TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Do you support technocracy government?

Technocracy is a form of government in which experts in technology would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers, and technologists who have knowledge, expertise, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen, and economists [Wiki].


Closing Statement from Truong Thanh Chung

I see different opinions about the technocracy government, about the role of experts (scientists, engineers, and technologists) in a government. My personal opinion: for now, we need more objective reasoning in the decision process.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jul 13 2012: Chung Truong Thanh, asking people here their opinions about this subject is not really going to get you anywhere. Find out for yourself what the facts are and what Technocracy is. There are as many sets of opinions as there are individuals, but there is only one correct analysis which can be done, and only one synthesis that can face up to the physical necessities uncovered by that analysis. Only once you stop letting other people do your thinking for you will you find it. No one is asking you to believe what Technocracy is saying, but we are asking you to go and check out the facts for yourself. http://www.facebook.com/groups/2205039391/
    • thumb
      Jul 13 2012: I love to hear different opinions from different people. I found some interesting thought, including yours.
      • Jul 13 2012: Thank you for showing interest and thank you for raising awareness about Technocracy Technate design. If you are really interested in this topic, you should join the Technocracy online group and you should read the Technocracy Study Course as well as check out the other Technocracy material available on the internet:

        Technocracy online group:

        Technocracy Study Course:

        List of links at the bottom of this page:
      • Jul 17 2012: This is a very interesting topic! But I have to say that I personally would not support this type of government. Here is my reasoning why:

        1) This type of government would ironically stifle scientific growth. Try thinking of all of the scientists that have become great by challenging their former scientific institutions. Among these would be Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, etc. By creating an overreaching government that creates science as an institution rather than a method, new scientists would not be able to freely hypothesize against accepted knowledge.

        2) There is no way to decide which specialist is absolutely the most capable of leading their society. Even if democracy was applied to decide this, we would just end up with more of #1!

        3) The most intrepid and competent specialists, once found, would be bogged down with two jobs. One job being a scientist, engineer, doctor, teacher, etc., and the other job being that they have to run a society, both of which are daunting full-time jobs.

        4) Whether we like it or not, we are a world of humans and not scientists. If science dictated policy and personal decisions over what we, as humans, have taken as unconscionable, there would be no general respect for the technocracy. Legitimate and long-lasting governments take into account the reality of humanity. (Not to sound too much like Friedrich Nietzche.)

        5) In a way, we are always impacted by the contributions of specialists whether we like it or not. The exceptions to this are nations without freedom of thought. A free nation will, over time, beat any technocracy. Think about the scientific contributions of the U.S. and Western Europe versus the contributions of the U.S.S.R., Islamo-fascist nations, and China in the modern world.

        This was definitely an interesting subject to contemplate! Thank you for bringing it up.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.