A TECHNOCRATIC ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE AND MORALITY
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 Ill 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, its 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 Technocracys statement is The liberal is the last resort of the stupid and incompetent. Technocracys 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 its a conservation of resources. Yes, it is vastly different than todays method of everyone grabbing all one can get. This grabbing method of social operation is an accepted behavior pattern in todays society. Those who grab the most are accepted as the successful people in todays 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 persons 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
Re: please clarify Simple Solution
Hi Douglas all, Fear not, you're not alone. As far as I could figure out from 2 years of reading Wes Burt's 'solution' posts, a re-distribution or tithing of a greater % of national income is his key. I love to skim his posts now, looking for new (to me) historic references, as my background in history is rather shallow. The biblical references I ignore as I do all religious dogma. I've yet to convince Wes that natural wealth(the pie)has been shrinking as the human population has QUADRUPLED in 99 years. Equal slices of an insufficient pie result in maximum mortality and suffering. The cornucopian fallacy denies natural limits and the value (instrumental or intrinsic, take your choice) of biodiversity. Credits/tokens provide relative power to acquire/consume slices of the pie; they provide no sustenance, shelter,...themselves. Changing %s creates no new wealth. As I recently posted, it can accelerate consumption and misery in the future. Steve
Tinbergen's Law [economics]
Hi All: Since it is clear that there are a nuber of economists in this list, I thought I'd share something from Wm Krehm's Economic Reform monthly newsletter. "ER" is the newsletter of COMER, the Committee On Monetary and Economic Reform that addresses Canadian and world wide monetary and economic issues. It has garnered respect for its authoritative critique of conventional economic theory followed by national governments and International organizations such as BIS, WTO, IMF and World Bank. The following is exerpted from an item that addresses the fallacy of using only interest rates to modify abberant economic activity. I submit it as relevant to the futurework list. Mr Krehm says:. "That is clear from Tinbergen's Law - developed by Jan Tinbergen, a Nobel Laureate who, providentially had earned his doctorate in physics rather than economics. I say providentially because physicists have a better grasp than economists of something that one learns in first - year high school algebra - that to solve an equation with two independent variables you need at a minimum of two such independent equations. If you can identify n independent variables in the problem, then you must have that many in your solutions. As our society becomes more complex - and even a controlled degree of globalisation is bound to make it so - the very notion of "one blunt tool" to keep it stable is stupid to the point of obscenity. The Tinbergen principle on the contrary requires an ever broader menu of contrasting and complementary policies to keep our society functioning and in reasonable balance. In a mixed economy such as ours, the price level will rise not only because of possible excesses of market demand over supply, but for any of many other possible reasons - the rapid increase in public infrastructures needed by our exploding technologies and urban centres, and the increased average span of human life. Studying these needs within a context of respect for the environment requires us to frame a highly varied menu of policies and life styles to make that possible. There is no room for maximising trade or growth as a categorical imperative. That is the inevitable verdict on the highest plane of abstraction, systems theory or mathematical structure. At a more earthly level, there is the detail that the "one blunt tool" chosen by the philosophers of neo - liberalism happens to be the revenue of the moneylenders and the battering ram of financial predators. That involves a conflict of interest that cannot be covered up by even the greatest mind - bending campaign on record." William Krehm. End of excerpt == The item underlines my contention that increasing interest rates to stem the increase in the CPI is in fact counterproductive and instead actually increases the CPI. It does so by increasing the costs of maintaining economic stability in an economy that is increasingly a rental economy (including money rental [Note bank assets]) . That is, in view of the ever shorter term loans and lines of credit extended by the chartered banks, increased interest rates increase the underlying cost of maintaining the production/consumption process and translates into an increased CPI. If increased interest rates were to affect only new production/consumption it would be a valid inhibitor of economic activity. However, that affect is only a miniscule element when compared to the interest cost burden in the economy. Regards Edward G. Peace and goodwill Ed Goertzen, Oshawa, L1G 2S2, + SIGNATURE - "Subsidiarity", Defined in the Papal encyclical "Quadragisemo Anno", as quoted in "The Age of Paradox" by Charles Handy". "It is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order for a large and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller, lower bodies...". +
Re: The Johnny Holiday/John A. Taube Technocracy post
