It has nothing to do with communism, it has everything to do with the perception that structure serves a higher purpose and that the basis of all existence Within this system anyone is allowed to participate or not participate (autonomy), provided he pays back (reciprocity principle), does not hurt others (non-maleficence), benefits others (beneficence). The 4 values (i.e. except reciprocity) are the core ethical values of my profession and science (medicine) which I embrace not only as a professional, but as an individual/citizen.
Such a system would seek unification and global awareness. The material aspect of the system (i.e. the energy currency was dealt with previously) and will not repeat it here.
My personal viewpoints and why I switched from a free market advocate to the thesis I advocate had to do with an unbiased assessment of the theory of economical systems particularly von Misses (a free market advocate) who was my "prophet" till recently. A few years ago I was exposed to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, through the eyes of his disciple John Kenneth Galbraith ("History of Money", "Culture of Contentment"). While researching a statistical issue for my PhD ... I delved into the mathematical economics/finance literature and became aware of the work of Herman Dale and other Steady State Economicias. Layed out in mathematical terms, the fallacies of the current system become extremely irritating (especially the physical implausibility of the Cobbs Douglas production curves). I did read upon technocracy while researching the Depression (out of curiosity, according to the classical and neoclassical economics such a melt down should not have happened) and since I am a scientist ... I could not but accept the principles it endorsed. It still falls short of my expectations, and hence I present my view on things:
Axioms - Observations-Empirical and Scientific Laws
(1) What holds any physical system together is energy. Energy is needed to grow maintain structure and advance to a higher level of organization.
(2) In a closed thermodynamic system (i.e. planet Earth) energy is provided by a free source, actually a nuclear fission reactor, called sun. Mineral forms of energy may exist (i.e. uranium) or can be reduced to (uranium->plutonium conversion) but the feed stock was provided by someone else (call it God, Big Bang, or whatever you want to call it)
(3) No form of energy is ever produced by a human or anyone else; energy is merely transformed to disorganised states. Uncontrolled transformation leads to entropy. Controlled transformation lead to the emergence of structure in a sub-system of the overall global system and entropy in everything else
(4) None can have claims over energy because they cannot produce them. Energy was provided for free by the universe (even though we have to dig for it) and the actual flux is finite. No human or machine action can increase energy above and beyond the total maximum afforded by (2)
(5) No structured system exists without a physical basis. That system can be natural (i.e. life, ecosystems) or artificial (your laptop/PC) but a physical basis is a prerequisite for existence
(6) Since physical systems need materials and energy, different systems will inevitably competing for the same amount of energy. Energy appropriation is a zero sum game . Maximizing the flux of energy allocated to any subsystem of the global system leads to increased structure (or increased numbers) of that system to the detriment of everything else
Human Activity in an isolated thermodynamic system
(1) Any man made system (i.e. machine, other humans, societies) havs to compete for energy with everything else. The material level basis of any man made systems (especially its structure) is restrained by the energy fluxes in item (2) of the previous section and how much of that flux he can control within the limitations of the global system the structures exist.
(2) It is theoretically possible and practically feasible given computing machines and mathematical tools to estimate how much of that energy has to be diverted out of the ecosystem to support any desired level of human activity. The parameters necessary invovle both fixed (i.e. amount of solar radiation, non renewable energy sources) and controllable (population level, material aspects of living) quantities. Calculations can be extended in space and time (in the future)
(3) Such calculations are meaningless as isolated numbers. They can guide human activity when embedded in a system of ethical values
System of Values
(1) We set the aforementioned goals for any individual human, perceived as a sentient material being above everything else in creation but subservient to it:
(-) to understand natural phenomena
(-) to control natural phenomena to the degree affordable by the laws of physics
(-) to nurture the physical basis of human existence since sentience flows from it and understand the "why", "where" and "how" of intelligence, human nature and universe. Physical encompasses both body and "soul" which emerges from the body.
(-) to create higher structured forms of organizations which involve humans machines and other sentient and sub-sentient forms of existence in the universe
Items in (1) are seen as descriptive and not prescriptive rules for fulfilling humanity's mission.
