SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Portentous changes to the work economies of India and the USA due to job automation by machines and robots continue to make headlines. Varieties of hardware and software automation are seeing implementation burgeon in both countries, as companies seek efficiency by replacing humans with machines. Wage erosion in areas previously unaffected by automation - including varieties of programming - is getting commoner while new, albeit highly specialized, engineering jobs are created. Both articles encourage educational changes mindful of these realities, though how colleges either side of the world can adapt to the blistering pace of automation is unclear.
The latest tranche of job automation news comes hot on the heels of Davos' prediction that machine automation will result in a net loss globally of over 5 million jobs prior to 2020.
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:47PM
Well, I certainly meant that you want to own land on the territory of a Technate. However you are saying that "Technocracy deals with use, not ownership." But ownership is the right of use! I don't need to own 1,000 hectares of best land in Europe. I just want to use it as I see fit. Will that work?
Ownership is *a* right of use, not the only one. Even today we have all sorts of licensing type rights of use. In the Technate it is all in accordance with the Technate's primary goal, which is to "provide the highest standard of living possible to citizens for the longest period possible." If we let you have that much land to do with as you see fit, then we have to let everyone do that. However, that is just not going to be possible, and even if it was, it would not be providing them with the highest standard of living possible because there would be no centralized planning. It would be no better than the USA during colonial times, where a person had a parcel of land, and they'd farm it, maybe trade a bit, etc. Who'd build the railroads? Or the interstate highways? Or the power plants capable of powering several cities? Or you might say that the rich people would do that and then charge for the use of these things, but then it'd be no different from today, whereas the things you can accomplish with Technocracy would give everyone a much higher standard of living due to greatly increased efficiency.
This means that a Technate is nothing but a commune where everyone is forced by the managers to live in barracks.
Goodness, this is wrong on so many levels. I think that you are doing the elephant thing again, filling in the blanks with your knowledge of other things that aren't relevant here.
First of all, no one is being "forced". Technocracy is a completely voluntary society. Not only does it have to be democratically voted in, but the people have to "volunteer" to abide by certain criteria in order to make it work, and thereby enjoy the benefits. It cannot be imposed, or it wouldn't work. If the people decided that they didn't like it for whatever reason, they could just stop, and it would stop working, and they could then do whatever else they wanted.
Secondly, they are hardly "barracks". Part of "the highest standard of living possible" means that people would get the best living conditions. Comfortable, sound-proof, fire-proof, pest-proof, climate controlled, almost anything you want delivered right into your home [technocracy.ca] including cooked meals if you want, easy access to all the amenities, virtually everything within walking distance and free transportation for those things that aren't, or if you are handicapped, or just feel like not walking. Basically, it would be like living in a resort hotel. I'm sure not many people are going to see that as living in hardship.
The managers themselves, of course, would need better housing... like in villas that are denied to me... I have seen all that from inside the USSR.
Ok, you are definitely doing the elephant thing again if you are filling in the blanks with things you know from the USSR, which is a completely different animal. First of all, it was a scarcity economy, so it couldn't provide a high standard of living to everyone if it tried. The best it could hope for an equal share of that scarcity. Second, it was a dictatorship, so of course it was going to be abused. Technocracy is not like that at all. How can you provide the highest standard of living to every citizen if some have a higher standard of living than others? Plus, there is no political power to abuse. So that's not going to happen.
Short of genetically changing the man, there is no workaround.
Ah yes, the old "man is greedy by nature" argument. It is easy to see why people think this is true, because they have observed it in every society to date. But that doesn't mean that it will happen every time. First an analogy: People for centuries in history would all agree from millions of observations that lead is a hard, dull metal. But then one day a guy heats it up enough and finds that its "nature" changes to that of a glowing, orange liquid, completely different! But we know that its nature did not change, it was simply its behaviour; its "nature" (or physical composition) accommodates both forms of behaviour, depending on its environment. Human beings are like this, their behaviour changes when their environment changes, and the environment of Technocracy is one of abundance, not scarcity. Ah, but you address this in what you say next:
Forget the material goods that robots can make. Focus on goods that robots cannot make. Those would be land, natural resources, and power over other humans. That's where the next phase of competition will play out. What is the ultimate end of that progression?
