Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the 1930s the fascists, communists, and New Dealers all took the reins and governed their societies in new technocratic ways. ... They are technological means by which to manage populations. As Yuval Harari puts it, the answer to "unnecessary people" is "drugs and computer games". while "New Deal" have a lot of issues, note that 2 other approaches totally failed. At least for some time we considered them as fail…
Seems to be working fine in China. Bad management happens, and does not refute the idea of management itself. Good management works.
The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s
61–70 of 148 posts
Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s
#62Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s
#63It's so wild to believe humanity held such a hopeful political mythos, ever. And I see such appeal here. To make efficient, to make a government that functions that builds that runs well. Mechanistic sympathy is a key term that sends the engineers heart aflutter; to work together holds great delight. The idea that there might be some shots for mankind at engineering not just a social, as the article highlights, but g…
Why optimize for efficiency though? Why not human flourishing or planetary health, whichever way you wish to define that? Efficiency sounds to me like an absolutely awful way to run any society as it's what turns individuals into disposable cogs of a machine that needs to be operated smoothly because, well, no obvious reason other than a fetish to see the machine run smoothly, no matter the human cost.
Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think it over. No one who leads a populist movement is ever ultimately sincere in his populism. But where, excuse me, where on Earth did you get the idea that any of those guys is a populist?
Mostly by who they identify with. I get you, they do not personally seem likely to be populists, but that's the movement they're with.
Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recommend reading "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber & David Wengrow. You might learn something about those "shitty" versions.
your revealed preference would tell a bit more about this than any book. keep me updated on whether you would like to live in a tribal society's culture or a modern one.
Modern society is so far removed from how we adapted as a species. It is no surprise so many struggle with it to varying degrees large and small. Depression and obesity are some examples I'd say of modern life ills. We live in this society where we are sedentary all day and constantly in fight or flight response due to work pressures. We were built to forage and hunt over some 8 miles a day. It is no wonder many of us are still fat and sad in this modern world of supposed abundance.
There are some opinions out there of agriculture being this sort of "wrong turn" of our species (1). Yes we could sustain great numbers, but with agriculture we introduced zoonotic disease vectors. Widespread environmental damage replacing native species with crops, and the ecological disturbance that would result from having such an unbalanced amount of resources at that stage of the food chain, leading to plague numbers of pests, also sources for disease. Our numbers also exploded too but are liable to all sorts of famine and other issues from overshooting these resources when a crop failure might occur, and still having all these mouths to feed. Agriculture enabled fielding large armies and violence on a scale never seen before.
"Today, around 75% of infectious diseases suffered by humans are zoonoses, ones obtained from or more often shared with domestic animals. Some common examples include influenza, the common cold, various parasites like tapeworms and highly infectious diseases that decimated millions of people in the past such as bubonic plague, tuberculosis, typhoid and measles.
In response, natural selection dramatically sculpted the genome of these early farmers. The genes for immunity are over-represented in terms of the evidence for natural selection and most of the changes can be timed to the adoption of farming.
And geneticists have estimated that 85% of the disease-causing gene variants in contemporary human populations arose during the last 5,000 to 10,000 years, or alongside the rise and spread of agriculture."
"Another surprising change seen in the skeletons of early farmers is a smaller skull especially the bones of the face. Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers had larger skulls due to their more mobile and active lifestyle including a diet which required much more chewing.
Smaller faces affected oral health because human teeth didn’t reduce proportionately to the smaller jaw, so dental crowding ensued. This led to increased dental disease along with extra cavities from a starchy diet.
These changes dramatically shaped our attitudes to material goods and wealth. Prestige items became highly sought after as hallmarks of power. And with larger populations came growing social and economic complexity and inequality and, naturally, increasing warfare.
Inequalities of wealth and status cemented the rise of hierarchical societies — first chiefdoms then hereditary lineages which ruled over the rapidly growing human settlements.
Eventually they expanded to form large cities, and then empires, with vast areas of land taken by force with armies under the control of emperors or kings and queens.
This inherited power was the foundation of the "great" civilisations that developed across the ancient world and into the modern era with its colonial legacies that are still very much with us today."
https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2017/10/was-agricultur...
Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s
#66Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s
#67“Like religious millenarianism awaiting the Second Coming, tech elites believe technology alone will usher in a total and complete transformation of society.” This is the standard view amongst most social theorists and economists. (Of course it’s not technology alone but that’s the prerequisite). Without agriculture and the Industrial Revolution, say bye bye to your woke policies L G B T Q rights and feminism. Humans…
I'm not sure where you're getting your "fundamental truths" from, but as the fields of sociology and economics don't actually have anything of the sort it'd be worthwhile to expand your reading list and adding some history in there for good measure.
Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s
#68Technocracy always struck me as weirdly incoherent? If you take the economy, probably the most studied of government policies, it is not 1 number. There are many questions about what priorities ought to be. There is no 'expert' answer for how many starving poor people are a worthy trade off for a GDP point. Even if there was, there is an economist branch that disagrees with any possible position you might take. The q…
My theory It coalesced at a time when science was becoming more accessible to the masses, more educated technicians running around engaging in work and trade. And these technicians were frustrated by bosses who didn't understand the science and technique behind things. So there was great inefficiency because the bosses hadn't caught up to the technicians in their understanding of the world. And so the political idea…
Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s
#69(Other instance was PredictiveHistory youtube here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrmERlHUqBk ).
Guessing that's not a coincidence
Re: The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s
#70Technocracy always struck me as weirdly incoherent? If you take the economy, probably the most studied of government policies, it is not 1 number. There are many questions about what priorities ought to be. There is no 'expert' answer for how many starving poor people are a worthy trade off for a GDP point. Even if there was, there is an economist branch that disagrees with any possible position you might take. The q…
My theory It coalesced at a time when science was becoming more accessible to the masses, more educated technicians running around engaging in work and trade. And these technicians were frustrated by bosses who didn't understand the science and technique behind things. So there was great inefficiency because the bosses hadn't caught up to the technicians in their understanding of the world. And so the political idea…