couldnt stop majority from simply bullying their work, lowering overall productivity of work.
Technocracy would suffer from same things.
(Communism only adds some extra ideological twists to it - like glorification of manual worker..)

by **EnergySpin** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 17:27:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')llocation planning didnt work well, there was huge overproduction on one hand (serving no good, only hurting ecology and filling landfills) and lack of certain good on other hand. Because there was lack of direct consumer drive, goods were often inadequate or too generic. (2 models of TV must suit all. And why do you need soap with nice aroma? Central planning commision was unaware of such needs).
While in terms of income society was far more equal than it's now in market economy, there were huge problems with corruption. Holding important post could help you at getting house built faster, acces to non-generic "rare" western goods and other privileges.
Centrally allocated research was well funded, but badly operated, unlike market operated research which is forced towards results.
Workers were generally poorly motivated - hard working people earn same money as lazy people - and you couldnt be fired (worst thing was, that you were given different job, there were no jobless or homeless). Propaganda did maximum to make you proud for your work and to make people interested in science and research, but it couldnt stop majority from simply bullying their work, lowering overall productivity of work.
Technocracy would suffer from same things.
(Communism only adds some extra ideological twists to it - like glorification of manual worker..)

by **EnergySpin** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 17:33:06

Oops I meant Herman Dale instead of Herman Daly.
And I apologise up the from if my post sounds offensive.
Minor technical details on central planning: the former communist states/science failed to integrate tools of micro and macroeconomical forecasting and control. In reality this is still an open issue even in the western economies - but it is a problem we delegate to the future through the cheap credit and all that stuff. Research Hubbert's critique of the free market system and the relation of economy to thermodynamics ... you might be surprised about the dissimilarity between any technocratic based system and communism/fascism and quite likely socialism

by **Tyler_JC** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 17:35:45

JohnDenver, Newton loved math. He wanted to come up with new theorems because it made him happy.

I like messing around on this internet forum. It is one of many things that make me happy. It costs me nothing but time and I receive no material benefit from it (besides education and increased typing skill). And yet I'm still here? If I were a productive member of society, I would be working on some sort of product. Instead I have diverted my time to what I consider leisure.

Currently my material needs are met. I have no dreams about buying more video games or more clothes. I don't need new shoes. I don't need to pay for the vast majority of my meals (being a teenager has its advantages).

So why should I work harder? The material benefit motive doesn't work on me because my needs are basically met. Maybe I have low standards for what is "enough".

If I strictly followed your logic JD, I would be on peakoil.com because I wanted to benefit mankind. Screw mankind, I'm doing it because I find it enjoyable.

Newton would agree. Screw humanity, I'm going to play around with mathematical formulas because I think its fun.

Actually, I think almost everyone would agree. If you have the option between work and leisure (assuming current material needs are met), most would pick leisure. Those that pick work either find work enjoyable (and thus it is a kind of leisure) or they want to increase their material wellbeing (and thus their definition of “enough” is higher than what they currently have).

Forward planning effects the definition of enough as well. Many people work very hard in order to save money and thus guarantee that their material needs will be met in the future without work.

Wow, I’ve just written the Hedonist’s Manifesto…I should copyright this… :roll:

by **JohnDenver** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 20:53:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Licho', 'B')ecause there was lack of direct consumer drive, goods were often inadequate or too generic. (2 models of TV must suit all. And why do you need soap with nice aroma? Central planning commision was unaware of such needs).

by **I_Like_Plants** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 21:50:27

Newton was a wealthy man, he was born into wealth and was able to pursue math from a young age and go where he wanted, study where he wanted, etc because of this wealth.

An income of 100 lbs a year back then was roughly the same as getting 100k nowadays in the US. The Lucasian Chair mathematician gets about that today, as do most prominent professors anywhere in the "First World". Add in the other incomes, and Newton probably got about the same as a person getting a quarter of a million a year income today.

I've also heard Newton was a vindictive SOB when he thought someone was stepping on his toes, I'm not sure if he was that way about money but he sure was about a lot of things. Remember that most great British fiction is about person A connniving to deprive person B of their land, inheritance, etc yadda yadda. The meek did not get to hold onto their lbs in merrie olde England!

by **Licho** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 22:28:14

Communism is certainly much closer to technocracy than to capitalism. We had money, but prices were distorted by central planning. They didnt represent real value in most cases. They were "allocated" to you just like energy credits but you could be rewarded with more.
Communists did many crazy things with money, they could change ammount in circulation at will and could change price of most goods up or down at will..

One happy day they simply erased all savings. So it was really much closer to energy allocation credits than to tradeable proper currency. Prices of goods were set centrally.. for example, food was allways extremely cheap - not representing true value, and food industry was allways driven to overproduction.
Only difference is, that it was more complex and usefull than simple representation of energy. Because you cannot abstract everything to energy, allocation in technocracy will also have to set aproximate value and credits will have to represent more than just energy (materials, essential human labor, eco damage comes to mind)..
For example, if there is something rare - like diamonds, that many people people desire - it costs little energy to produce, but is extremely rare and desirable, how will you set energy cost in technocracy?
Some goods, will be so rare (arts?) that they will be completely outside scope of energy trading system. There you have your room for corruption and power benefits resulting from important posts in administration.

In communism, having "connections" to important people almost never resulted in more money. Money were not so important. But you could skip queue to get new model of car, your friend could save you some rare tropical fruits at shop where he worked, you could get treatment from better doctor and so on.
Same problems are goinng to be in technocracy - new highly desirable product cannot be produced at once in such quantity - who will get it first? There are only few specialists able to handle some complex neuro-surgery, who will be treated by them? Room for corruption everywhere .. And corruption damages any system.. It became really widespread and absurd here..

by **Licho** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 22:34:38

JohnDenver - I fail to see how is Wikipedia or Linux similar to communistic or technocratic country .. I really don't see where is your analogy here.. Btw wikipedia is commercial project, financed with commercial results in mind. Many distributions of linux are also "commercial" even if the yields don't come from direct sales, but rather from support services..

Btw I'm not saying that technocracy or communism cannot work, I'm pointing to common problems - widespread corruption, lack of desired goods, too generic goods, productivity decline, knowing right people becomes more important than anything else etc..

by **JohnDenver** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 23:23:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Licho', 'J')ohnDenver - I fail to see how is Wikipedia or Linux similar to communistic or technocratic country .. I really don't see where is your analogy here..

by **JohnDenver** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 23:31:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Licho', 'F')or example, if there is something rare - like diamonds, that many people people desire - it costs little energy to produce, but is extremely rare and desirable, how will you set energy cost in technocracy?

by **EnergySpin** » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 23:39:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or example, if there is something rare - like diamonds, that many people people desire - it costs little energy to produce, but is extremely rare and desirable, how will you set energy cost in technocracy?
Some goods, will be so rare (arts?) that they will be completely outside scope of energy trading system. There you have your room for corruption and power benefits resulting from important posts in administration.

Technocracy

Technocracy

Re: Technocracy

Who is online