• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cultural Manipulation

billydkid said:
"excess wealth" - now there is a concept. You would hard pressed to find a lot of people who believe they have excess wealth. Most people, even richest, believe they have a little less than they actually need.
Click to expand...

That delusion is caused by the fear of scarcity or the possibilty of (which is caused by the psychological defense mechanism). The first step to eliminate this is education on the matter. The second is putting state before self... Nationalism.
 
Last edited:
gtc said:
If you give me (a poor student) all your excess wealth, I promise to buy an ipod, big screen TV, digital cable etc. All of this will multiply my technological progress to the betterment of my economy as a whole. I believe this is an admirable start.
Click to expand...

Actually, though your sarcasm is obvious... in a technocracy students' studies would be funded by the wealth that is recycled. Minus the ipod and big tv, and digital cable would be much different than you know it.
 
Ladewig said:
I'll have a better understanding of your position if you answer a few questions about specific examples.

1) Bill Gates owns somewhere around 50 billion dollars worth of Microsoft stock? Does that money represent progress and if so is it progress in society, education, or technology?

2) If Dick Cheney excercised all of his 400,000 shares of stock options and then held $23,000,000 worth of Halliburton stock, would that money in the excess or the progress category and why?

3) Does my $1000 series-E U.S. government savings bond represent some sort of progress in society? How about my $1000 savings account? My $1000 worth of gold coins? My $1000 worth of limited edition Elvis Presley collector plates (http://www.collectiblestoday.com/ct/product/prdid-101748001.jsp)?

4) Who precisely decides which stock holdings are progressive and which are excessive? I know people who say that even $100 invested in Exxon, Pfizer, or Lockheed-Martin is harmful to society.
Click to expand...

For startes, you're setting a scenario for capitalism, not technocracy. In a technocracy, individuals would not be investing, but government would. However, to attempt to BEGIN to answer your question on what is progressive and what is corruptive, you should read the post I made a few minutes ago about the corruption of alchohol and it's industry.
 
blakehaydn said:
This is a great example of an entire industry that both creates corruption and expands it to other areas of existance beyond rational belief.
Click to expand...

So alcohol and tobacco are outlawed? Am I correct in assuming that gambling is outlawed as well?
 
Truly terrifying. The more you speak of your Utopian government, the more it sounds like an Orwellian novel. In fact, the more you speak of it, the more I'm inclined to agree that you're not just speaking of Communism, but of a Communism the world has feared for decades. You actually talk about educating people on why they should give up their wealth and in the next sentence you speak of instilling them with a sense of Nationalism. Sounds an awful lot like you're setting up re-education centers for these people. Have you ever read 1984 or A Clockwork Orange?

You also make a point in clarifying that this is not Communist in nature by pointing out that Communist countries started out by being "corrupt on almost every aspect from the very beginning to a very large degree." However, your utopia certainly does not sound like a democratic society. If it is not ruled by the people, it must be ruled by the few. How exactly can you have a government ruled by the few that is not corrupt? What method would you use for determining who ruled?

How would this be a utopia? It sounds like you work extremely hard to recieve less pay and the payoff is art, science, and a sexual utopia (until you realize that this too can be harmful) How large of a step would it be to go from outlawing tobacco, alcohol, and "decadent" food to caffiene, sugar, TV, skiing, thinking for yourself? Some people actually enjoy being able to make their own mistakes. Some people enjoy doing things they know are harmful to them. Most people enjoy having the freedom to do either. Would this warrant another trip to the re-education center?
 
bob_kark said:
Some people actually enjoy being able to make their own mistakes. Some people enjoy doing things they know are harmful to them. Most people enjoy having the freedom to do either. Would this warrant another trip to the re-education center?
Click to expand...

Uh oh, looks like we have a Negative Nellie in Sector 2...
 
blakehaydn said:
Any wealth that is not in motion to progress society, education and technology.
Click to expand...

Damn! There went my 401(k)...crap! I'm going home early...and often. Anyone have some vodka? I need a drink!

-z
 
blakehaydn said:
If only you could see the proud smile on my face after reading this. It's brilliant, good sense of humor.
Click to expand...

Now that you are back on this thread I'd like to enumerate that seem to me to be the main weaknesses of your vision.

