| Northlord | [b]A new Europe must be created, we cannot continue in this hunt for hedonist consumerism, pink pop-culture and blue uniforms. The stupidification of the European people has gone so far that we'll soon will find ourselves on the same level as Americans. The problem is the economic ideology of consumerism, which renders people into cretins and storestockers. Soon, we will have a world, where 40% is unemployed, 33% produces something and 23% does'nt do anything valuable. The European Union suffers underneath bureaucracy, monetarist ideologers, the dictatorship of Barroso and his servants and masters, and underneath our own history. The Western culture is dying, and I would'nt cry if it actually died. The only problem is, what should we replace it with? There is an alternative economic system, Technocracy, which is based on ancient and modern knowledge and technology. In the design of Technocracy, all resources and industries are connected in one, continental wide information network. Money is finally abandoned, and replaced with a system called "Energy Accounting", which is based on electrical energy. The technate, and especially the future European technate, would be based upon symbiosis with everything that lives and prosper, with evolution itself. We will create a new European civilization, based on Heathenism, Ecology, Transhumanism (if you want, you could actually [u]become[/u] vampires!).[/b] Everything is possible. The heaven darkens, as we, the Technocrats of Europe, invite you to take a look on [url]http://www.technocracy.ca[/url] (p.s - I'm sorry for not mastering your beautiful german language yet) |
| ange gardien | Hi Northlord! Welcome to Nachtwelten. At first I will apologize for my bad english. I agree with the first part of your text. It´s sad but true that our culture is dying. But I don´t think that Technocracy is the answer for our problems. To be very honest, in my ears Technocracy sounds like communism. A idea which is looking good in theory, but will not work in real life. I´m sorry that I have no solution how we can improve our society and save our culture. When you take a look at history, you can see a lot of ancient cultures with the same way of live: arise, growing, prospery and decay. We have reached this last step and no idea or new system can change this. After us there will be new cultures and I hope that they will not repeat our mistakes. Our time is running out. Dark greets ange |
| Montrose | Energy accounting is the same mechanisms as monetarism using other means. I cannot see any improvements in your conception. Your technocracy is a freaky form of tyrannism. I am sure, European citizens will develop a new culture of democracy and social welfare. I trust in these people. |
| Seneca | Me too, any sort of technocracy is agaainst my paganistic sense of living. Btw: the exegerated "need" for technology and rationalism was the matter that brought us to the current problems... |
| Northlord | Well, technocracy is not communism. Technocracy is a method of creating and distributing an abundance of resources. This is accomplished through use of huge information, distribution and manufacturing networks. It could neither be described as a "planned" economy, because in a technate, the consumer himself demand his output, quality, and design, through the use of interactive communication devices with the factories themselves. The government is not over people, but over machines. Combine technocracy with anarchism, and you will have the most advanced democratic system ever, based on small-scale eco-colonies, which are autonomous, and direct democratic city-states. The most usual misinterpretation that is done, is that people take us to be greedy, faceless technicians which are power-hungry. Nothing could be more far out from truth. Our goal is to establish and stabilisizing abundance, not to create poverty, order people, kill people and other crimes. Democracy must be established in relation to something else. It cannot be the "rule of the majority" over the minority, nor "rule of all over all", it must necessarily be "government over machines" - henceforth, technocracy. The Energy Credit could not be interpred as any monetary system of this time or present times. It is the amount of energy converted into value which the system could provide it's citizens with. It is impossible to barter, trade, change our inflate. And it is guaranteed. The work week is 4 hour a day, 4 days a week, and the self-rule implicates a decentralised distribution network over the entire European continent, which will be a federation of autonomous eco-collectives, factories, city-states and supraregions. Europe have not been created yet, and will not be, as long as we stick with a culture that has died and is rotting. We must shackle of the burden of Renaissance and Christian dogmas, and create a new civilization, not only a high culture, but a zenith culture - merging together north and south, west and east, into a shining tower which will be the sun of the world. Ecotechnocracy is about balance with nature. I'm pretty sure that most of you realizes that our present civilization (which I'm convinced will have collapsed by itself in 60 years) is based on parasitism. We must create a civilization based on cyclic symbiosism, direct autonomy, transhumanism, europeanism, and a system of distribution which could meet both the demand of the people and the present resources. I am convinced that technocracy could be the tool. The system of Energy Accounting means that for the first time in history, abundance could be distributed, and not causing the collapse of civilizations. |
