TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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].

+1
Share:

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.

  • thumb
    Jul 10 2012: Interesting question. I do believe that there is a place for technocrats in any ruling coalition. But only a place.

    Science excels at analyzing the real world rationally. For instance, I have no doubt that a team of Industrial Engineers could work out the most efficient way to transport excess food in America to those starving in Africa. Better than markets, in my opinion.

    But what can Science say about the immorality of allowing people to starve? Nothing. So Science has limits. And these "moral" questions are only the beginning.

    Let's spin another example: Imagine your are playing catch with your son pretneding he is pitching in the World Series.

    Science can measure your neurotransmitter levels, brainwave patterns and behaviors. But it does not experience the joy you and Junior feel.

    Instead, Science flattens the experience. It is a map, but not territory.

    There are other things that, truly, cannot be "operationalized." For instance, how would analyzing the word counts in James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake" help you understand this crazy but ingenious work? What about appreciating Mozart, Picasso or Warhol? How could science help there?

    Despite these obvious limitations, I find Science often too "cock sure" of itself. But it often appears to lack wisdom.

    I always think of Vonnegut's "Cat;s Cradle" when in these discussions. Because he can, a scientist develops Ice-9--which destroys the world by freezing all H20. The scientist myopically focuses, but does not truly think or grow wise.

    Indeed, the brilliant Oppenheimer illustrates this by intoning the Vedas, "I am Siva. I have become death." While dancing in the shadow of the first mushroom cloud.

    Like Vonnegut, I believe technocratic rule would ignore wisdom and beauty.Instead, I think we need all views of the world to survive. Science. Art. MATURE Religion--which means not "chapter and verse", but open minded, progressive religions that embrace evolution and science. We need to become fully human.
    • thumb
      Jul 11 2012: I guess a head-hard scientist is often bad governing a democracy.
      • Jul 13 2012: """""I guess a head-hard scientist is often bad governing a democracy."""""

        All environmental scientists agree the world is severely overpopulated right now. That means compulsory population control will have to be implemented wether we like it or not, or we will suffer the consequences. These types of decisions can not be left up to a democratic form of control.
    • Jul 11 2012: I think that's a good and very important point! We need leaders who can make good moral decisions with the public's interest in focus. However I believe that they ALSO need to be able to comprehend different expert opinions and paradigms. For example I would never want someone who hasn't studied economics to make heavy decisions that will greatly impact the country for decades to come, as has happened many times over the past few years with the current crises. Now of course the support of "real" experts is needed, but the decision-maker still needs some basic understanding to be able to understand the different options properly with benefits and consequences etc.
    • Jul 13 2012: """"I always think of Vonnegut's "Cat;s Cradle" when in these discussions. """""

      Revulsion Against Social Change - Wilton Ivie

      Excerpt from this item:

      "Future Frightens Intellectuals

      Thus, through the process of natural selection, the human tendencies to remain the same have been preserved in the chromosomes and the tendencies to seek something different have been culled out. A general revulsion against social change and a nostalgia for the ways of the recent past are deeply ingrained aspects of human nature. This phenomenon, along with the fact that we are now experiencing the most rapid change in man's social history, accounts for the epidemic of intellectual vomiting that is going on among the would-be protectors of man's social destiny and human values. Thus, such writers as Francois Mauriac, George Orwell, Kurt Vonnegut, Aldous Huxley, and many others view the future of 'materialistic progress' with a dim eye and seek retreat into the haven of the social mores, customs, and values of their own youths."


      http://archive.org/details/RevulsionAgainstSocialChange-WiltonIvie
    • Jul 13 2012: """""The scientist myopically focuses, but does not truly think or grow wise."""""

      "Wisdom belongs to ancient times. Solomon et al. were wise men. They arrived at their wisdom by logic, polemics, sophistry, rhetoric, debate, etc. They interpretated miracles based on this procedure and people altered their lives according to the beliefs these wise men accorded to miracles.

      By contrast, Albert Einstein et al. were/are not wise men. They were/are knowledgeable men, they were/are men of science. They arrive(d) at knowledge--establishing facts--by the scientific method.

      The difference between the two groups cannot be over emphasized. The former group never has/had to furnish proof for their wisdom. The latter has/had to establish proof beyond any reasonable doubt. This group constantly "fine tunes" facts. The former group was/is passive while the latter was/is dynamic.

      Men of science--ignoring miracles--are responsible for huge changes in our lifestyle. Prior to our age of science, our nation was a primitive, agrarian society. Production was by cottage industry, using guild craftsmanship. In those days people fetched water from their wells, chopped fire wood for their wood-burning stoves, shoed horses, etc. Families had spinning wheels in their parlor room; as a rule, clothes were home made, not store-bought. Stockings were darned and clothes mended; never thrown away until they were thread-worn.

      This primitive, agrarian age was a slow-pace age, an age of relative subjective ignorance. Society lacked an understanding of the physical universe - physics, chemistry, biology, etc. It was an ignorant age, not by choice but by circumstance.

      To a great extent, people relied on the interpretation of miracles by wise men and made decisions accordingly. No other course was opened for them. Since the age was slow-paced, when mistakes were made--and many were--no serious damage ensued."

      http://web.archive.org/web/20020905194115/http://www.technocracysf.org/justice.htm

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.