  1. I can see no possible way of you convincing enough people to establish your technocracy voluntarily. The only way that I can think of is a bloody revolution followed by a civil war. And the problem here is that if a minority wants to win a civil war, they need a lot of ruthless bastards leading the war, just the kind of people that you don't want to take the leading role in building the utopia. See what happened in Russia after the October Revolution, for example.
  2. Governing a modern country is a full-time job. A scientist who spends his days running the country ceases to be a scientist and becomes a politician, instead. On the other hand, if you have a separate group of administrators who handle all the practical matters and leaves just the decisions to the scientists, then it won't take long until the administrators themselves are holding the real power.
  3. Educating the children to believe the ideals of technocracy is not likely to work. The communists truly believed that they could eradicate property crime by teaching communist ideals in schools. They failed miserably. For first 20 years they believed that the criminals were vestiges of the old czarist days and crime would vanish when the new educated communists reached adulthood. It didn't happen.
  4. Your home page had the mention of German-styled military. I don't know exactly what you meant with it, but I'd like to point that the three armies that are usually connected with Germans (Friedrich II's, Kaiser Wilhelm's, and Hitler's) were all specifically designed and trained for offensive warfare.
 
blakehaydn said:
For startes, you're setting a scenario for capitalism, not technocracy. In a technocracy, individuals would not be investing, but government would.
Click to expand...


So the 25-year-old scientist who says, "I will forgo all entertainment and limit my diet so I can save my money to buy a motorcycle one day," will not be investing her money? She will have no choice in where to put her savings?
 
manny said:
At the risk of hearing a 14-year-old's commie screed, why in the world would I go on creating excess wealth if I couldn't keep any of it?
Click to expand...

Conversely, why would I go on amassing any potential excess wealth when I daily encounter people or institutions whom I might deem need it better than I do? Your apparent reasoning is not necessarily universal.
 
Kotatsu said:
Conversely, why would I go on amassing any potential excess wealth when I daily encounter people or institutions whom I might deem need it better than I do? Your apparent reasoning is not necessarily universal.
Click to expand...

But it is very nearly so.

In Soviet Union there were tens of thousands of selfless idealists who worked with their full ability to bring forth true communism without asking a reward for themselves. The problem was that for every such noble soul there were a hundred others who did the minimum possible effort to fulfill their quotas. There is a reason why Soviets had a word for "imaginary work".
 
Blakehaydn on what would be allowed in a technocractic utopia:
blakehaydn said:
But free artistry, enjoyment of community, art, hobbies, sex (sexual utopia, if you will), interests and nature are all key elements of a technocratic utopia.
Click to expand...
But what if my hobby is the collecting of excess wealth? Not to mention debauchery?:D
 
supercorgi said:
Blakehaydn on what would be allowed in a technocractic utopia:

But what if my hobby is the collecting of excess wealth? Not to mention debauchery?:D
Click to expand...

Or more likely, what if everyone's hobby is the collecting of excess wealth and/or the practice of debauchery?
 
Mycroft said:
Or more likely, what if everyone's hobby is the collecting of excess wealth and/or the practice of debauchery?
Click to expand...

I've got the debauchery going for me...but the "excess wealth"? Well it doesn't go very well paired with debauchery! Sheesh! Debauchery is EXPENSIVE these days!

-z
 
LW said:
But it is very nearly so.

In Soviet Union there were tens of thousands of selfless idealists who worked with their full ability to bring forth true communism without asking a reward for themselves. The problem was that for every such noble soul there were a hundred others who did the minimum possible effort to fulfill their quotas. There is a reason why Soviets had a word for "imaginary work".
Click to expand...

Indeed; I do not oppose or reject this in any way. However, I, too, am fairly young and definitely idealistic, and would rather support, albeit only theoretically, that minority than the vast majority.

I do not delude myself by believeing that the universal "natural state" for humans is the selfless individual which has, subsequently, been corrupted into sloth and corruption (or something similar). However, neither do I agree that the universal "natural state" for humans is the opposite. Also, I disagree with anyone who would belittle either view; most often, I feel, this is done to the former, these days.

ETA:
Do you by chance know what that Russian word is? I had not heard of this before, and it has recruited my interest.
 
Kotatsu said:
Do you by chance know what that Russian word is? I had not heard of this before, and it has recruited my interest.
Click to expand...

It is transliterated to Finnish as tuhta but I don't know the original form or how it comes out using transliteration to English.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom