A while back I wrote a post here where I proposed a new electoral system made up of highly educated electoral members. Well turns out there were movements in favor of this idea in US, Canada, Germany and Russia. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement
Yup, technocracy has been an ideology for a while. But with rampant corruption it will never be seen. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
Interesting, that's the first I've read about it. How do we decide which scientists make the final decisions? Would it be like a version of our current system but you need much more schooling to qualify for public office?
Yes, basically the intelligent, ones with proven education, are the leaders of the nation. Great idea, but again far too much corruption to change now. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
Its impossible to have consolidation of power without corruption. Leas consolidation of power = less corruption. Therefore anarchy -yuri
Agree^ except you want a form of organized anarchy. I want complete chaos where only the strong survive an money has no worth. Lol Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
well, the US was founded on the principle of having an informed electorate that makes decisions for the entire population.. somewhere in between 1776 and now they stopped working for our best interests and started working for their own.
I want to say Bill is already in one or maybe it was a knock off dont remember. We kinda live in a Technocracy. The heads of industry (supposedly brightest) get put into positions of power by our Gov. They are unelected and have little oversight from what I can tell.
That's backwards The government doesn't put industry leaders in power. The industry puts government in power. -yuri
Technocracy isn't about industry. The idea isn't that CEO's should run but mathematicians, scientist, engineers, etc.
It's funny that senator lindsey graham was on the subcomittee for "Privacy, Technology and the Law" but claims to have never sent an e-mail. or dianne feinstein being on the senate intelligence committee but she's mentally retarded...
The issue I've always had with the idea is how they are chosen. Who gets to decide who the smartest biologist(s) are? When you say the best and brightest in their fields are in charge, does that mean for example, a scientist would be in charge of a program to run the country on clean energy? How does he get funding? Through a congressional vote? Are all the scientists essentially congressmen? -yuri