Skeptic Project

Omni, our conversation has not yet degraded into mudslinging. This is a first. Let's see how long it will last. And just to show Matt I am not part of a conspiracy to recruit people into a utopia, I am willing to discuss any topic you want in a civil manner not just my utopia.

My comment to Muertos about the clarinet was a joke. That's all.

That is why you think it is not viable?

Are you sure, because I think you mud-slinged technocracy by comparing its likelihood of being applied with that of dancing girls ruling the world.

And while I know it was a joke (hence why I mentioned how Band sucks, because I'm in my high school's orchestra), if you have to point someone to Youtube to make them "understand" and "get educated," then sufficient red flags have been raised that should bar the person's rhetoric from being taken seriously.

"Orchestra: The rich kid's band. :("

I can afford many luxuries on my parent's cool combined 34 grand yearly income.

Are you referring to a technocracy or technocracy inc?

I think we already live in a technocracy. Although some people in government are elected, the overwhelming majority of what government does is managed by experts. Elected officials rely on staffs of experts. And of course everything outside of government is run by experts.

GEI, your statement is bullshit.

"Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields."

"Meritocracy is a system of government or another organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated intelligence and ability (merit)."

Also, Bush was president for two terms.

Conclusion: No, we do not live in a technocracy.

Experts are not immune from implementing dumb ideas.

"Experts are not immune from implementing dumb ideas."

Perfectionist fallacy.

Typical Experts do dumb shit all the time. But it's only dumb shit after they realize the failure, rethink everything, and improve upon the original concept.

In contrast, typical politicians do dumb shit and NEVER learn from their mistakes or the mistakes of others.

Kaiser, wiki is amateur hour. Do you answer questions? Are you the 18 year old daughter?

Im not the 18 year old daughter, you tron. Now, next time dont use words you dont actually know what they mean.

In our society, technical decisions about engineering, health, science, etc are made by people who are experts in those fields. It is a technocracy. Politicians aren't doing things like approving drugs.

I also stand by my comment that experts are able to implement dumb ideas. It has nothing to do with the perfectionist fallacy. Imperfection is OK. Stupidity is not.

Politicians are mostly sleazy, fraudulent con artists.

"In our society, technical decisions about engineering, health, science, etc are made by people who are experts in those fields. It is a technocracy. Politicians aren't doing things like approving drugs."

Technical decisions in our society can be stonewalled and sometimes discarded by our current form of government. In a technocratic society that wouldn't be the case.

I imagine that were it up to experts, cigarettes would've been banned, depending on what their priorities were.

"I also stand by my comment that experts are able to implement dumb ideas. It has nothing to do with the perfectionist fallacy. Imperfection is OK. Stupidity is not."

You're insinuating (or were insinuating) that technocracy is not ideal due to the capability of experts being able to employ dumb ideas. And you missed my point about the difference between experts and politicians (i.e, experts usually learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others, whereas most politicians do not).

Technical decisions in our society can be stonewalled and sometimes discarded by our current form of government. In a technocratic society that wouldn't be the case.

Technical decisions do not mean they are always black and white. You will always need to deal with gray areas where there may not be 100% consensus among experts. You will never be able to completely avoid technical decisions being stonewalled or discarded.

You're insinuating (or were insinuating) that technocracy is not ideal due to the capability of experts being able to employ dumb ideas.

Technocracy is ideal. Technical people should be making decisions regarding technical things.

And you missed my point about the difference between experts and politicians

They play different roles. Politicians are meant to represent the will of the people. They are not making technical decisions.

As I mentioned above, I thought you originally were talking about technocracy, inc. I believe technocracy, inc is moronic.

@GEI,

You didn't insult either one of us, you couldn't be more off on what I was telling you. So, your ability to communicate ideas is just as bad as your ability to understand them.

@Omni-Science

There are some societies that are run based on superstition and folklore. The US (and most other countries) is not one of them. They are run based on the decisions of experts. Technical experts have control over the levers of power.