A TECHNOCRATIC ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE AND MORALITY

[Johnny Holiday/John A. Taube]

A TECHNOCRATIC ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE AND MORALITY

Hi All,

I received an interesting email and have some comments on it that I feel
are worth passing on. Your reaction to both the email and my comments
are most encouraged.

December 17, 1999

Hi Brad,

Your December 10th email was most interesting and worthy of comments.

You wrote: “I am well aware that I could not survive "in the wild", and
that I'd probably be long since dead if it wasn't for antibiotics, etc.
I am not against technology.  I am against a lot of "crap" that is
associated with it in our [so-called] society.  But, if engineers (and,
esp. computer programmers!) can be nerds, far less bad than being a
"confidence man" (ad man, "lobbyist", etc. -- although I'm sure there
“are” some "good eggs" among them...)”

Comment: In writing this you kind of replied to my focus on the change
in lifestyle that occurred in our scientific-technological age as
compared with that which existed for millenniums. I added to that
thought that we live in a unique age and the answer to the problems of
our unique age calls for drastic changes. To my knowledge, Technocracy
stands alone in understanding this unique age. Those people who are
classified as “liberals” certainly fail to understand modern times, our
scientific-technological age.

You wrote about engineers and computer programmers and I’ll address this
matter in the light of “men of science.” These men also live in, and are
affected by, the operation of our socioeconomic structure our “Price
System,” and therefore wear two hats, one as a scientist and the other
as a businessman/woman. As a businessman/woman, they can be just as
nasty as any other businessman/woman. In the business community,
nastiness is all pervasive, it’s a stock-in-trade.

You wrote: “I agree.  Anent merchandising, I have the idea of a society
in which everybody chose everything on the computer in such a way that
nothing would ever get produced that didn't get
consumed.  In WWII, my father was in the Army Air Corps.  He said they
had a sign in the mess hall:

    “ ‘ Take what you want.  Eat what you take.’ ”

“(Almost sounds like "From each according to his abilities, to each
according to his needs" -- now that I think about it....)”

Comment: Your expression above is commonly accepted as
communism/socialism. The people that compose this group – liberals –
find anything short of “doing things for the common good” to be morally
wrong. Technocracy is on the opposite end of the spectrum from this
group and as a matter of fact has nothing in common with them. One of
Technocracy’s statement is “The liberal is the last resort of the stupid
and incompetent.”

Technocracy’s position is that when we adjust to our
scientific-technological age and install a social structure that is in
sync with this new age, everyone will contribute according to his/her
ability and each will receive according to his/her needs. This becomes a
fact of life in a proper design of social operation that is laid out to
be sync with modern times. It has nothing to do with morality but has to
do solely with economics – it’s a conservation of resources.  Yes, it is
vastly different than today’s method of everyone grabbing all one can
get. This grabbing method of social operation is an accepted behavior
pattern in today’s society. Those who grab the most are accepted as the
successful people in today’s society and are looked up to as models. Of
course, if one gets caught in this grabbing by means of a violation of
the law, and lacks a smart lawyer, that person’s ability to grab will
temporarily be suspended.

Mind you, we are not playing “footsie” with words. In Technocracy we
differ from  communism/socialism philosophy in that we bypass morality
considerations. What is amazing is: By passing over all morality
considerations and concentrating on the physical factors of our
environment, we have, for the first time in history, a condition where
goods can be produced in abundance. By adjusting to this new
environment, we can have a society that puts to rest all of the
communism/socialism morality concerns.

I wonder if when you got on my web site <www.technocracysf.org> did you
read “A Commentary to Jim Lehrer”?  I would like to get your thoughts on
it. I also put two new items on the web site: (1) Police-State
Components in Society, Schools and (2) Gangster Capitalism. I would
appreciate your thoughts on both of them.

Bunches of good cheer,

John