| Roadkiller | I read your eleven reasons why technocracy is supposed to work. To reduce your mentioned razorblade-factories, was a very interesting point and I would even say, that this profit-oriented society works "asynchronically". Everyone tries to earn his money by starting a company without really considering if this company is needed in the country as a whole. I must admit, many points seem logical and could indeed improve your lives, but don't you think that this vision of your technocracy is a bit "1984"- or "Brave new world"-like? You made me curious and to be honest, I am sick of these "people up there" trying to solve problems by simply moving them to other areas of life. This model of technocracy is at least a new way which could lead us into a new and better future. There is one point which I dont like that much. I had the feeling, that the model of technocracy is very control-oriented. Everyone is under control, there is no privacy. Please explain this aspect, and how you think, you can manage it to convince even the conservative ones and by which means you think you could change our system. |
| die Aversion | Hi Northlord, you present some interesting ideas, so much can be said with quite an amount of certainty - somewhat against the grain, if you consider contemporary political rhetoric. Nevertheless, I'm quite doubtful, whenever someone (in this case: you) comes along telling other people to have THE solution to all our problems. First of all, there seems to exist a contradiction to me, if you want to live eco-friendly and paganistic on one hand and promote "a method of creating and distributing an abundance of resources" on the other hand. If you argue that "[t]his is accomplished through use of huge information, distribution and manufacturing networks", it implicates a positivistic belief in technological progress (in order to achieve the mentioned) that both gibes all experiences that were made with technology mankind was able to abuse and contradicts the doubts towards continuous technologal progress as "the benefit of mankind" inherent in paganism. [QUOTE] The Energy Credit could not be interpred as any monetary system of this time or present times. It is the amount of energy converted into value which the system could provide it's citizens with. It is impossible to barter, trade, change our inflate. [/QUOTE] Do you mean that it isn't traded with at the stock market? Otherwise it doesn't make much sense to me, because in the end, it still serves as tool to compensate received or given value (in what form ever) – like the monetary systems of today does. [QUOTE] new civilization, not only a high culture, but a zenith culture[/QUOTE] The zenith is also always the starting point of one's fall (Some smartass-comment, I know :rolleyes: ) Another interesting question is your opinion about what you call Heathenism and Europeanism. How do you define them? What features do they own besides going hand in hand with technocracy as you promote it? Honestly, to me - without having any further explanation - it sounds pretty much like potential europhilistic "uebermenschen"-propaganda. And, finally, something more general: Could you give some examples, whenever you argue, for as long as we talk on such an abstract level, the chance of misunderstanding each other is extremely high – especially since most of the members of this board are no English native speakers. (Thus I don't understand, in which way the substitute for the contemporary monetary system differs practically from the one it is supposed to replace, for exapmple). So much for now. Greets, Your Aversion |
| TheTurningPoint | @ Northlord: The idea of Technocracy is very interesting, but not easily to understand. I found some useful hints to a better understanding within the description of [URL=http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/certificate.htm][b]"The Energy Certificate".[/b][/URL] With my current knowledge about it, it seems to work similarly as the things I tried to propose in my [URL=http://www.nachtwelten.de/vB/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35415][b]"Top-Manager" Thread[/b][/URL] and my other contributions to Society and Economy themes. Yes, at first, it sounds like some "Big Brother" stuff, but I think all the information needed for Technocracy to work are gathered already today, and - as mentioned in the preface of the Energy Certificate description - some kind of a credit card could be used instead of the described form of Energy Certificate. The only thing I missed until now in the descriptions of Technocracy is a planned reduction of energy-consumption and production according to the real needs of the people. I think that the need of the people must be the first and the last criteria of planning and controlling, although a count of energy and production is necessary. Maybe I will find this point during further reading. In opposition to the author of the Energy Certificate description, I think that Marx already knew about the disappearance of "values" on a certain level of science and technology, and thus predicted that there will be no need for money anymore. |