Nice theory, but it doesn't follow when you work it through. Again I'll mention that you have have to ask yourself: What does having (blank) do for me? What is its purpose? Let's try land. Why do people really want land? It's not an end in itself. It is so that they can have perhaps security, a place to grow crops, do what they enjoy, other things? And for some of that you have to keep going. What does growing crops do for me? Provide me with food, or an income. It's those end results that people really want; the means to get them only matter in how effective they are, and if there is a more effective method, then people will easily change to wanting that instead. So if in a Technate people can already have security, all the food they want, can do what they enjoy, etc., then why bother with land? The same goes for natural resources, since land is one after all. As for power over other humans, well, what do you get out of that? Taken to an extreme, slaves. What are slaves for? To do work for you. Why? To improve your standard of living. Well what do you think machines are for? That's the whole point of Technocracy, to maximize the effectiveness of machines to improve your standard of living. The machines are your slaves! And a lot better ones too. They work harder, don't complain, don't need rest or sleep, and are capable of a much wider variety of tasks than any group of humans will ever be able to. You can have a much better life with machines working for you than you can with 1000 hectares of land and a million slaves. So why choose that?
If technocracy is not a sufficiently complete system, then it is not capable of governing the society.
Blaming Technocracy for not handling scarcity is like blaming a hammer for not handling screws. It's called "using the right tool for the job." Even today we use more than one "tool" in our society. Our economy uses a mix of both capitalism and socialism because neither are seen to be a "complete" solution. And then for our politics we use democracy, something different for a different job. Technocracy is a far more "complete" system than anything used today. But ok, let's get into the details:
For example, use of air is largely free today. Imagine that we have a government that issues breathing certificates to every citizen, but does not care what we eat and where we live. Immediately a black market will spring up, where people would be trading every resource that is not available for free. This may be not a defect of the system, but it would be a deadly omission.
Ok, I don't even understand what you're suggesting here. The government issues breathing certificates to people, why? I am assuming that they have some way of restricting your access to air in order to make this enforceable? That's called artificial scarcity, and it is exactly what we have today with pretty much everything except air. We could be producing an abundance of goods and services, but we aren't, just so we can keep using this outdated scarcity economic system that keeps the rich and powerful in power.
But moving on; a black market will spring up trading everything that is not available for free. In the example you are proposing, why would this happen? Would it not be just like today anyway? Is it illegal to trade goods in this system? Or is this whole example supposed to be taking place in a Technate? Ok, let's try that. For some reason air is scarce now. That'd pretty much kill the Technate right there. Why? Because it can only work when there is an abundance of goods and services. But as you've pointed out, and I agreed, some things will always be scarce. But the difference is that you make no distinction between these things, whereas I do. People are not going to go crazy because they don't all have an original Mona Lisa. They will if they can't all get enough air to breathe. See the difference? Sure there are infinite human wants, but there are only certain things people actually need to live, and it is when you can provide those in abundance that Technocracy can work.
But it is not an "omission" that Technocracy does not deal with scarcity. Like I said, there are already many perfectly good (and many other bad) methods of dealing with this. I've already given some examples. using these methods does not necessitate the emergence of a "black market". Suppose people want to trade their antiques with each other, what's wrong with that? Suppose someone really wants your antique watch, but has no other antique to trade for it. Maybe they have something else, like they can make you an original painting, or a scarf that belonged to Brad Pitt, whatever. But really, since the emphasis in a Technocracy will be taken off of "owning" things, I really think that the majority of people will stop placing so much importance on it, and most such things would just go to museums where they can be enjoyed by everyone.
Again, use and ownership are largely synonyms.
As I pointed out before, no they are not. You are conflating the two. There are many types of use that do not involve ownership. Ownership is only one type of use. In Technocracy, there may be many different ways to allow the use of something, but they all have to answer to the highest purpose of the land: to provide the highest standard of living to all citizens for the longest possible period. I know I keep mentioning it, but I can't help that it remains relevant. Some examples: You can use your apartment to live in, sleep, eat, entertain, visit, etc. because that does contribute to your standard of living and does not take away from anyone else's. You cannot blow up your apartment because that would take away from the standard of living of others (mostly in damaging other's apartments, but also because then additional resources would have to be used in rebuilding it). You cannot use that factory however you want because failing to use it in the most optimum way to produce what the population is asking for is taking away from their standard of living. You can take whatever food is available to you in order to eat it, or even save it for later. You cannot take 1000 kg of food because no one can consume that and it would be taking it away from others. Do you see the difference? Let's look at your examples.
