![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
A Technocrat’s Response
Well, you throw around a word enough and people are going to notice. I recently received a rebuttal from a member fan of Technocracy, Inc which I wrote about in a recent post, Welcome to the Technate! I think this fellow makes some fine points and since I did specifically mention his group by name, and quite possibly took things that they said or stand for totally out of context, I would like to re-post what he said here. Hopefully he will be kind enough to field any questions people may have regarding what the Technocracy, Inc movement really stands for. Apologies for distorting it in my own efforts to understand just what the hell is REALLY going on in the world today!
Hi, my name is Ross, I just read your article on the Technocracy Movement “Welcome to the Technate!” here…
I am a Technocrat (well not an official member of the organisation, but a student of it), and I’m afraid to say you have misinterpreted it entirely.
Now I’ve never read your Website before so I don’t know much about what you normally write about. You seemed to be writing articles about some kind of conspiracy theory involving a “Technocracy”. I don’t know anything about this theory so I won’t comment on it, however I can assure you that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Technocracy Movement (i.e. the organisation, Technocracy inc.).
Firstly you seem to have got most of your information about the subject from Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia can be a good source for initial information on Technocracy, it is severely lacking in detail, and in many cases accuracy. That’s not a rebuke of Wiki, after all, Technocrats (including me) wrote most of the info in those articles. However the Wiki entries are still not very good and are no substitute for reading actual Technocracy materials (or better yet, talking to Technocrats about it).
Sorry if this is really long and rambling but there’s allot to cover, I would appreciate if you read the whole thing.
The most important thing I need to convey to you is that your interpretation/understanding of the Technocracy movement is not correct. For one thing you are confusing terms, your description of a “dictatorship of Experts” or a “Dictatorship of Science” is really incorrect to describe the plans of Technocracy Inc. What you are describing (in the terms of this Wiki page) is Technocracy (bureaucratic).
Now I doubt I will be able to explain Technocracy to you in any detail in this message, but I will try to tell you some of the basic mistakes you are making.
Ok, now your idea of a Dictatorship of Experts (or a dictatorship of anything for that matter), has nothing to do with the proposals of Technocracy Inc. Quite the opposite in-fact, Technocracy proposes an Extremely Free society (somewhat similar to Libertarianism or Anarchy, though with a few laws, such as against Murder, etc.), the “Technical Administration”, which would be the governing body of the Technate (although we don’t use the word Government, as that would imply control of society), would have Control only over the non-human parts of the Nation (i.e. the running of Machines, management of Natural resources, etc…), it would not be able to control society or peoples lives (as all modern Governments unfortunately do).
To put it more simply, the Technical administration can only make decisions on Objective, Scientific subjects (for instance, “should the trains run or Diesel or Petrol engines?” etc.) It cannot make decisions on Subjective, Human/Political topics (for instance, “is Homosexuality right?” etc.). There is absolutely NO hint of Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism, or the state telling people what to think, that goes against everything we Technocrats believe in.
There are essentially 2 principles you need to know in order to understand Technocratic law, one is the Aim/Objective of the Technate that is “To provide the citizens of the Technate with the Highest possible standard of living, for the longest possible period of time”. The second (which is a simplification that I’ll use) is “A citizen of the Technate is free to do anything they wish, as long as their actions do not harm citizens”, this is where the few Technocratic laws come in, obviously this prohibits things like Murder, Assault, Rape, Robbery, etc… But it gives people the Freedom to do anything else they might want.
Also your interpretation of Urbanates is totally wrong. I was actually the one who wrote that Wikipedia article that you quoted and you misinterpreted it to mean something completely different to what was intended. I won’t go into a long description, but sufficed to say, it has nothing to do with “Burbclaves” or City-states or anything like that.
I hope this explains a few things to you about Technocracy, and I would hope that you would re-write or take down your Article about Technocracy Inc. which is, as I said, Inaccurate and misleading to people and simply does not reflect what the Organisation believes in.
If you want you can E-mail me back and I’ll be happy to discuss it more with you, Alternatively you could post at our Forums at our site. There you can talk to other (more knowledgeable) Technocrats, who can probably give you a better understanding than I can and debate it all with them. (They should be quite willing to tell you everything you may want to know).
Just for the record, he is right in several regards. When I say “technocracy” (which I have been saying a lot lately), I don’t mean the group Technocracy, Inc - unless otherwise stated. I do however, still see a lot of correlations between his clarifications and corrections to some of the more general points that I have been making (especially as expressed here) But since I am merely an outside observer, you all owe it to yourself to research and learn from people who actually know (ie, experts - see how that works?). Although, hell, who knows - there’s always the possibility that this guy is just flinging some disinformation to throw us off the trail of a very real conspiracy, right? Haha. I’m sure that he and his Technocrat friends will love reading that!
- Abbas: Send in the Technocrats!
- Technocracy In-Fighting
- Technocracy & The Noble Lie
- Is The Reptilian Brain In Control?
- Holographic Repatterning
- Prev: Connect the Dots Marketing
- Next: The Cult of the Clock
August 4th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Also see the discussion this has spawned over on the Canadian Technocracy, Inc forums
August 5th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Okay, but that’s not a black and white issue. Human nature being what it seems to be, that little “etc.” could start to get out of control. The pro life movement comes to mind. The stem cell research bullshit comes to mind. Then there’s the whole slew of things that, it could be argued if people wanted to argue it, can, potentially, or indirectly, cause harm to citizens. Where would the Technocracy draw the lines?
August 5th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
‘Technocracy Study Course’
Fifth Edition
Published in New York, December, 1940
First Printing
Copyright 1934, 1935, 1936, Technocracy Incorporated
Printed in U.S.A.
Sec. 4, Regional Div. 12247
TECHNOCRACY INC.
5012 University Way Seattle
“Technocracy Inc. is a non-profit membership organization incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. It is a Continental Organization. It is not a financial racket or a political party.
“Technocracy Inc. operates only on the North American Continent through the structure of its own Continental Headquarters, Area Controls, Regional Divisions, Sections, and Organizers as a self-disciplined, self-controlled organization. It has no affiliations with any other organization, movement, or association, whether in North America, or elsewhere
“Technocracy points out that this Continent has the natural resources, the physical equipment, and the trained personnel to produce an abundance.
“Technocracy finds that the production and distribution of an abundance of physical wealth on a Continental scale for the use of all Continental citizens can only be accomplished by a Continental technological control - a governance of function - a Technate.
“Technocracy declares that this Continent has a rendezvous with Destiny; that this Continent must decide between Abundance and Chaos within the next few years. Technocracy realizes that this decision must be made by a mass movement of North Americans trained and self-disciplined, capable of operating a technological mechanism of production and distribution on the Continent when the present Price System becomes impotent to operate. Technocracy In.c is notifying every intelligent and courageous North American that his future tomorrow rests on what he does today. Technocracy offers the specification and the blueprints of Continental physical operations for the production of abundance for every citizen.”
August 5th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
now, i was sorely tempted to make a game out of cherry-picking and reproducing here just the paragraphs most likely to lead you to the greatest heights of paranoia, but that would just downright rude, or would it?
August 5th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
The real metaphysical current underlying this, as i see it, is a mostly pavlovian, behavioralist psychological approach. In the end, it is viewed that the varying idiosyncracies of psychological evolution, culture, and personality are what contribute to the primacy of Chaos over Abundance. A certain amount of this is reasonable, but: how much would you be willing to re-engineer yourself towards efficiency and uniformity, to assure Abundance for all? Where would you draw the line, and where do they draw that very same line? Are you comfortable knowing that market inefficiencies are created, and that, somewhere, people suffer, due to our collective (hah!) drive of individualism?
Not an easy question, nor one I trust anyone to answer authoritatively. Of course, that’s an indicator of why the problems exist, in the first place, that these people apparantly seek to correct. What a fucking paradox that is!
August 5th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Oh, please do. By all means!