| Northlord | [i]"I must admit, many points seem logical and could indeed improve your lives, but don't you think that this vision of your technocracy is a bit "1984"- or "Brave new world"-like?[/i] It is a typical misconception about technocracy. It is not about control of people, but about the control of machines. In a technate, there is less bureaucratical control of people, mainly because the most usual motivation for crimes is gone. The energy credit cannot be used in any means beside it's physical area. It is neither bills or taxes. The foundation of the society of Oceania in Orwell's "1984" was war, which allowed for a huge waste of resources, in order to destroy abundance. It is not technocracy, it is the other way round. Huxley's "Brave New World"-society was based on leisure consumption in order to keep some kind of deranged "welfare"-system, which relieved people from individuality in order to maximalize consumption. Neither of those two systems are even similar or reminding of ecotechnocracy. They still have concepts of artifical "growth", of "money", of "consumerism ". Even though both of these societies are "state socialist" in a sense of the word, they are still "state capitalist". The guiding principle of Orwell's dystopia is a parasitic ruling caste. [i] Nevertheless, I'm quite doubtful, whenever someone (in this case: you) comes along telling other people to have THE solution to all our problems. First of all, there seems to exist a contradiction to me, if you want to live eco-friendly and paganistic on one hand and promote "a method of creating and distributing an abundance of resources" on the other hand. If you argue that "[t]his is accomplished through use of huge information, distribution and manufacturing networks", it implicates a positivistic belief in technological progress (in order to achieve the mentioned) that both gibes all experiences that were made with technology mankind was able to abuse and contradicts the doubts towards continuous technologal progress as "the benefit of mankind" inherent in paganism.[/i] I'm not saying I am, or have the solution to all your problems. I'll say that I have discovered a design which I want to share with you, and that is how to save Europe before the process of globalization has destroyed our life-power completely. This continent is dying, I could feel it, and I bet that many of you also feels the same. We should argue that there is a difference between "technological abundance" and "storage abundance". A storage abundance is never reproductive, when you have depleted it, it is gone. Technological abundance, on the other hand, has the ability to renew it's resources in a rather cyclic, or even circulative system. Nearly all our resources are possible to recycle. Although we have great changes to do. One of my ideas, is to change the entire biosystem of the Mainland Europe from degenerative monocultural agriculture to polycultural wildculture, thus enabling us to produce a more diversified amount of nutrient. [i]Do you mean that it isn't traded with at the stock market? Otherwise it doesn't make much sense to me, because in the end, it still serves as tool to compensate received or given value (in what form ever) – like the monetary systems of today does.[/i] No, neither stock markets, banks nor speculation exist. The Energy Credit does not value as an artificial monetary limit, but as a physical entity which is based upon the resources which the system could produce. Everybody get an equal share of energy credits to consume for. An energy credit would work best as a card-system, I'm fully agrees on that behalf. There is no "extra value", the cost is always only compensating the production cost. You are not obliged to consume as much as possible, but if you consume less, your card would deliever the energy back to the system. But the next morning, it would be full again. You are aware of those "cell phones" which you could reload for an eternity. Then you'll know. [i]The only thing I missed until now in the descriptions of Technocracy is a planned reduction of energy-consumption and production according to the real needs of the people. I think that the need of the people must be the first and the last criteria of planning and controlling, although a count of energy and production is necessary. Maybe I will find this point during further reading.[/i] The technate is the tool, and the people are the rulers - not over other people, but over machines. The real needs are often locally based, and thus, the decisions would be made both individually and by local direct democratic en tities (such as city-states, eco-colonies and so on). Probably 80% of the decision-making is based on decentralisation. Thus, the system would remind very much of the structure of the Celtic and Germanic Europe of the bronze age, with small-scale communities, getting an abundance of resources converted from nature, but also giving back resources, in a circulation system based on the continued development of the theory of "Deep Ecology" ---> "Symbiosism". If you want more, you could encounter me at the Ecotechnocracy forum on [url]http://www.technocracy.ca[/url] |
