![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Technocracy & Science Fiction
Thanks to an excellent reader tip, I just discovered this jewel from sci-fi author Charles Stross’ blog, where he points to the technocratic movement as the ideological basis for the entire genre of science fiction. It’s something I have touched on elsewhere, but which Stross manages to nab in just a few short lines:
SF is predicated on a modernist political program. It was, in fact, the fictional agitprop arm of the Technocrat movement, and it carried on marching in lockstep into the radiant future even after Technocracy withered in the 1930s. These days, the beliefs that form the bedrock of this medium have a curiously quaint, archaic feel to them. Technocracy was about central planning, enlightened rational leadership, and utopianism. SF as we know it is descended from a literature that reflects these values, either by amplifying or adopting them, or by explicitly contradicting them — but either way, Technocracy’s ghost lies at the core of a multitude of genre conventions.
We’ve been writing technocracy-influenced fiction for eighty years, whether we knew it or not. You can catch its reflection in the mirror if you don’t turn round fast enough; the belief that technological progress cures all ills, that progress is always good, and that rational, educated people will come up with the best solutions to problems are all hallmarks of technocracy. I have some sympathy for these views (I wouldn’t be writing what I do if I didn’t!), but these days only a lunatic would still argue that a panglossian faith in Technology as the Simple Answer to All Human Problems is a reasonable ideology on which to build anything other than a pile of bleached skulls.
[See also my recent review of one of Stross’ books, Accelerando]
You know, it’s funny. With all this technocracy stuff, I’ve noticed more and more mentions of it in mainstream culture ever since I started writing about it. I can’t tell if it’s just confirmation bias, or if I have genuinely tapped into a sub-current that was operating behind the scenes and is beginning to bubble up to the surface…
November 1st, 2006 at 5:09 pm
enlightened rational leadership…………………..
you don`t have to go any futher than star trek to see the smug egalitarian view in action. the everyone is equal and we`ve abolished money and replicators make everything approach is laughable. not to mention the not interfering with alien species bit. the people in the way of that eventuality are the ones who have humans to do thier work building things.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Ohh Jaded alistair, replicators will build things and people will play. People will always want to contribute and be a positive asset to any society. Egalitarians portrayed as smug.? Only in your imagination. You seem smug here actually. Get a horse, man.
Its not really enlightened rational leadership , as it is a practical life enhancing way to survive anyway.
Interesting post Tim and I am beginning to wonder how the hell you do this. Are you sure that you don`t have a staff of people working for you.? There is a Tim Boucher think tank isn`t there , and you are really a legion of people scraping around the fringes for cultural trinkets.
How much does your research dept. have in their budget every month.?
Its pretty astounding .
As to the post there is an interconnection yes , but I think the author Stross is mostly fabricating his version .
He has some basic things wrong. I found it interesting to get his take anyway.
He goes on to mention Heinlein kind of in the same subtext and Heinlein is really remote from Technocracy and actually much more Ayn Rand like , which again would be antithetical to technocracy ideas.
H.G. Wells took most of the content of his book , The shape of things to come, from our idea base , and then put a spin on it.
Bucky Fuller did much the same , with him as the so called original thinker when many of his ideas are from us.
The Venus Project also in Florida is a technocracy spin off were another big ego got hold of our ideas and tried to become a kind of Guru with them. They are still around.
As I mentioned Tim what I consider to be the greatest science fiction book of all time was written by Gurdjieff , and he rubbed elbows in very intimate ways with the Technocracy people several times in different places including New York City , and also at Frank L. Wrights place in Wisconsin where he hung out for a little while .
This is interesting in another way. At base some of the esoteric ideas that are actually a part of Technocracy can be traced back to Gurdjieff and Gurdjieff was influenced by the Technocratic movement.
There was a spill over in groups between Wright, Gurdjieff , and Technocracy people .
I would still like to suggest the Gurdjieff book , Beelzebub’s Tales to his Grandson , which is the All and Everything Series .
I think that the person that wrote this connector between these things Tim, is maybe an interesting science fiction writer , but not very informed really about technocracy and it ideas .
I say this because of the way he referenced it as a Utopia , and something that he thinks has kind of become old and useless as a concept.
It has never left the state of the art for a future culture.
I would indeed suggest that the stuff he referred to as interesting culture will be long gone sometime and the technocracy ideas will be humming along , and perhaps if we are lucky adopted as mainstream.
