Technocracy: Yes/No?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I think you'll find that "scheming" and "manipulation" is just the cynic's term for "people skills".

Just imagine if tech people ran the world. We'd see a new Crusade, with the role of Peter the Hermit played by Linus Torvalds.

[DanS]

[Az]

more like .

Once again, I am saying that those WON'T BE computer geeks.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Planning on spicing up the mix with engineering geeks too?

[MikeH]

Can't we have some girls in politics?

[Az]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Planning on spicing up the mix with engineering geeks too?

As you saw yourself, Ind. Engineers are even to hip to be considered engineers by the "real" engineers. Seriously, They are not only skilled in the job politicans should be doing, i.e. managing things, and organizing things for maximum efficiency, but are also skilled a lot in leading people.



Oh, and no, I am not an Ind. engineer.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by MikeH
Can't we have some girls in politics?

Rule by math majors then? That's what the girls are going into at my university.

[:) Smiley]

People skills are becoming proportionally less important now, however, as more services become automated. It's simply cheaper and more effective to replace a bumbling bureaucrat with a computer terminal. Good management now is as much about managing machines as it is managing people.

I would say China's government is doing a darn good job given what it has available to work with. However, their government is not democratic. Perhaps it is because their leadership knows that democratic government would cause a shift to favor lawyers and politicians?

Interestingly, the the traditional method of Chinese government, which the current system still has many elements of, substituted election democracy for examination democracy. People who did better on civil service exams were the ones who became government leaders. You could say that this system isn't completely fair, but neither is the election system. In both situations wealth gives one advantages, but in the examination system wealth can only get one so far.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by St Leo


Rule by math majors then? That's what the girls are going into at my university.

Maths? No way, those losers.

[DanS]

People skills are becoming proportionally less important now, however, as more services become automated.

SARS. 'nuff said.

[yavoon]

gov't should be run by ppl who don't want to run it. distrust all who seek power fervently

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Smiley
People skills are becoming proportionally less important now, however, as more services become automated. It's simply cheaper and more effective to replace a bumbling bureaucrat with a computer terminal. Good management now is as much about managing machines as it is managing people.

Anyone who thinks that "people skills" are going to become less important should go back and study the entire length of human history. Simply put, some people get ahead and others do not. Much of that is determined by the set of talents and skills included in the catchall term "people skills". Much of what this term refers to is the ability to play and win at politics: job politics, social politics, civic politics, any form of politics. Humans are political animals and oldshcool human politics will remain fundamentally important to the governance of humanity for as long as there are still humans, any humans, in charge.

The thing that typically doesn't occur to people when they consider "replacing politicians" as the leadership is that this is a contradiction in terms. By definition, the people holding political leadership become politicans. The fact that they have no experience just makes them piss-poor politicians.

I would say China's government is doing a darn good job given what it has available to work with. However, their government is not democratic. Perhaps it is because their leadership knows that democratic government would cause a shift to favor lawyers and politicians?

It is worth noting that China is run, primarily by bureacratic politicians who have spent their entire lives in the cutthroat business of internal Communist Party politics. The entire ruling class of China are politicians. The ones really in charge are 70-90 year-old politicans so thoroughly bread by spending their entire lives in internal party politics that they've gotten very good at playing the game.

Don't fool yourself, lack of democracy does not mean lack of politics. Politics was around long before democracy was invented and it would survive long after democracy died.

Interestingly, the the traditional method of Chinese government, which the current system still has many elements of, substituted election democracy for examination democracy. People who did better on civil service exams were the ones who became government leaders. You could say that this system isn't completely fair, but neither is the election system. In both situations wealth gives one advantages, but in the examination system wealth can only get one so far.

The current Chinese system is based increasingly upon social connections and family ties, much as the original one was. The power players in the Communist Party largely play a game of clan politics vying for power, money, and prestige with each other as much as they have ideological and policy battles inside the party.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by yavoon
gov't should be run by ppl who don't want to run it. distrust all who seek power fervently

Aside from the fact that, by definition, this leaves no-one to rule who isn't being dishonest if they agree to seek and take on the job...

It would leave society doomed to be governed by what it determined to be its least competent members. Talk about a Dystopia...

[MikeH]

Not wanting to do something doesn't imply incompetence.

[Q Classic]

now that i think about it, government will never change, no matter what stipulations we put on it.

so all i will settle for is this: those who do not understand technology should be prohibited from making decisions that affect it.

meaning, we shouldn't have idiot politicians voting for the dcma thinking it's a good thing.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by St Leo


Rule by math majors then?

Mathematicians are a dangerous group of people, in my eyes.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
now that i think about it, government will never change, no matter what stipulations we put on it.

so all i will settle for is this: those who do not understand technology should be prohibited from making decisions that affect it.

Applying this, the more complex technology gets, the more effort people will need to go through to understand it. Since humans have limited mental capacity, this means over time politicians would be a greater % engineer and a lesser % lawyer.

I don't buy the whole "past precedent" idea, automation of traditionally human services is unprecedented, and when full artificial intelligence comes along it'll be a whole new situation.