Technocracy and You!
 

Ok, I read that, and I have this to say:

Why do utopia's fail? Because one person, doing nothing, can benefit from others doing everything. Once that one person starts, other people start, and the thing falls apart.

And there will always be that weak link. It will eventually show up.

So... yay, we're all unemployed, so we have lives of leisure? I'm sure that eventually falls apart, what happens once nobody cares to maintain the robotization?

Not true, many people have no drive other than to live like they want. Otherwise we would have more world shakers than just a few thousand people. Many people live the average joe life, and are content with it, they don't want to make the world tremble at their ideas and concepts. They just want to be left alone.

We already have that, it's called homeschooling. See, in homeschooling, you find out what your kid is good at, encourage them at that, BUT also make sure that they have background education, so they can hop to another one if they get bored or something.

Sorry, any society where everbody is equal just reminds me of communism, and that, my friend, isn't a good way to run the country.

Those with muscles rule.

I read the new Harry Potter in like 3 hours. I read fast. And with a high comperhension rate. Just something I was born with. :D



Find be such a system, and I will believe it. Until then, I will keep my faith that humans are lazy, ungratefully selfish bastards on a general term. Or is that too much cynicism for me?

But what would the punishment be? In a society like that, what WOULD punishments be?



In that case we have a variety of paths avaliale to us.
1: Expand our knowledge through research (robots cannot do that), and eventually use that research to better mankind even more.
2: Forget how the technology works, and just hope the system continues on. Eventually this path deadends as one crucial part finally shatters into thousands of pieces, and no new pieces are avaliable. Time is up. Granted, that could take a very long time, but still.
3: Everything works perfectly, and eventually we become like the Eloi, or whatever that damnable race from The Time Machine is called. H.G. Wells can write a good book, but the Morlocks were the only good race from that one. Hehe.. morlocks...


Good point, that is very possible, but it would require massive changes, and especially in places that wouldn't want to see it. Such as, rural America... y'know, places where "E-lek-tro-nicks" still are mostly unkown. racism is norm, and inbreeding is rampant. We'd have to influnce EVERYBODY very progressivly, before even being able to start a technocracy.

Read. Animal. Farm.

We were just having a discussion about Communism at the dinner table. It's not a good way to run a country, it discourages innovation and intelligence, and especially discourages competition, which is one of the major factors of innovation.

Also, the rich (and possibly lazy, yaddah yaddah) feed off the efforts of the poor. Whoops, I guess in Communistic terms, it's "The greater equals feed off the efforts of the lesser equals."

Well, I'm serious, communism is bad. It's a good idea, thinking of everyone as equal, and the overal psyche wouldn't be bad to have, but as a practice, it is bad.

And this specific type of technocracy seems a bit too much like communism. Of course, automating major processes would lead to more manpower to use in research, which would lead to more discoveries...

Y'know what? You converted me. Kinda. Find me a GOOD way to run the coutnry on largely automated processes, while keeping people intelligent and dilligent, and I will fight with you to get that working.

It's my pleasure. Screaming gets old after a while. ;)

I think it's dangerous interchangably using 'technocracy' and 'utopia.' If you wanted to incorporate idealistic elements, you might call it a 'utopian technocracy.' A technocracy in and of itself does not imply perfection, merely an attempt to streamline. See Techno-utopia.

I would argue that a socialistic/anarchistic style technocracy is what we're headed for. I used to see it the same way most people did, in terms of what is universally, ultimately good. Which system should be in place instead of another. But now I view it as, humanity has stages. While it's important to change and influence what is happening around you now, there are simply stages civilizations go through--so perhaps Democracy truly is a stepping stone, but I see future societies, if they truly will stand the test of time, slowly becoming more anarchistic, save for a cataclysm.

Are you living in a house? A city? Is there life around you? Food, arts? Habitat?

It's not even about having some great goal, it's about mutual collaboration, which does exist and will exist. Not everyone's a 13 year old brat.

Animal Farm criticises hysterical dictatorial Communism. Past alleged Communist societies succeeded in being vaguely socialistic and highly fragmented.