August 5th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
I second that behaviorist underpinning that pmp suspects about these guys. Plus, okay the expert technocrats just determine “objectively” things like what energy source we should use to power things. All well and fine–what happens when, since they’re only human, even if they ARE experts, they decide on an energy source which, decades later, they realize ultimately leads to things that are very very detrimental to “citizens”–BUT! Whoa, now the whole infrastructure of their “objectively” run quasi-libertarian techno-utopia (hope they wake us up with “Time for the Percolator” every morning!) relies on this energy source. Will our objective, only minimally meddlesome, technomasters rip down all the fun, flashy gadgets and overhaul the whole system, despite the very real but temporary chaos it will cause or will they just “stay the course” until the shit inevitably goes down? One can argue that such a scenario is already taking place. Oh, but I guess the problem is that the current overseers just weren’t laissez faire technocrats. Sorry, guys, I just don’t buy it. You’re still selling a utopia based upon a top-down organization of society. Sure, you can argue that it’s just in regards to the “technical” aspect of society and not the human, social aspect, but in the end these things overlap and are hard to separate and what you do in your merely objective sphere may have a way of creeping up and making things miserable for everyone. It’s Plato’s Republic all over again (and hasn’t it been with every new “savior class”–whether they be the Holy Roman Church or the Bolshevik or the Neo-Cons or Khmer Rouge, etc., etc.)–since history got rolling? Maybe not. I could be totally wrong.
I like their emphasis on self-reliance but a reliance on technology and a benevolent technical class may just be the illusion of self-reliance, not the real deal.
Also: just because you call it a “Technate” and not a “government” doesn’t make it somehow different, save in a hypnotic-marketing magician’s sense, if the function is the same (mass control of a very vital part of each individual’s reality concentrated in some very select hands).
Also: the talk of this “Continent’s Destiny” sounds like the ol’ saw of Manifest Destiny, just in new, non-God-centric language. How exactly is the underlying drive of such a myth different, other than in its verbal plumage?–Honest question, though I’m definitely dubious.
August 5th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
I think I have unraveled their logic: they are saying that a Technocratic government would essentially only be concerned with maintaining infrastructure and resources and would use logic and objectivity to further these goals.
The problem is that without any kind of nod to human values, this governing body would ultimately reach the logical conclusion that to protect infrastructure and resources the best, human behavior would first need to be regulated - thus restricting individual liberty. Even further down the road than that though is that to ultimately protect resources, it would make the most sense to completely eliminate humanity from the picture altogether, and design some kind of AI, with nanotech and robots whose task was to be perfectly controlled and perfectly in line with the system to perpetuate it outside of the realm of human failings.
August 5th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
I am wondering who does not read this website? I bet even God reads this site–the very conventional theological God that is! Why, I bet even College Republicans read it. Heed my advice! Never criticize college Republicans for it will be like opening up a portal from hell. A hell filled with hideous shaped deformed Republicans! Anyways I wonder how these Technocrats feel about mini-golf and bowling? Do they believe in those things?
August 6th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Mini-golf is a highly ineffecient waste of resources. No educated member of the Technate would even conceive of wasting their time mini-golfing. Since this is a non-issue, it has been removed from your list of available hobbies. Have a nice day!
Tim - I’m gonna flake out on that assignment and let you read it yourself. I’ll drop it off at the Metaphysical Library sometime this week.
August 6th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
I suspect the Technate would turn a blind eye to mini-golf, at least while they try to ban 18 hole golf, as a waste of water, fertilizer, and valuable agricultrual land.
More seriously I wonder of these Technocrats have actually been trapped in a conspiracy by totalitarian beurocrats. This organisation remains competely unknown to me, and it’s near anarchic technocracy is seductive, but the only technocracy know to me is the beurocratic freedom denying one. My paranoia says that is because the beurocracy wishes to assimilate anyone skilled in science and technology.
Regarding these techocrats, I don’t understand how they deal with conflict in science.
For instance between climate scientists, and scientists in the energy industry. Or between pro and anti peak-oilers. While science searches for the truth, it often gets itself stuck in corners where opposing theories seem equally true, and when the correct decision is essential to the improvement of the human condition the technate and all the people under it will be in trouble.
August 6th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
OK, maybe just a little fun for the afternoon; don’t forget, folks, I’m intentionally taking these paragraphs wildly out of context. Let that be some small consolation as you read the following!
Technocracy Inc. organizational schematic
“Another of these special sequences is the Armed Forces. The Armed forces, as the name implies, embraces the ordinary military land, water, and air forces, but most important of all, it also includes the entire internal police force of the Continent, the Continental Constabulatory…
“While the Continental Constabulatory is under the discipline of the Armed Forces, it receives its instructions and authorization for its specific action from the Social Relations and Area Control.”