It is either going to be something like that , our we end up with another science fiction fantasy construct culture that looks post apocalypse and no fun for any one.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:59 pm
skip, i think some people will want to contribute………a small percentage. jaded? yes, absolutely. the majority of people only do anything when they absoutely have to. my work is in human behaviour. specifically behaviour change and modification. people run the spectrum, from depressed to anxious, and have to conform to social norms to get by. there are those who will work towards joy and abundance and discover the means to resonate, but try and have a conversation with the average person about such things…………..
egalitarians are the smugsters alright. telling people what car to drive or what deoderant to use and to recycle. people aren`t equal. people don`t want the same things. the last time a whole race of people wore the same shirts, a whole bunch of them suddenly got dead. sorry if you find my comments smug but i just point out the obvious.
and while i`m typing, the definition i use for technocracy is the love of power. it seems to be used differently here.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:02 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)
or government by experts………….and of course they decide who the experts are.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:38 pm
I don’t even remember how it happened, but this technocracy stuff is actually what led me here awhile back. I think I was first clued in by a series of research events that occured after I listened to an audio-book of Greg Palast’s new-release, Armed Madhouse, as well as after watching this video interview of Palast.
While I don’t recall Palast mentioning anything about technocracy, he did focus a bit of attention on M. King Hubbert. That, in turn, got me curious; which made me want to delve deeper into that history. I noticed that Wikipedia said Hubbert was “an avid technocrat… co-founded Technocracy Inc. and contributed significantly to the Technocracy Study Guide.”
I was bemused that Palast talked so much about Hubbert’s relationship with Shell, while completely overlooking some of Hubbert’s seeming intentions for producing reports about peak-oil. This led me to a semi-conclusion that, if anything, it’d seem that M. King Hubbert’s scientific calculations were a round-about way of technocracy invading Shell, rather than Palast’s theory that Hubbert was posing as a shill for Shell.
The technocratic movement, in my understanding, being a social movement originating around the 1920’s, advocating a form of society where welfare of human beings is optimised by means of scientific analysis and widespread use of technology; aiming to establish a zero growth socio-economic system based upon conservation and abundance as opposed to scarcity-based economic systems like capitalism…
That in turn led me to technocracynow, which in turn somehow led me to this blog in early August. I don’t remember how I made this particular conversion though, perhapse it being approximately 18th in a google search for technocracy?
Ironically, I have known about peak-oil for about 2 years, but never really delved into the lifestyles of Hubbert until Palast’s ruckus. Perhapse others are making the correlations from peak-oil to hubbert to technocracy. I wonder if it’s in small part to Palast’s recent work, or if it’s partly a synonymous increase in peak-oil awareness thereby causing technocrats to work harder for evangelization.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Wow , you are jaded.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:59 pm
yup. which definition of technocracy are you selling?
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:22 am
http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm
i agree with all of your positions, which i assume concur with the canadian chapter. the issue i have is that most people see the ideological,political energy in your ideas and because politics is about class and who has the money and control of the means of production, etc. we have the makings of a good, old fashioned uprising on our hands. whenever someone takes a run on the means of production there gets to be some shooting before too long.
i`m a student of history. history is full of conflict and war. that`s what makes it so darn interesting. and predictable.
you are entitled to call my position jaded but understand that it is backed up by centuries of documented fact. i would like to think that there could be a different outcome for your suggestions, but answer this; where are all the people who have a vested interest in the monetary system going to go upon implementation, and what strategies and tactics have you got in place to ensure a smooth turnover?
the only disagreement i have with the tecnocracy position is that it claims to be apolitical. that would be like saying you`re going to make personal transportation appliances without going into the auto manufacturing business. you can say what you want, but you`re still making cars.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:22 am
One of the odder things about science-fiction writers is that most of them in modern times are among the most technophobic people on the planet. I’ve always seen that as the main danger when deciding to put on the mantle of “science expert” without having ever put together an experiment, talked to the human beings behind the bow ties and listed to them talk about their families and childhood memories, or put in enough legwork mucking through journals to see how little shocking material there is 99.99999% of the time. Or, how that 0.00001% usually turns out to be an overblown letter to the editor from some windbag who couldn’t get his article published and so decided to take the job of prank caller instead.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:13 am
Hi John , yes that’s funny. I kind of put this writer, Stross into the , I am not as smart as I think I am zone, because of his offhand and mostly inaccurrate comments on concepts about technocracy that are mostly fantasy.