| Northlord | [i]Another interesting question is your opinion about what you call Heathenism and Europeanism. How do you define them? What features do they own besides going hand in hand with technocracy as you promote it? Honestly, to me - without having any further explanation - it sounds pretty much like potential europhilistic "uebermenschen"-propaganda.[/i] I do not like the European history since the growth of the Roman Empire, and the rise of totalitarian Christianity. The new Europe shall not be racist (how could racism work in a word where transhumanism work anyway), nor imperialist. It shall be promethean. It would remind a bit of a combination between Celtogermanic Europe, Pharaonic Egypt, Hellas and medieval Iceland, except for human sacrifices, dictatorship, slavery and bloodlust. It would also keep some ideals from the Renaissance. |
| TheTurningPoint | @ Northlord: Thank you for your answers! Now I'm sure that we are talking about the same things. But I think, "Technocracy" is a confusing and misleading term for that. I would prefer to call it [B]"Ressource Watching".[/B] Until now, I considered only manual work, and was asking me how I could also consider energy and other natural ressources. Now I think that your proposal of "energy accounting" is the right way to combine all these things. I will try to explain the process (as I understand it) with a little example: (please correct me, if I'm wrong) 1. Let's assume that an energy of 1 Volt * 1 Ampere * 1 hour (= 1Wh) is needed to produce a product. 2. Let's assume that one person needs 1000 products per day (= 1kWh) for a good living. 3. Let's assume that one working person can produce 1000 products (= 1kWh) per hour. 4. Let's assume a community of 10 persons, with 5 of them being able to work. 5. If the 5 persons each work 8 hours a day, they produce 40000 products = 40 kWh per day. 6. The common ressources of 40 kWh per day are now divided by 10 to estimate the personal account. 7. --> Each of the 10 persons has a personal account (credit) of 4 kWh (4000 products) per day. 8. If all persons have a good living and each consumes 1 kWh, 30 kWh ressources will remain. 9. --> There is a stock of ressources accumulating, and it will be no major problem, if some people work only 1 hour a day or stay at home on Saturdays and Sundays. 10. The main problem is to make sure that the common ressources will always stay sufficiant. In fact, the process is much more complex. The energy needed to produce a product varies extremely from product to product. Some products (such as food) have a limited lifetime. Some products need a production time of weeks or years. All that has to be considered. It has to be estimated as precisely as possible, where and when how many products of a certain kind are (or will be) available, and how they can be distributed to the people needing them. The process is complex, yes, but with new technologies as computers and internet it can be realized. Is [B]"Ressource Watching"[/B] a dream of some strange people? No, not at all. The tools are already available today ([URL=http://www.intershop.de]D[/URL]/[URL=http://www.intershop.com]E[/URL]), and they are already used by big distributors and manufacturers as [URL=http://www.otto.de]OTTO[/URL], [URL=http://www.quelle.de]QUELLE[/URL] and [URL=http://www.intershop.de/intershop/customers/business_model/all/]others.[/URL] But if "all resources and industries are connected in one, continental wide information network", there is no place for those who profit from scarcity by privatising information and installing "copyright protection" ([URL=http://www.nachtwelten.de/vB/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30028]D[/URL]/[URL=http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html]E[/URL]) ... |
| Northlord | Yes, your assumption is correct. But the system is never static, with new processes and a continued improvement of technology, the qualitative and quantitative measurement of services and products would increase, as the waste loop down. That means a form of "realgrowth", instead of "speculative growth" as today. You are well aware of the kirurgy of "Agenda 2010", right? It would mean that the majority of Germans would recieve lousier service to higher costs, but the state get richer, hence it could "discipline" it's budget, and growth could be accumulated. The problem is that the majority of the Germans get a worse life, but still, the brokerages would note "growth". This "growth" i actually hurting the German citizens. In a technate, the burdens of the "welfare"-state would be nonexistent, although all benefits would remain. Free services, free education, free retirement, free transportation, free housing, free healthcare, and even an equal income of energy credits. |
| Roadkiller | I see one little problem: Ok, if the one person who works 8 hours sees, how the other person works only 1 hour, don't you think, the 8-hour-working person might say "if he doesnt work that much, i will not, too."? To my mind, the biggest problem is to convince "everyone", i.e. you need to teach several generations the ideals and the system of technocracy, in order not to have some people "not working with the system" but against. As in Communism, as long as you have people seeing other opinions, or having bad influence on the system, it is doomed. Another thing, explain me how it would be able to change our society and economy in an effective, but fair way. By elections? By tyranny? |
