Revive the International.

So ya, scientists, engineers, and technologists (if that's a word). And it's ridiculous to just say your system is better because it will so very quickly create an army of robot serpents to take care of literally everyone on Earth. Fuck, if that was possible everyone would be doing it.

Yes, but the society that worships science wont exactly be fond of something that is considered the polar opposite of science. It'll be judgmental and uncaring to religion.

Oh man, have you read 1984?

Some of the terms you are using are a little foreign to me, I must admit, so I apologize ahead of time if I misunderstand what you say. I'll try and read up on them, but I probably will be far from perfect.

Anyways, after some thought I've decided I don't really like the idea of Technocracy from what has been presented here. It comes off as arrogant and expert worship, or I guess "technical staff" worship. What's so worrying about this whole thing is that you seem to claim that this system, Technocracy, is so objectively enlightened. I'm sure anyone would like to grab the idea that their particular system that they are cheering for is inevitable and stick it on their argument, but I don't buy that from anyone. And besides that, I think the application of Technocracy would be just as messy as any other ideology. How is this transition suppose to take place? How would the powerful interests respond to this, don't you think they would just abuse the system to suit them anyways? I honestly think that a society that embraced those values wouldn't be a utopia, I think you aren't trying to say that either, but I also don't think it would be much better than what we have now. That being said, I would be interested to see how it would turn out. Just my opinion, I guess I just have a few concerns.

Scientists have only been able to influence society through one means since the dawn of time, through successful innovation. This would remain unchanged.

Isn't that from a Pearl Jam video?

Worships science? The roll of science as a force for social change and a tool of inquiry would remain unchanged, religion will be just fine. This isn't some ideology hell bent on forcibly reshaping everyone's thoughts.

Wall of text time.

Anyone who is familiar with the god complex can tell you how undesirable and potentially stifling to progress and innovation 'expert worship' is. That isn't the idea here. A job is still just a job.

There's nothing enlightened about it, I'm not claiming to somehow have access to secretes unknown to everyone else. All this is is following societal trends in a scientific manner and predicting where it all leads. We know we could be wrong. I know I could be wrong.

I wouldn't use the word transition. It's more of an evolution, similar to when man made the change from hunter-gathering to agrarian civilization. Again, not an ideology.

There isn't really anything to abuse. It'd be stupid to do so anyways, kinda like shooting yourself in the foot.

None of this is convincing that it would apply well in the real world. To me it's just another "good on paper" theory. But like I said I'd still be good for seeing how it would turn out, just not where I live.

Also, it is not an ideology? What do you mean?

Take dictionaries for what they are worth, but Technocracy fits a few of these fairly nicely. Not to argue semantics, I guess I'm just confused why you are saying that.

Probably because I botched the presentation at some point.
Here http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB6B57E6D5C816C4E&feature=plcp
That's a segment done by the now practically nonexistent North American advocacy group. It's basically an evaluation of the state of North America on scientific grounds and then a presentation of a few example designs drawn up on a strictly technological basis.

It's flexible, it changes with context. It recognizes that the truths of yesterday are not always the truths of today. It can do this, because it's foundation is science. Not some mythic absolute.

I watched the series, it was pretty interesting. But, I'm of the opinion the world will always suck and the many, the 99%, whatever you want to call it, will always get the short end of the stick. I agree with a lot of Technocratic philosophy, but again I just don't see it working out better.

I would still call it an ideology though, just a dynamic one. Just by the fact that it has a name, and people say they believe in it, it constitutes one. That's not necessarily a wholly bad thing, but I'm not the kind of guy that wants to be associated with any social movements or whatever.

I also have another question. I don't mean this to insult you or invalidate your position, I'm just curious. But isn't this kind of the idea the same as Zeitgeist? I don't remember, but I think I watched the second one awhile ago and some of those same ideas seem to be popping up in my head when I was listening to that series you linked me.

Form what Iv'e heard Jacque Fresco, the guy who's had arguably the greatest influence the whole Zeitgeist series, was at one point affiliated with Technocracy. inc. That may just be hear say though.
That being said, I'm a fan of the mans designs.

That's what I was thinking.

Yes, and even in North Korea they can't just change historic documents and remove a person's existence from any records. It's near impossible.

I think North Korea could do it. I mean, the Roman Emperor Nero's greatest structure, the Domus Aria, was unknown until the Renaissance and it's a giant palace in the middle of Rome.

Well ya if you keep no records at all it's easy. But to remove those records are hard. For instance one of the female pharaohs was overthrown after her reign by a pretender. Try as he might to remove her from any historical records, she still leaked through the cracks and people remember her. It's impossible to get rid of anything major, like a person.

Of course it's imposible in real life (or at least, very very hard). The whole novel is a distopian exageration, critizing the Stalin's regime.

Well ya. My point was originally that Crocve is using a distopian novel as his vision of what a Communist society would be like.

You're thinking of Animal Farm. 1984 was purely about totalitarianism overall.

Side Note: I hate people who assign the title Big Brother to actual people. (Ex: Obama is Big Brother.)

Ah, I loved that book. You are right, but for example, when Orwell (if my literature teacher read this she would kill me, the narrator) describes the Big Brother, he is describing Stalin; and that guy everybody hated, was Trostky.

Big Brother has more in common with Uncle Sam and Jesus then he does Stalin. I think Orwell meant him as The Party's personal deity and physical manifestation of it's values.

Analyzing a book is always very subjective (except the obvious things), search on Internet so you get what I meant. But let's not discuss literature.