As I said, he probably is a fine writer in the fiction dept. Science fiction being speculative and creative, your right, some of these writers probably are dabblers all over the place, and maybe not always the best as very good authority’s on a subject they know not to much about except through cursory Wiki reading. Ha.
Alistair , at present I would look to the official technocracy website which is www.technocracyinc.org , also www.technocracyvan.ca these sites are more accurate to what our program is .
The techca site was a splinter group that has not fared well in the realm of ideas dept. and not really a good source although they do have some good information there.
It is true that technocracy is not political.
It does away with politics and puts in science as an administrator of our social proposal.
Our social proposal is to get rid of money and switch to energy accounting , which uses the resource base as the real measure of wealth.
This also protects the base of resources.
This is done to get to a level of sustainable abundance for all, in North America. Someday perhaps we could help other areas in the world create there own technates and perhaps one day unite with them in a nonpolitical secular/humanistic world, that allows for freedom of , and from belief.
Although nanotechnology and future replicator technology may seem fancifull to you these are things that can be done and are not theory any more but hard science.
As I mentioned our culture has been on the wrong path for some time ,and a lot of suffering comes from that.
One of the grave dangers right now is that instead of using technology ie, machines for future labor , we are opting for people.
No real reason for this except it reinforces the class system which in this kind of a system presently, has to be kept.
The robotic revolution is coming anyway , and with a price system such as ours, will further tear apart the existing culture, and further concentrate wealth of money in fewer and fewer hands, leading to a kind of nightmare if we don`t change. This is accelerating now.
For some interesting writing about that go to Communistrobot.com This site is not about communism , but about the robotics revolution , and it is very interesting.
It is run by a young technocrat named Richard Anders. If you look beyond the home page there , there is some very interesting writing about the future and technocracy, that has been done to try and explain the course we are on and why it leads to disaster. The site mentioned is a warning about communism and capitalism as dead ends.
Another group that might be of interest to the curious is the , Forward Guard. This is based in the upper Midwest of the U.S. and is made up of what is described as militant philosophers , that are interested in the adoption of Technocracy sooner rather than later. This site has some interesting links to education sites they have posted.
One is to N.E.T. or Network of European Technocrats. That group is struggling creatively to try to adapt a technocracy framework concept for Europe presently. They are a spin-off of us here , and use our Study Course as their precedent document. They are trying to figure a way to adopt some of the basics of our ideas within a limited, or proto technate , to become a full technate, when technology allows. They don`t have a large enough resource base now to do that.
With an energy debit card in a technate, each citizen instead of buying something , would get what they wanted for free. Housing , education , food , etc. is free with no strings attached. The accounting method keeps track of the resource base.
Education would blend into work , and the focus would be on a meritocracy as to leaders in what is called the vertical alignment business method. In other words a business structure minus the money basis of decision making.
People would be required to put in about 20 years at a job they choose. Then people would be free to either continue working, or go on to their own full time retirement or whatever it was they wanted to do .
Most normal and healthy young people want to contribute to society, and a good educational system would teach realistically, that it makes sense to be a good citizen in a good society. This insures our survival . Our present system dooms us in a valueless society based on money.
With the elimination of banking , insurance, etc. there would be many other interesting options of work, many environmental , in a completely nonprofit society that has different values altogether than the one we have now.
That type of society is based on creativity .
This plan was hatched by a group of social and hard scientists and some others starting in the teens last century in what is considered to be the first American think tank, at Columbia University.
They did research for over a decade and then published their ideas in the technocracy study course in 1934.
The last edition of this book was in 1948. We are currently thinking of republishing a slightly updated version in a paperback.
This was going to be done around 1970 , but circumstances didn`t allow it then.
Our basic plan relies on a mathematical algorithm that is connected to the energy accounting idea , and that has not changed since the original proposal.
Our proposal is still a transcendent one , as although a human construct, like any proposed human culture , its basic ideas are science , and as a social proposal it does indeed plug into some aspects that a lot of people would agree to be life affirming and freedom based.