I would want to use 100,000 tons of gold to make a statue of myself. Or 100,000 statues and place them all around my estate of 100,000 acres.
Given how much gold there is in the world (it's not the most abundant metal or else it wouldn't be so valuable), I think it is safe to say that you hoarding this much of it would easily take away from the standard of living of others. It is a useful industrial metal after all. And how on Earth does having a giant statue of yourself contribute to your standard of living? Even today that would be considered ostentatious and wasteful. Now, one might claim it as "art", and that would be a potentially valid reason. But you couldn't just ask for (and get) anything you want in the name of art. The Technate would be fully aware of how much it had of every resource in excess that it could commit to such kinds of art. If there was enough to satisfy everyone's requests, then it is in abundance and no limitations are needed. It would be just like most other things. If there was not, then it would be scarce, by definition, and like I said, a scarcity-based solution would need to be devised. Perhaps a vote could be had so that people could decide which art projects that use large amounts of gold (or whatever) they would like to see most. Maybe it would be something else. The actual "Technocracy" portion of the administration would not be able to decide that because like I said it is not designed to do that. It could help provide people with the means to do so though, such as providing the systems necessary to have such a vote.
Again I hear words that worry me. Who decides who is an average citizen? What is a common or uncommon request? Who judges how good is the intended use? Those are attributes of a totalitarian state.
Wow, I'd really like to hear how you came to that conclusion. How do you determine what is an "average" request? It's really quite simple, it's called statistics. If 99.9% of people consume no more than 20 grams of gold per year (whether it be in jewellery, electronics, etc.), then I think that makes the 0.1% of people as outliers. Does this make it automatically bad? Of course not. But somewhere a line has to be drawn. Not many people are going to be trying to have 1000 pairs of shoes per year, but those that do will need to be looked at. So where do the number come from? Well it is a complicated issue. Part of it would be like I said before: if all the people's consumption can be met with existing resources then it's probably fine. There would also be issues of throwing off efficiency too much, and perhaps overconsumption could be indicative of some deeper problem that needs to be addressed (either something psychological, someone providing Technate goods to other countries outside of existing trade treaties, etc.). But really we are talking about some pretty fringe cases here. It hardly makes it a dictatorship. Again I'll point out that the guiding principle is whether or not people are getting the highest standard of living or not, And that bit about "for the longest possible period" is important too because of course you want it to be sustainable. You could probably achieve an even higher standard of living without it, but only for a much shorter time.
And if you are that worried about any restriction on your consumption, how about our society today? You are not absolutely free to own or buy anything you want. Drugs? Uranium? WMDS? Company secrets? Heck, even copyright laws severely restrict what you can have and what you can do with it. Does that make our society a totalitarian state? Technocracy would be a much more free society than today. Not 100%, for the reasons I've already stated, but far more than today.
I don't intend to channel Leo Trotsky, but why would the rest of the world NOT adopt the wonderful system of Technocracy? After all, they only need robots, and a Technate can produce plenty of robots - enough to kickstart the conversion everywhere. So why wouldn't they? Why would a Technate need a wall with machine guns and flamethrowers, so to say, around it?
Ok, are you not understanding me, or are you just reaching for any argument against it now? You are talking about something completely different here. I was talking about countries trying to smuggle goods out of the Technate so they can be used/sold/whatever in their own countries. Obviously if they can get them for "free" because nobody is checking who is taking them, that means a huge profit potential for them. You on the other hand are now talking other countries adopting the Technocracy system in order to produce their own goods. Very different topics.
But if you want to talk about that sure. The answer is: no reason that I can think of. There is a reason why they would not be able to though, and that is because they would need the three requirements of Technocracy: sufficient natural resources, sufficient installed technology to turn those resources into use forms, and sufficient trained personnel to operate that technology. And yes, of course a Technate would do everything it could to help other countries make this happen, if that is indeed what they want, from providing technical assistance, new technology, etc.
And who said anything about a wall with weapons? You're sinking into hyperbole here.
Additionally, a Technate does not need to periodically distribute any energy certificates to certify that you are a citizen. It's enough that you have a passport! You get it once, and you can procure items wherever you want, isn't it logical?
