Skeptic Project

while I think that technology is great I do think that it is moving too fast for us. For example, and I am not a conspiracy theorist by all means, those body scanners at the airport. They came out too fast without anyone discussing the consequences of how the public would feel about the idea of strangers seeing their naked body. I think that the developers, the government and anyone else involved should have done more to research ways to have the technology but make it less intrusive such as software that renders an ambigious image, having someone (perhaps behind a small cubicle) at the scanner itself viewing the image so that the public can actually see the person and their image if they so wished. But this technology was haphazardly put into place and I can see where people are upset about their privacy being intruded on.
Other than that there is wonderful technology out there and many more will be made. I am not afraid of technology itself, just how it can be abused.

This is supposed to be people telling me why technocracy is good and then me being a cynic and giving reasons why its not.

"technocracy will put the smart people in charge of the others"

That is what is very appealing to me about a technocracy.

smart

you don't do that?

Intelligence is needed to understand ethics. Dumb, nice people aren't very good leaders.

Intelligent, unethical people created the United States. What they created was better than anything anyone else could've dreamt up at the time.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean ethics should be put before intelligence.

I don't know. Hopefully, there are enough smart enough people and checks and balances to counter them.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean ethics should be put before intelligence.

Why not? This comment makes me think of a bunch of Stephen Hawking type guys in the White House like that's going to solve all the problems... I don't want the most intelligent people to be the leaders, I want the most capable people to be the leaders.

I think the issue is a mix between whether capability is correlated with popularity, and whether capability will result in a pursuit of public goals vs. personal ones.

You could probably expand the question to include media, and ask how public opinion can be reshaped to make certain leaders appear more capable, when they are actually inept or unwilling to deal with the problems at hand.

I haven't heard a good definition of technocracy yet, so I'll reserve judgment for later.

I'm not sure of CS's reasons, but I'd say it's because they were racist, sexist, rich slave owners.

The point is that people who were inhumane were also smart enough to devise a pretty solid consitution.

Plus also there's the promise George Washington made to drive the natives off of the continent.