| TheTurningPoint | @ Roadkiller: The idea of "Technocracy" (or "Ressource Watching") is based on the existence of a high technology level, where most of the work to be done is done by machines and other "high level processes" (bio-technology etc). People will not have to do too much work. In my example 1 person can do the work to serve 2 persons' day in 1 hour. [QUOTE][i]Original geschrieben von Northlord [/i] [B]The technate is the tool, and the people are the rulers - not over other people, but over machines. [/B][/QUOTE]In another thread there was a discussion about an author assuming 5 hours work a week would be enough to achieve the current living standards with current technology level, by only leaving out buerocracy and other useless wastes of manpower. A good way to increase acceptance will be to let people do the work they want to do (hobbies, ...) or a similar work. If you think of OSS programmers, sportsmen, musicians, artists - they often do their work without any wages. But you are right, people must have enough room to go for their own goals. I think, the "Ressource Watching" idea is capable of giving a lot of freedom. How to change our society and economy? That is the main problem to solve! At first, we have to teach people to think about their own true needs (independent from today's advertising and marketing slogans). In another thread, I proposed the idea of a "Party of the Own WILL". Maybe we can activate people to go for their own needs in their village, city, district, country. [QUOTE][i]Original geschrieben von Northlord [/i] [B]The real needs are often locally based, and thus, the decisions would be made both individually and by local direct democratic entities (such as city-states, eco-colonies and so on). Probably 80% of the decision-making is based on decentralisation. [/B][/QUOTE]I think, going this way people will get the power to force changes of the law to ensure freedom of information and to stop those who profit from scarcity by privatising information and installing "copyright protection". There is also another problem: In my opinion, the idea of "Ressource Watching", presented as "Technocracy", is not attractive. As I mentioned above, it sounds like some "Big Brother" stuff. Based on the information at [url]http://www.technocracy.ca[/url] we should create descriptions and explainations which are easier to understand. Otherwise most people will not love the idea of "Ressource Watching", but fight it. |
| LaChatte | One of the most important things will be that every community, every house becomes energetically independent. Big energy-producing centers create power upon the people who depend on them, and the breakdown of the electrical system in the USA showed us clearly how vulnerable we are without energy. [QUOTE] "if he doesnt work that much, i will not, too."?[/QUOTE] People will stop to do tedious work because they just have to, but they will follow their interests. There are many passionate gardeners, carpenters, artists, organizators and so on who will be happy to to all day what they love to do. And they will just have a little pity for the poor guy who's interested in nothing and passes his days dull and dumb instead of realizing his dreams and his potential. |
| Roadkiller | As a German it's really weird to "talk" with other Germans in english... :D Ok, do you consider the theoretical stuff as fully acceptable after our discussion? Then we should see how we can bring these new ideas among the people. First of all, I think it would be necessary to translate the technocracy.ca into several languages, for example german, french and hispanic. What do you think should we do? (Hm, i hope we are going the right way, i don't want another desaster like 1933-1945 :rolleyes: ) |
| Northlord | Germany is the geographical core of Europe, but not energy-sufficient. The EU is great enough and have enough of technological and ecological resources to sustain a technate. I have already spread this concept in my native country - Sweden, and has got a really positive response. My goal is to start an intereuropean technocratic movement, a combined research and information organization, which could be present in all European countries. Thus, we will make enough of people aware of this alternative design, so that we could initiate a change in a democratic way. I do not neither like the word "technocracy". It is adapted to an American level, and not responding to European memetics. I like the word "symbiosism" better. I think that translation groups are necessary, and I'll hope you will join this project. |
| Northlord | [i]I see one little problem: Ok, if the one person who works 8 hours sees, how the other person works only 1 hour, don't you think, the 8-hour-working person might say "if he doesnt work that much, i will not, too."? To my mind, the biggest problem is to convince "everyone", i.e. you need to teach several generations the ideals and the system of technocracy, in order not to have some people "not working with the system" but against. As in Communism, as long as you have people seeing other opinions, or having bad influence on the system, it is doomed.[/i] According to Scott's calculations, every able citizen of the technate would only need to work 4 hours a day, 4 days a week. Today, with new technology, we could surely say that it would be even shorter time. The problem of convincing people is solved by a few ideas, and that is to begin to assemble the technate from below, and create the structure of a "prototechnate". One of my associates, an economist with the name Fredrik Jönsson has created this little theory. |
