Talk:Technocracy movement/Archive 1

message: Do not cite articles written by Technocracy to 'validate' any 'facts' Technocrats come up with.
For example, the statement things that cost a lot do not actually take that much energy to produce should not be referenced to an article on Energy Accounting. You need a primary source of original research for a statement as controversial as this one. Technocrats surely may believe this statement, but where is the research supporting it?
Until we get the mess that's here properly cited, how about we don't add any more logs to the dwindling fire? Let's keep the article concise and encyclopedic. If you want to attract more members, all you need is a link to your website.
154.5.41.198 05:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please read before editing 

message: The section Labour utilization: shortening of the work day should either be removed or fit in to the article in some way. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of the formula given, so I cannot verify it, but I do know that the shortening of the work week to four, four-hour days is a central part of the Technocratic philosophy. The paragraph should be verified and expanded. Right now I'm leaning towards removing it.
Actually, for an organization that preaches science, you certainly aren't doing a very good job of citing any sources in the article. You should at least be mentioning the TTSD, but preferably any studies done by the Technical Alliance at the time.154.5.41.198 16:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact Checks And Sources

message: I just finished reading "In Praise of Idleness" (1935), an essay by Bertrand Russell in which he pushes for a 4 hour workday due to technological advancement in production (I added a link to the essay in the article). I immediately thought of Technocracy. This essay was published (written?) in 1935, which makes me think that either he influenced or was influenced by the Technocratic movement. Does anyone know anything about this? Wikipedia brown 04:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Russell was active in the Fabian socialist movement.  His political thought was certainly very sympathetic to many technocratic ideas, but was generally more abstract than any ideology.  Roads to Freedom makes patent his political promiscuity: Russell was willing to support any movement that would tend to push history towards human freedom, humane social relations, and the rational satisfaction of human needs.  (Although when nuclear war was concerned, he seemed to prefer social injustice to complete ruin).  On the other hand, Russell was deeply skeptical of technology and science in its influence on human society and culture.  The Scientific Outlook was his vision of a scientific dystopia—one which incorporates much of technocracy.  (For the uninitiated: it is somewhat similar to Brave New World).  Although the technocratic elements are not necessarily portrayed in a negative light, they are not left blameless for the resulting society.  All in all, it seems hard to imagine that book could be the work of an enthusiastic technocrat. —Αναρχία 06:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Russell a Technocrat??

message: Under social movement I imagine something with hundreds of thousands or millions of supporters, while the article gives feeling of small group of people. Shouldn't word "group" be used instead? Pavel Vozenilek 00:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "social movement"? 

message: Hi,
I found this article through the M. King Hubbert page, and it's raised some questions in my mind.  The article, and the organization's web site, don't seem to give me much information to judge whether the organization is notable, and how it's related to larger social movements.  Do we know the number of members, or budget?  Do we have evidence that the Technocratic movement has been part of a larger dialogue on these energy and economic issues -- have representatives been involved in court cases, published results in mainstream academia, been invited in large conferences, etc.?
This article seems to do a very good job of communicating the philosophical views of the movement, I just want to make sure that the movement is described accurately and neutrally.
-- Creidieki 03:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability and Position within society 

message: Looks like now that Technocracy points to Technocratic movement, there are a bunch of pages that refer negatively to "technocractic" ideas (meaning the bureaucratic form of it, not the movement we all know and love) linking to this page, which definitely gives readers the wrong idea. Does someone need to look at each such page linking to this one and fix it to point to Technocracy (bureaucratic)?
Wikipedia brown 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the bureaucratic 'governmental' form of a technocracy is more common than the movement, I have modified Technocracy back to the disambiguation page. 154.5.41.198 08:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with links 

message: Reading about this movement put me very much in mind of the positivism of Saint-Simon and Comte. I'm somewhat surprised there is no discussion of this in the article. 86.136.88.200 14:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sociological theory

message: I fail to see a substantial difference between the two articles. Furthermore, the fuzzy line between them only confuses readers. You even have a picture of the Technocracy Incorporated sign as the first image. Let's clean everything up (again) and cite some bloody sources. 154.5.41.198 08:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Technocracy Incorporated]] 