It is uniquely American , but plugs into the best of the worlds esoteric spiritual concepts of freedom and at the same time is science based. ~!~
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:18 pm
You consider Beelzebub a fine Science Fiction selection because it describes UFOs and certain scientific developments which were only discovered years later, eh? I don’t even know what to say to that. That’s like calling what was published in the Valis Exegesis by Philip K Dick a fine Science Fiction selection. Christ almighty…
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:24 pm
What specific passes are there in Beelzebub which further the cause of Technocracy? The ideas Gurdjieff espouses in there are not in league with the ideals of technocracy by any means. I am curious about this supposed connection you have found, because I have read Beelzebub many times now and have many specific passages stuck in my mind which are essentially against technocracy…
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:25 pm
passages*
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:04 pm
skip, thanks for your patience in explaining your technocracy. i still think it would take a war of considerable magnitude to allow a wholesale change such as you describe. money is a stumbling block for many because of conditioning. money is an emotion in our society, tied in with the religion of consumerism that tim alludes to above. monleyness is next to godliness…………..if you will excuse my attempt at humour.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:14 pm
You are welcome alistair , and I hope my thumb nail sketch is useful .
At bottom the Technocracy stuff is really fun. It has such a novel take if not heard before , and I think realistic take, it is very alternative to the point of being what all things that are supposedly alternative, can be judged by. Ha.
Tahiti we have clashed before and I find you to be pretty possessive of things Gurdjieff to what ever your reference point is.
The technocracy movement was also a salon movement in New York City in the 20`s and 30`s when Gurdjieff visited here. There was a huge cross over in people and ideas at the time.
Gurdjeiffs message of waking up from brainwashing and belief systems is totally consistant with the Technocracy message. You may find our Technocracy Study Course of interest , and our ideas may interest you.
Gurdjieff was a social activist in the sense that he wanted to point out the mechanicalness of most people and wanted to make people aware of the larger points of living, such as developing themselves to their highest potential.
Technocracy frees society from the tyranny of the annoying and dangerous belief systems that threaten our survival , and provides the framework for a better society while still allowing the maximum of personal freedom.
Gurdjieffs book should be viewed as much more than science fiction , and I certainly view it that way. I just put it in that context of the post for referencing purposes since it is also science fiction , as well as a lot of other things, for sure.
Much like a classic Greek play or a really good Western, it is only a format for the great Gurdjieff to think in .
I love it.
Its great.
As an idea book it can hardly be beaten, and I literally swiped some of his ideas for my own book.
You may or may not be interested in my book , but if you are it can be gotten for free at this site in my post. I list Gurdjieffs book , Meetings With Remarkable Men in my suggested reading list at the back of my book, and also mention him by name in the body of my book in a reference to the ideas of religion.
You may fancy yourself a Gurdjieff expert , but I have played with his ideas for many years and am not trying to pick a bone with you. I am always glad whenever this writer is mentioned as he is one of the really basic influences in my life.
Gurdjieff by nature of being Gurdjieff , is perhaps one of the easiest people in the world to speculate about , as almost everyone that met him had their own way to interpret him.
That is part of the beauty of it I guess. The thing I like is his amazing historical perspective . Also the brilliant spirituality . He was also like most creative people a holey horror and a terror at times.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:36 pm
I’ve been playing the music and reading the books for the past number of years.
There was no single person for Gurdjieff to speak to when he expressed his ideas to each man; he was talking to whichever man was present at the time to listen. Each man was not whole enough in order to fully understand the full breadth of the ideas posed by Gurdjieff, and he knew this as he attempted to teach each person as much as they could fully comprehend. The majority of it was posed and untrue. He had no fear of true initiate teachings getting out to people who were not advanced enough to understand of what he was speaking. It’s not that he was overly cryptic, not by any means; his teachings are very simple once a person is at the level of understanding by which he can grasp them.
I have not merely “played around” with his ideas. You just can’t think over them; you have to DO THEM in order to get anything out of it. I am by no means an “expert”, I just work my ass off attempting to understand, and I have experiences to show for my struggle and can relate my experiences in the course of a conversation. There’s always so much talk, but amongst most people there’s little to show for it when it comes to any actual work.
It is always nice to meet someone else interested in Gurdjieff, so I’ll give you that. And no thanks, but I’m not interested in your veiled form of Communism, reminiscent of Philip K Dick’s colonies on Mars (structures which always left the occupants feeling robotic, a 180* turnaround of the efforts proposed by Gurdjieff). A technocratic society is by no means a positive alternative compared to what we’re in now (it may seem bad now, but once you head to that great level of automation…)
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Ha Ha , funny Tahiti , I won`t attempt to break into the wavelength you project except to say a couple of things.