Energy Certificates, like most of Technocracy's proposals, are just that: proposals. If/when a better idea in order to accomplish Technocracy's goal (you remember what that is by now I hope) comes up, of course it would be used. And in fact it has. Even the Energy Certificate document says, right at the very beginning, that it is now an outdated concept and that we have better ideas we can use today, thanks to the advances in technology. As for your idea of a passport, an ID card [technocracy.ca] is not a new idea.
Man, you are truly scaring me. This is the society that you are proposing?
No, I'm afraid that you are scaring yourself. Either you are being so gripped by fear and paranoia that it is clouding your ability to reason (which up until now I thought was better than average), or you are already dead set against the idea and just making things up to justify it. I hate to be this harsh, but the things you say in this paragraph are so outlandishly incorrect I don't know where you are getting them from. Bear with me while I show you:
Where every request is inspected by hordes of bureaucrats
See there? You said "every request", while I was clearly talking about statistical outliers, a very small minority of cases. Even today, people buying odd amounts of some things, like cough medicine that could be used to make illegal drugs, is investigated, but not everyone who buys cough medicine. So I have to ask, why did you jump to "every request"?
And "hoards of bureaucrats"? Nothing I've said gives you any basis for this. It may very well be the first thing to pop into your mind while reading what I wrote, but that's on you, not me. I can easily picture only two or three people involved. Would you like me to describe how?
and the citizen is "invited" to a local equivalent of KGB "for a chat" ???
Again with the hyperbole. Why does it have to be the KGB? Of course, because from your earlier comments you are convinced that the Technate is nothing more than the USSR reincarnate, so naturally this would be the same too. (sigh) No. The investigation would be by the Sequence of Social Relations, and they are not even the police, let alone any kind of secret service. They're there to help smooth out any problems people might be having. They are more like marriage counselling than anything. Not nearly as scary as you seem to think.
Why would they be going to work if nobody else needs to? How their noble efforts will be compensated?
Now you've jumped topics completely, but ok. Remember the shortest definition of Technocracy? "A society where machines do all the work people don't want to do." (It's right there in the beginning of the Technocracy for Beginners page.) So whenever you need to ask "Why would someone work/do that?" The answer is simple: Because they want to! Their "efforts" don't need to be compensated because they want to be there. Volunteer society, remember? And since the SSR are more like counsellors than secret police like you think, their work is about helping people, which many people like to do, more than interrogating them.
Doesn't it separate them into the new номенклатура (nomenklatura) - a class of privileged party officials who oversee activities of everyone else?
No, it doesn't. I hope you can see why now.
As I said, this is a frightening prospect - and a dead end, because the rulers are always striving to own it all; such is the human nature. It does not even mean much that you personally don't intend to - it's enough that 0.01% of the population are budding dictators and control freaks. It's them who gets into politics, and it's them who ends up as a ruler - because they want to, and because they are ruthless enough.
This is a understandable concern, but an incorrect assessment of Technocracy. There are two reasons for this. 1) There is no political government in the Technate. Thus, there are no positions of "power" to abuse. I know this sounds incredible, because you've never seen it before, but it still entirely doable. 2) There would be no gain in it. Again, ask yourself what does all this power do for me? What is the end result? For most people, it's a better standard of living. They want to "live like a king." For most people, this is already sated in how high the standard of living would be. Only people with true mental problems would want more at the expense of others, and there'd be no mechanism by which they could achieve it. Ok, if we want to indulge in gross speculation, sure, it might be remotely possible with an ingenious enough plan, and enough patience and effort to totally wreck the Technate just so you can have make everyone else suffer beneath you. But really, it would be far harder to accomplish in Technocracy than any other system. Such would-be dictators would be much better off moving to some other country were such a plan would be far easier.
And I've already addressed your concerns about "human nature" already. It's just a common myth that humans are unchangeably greedy and power-hungry. The fact of the matter is that one of the most defining attributes of human beings is their adaptability, which is why we see such wide varieties of behaviour in different environments. And really, the fact that there are so many people today that are quite the opposite, and are instead helpful and giving [technocracy.ca], despite the fact that our environment encourages anti-social behaviour (because it rewards successful crime and corruption with money and power), is a testament I think to the fact that human beings are more good than not, because so many act that way despite all the pressure not to. Now change that environment to one where most such anti-social behaviour is either impossible and/or unprofitable, and instead encourages pro-social behaviour, and I think we will see the "nicest" society that ever existed.