message: *The section on Urbanates was cleaned up, leaving out some of the more obvious 'pie-in-the-sky' thought. This seems like it was thought up recently by a few members. Please see my notes below on POV and citing sources.
*Areas needing citation have been noted.
*Reference to zero-growth has been added, but should be expanded upon.
*The section on the division of social and technical decision was removed because it contributed very little and is covered better by other areas in the article (e.g. energy accounting)
*The criticisms section was cleaned up. No longer is it a giant straw man. The best replies to the objections remain and were cleaned up. A lot of POV was removed as well.
**I take note of the fact that you did not seem to notice how the vast majority of the criticisms are completely uncited. -- Nikodemos 03:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Cleanup (2006.04.17) 

message: This section was difficult to read and it did not fit in with the rest of the article. Although it did appear to be sourced, it was from a web-caching site.
It would be nice if this article focused on the broader aspects of the movement and didn't strive to be another TTSD.
I think that the basic principles of the movement are finally starting to be fleshed out, and the fat needs to be cut. Explaining mathematical equations in an encyclopedic article about a social movement is precisely fat.
154.5.41.198 06:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section on labour utilization 

message: Technocratic born years before the actual energetic crisis. In this time a oil barrel cost nothing but today energy take a important role of the society, and this role will grown with the time.
How much power will earn the technocrats?.
:I don't quite understand what you're saying. Can you be a bit more clear? --Hibernian 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The future? 

message: What is this "Technocracy Handbook"? I've never heard of it. 70.168.202.175 was the one that added it. Does anyone know about this? 
--Kolzene 08:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technocracy Handbook 

message: I just wanna point out that the mention of diamonds under "naturally scarce things" is more than slightly humorous, considering that diamonds have for at least 50 years been a perfect example of a commodity that is artificially scarce. AVTuna 23:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamonds 

message: Technocracy is not only a zero growth socio-economic system and the end of money - technocracy is also the end of politics, and this fact is not really present in the article although it is of fundamental importance for the nature of the technocratic system. Technocracy means that there are no politicians, political parties, political/religious/ethnic lobbies and movements that can influence the system in any shape or form - this also means no domestic politics and no foreign policy either (translated: no foreign wars for a technate!). This apolitical nature of technocracy should be properly explained and inserted into the article.--FreedonNadd 08:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So insert it!—Αναρχία 03:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you may be right to a certain extent, after looking through the article again, there does seem to be a lack of info on that aspect of Technocracy's plan. However you are wrong to say there would be no domestic politics in a Technate, there would of-course be all the political and opinion based argumentation by people as there ever has been, a Technate would not change that. What would change is the fact that politics and opinions would not shape the government, because the Technate would make decisions and laws purely on the grounds of science, in order to achieve the Technate’s objective of providing a High standard of living. It is also inaccurate to say a Technate would have no foreign policy, after all every nation has to adopt some policy regarding the rest of the World, right? The Technate's diplomatic relations would be handled by the Foreign relations sequence (or some such), and the Technate would likely have treaties with other nations on various matters. Even though (by definition) a Technate must be self-sufficient in everything to exist, that does not preclude the possibility of a limited amount of trade with other countries (if only for cultural artefacts that can't be produced in the Technate). It's also not quite true to say there could never be any "foreign wars" for a Technate, it is true that the Technate's armed forces would be used only for self-defence, but if some nation attacked the Technate, then it would defend itself by all necessary means, which could potentially involve attacking that country back. There is also nothing in Technocracy literature (that I've seen) that would preclude things like UN peacekeeping missions in foreign countries and the like. A more accurate thing to say would be that a Technate would never wage a war of aggression (as there would be absolutely no need to) and it would never start a war and would certainly attempt to avoid them in general. --Hibernian 04:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technocracy = the end of politics  

message: Is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World a fictional example of a kind of technocratic society?  Perhaps a "technocracy gone bad"?  Wooster (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huxley's ''Brave New World''