Live and learn , and —
If you have a hero, look again ; you have diminished yourself in some way.
Everyone lies , cheats, pretends (yes, you too , and most certainly I, myself)
Everyone is in their own way vulnerable. There are no great men.
Love is not enough, but it sure helps.
— Just some ideas to think about.
Also I have mentioned elsewhere that there is no aspect of Communism connected to the technocracy ideas at all.
I have to conclude that you are not really listening to me or you just don`t care about what technocracy actually is , and have a false idea that you prefer.
That’s fine.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Francis Scully , I just now noticed your post and the fact that my site somehow led you here is funny. I myself arrived here inadvertently also from Tims digging around in the back forty of ideas.
I think Scully that your appraisal as you have it, is just about right . There are born technocrats that after hearing the message , it seems to resonate with, and make sense to.
You may be one of those.
Also because of a lot of circumstantial societal things right now the technocracy movement has gained some new followers and also many of the old guard of people that are still around are still out there and promoting our ideas.
I wonder if you downloaded the study course at the time of finding my technocracynow site.?
You sure seem to have grasped the whole thing pretty well.
There is a lot of stuff in the works with technocracy people now , and my particular role is really kind of fun.
We are looking for people like you that are creative and critical thinkers to help us.
If you are interested you may want to contact our headquarters in Washington to volunteer to help or do as you did in this post , which is be an interested party that seems to understand pretty well what we are up to. Thanks , Francis
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Come on, we both read and understand Gurdjieff’s ideas, yes? After all these years of effort I must’ve by now had *some* idea of “I” not being “I”! Who can you be when you’re not “I”? (but at this point in turns into Castaneda, who was also heavily inspired by Gurdjieff! Or Rudi, who used to work in his antique shop during the day and would spend hours doing energetic work while he appeared “normal” to everyone else)
Would you like to discuss something else? The trees? Birds? You’re under the assumption that I have not the faintest idea of what I write, and for what good reason? Do you know me outside of this comment section? Do you know what I have been through in my life? No, of course not. So you should have no reason to think that I am in need of your regurgitated explanation of what you believe Gurdjieff is saying.
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:14 pm
i think everyone is entitiled to thier opinion regarding what people mean by things. the strength of communication comes in it`s responses. it is important to hear and read the responses if you are actually communicating. if you are lecturing then it doesn`t matter what the responses are. you`ve assumed the high seat.
and love is enough………
*/*
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:45 pm
I like being judgmental. It`s fun. If people dissagree I don`t care. Thats freedom.
Just some ideas to think about I said. I am not ordering anyone around. You all know what is best for you, and as I said , just some ideas to think about.
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:24 am
Skip, you saying this over and over again doesn’t make it true!
On another note, I just spotted this interesting review on Salon. Has anyone read this? Technocracy in America
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:37 am
Be judgmental on people you know, for godsakes! Otherwise it’s just hallucinatory gibberish.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:49 am
Interesting technocracy in America thing Tim.
While V. Bush no doubt rubbed elbows with lots and lots of traditional technocrats , he could not be considered one except in the other more general sense in which the word is used.
Him being an active political person or supportive of politics , and believing in the free market , so called, would put him in a different zone than the technocracy people.
In fact the only people we do not allow to join technocracy are actively involved politicians.
Our membership rules exclude politicians from membership , at least active ones. Otherwise we are completely non sectarian.
I hope that fact goes a little ways toward convincing you that we are not , and never have been a political group , and actually oppose politics. Our system gets rid of a political system altogether.
Some interesting thoughts by V. Bush on Democracy. I have to agree with that part of his sentiments.
Technocracy is not a democratic system , which is a political system. It is a science run.
It is an extremely limited democracy at the very very top of itself , as the Sequence directors , which are few in number vote for the Continental Director , as there is no one above that person , to appoint them to that position, in this meritocracy system.
So as I say it is not a democratic system , however, it is in a very very limited and interesting way if what I am describing could be called democracy , or maybe just a very very limited voting.
The continental director has a limited term and can be removed at any time by the majority vote of the Sequence directors.
Tahiti , every time we have engaged you have given me a hard time about something so I am just pushing back.
As I have said I am a number one Gurdjieff fan, and have been since my first contact with his ideas.