Skeptic Project

Discuss. I'm nearly clueless.

Neither of them are grounded in reality, so they share that in common. Technocracy wanted to make north america a single economy. It wasn't interested in the entire world. It also wanted to use energy credits as money (which made no sense) and not allow voting (everything would be run by engineers).

Technocracy actually had real scientists and did real scientific work. They worked out of columbia university and had hundreds of thousands of supporters. They were credible.

But that credibility all ended when they proposed energy credits and the dictatorship.

Let me correct a few points of what you said Global Elite Intern:

1) Technocracy, Inc. proposed the North American Technate, which comprised all of North America, but Technocracy, Inc isn't every technocrat.

2) They were interested in the entire world, as were other technocrats. Prior to World War II a popular technocratic idea in Europe was to create a large dam at the Strait of Gibraltar to connect Europe and Africa, and create a vast area for food, people, etc. So this totally disproves the idea it was only about North America.

3) Their credibility never took off, it never had the chance to end, because it never started. The time it was most popular was prior to World War II, during the Great Depression, and even then the Communist Party in the US was way more popular.

4) Dictatorship? Hierarchy based on skill isn't dictatorship, though it definitely isn't democratic. Furthermore energy credits at least attempt to answer questions about how money could be replaced. I recall Peter Joseph Merola talking about how some HAL9000-like super computer at the center of every city would decide everything. The scariest part was when he proclaimed this great electronic brain would decide what ideas were possible and which weren't. Thankfully, the super computer can help us not think too hard.

I know this stuff and I'm not even close to being a Technocrat; I hope you're an unpaid intern.

As for the differences between "RBE" and Technocracy, well RBE is just some vague idea about the future, primarily based on the idea we're all born blank slates. Technocracy at least seems to understand the idea of some sort of control within society, not some kind of post-industrial hippie commune. Technocracy essentially says that rather than he with the biggest stick winning (Libertarianism), he with the biggest brain wins. How in the world you could judge that I don't know.

The question only stated "technocracy" it never specified "Inc." Just as when someone says "Communism" I don't assume only the specific brand of Marxism-Leninism of the Communist Party, USA.

I think it is moronic to believe in any of them.

Asshole it is then.

...And that is the problem with an RBE: It is an ideology not a solution or an economic system. Its goal is to eliminate money not make the world a better place.

Previous definitions are pretty good, but I think when it comes to "Resource Based Economies" it's essentially a way to say non-Marxist communism without using that dirty word. I think technocracy is an inevitable part of the future over the next couple of hundred years, but I don't think you can force it, nor do I think it's by any means revolutionary to consider it. I'm much more interested in dancing girls!

There is a far greater chance of the world being taken over by dancing girls than a technocracy.

As automation increases, labor decreases, and in time there simply won't be anywhere close to enough jobs for everyone, so something will come about because of that, and due to the technological aspects, I think technocracy is a likely candidate. Because you, GEI, think technocracy is all energy credits and dictatorships -- in fact so far on this board you seem to think everything except what you like is a form of dictatorship -- your opinion about the future of technocracy is basically worthless, because you don't know what you're talking about, in any aspect, about anything you've brought up thus far. Please, oh please, stop thinking you're a smart guy, because you're not.

Hell, my 18 year old daughter kept schooling your ass, and you and I are about the same age, that's embarrassing. If in this time you haven't improved your total ignorance about society, history, and everything else, I doubt there's a chance you ever will.

I don't care that people "like the idea."

I care that it's viable and/or practical. And it's not.

President Camacho,

If I insulted your 18 year old daughter on this board or was obnoxious to her, I apologize. (I guess that was Roxette?)

Roxette, my discourse with you from here on out will be nothing but cordial.

But for the record, nobody is going to school me on this board. I'm pretty sure my IQ exceeds everyone's here combined.

And I don't know why it is so hard to understand that my response was about technocracy inc., not a technocracy. And I never claimed that every form of a technocracy uses energy credits.

Speaking of IQ...

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4235</p>

I'll just leave that here.

A thread that had nothing to do with DemandTheWooLife has once again been derailed by someone not on a crusade to promote DemandTheWooLife.

"Muertos, that's because you don't get it. But I don't blame you. The founder of demandTheGoodLife.com plays the clarinet. He is an expert. You are not. So you need to view my utube channel in order to get better educated."

My answer to your question is right here GEI.

Derp.