“Let us remember that real scientific progress is at all times based upon the correlation of objectively observable phenomena. When we subject such concepts as the human ‘mind’ to this sort of test they rapidly fade out of existence. When we observe a human being we merely perceive an object which makes a certain variety of motions and noises. The same is true, however, when we observe a dog or a Ford car. Only the form is different in each case, and the particular pattern of motions and noises is different. We observe, likewise, certain cause and effect relationships. If, for instance, we press the horn button on the Ford car, the Ford produces a honk; if we step on the dog’s tail the dog yelps. Thus, we can say in the case of these two mechanisms, the dog and the car, that:
“Pressing horn button produces honk.
Stepping on tail produces yelp.
“We see, therefore, that when we begin to correlate what we actually observe, without introducing any of our inherited preconceptions, we can treat a dog with the same dispassionate objectivity which we are accustomed to use when dealing with Ford cars or radio sets.”
“Thinking, Speaking, Writing. Experiments with human beings have given the same kinds of results, with the exception that the human being requires a smaller number of repetitions to establish a conditioned reflex than a dog, and he can sustain a higher number of orders of conditioned reflexes than a dog can. It is of this that a superior intellect largely consists.”
“Control of Behavior. Practically all social control is effected through the mechanism of the conditioned reflex. The driver of an automobile, for instance, sees a red light ahead and immediately throws in the clutch and brake, and stops. This behavior is no whit different from that of a dog which hears a metronome and secrets saliva.
“Of no less importance in social control are the conditioned inhibitions. If they are taken young enough, human beings can be conditioned not to do almost anything under the sun. They can be conditioned not to use certain language, not to eat certain foods on certain days, not to work on certain days, not to mate in the absence of certain ceremonial words spoken over them, not to break into a grocery store for food even though they may not have eaten for days. Of course, the human being rationalizes all this by saying that it is ‘wrong,’ or that his ‘conscience’ would bother him, but the interesting thing about ‘wrong doing’ and ‘guilty consciences’ is that they are involved only in those cases where one’s past training has rigorously inhibited him from performing the actions in question.”
“In the Declaration of Independence there occurs the familiar line: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are create equal…’ This concept is philosophic in origin and, as we have seen, has no basis in biological fact. Upon biological fact, theories of democracy go to pieces.”
“Functional Priority. The greatest stability in a social organization would be obtained where the individuals were placed as nearly as possible with respect to other individuals in accordance with ‘peck-rights,’ or the priority relationship which they would assume naturally.”
“Thus, bankers, lawyers, policemen and politicians, as well as the members of of other professions are obliged to operate under a set of controls which are peculiar to the particular profession considered; any other human being under the same controls is likely to behave in a similar manner. This being the case, the only possible way of eliminating those types of behavior which are socially objectionable, and of replacing them with types of behavior which are socially unobjectionable is to alter the controls accordingly. No amount of social moralizing ever has, or ever will, affect this to any appreciable effect.”
August 6th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
I think that’s actually a really good point. You can claim that people are allowed to do anything in a Technate, but the fact is, they can’t do anything that goes against the guiding principle of the Technate - which is the rational management of resources
August 6th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
HOLY SHIT! Those quotes from that organizational document are EXTREMELY revealing - and if I may say so, quite damning! Can you provide links for where you pulled those quotes from?
August 6th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
I have just created a new thread on the Technocracy, Inc forums, using the following information. I will be curious to hear their responses to this:
* * *
Managing the Human Machine
http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?na...038;file=viewtopic&p=21044#21044
I have found a document which seems to relate to Technocracy, Inc (it uses it’s logo and name), but which I am not certain of the authenticity.
I am not sure where the first page of it starts, but this is lesson 20 of an online Technocracy study course, entitled “The Nature of The Human Animal”
The reason I bring this up, is that I think there are a number of quotes in it which seem to paint Technocracy in a somewhat unfavorable light:
The discussion then goes into talking about how human beings are only unique in that they may be conditioned to behave in certain ways very quickly, and that this seems to be one of the only true signs of our intelligence or uniqueness.
So first of all, I would like to find out if this is indeed official orthodox Technocracy, Inc teaching. And if so, where did it come from, and how come I can’t find it on any of your official sites?