A well executed Communist society has yet to be realized. It is very difficult, yes. We should not force it, of course. Which is why I believe it is better to go with it as it emerges.

I believe the extrapolation isn't far-fetched. Already, not only our country, but most of the world, or "modern world," as it were, is run by computers, essentially. The move isn't that hard to imagine.


Bonus Question: What can you see happening more easily? Cyberpunk oppressive dystopia, or free digital age?

Point taken, but in my defense, the way they described it sounded much like a utopia to me. But wouldn't most political definitions, to those not being careful?

Well, we still have monarchies around. Granted, they're more figureheads for Democracies, but still, we respect them as Kings and Queens, even though we know they could be taken out by their governments if they wanted.

So, are you pressing for anarchistic societies, or do you just seen them in the future? What is your idealized government, Locke? None? One where man will agree with one another because it's the best thing for all of them?



Ok. Point taken.

[quoteAnimal Farm criticises hysterical dictatorial Communism. Past alleged Communist societies succeeded in being vaguely socialistic and highly fragmented.

A well executed Communist society has yet to be realized. It is very difficult, yes. We should not force it, of course. Which is why I believe it is better to go with it as it emerges. [/quote]

But should we stand what a poorly executed Communist society does to its people? Starvation, crime, and destruction? If a poorly executed Communistic society needs a long time to evolve into a good Communistic society... is it really worth it?

Besides, shouldn't the U.S.S.R should have done it? They shut themselves down, they didn't evolve into a good society.



True.

Do I get a point if I say that it's more likely to be the middle ground? A digital age, but not one that's free? But out of that, I'd have to say, the free digital age.

Which is odd, because I'm usually cynical in that regard. Huh...

Edited to respond to the above:

Damn, I'm getting double hit here. Can you guys space your responses some? :P

Anyways,

Ah, m'kay. See, when most people mention Communism, Stalinic Communism is the first to come to mind, for good reason. So, sorry. :)

I'm still not a socialist, but I'll go with you.

I disagree with the first, namely because I feel that is wrong against the person. Don't ask me to explain it, it's just... I feel that's wrong. I don't like it at all.

The second is fine, we use it, or at least we try to, in the judicial system. But I still am against psychological suggestion.

And not too facist. Just don't go putting torture into there. Room 113, or something like that. Ick.

Hmm?

The Singularity, huh? I heard about that earlier. I'm not too sure about that. It is quite interesting though.
But still, to reproduce the human mind in its entirety... wow.

If you want. It's been so long since I read it (4 years, maybe?) that I've forgotten all the symbolism. Maybe Locke knows it?

Ok, I'll be waiting. ^_^

*points and laughs*

1: Oh, I disagree. If by paintings and such, I think we live in a world were arts are alive even more, because of the technology we have to create them now. As long as you don't make really shiny and bad looking 3-D models.

And really, pleasing changes according to the person. I find fractals absolutly fascinating, as well as a few of my own drawings with lines based upon some weird thing I made up. Like a constantly twisting sine wave, so that it ended up crossing all over. It was almost hypnotic to look at.

Red herring. The argument was over the statement 'Communism is bad.' I claimed it a misconception based on certain preconceived notions. I think you know I obviously disapprove of such things.

Although it's an interesting theory, I disagree that dictatorial Communism is one of the steps to true Communism. It'd be much more like Marx detailed, an interim socialist state.

YES! Someone else on the forum with whom I can use the words 'ecumenopolis' and 'singularity' in the same sentence! Yeehaw!

Arts--entertainment, creativity, to be communicated between individuals. I think the point was made.

I bring this up because of an increasingly scary phenomena--a 'tiered' Internet. A much more tightened (even moreso than China) form of the Web and global social access is in the works, and has been for a long time. Hell, the entire way access to the Internet is set up is made to the customer's detriment.

A truly corporatised Internet is what causes me to ask this question. My idea is similar, the middle ground. I think you'll never stop the ingenious open source, hacking, and generally subversive community of individuals on the Internet today. They resist and they will resist, and I simply wondered what others thought. A real cyber-resistance is something that is already growing in size...I just wonder when 'it' will hit.