Edward G commented: and at the end of the post appended an apporopriate and important section, (pp 46) from "technopoly" by Neil Postman John wrote: Regarding "A TECHNOCRATIC ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE AND MORALITY" John wrote: 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 John Wrote: Hi Brad, Your December 10th email was most interesting and worthy of comments. You [Brad] 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...) John's 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 Ill 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, its a stock-in-trade. You [Brad] 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) John's 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 Technocracys statement is The liberal is the last resort of the stupid and incompetent. Edward G commented: John seems not to have a clear comprehension of liberalism, confusing it with neo-liberalizm. The concept of liberalizm is that of freedom, especially individual freedom. It was born at the beginning of the 1st millenium with the concept of individual salvation. It remained cupid until the Protestant Reformation allowed it to begin to mature. The Protestant Reformation wrested the "Keys to the Kingdom" from the Papacy and offered it to anyone who would avail themselves of the opportunity. One who did was Henry VIII. Shortly thereafter the concept migrated to the area of governance and with Charles I's beheading the "Divine Right of Kings" followed the keys to the kingdom into the public arena. The public was slow to assert rights they did not fully comprehend and those who wielded power soon reinstituted (re-institute-ed) both religion and governance. The concept John fails to comprehend is that neo-liberalism is as immature as cupid. While a good case can be made for individual (subjective) and relative morality, it is only a starting point. Individuals are notably impotent when it comes to propagating the species. It takes two to tango! Not only two, but two with a common purpose. That's where neo-liberalism is left behind and real liberalism begins its progress to a civil society of voluntary association, that is in a development of moral rules. The object of moral rules (or morality) is to obtain the objective and absolute goods of association. The neo-liberal fails to grasp this because to the neo-liberal all goods can be purchased, and therin lies the fallacy. John continued commenting: "Technocracys 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. Edward G commented: This is classic communism and I thought it had been debunked long ago. Given a rudimentary knowledge of human nature, is there anyone left who
Re: The Johnny Holiday/John A. Taube Technocracy post
As quotee of the following post, I wish to comment on it. However, I beg everyone's indulgence that I do not try to figure out who said what in my response. Ed Goertzen wrote: Edward G commented: and at the end of the post appended an apporopriate and important section, (pp 46) from "technopoly" by Neil Postman John wrote: Regarding "A TECHNOCRATIC ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE AND MORALITY" [snip] Hi Brad, Your December 10th email was most interesting and worthy of comments. You [Brad] 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. [snip] John's 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. I am currently reading Robert Musil's Diaries. Musil quite directly addressed the issue of the new millennium in his great "novel": _The Man Without Qualities_. Edmund Husserl addressed this issue, e.g., in what in my estimation may be the most important text of this century (yes, I know that's a pointless claim, since there are many highly important contributions, some/many of which we may not yet be aware of their having happen*ed*!): _The Crisis of European Sciences_ -- this book remains a societally undigested pointer to a new humanity not in just a sci fi or even a marxist sense. You wrote about engineers and computer programmers and Ill 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, its a stock-in-trade. Even in their scientific personae, there is a lot of pettiness among scientists: The story of the discovery of "The Double Helix" (DMA) is a story of shame, esp. the way a certain women scientist was treated [sorry, I forget her name at the moment: Rosalind Franklin] whose work was crucial and who shortly after the discovery died of cancer] -- Crick and Watson did not comport themselves in a decent way, at least according to what I've read. You [Brad] 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) John's 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 Technocracys statement is The liberal is the last resort of the stupid and incompetent. I believe this was a major point of The Unabomber's Manifesto (I've read it, and it's worth reading -- unlike some of the knee-jerk reactions to it). Edward G commented: John seems not to have a clear comprehension of liberalism, confusing it with neo-liberalizm. The concept of liberalizm is that of freedom, especially individual freedom. It was born at the beginning of the 1st millenium with the concept of individual salvation. It remained cupid until the Protestant Reformation allowed it to begin to mature. Interesting idea. The Protestant Reformation wrested the "Keys to the Kingdom" from the Papacy and offered it to anyone who would avail themselves of the opportunity. One who did was Henry VIII. Another instance of The Sorrow and The Pity? Shortly thereafter the concept migrated to the area of governance and with Charles I's beheading the "Divine Right of Kings" followed the keys to the kingdom into the public arena. [snip] While a good case can be made for individual (subjective) and relative morality, it is only a starting point. Individuals are notably impotent when it comes to propagating the species. It takes two to tango! This strikes me as a rather inconsequential comment -- my guess is that even Ayn Rand probably "coupled" with someone