Secondly, if Technocracy openly sees the human being as a machine which can be conditioned for specific purposes and conceives of the sublme notion of the human soul and mind as “ignorant and barbarian” then what is to stop a Technocracy from managing people as though they are simply machines and nothing more?
August 7th, 2006 at 12:01 am
It’s from the book I quoted earlier. Like I said, I’ll drop it off at the Metaphysical Library.
Granted, it’s copyright 1940 or so, Pavlovian psychology might have been cutting edge back then.
August 7th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Oh, it must be the original source then of this:
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~educator/humans.htm
August 7th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
maybe related, maybe not?
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_recent/Wired.html
August 8th, 2006 at 8:56 am
Interesting discussion here. I am currently at a conference filled with fellow technocrats (in the general/common sense of the word, not the ideological sense). None of them have a clue. Maybe (and I mean, maybe) some of the really high up industrial people do, but they aren’t saying so; none of the sessions indicate any major context shift on the horizon, merely vague throwaway statements about our “uncertain future”. (Meanwhile, simultaneously, the first systemic shock of peak oil may have just occurred.)
On a more idealogical note:
One can reach the opposite conclusion, i.e. that the physical similarities between human and nonhuman animals suggests that humans, dogs, horses, and pigs are all equally semi-supernatural creatures. I choose to follow in this direction because it leads to a consciousness filled with meaning, with lively spirits and beautiful things, if also with difficult moral choices and some horror; the other choice leads to an ugly world filled with dead objects meaninglessly colliding with each other.
August 8th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
The Technate that is provides citizens with “the Highest possible standard of living, for the longest possible period of time”. That’s cool and all, but what about the segments of society that do NOT want to live to the highest possible standard? If you think this is a facetious argument, keep in mind that some people in this world enjoy squalor and degeneracy for whatever reason (drug addiction, mental disorder, simple rebellion) and I’d like top know how the Technate would deal with these “problem people”. It may seem unrealistic, but human beings are unpredictable, and even though we cannot comprehend why a human would want to live like a dog, it still happens.
“A citizen of the Technate is free to do anything they wish, as long as their actions do not harm citizens”– how do criminals get dealt with? Is there a Technate plan for dealing with criminals? What if they do not respond to the treatment/punishment? Who decides what is a fitting punishment for such undesirables?
EVERY system of government (or Technate, or whatever clever euphemisms one can devise) must deal with these kinds of questions before offering a vision of Utopian idealsim. This is always the measure of a control system’s validity, no matter how lofty their goals are.
Even the Eloi in H.G. Wells’ “The Time Machine” had to deal with the Morlocks every now and then, no?
August 8th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
I asked the same question, essentially at their forums James. What about someone whose dream in life is to become a terrorist? I’m guessing the person who responded doesn’t speak for Technocracy in general, but he suggested that maybe they could build some kind of “bombing range” for those people. It turned into a pretty absurd argument actually. Also in the midst of reassuring me that everyone could be what they wanted to be and express themselves however they felt inclined, he made certain to point out that noone would be allowed to be a politician, banker or capitalist, and that only people who were officially qualified and talented enought to do so would actually be allowed to fulfill their dreams. What the hell everyone else is supposed to do didn’t make any sense either. He said that if you didn’t want to do a particular kind of work, the Technate would simply find a way to automate it. But he didn’t seem to see that this would require workers to make things automated, on and on ad infinitum until you at least built fully functional AI, robotics, nanotech, etc - which he wouldn’t even talk about as a possibility.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
[…] Last night I received yet another email from somebody claiming to be involved in the Technocracy, Inc movement. According to this person, Skip Seivert, the other technocrats who contacted me (upset over my alleged misrepresentation of them) have been “discredited” and do not represent the official views of that organization. I will let Skip’s email stand for itself, as I’m a little confused over the whole thing myself still. Where he says “Technocracy.ca” he is referring to the original group of would-be technocrats who contacted me: Hi Tim. I don`t know you, but I am a very active member of Technocracy . I am a card carrying member of Technocracy inc. I am speaking for my self though ,when I would like to inform you of a couple things. The Technocracy.ca site that you were on recently has been discredited because of its leader there who has an interesting, shall we say ingenious interpretation of Technocracy. Bill DesJardines is the guy I am talking about. Known as Kolzene on the site. […]
October 20th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
[…] A Technocrat’s Response […]