I guess. But the political moderators in the corporatocracy would all get laid off once they finished training the AIs. Then it would count as a technocracy.
Technocracy is a form of government in which the decision-maker or makers are selected on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge.
There is a sort of government like that, it's called technocracy, "scientific government". That is where bureacracy comes from, you know, nowadays it's a term of contempt but once, it was the pinnacle of scientific management and government. The EU is a good example of a technocracy, while there is an elected component, all the real power is in the hands of appointed officials. China is another technocracy. Judge for yourself how well that works.
Since democracy seems incapable of progressing with changes in the world, would it ever be possible to have a bureaucratic technocracy? Something where technocrats write up and implement legislation rather than people who have no understanding?
Well, actually if you are going for pedantic, I think you are wrong as well. A technocracy is system in which leaders are chosen based on technical skills in various disciplines, not exactly evidence-based institutional governance. In fact, I think the parent's meaning is a little closer to "correct" than you suggest. I think you charitably say "a technocrat would suggest institution of a solar panel program" or such like that.
You're describing something else "well-enforced set of top-down policies" is how things are structured. You can get that from a king's brutal enforcement of divine law.
Technocracy is how to chose who runs things: "is a system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge. Scientists, engineers, technologists, or experts in any field, would compose the governing body, instead of elected representatives. Leadership skills would be selected on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than parliamentary skills.[2] Technocracy in that sense of the word (an entire government run as a technical or engineering problem) is mostly hypothetical." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
Critically, having someone technical in charge based on an election is not a Technocracy. It's related to Monarchy/Democracy just replace by birth or by election with by demonstrating relevant technical skill. Knowing how to build a CPU for example is not relevant to setting health policy.
PS: The closest we have come is probably a small hunter gather group lead by a group of the eldest. As they are selected based on their skill in survival. Though presumably they had far fewer regulations etc.
I saw this technocracy discussion on reddit. I was wondering if HN would throw in their two bits? Or you know, maybe more than two bits. What do you guys think of a technology driven government?
A technocratic republic, maybe where we got to pick who ends up on legislative subcommittees ourselves[0], might actually be a good thing.
[0] Obviously we can imagine many other forms for a technocratic republic to take; this is just the most similar to the current system, and thus maybe least unreasonable in a path-dependency sense.
I tend to see technocracy as rule by the scientifically trained, by technologists, by career civil servants, by industry, and by institutions. Technocrats gain their credibility as legitimate leaders from the approval of institutions like academia and industry in contrast to leaders whose legitimacy is directly based off of popular approval. Technocrats are often leading from behind the scenes and driving actual government policy despite being unelected, and there's this anti-democratic and elitist aspect to technocracy.
I don't see technocrats as having the same biases, ethical and moral failings as everybody else, I think they're unique on all those points, and this is at the very core of what is good and bad about technocracy. Technocracies are relatively prone to corruption and tyranny, but has a easier time making tough decisions, making counter-intuitive decisions, and being far-sighted.
Hey I'm a systems guy -- technology systems and people systems. If you have a good idea for how a system of people would work to govern themselves, I'm game.
Is there an example -- in the entire history of the planet -- of a government which had no need for secrecy? Sounds cool if it would work.
reply