(Side note, the words for people still remaining in the English language are: a) "human" from the Latin word "humus" (earth) and b) derivatives of the word Greek word "anthropos" (i.e. anthropology, misanthrope etc) which means the "being who looks at the sky" i.e. at the stars. Isn't this amazing? Earth, with a purpose? (I think the ancients were on to something)
(2) It should be the goal of any man made system (machines, communities, assemblies of humans+machines, society) to advance, maintain and propagate the individual goals set forth in (1) till the end of time . These goals are embodied in the structure and organization of these complex man made systems and hence heavily depended on their material basis
(3) Any man made system should make efficient use of the potentially available energy in the global system it is embedded into, since the fulfillment of its goals always comes to the expense of someone or something else (you can if you want to define the "everything else" as the ecosystem)
(4) Any energy appropriation that does directly or indirectly advance the individual goals set forth in (1) and the program in (2) qualifies as inefficient use. To select between 2 or more individual or societal lines of action, use the energy minimization criterion
(5) Any individual or collective activity that can be performed with minimal energy input, or any activity that will lead to better utilization of available energy should be considered efficient and promoted. Minimal is a quantitative definition, and requires both political and technical decisions to be made
(6) Machines and humans have distinct roles. Humans as naturally occurring sentient beings take precedence over machines. The latter have a role only to support human individual and collective activity
Organizing principles of human societies
It is felt that the best way to organize human societies is along the line of a Technocracy defined as bottom up structured assemblies of humans and machines, with different and complementary roles.
1. Machines provide, humans guide.
2. If there exist system support activities that are necessary but cannot be provided by machines the following principles should be used as a rough guide:
• Set forth a research program that might lead to the potential substitution in the future
• Use a forum of direct participatory democracy to assign individuals to these roles for the minimum possible amount of time
3. A direct participatory democratic process, sets forth general goals for the Technocracy that are subservient to the individual goals. It seems prudent to restrict those decisions as those falling under the “advance, maintain, propagate” category.
4. No direct participatory process can force an individual to adopt goals that are in contrast with the individual system of values set forth in (1)
5. No individual should refuse to participate in system supporting activities of the Technocracy. He owns his existence to other human beings that were supported by the system and hence has to repay the system (and the other individuals who indirectly supported him) . “Quid pro quo” is in the form of participation in the democratic process, and system supporting services. Individual pays back the system, the system provides for the individuals. Reciprocity extends in space and time
6. Any individual can set forth his own set of goals conforming to (1). A key role of the social system is to provide a wide range of choices for individuals to assist the individual to find his or her personal goals. Selecting a set of goals is an individual’s duty to his or herself and his own business. Technocracy cannot have any saying in this process, unless the goals of an individual limit the ability of other individuals to achieve their own goals.
7. Decision making in Technocracy is a two step process:
• Which action to take? i.e. a political decision
• How to implement it? i.e. a technical decision
Political actions are a concern of the whole Technocracy, whereas technical decisions are left to the people with knowledge of specific arts and or sciences. Technical decisions are subservient to political decisions which are subservient to the democratic process. When a conflict of interest and goals is perceived as stemming from a technical decision, arbitration is through direct participatory democracy
In reference to the Centauri game ....
It is most likely that any body of people/machines that embraces these principles will refrain from participating in a competitive game (the situation in the game), unless its existence is challenged. If its existence is not challenged, it will likely observe the other players destroy themselves (sounds like the Prime Directive in Star Trek I know). If it is challenged the most likely outcome is that they will destroy the other players (if their techno /knowledge basis is a match) with the way least disruptive to the global system. In reality, they will probably disrupt the opponent basis to the points where they can no longer be a threat. That extent will likely be determined on the grounds of political and technical arguments (as I explained before)
Any non-aggresionist life style can potentially be Technocratic, so the Ecologists ... are actually Technocratists at their first of evolution OR simply Technocrasists who made the decision to use simple machineries.
Out of curiosity ... are there any scenarios in the game that the two civilizations end up co-existing?
Back to the real world:
Technocracy will not have gotten ourselves into this mess, but then it would not consider SUVs worthwhile? What is the point of making something that takes you from point A to point B in the least efficient way?
How would such a civilization respond to PO?
The response would be one of immediate powerdown and selection of other energy sources (I do not think they would have gotten in that mess to begin with)
Are there any sects of such people in this world?
Yes ... in academia, the open source movement, the arts and quite likely in everyday life, people who cherish thinking and understanding and culture and only "feed" on energy to advance, maintain and propagate their goals.
How would they respond to PO : they already have (or will if they find out). They powered down as individuals and try and alert others.
What will happen to them on our way to collapse (if ever).
They will either respond like the scholars who died in the fire of the Alexandria Library, or Archimeded who was killed by the Roman aggressors, or will act like Archimedes a few years prior to that (invented parabolic solar mirrors) or like the Scientists and Engineers who worked on the Manhattan project .... Either way, a choice has to be made ... and they are the only people who will make such choice on ethical grounds
