TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

M King Hubbert and the Technocracy movement (6 posts)

1. truthmod
   Administrator

   I don't really like the name, but the concept sounds great...

   http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/4808#more

   ---

   Genesis of the Technocrats

   M. King Hubbert joined the staff of Columbia University in 1931 and met Howard Scott, who had earlier founded a short-lived group of engineers and scientists called "The Technical Alliance". Hubbert and Scott co-founded Technocracy Incorporated in 1933, with Scott as leader and Hubbert as Secretary.

   The Technocrats were influenced by figures such as Thorsten Veblen, author of "Engineers and the price system", and Frederick Soddy, winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1921 and author of "Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt" which looked at the role of energy in economic systems. Soddy criticized the focus on monetary flows in economics, arguing that “real” wealth was derived from the use of energy to transform materials into physical goods and services.

   ---

   Technocracy

   Technocracy is form of government which is administered by scientists and technical experts, resulting in a form of planned economy.

   The Technocracy movement aimed to establish a zero growth, science based socio-economic system, based on ideas of conservation and abundance as opposed to the usual scarcity-based economic systems.

   In a technocratic system, money is replaced with energy acounting, which records the amount of energy used to produce and distribute goods and services consumed by citizens in a Technate (Technocracy based society). The units of this accounting system are known as Energy Certificates.

   Energy certificates are not saved or earned, but periodically distributed among the populace, with the number calculated by determining the total productive capacity of the technate and dividing it equally after infrastructure requirements are met. Certificates not used during a period expire.

   Posted 15 years ago #
2. Durruti
   Member

   Are you being sarcastic? I certainly hope so.

   Posted 15 years ago #
3. truthmod
   Administrator

   Yeah, it sounds like a recipe for fascistic control, I know. But a government run by people who use (real) science and an understanding the scientific necessity of living sustainable does sound good to me. I think of it more as a society based on Truth, than a society based on the whims of certain individuals/scientists.

   Who knows, maybe they all were authoritarian fascists, but I'm impressed that they were contemplating a zero-growth society way back in the 30s.

   You can say that that the science would always be corrupted to serve the authorities interests, but then what is the alternative? Maybe the missing component here is democratic information--there is no sense in a science-based government unless the populace understand and agree with the decisions...

   Posted 15 years ago #
4. chrisc
   Member

   I wondered if the "Technocrats" were related to the "Venus Project" and it seems that there were:

   J. Fresco ... who has something called ''Venus Probject'' which is mostly his opinions about society related to energy economics and his morality ethical concerns. Fresco was a card carrying technocrat, but dropped out of the org... most of his ideas come from that source though... minus the concept of Energy accounting.. which he does not endorse. He does not consider himself a technocrat.

   http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/4808#comment-438752

   Posted 15 years ago #
5. Durruti
   Member

   "You can say that that the science would always be corrupted to serve the authorities interests, but then what is the alternative? Maybe the missing component here is democratic information--there is no sense in a science-based government unless the populace understand and agree with the decisions..."

   Yes I agree with this. Ironically, the only type of human society that has been truly successful in establishing autonomy, social justice and harmony with the environment is that of the hunter-gatherer -- precisely the opposite of a technocratic society (or is it? I guess it depends how we define our terms). "Primitiivsts" argue that this is due to lack of "civilization", others (including myself) argue that the their success lies in their social organization -- which is directly democratic. When everyone is invited into the decision making process the decisions will reflect the interests of the entire population. When a specific class is allocated sole decision making power the decisions will reflect their class bias. Seems incredibly obvious yet many people have a difficult time grasping the concept. Part of the problem is that people have been so dumbed down under capitalism that the prospect of a participatory society is even more frightening to many people than elite rule. I mean, what happens if you're a gay abortion doctor and live in Texas ;)

   Kant had a very interesting view on this topic: he believed that the "masses" could never be expected to evolve to the point where elites considered "them" fit for self government WHILE being treated like children. The very act of participation and face-to-face democracy encourages more responsible behavior. It also brings one into contact with the people you have been taught to hate.

   Getting back to the "primitive", it's strange to think about human society in terms of time. So Diamond (whom I frequently disagree with) wrote:

   "Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we’re still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it’s unclear whether we can solve it. Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture’s glittering façade, and that have so far eluded us?"

   I see absolutely no reason -- aside from apparent suicidal tendencies amongst elites -- that mankind cannot embrace the best aspects of both the "primitive" and the "civilized" and thereby create a more free society than has ever existed.

   You say I'm a dreamer....

   Posted 15 years ago #
6. truthmod
   Administrator

   Yes, real scientists (people who base their conclusions on reason/truth) would clearly be urging a return to more sustainable lifestyles and a move away from technology/exploitation as we know it. They would also see the rationality in an equitable society.

   Posted 15 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.