| Roadkiller | Another question which arose: How should those be handled, who simply do not want to work. Because even working people, even if they like their job, might immitate those non-working ones. I consider this fact or this case as very dangerous to the system. |
| LaChatte | [QUOTE]Another question which arose: How should those be handled, who simply do not want to work.[/QUOTE] Let them be.... why should they absolutely work? it's their problem if they prefer to lead an annoying life instead of engaging in interesting projects. |
| Ferrus | It seems, there are many ideas of a new order of society. The people awn under the pressure of the democracy. But isn´t it the best we could have? think of it! Communism failed, the medevil woth their kings wasn´t the truth either... There´s another idea of living without money.[B]Panocartism[/B] . It means something like "no one rules". no police, no order, no economy. The people share the things they need with others. Every one has a job to to. Just what you can the best. The people are organised in clans, "cells". 12-70 Human is one cell. five of them are a bigger cell. five of the bigger cells is are even bigger cell. and so on. until you have ONE cell. A living organism, in which every part has the same worth, where every part is needed. There is no bigger religion, and no fanatism within. But it doesn´t mean, that you can´t have a religion.... It´s a bit better than your technocracy. But, needs unlimited energy reserves(What we need) and food for all(-->What we have). Excuse me for mistakes. [url]www.panokratie.de[/url] |
| TheTurningPoint | [QUOTE][i]Original geschrieben von Northlord [/i] [B]I have already spread this concept in my native country - Sweden, and has got a really positive response. My goal is to start an intereuropean technocratic movement, a combined research and information organization, which could be present in all European countries. Thus, we will make enough of people aware of this alternative design, so that we could initiate a change in a democratic way. [/B][/QUOTE]That's a good idea. [QUOTE][B]I do not neither like the word "technocracy". It is adapted to an American level, and not responding to European memetics. I like the word "symbiosism" better. [/B][/QUOTE]I think, people today won't like any -ISM at all. I see the best chances in keeping the message as simple as possible. Maybe that even my "Ressource Watching" is still too complex. [QUOTE][B]I think that translation groups are necessary, and I'll hope you will join this project. [/B][/QUOTE]Let's see what we can do. [QUOTE][B]IThe problem of convincing people is solved by a few ideas, and that is to begin to assemble the technate from below, and create the structure of a "prototechnate". [/B][/QUOTE]That's the way I'm also thinking of. [QUOTE][i]Original geschrieben von Ferrus [/i] [B][Panocratism] It´s a bit better than your technocracy. But, needs unlimited energy reserves(What we need) and food for all(-->What we have). [/B][/QUOTE]Why do you think it's better? In my opinion, the thoughts of Panocratism are still at a theoretical level. Technocracy is more an economical system, compatible with different kinds of social structures. And - a simple form of a "prototechnate" did really work in the early 1930s in the Austrian city Wörgl - the so-called [B][URL=http://www.nachtwelten.de/vB/showthread.php?s=&postid=433021#post433021]"Wörgl-Projekt"[/URL][/b] and proved its capabilities to make a living. |
| Northlord | Panocartism is anarchy, and does not seem to have any practical functioning. The technocratic design is probably the most detailed and calculated civilisational engineering plan, ever. It is not perfect - nothing is - but it is'nt supposed to be static. It is supposed to be evolving. [i]It seems, there are many ideas of a new order of society. The people awn under the pressure of the democracy. But isn´t it the best we could have?[/i] It is a closed circulation system, or could be, but it is not a closed political system. In fact, we would have more possibilities ever to complete democracy in it's full state. Direct democracy, colony and city councils, committes with limited mandates, friendshio circles and grassroot movements could be the foundation of the new European Technate. A strong civil society is a cornerstone of democracy. The technocracy, is considered as the government over [b]machines[/b], not humans. In fact, this system could be said to have three different, interacting neurological systems. [b]Symbiosism ---> Towards nature Technocracy --> Towards machines Democracy ---> Towards people[/b] The nature is (of course) the theatre, the machines are the tools, and the humans are the actors. |
| TheTurningPoint | [QUOTE][i]Original geschrieben von Roadkiller [/i] [B]As a German it's really weird to "talk" with other Germans in english... :D [/B][/QUOTE]OK, ich habe mal versucht, meinen Beitrag und einige darauf bezogene Bemerkungen von Northlord ins Deutsche zu übersetzen. Ich finde die von Northlord vorgestellten Ideen interessant und irgendwie faszinierend. Aber ich glaube, "Technokratie" ist eine recht verwirrende und irreführende Bezeichnung dafür. Ich würde es eher [B]"Ressourcen-Kontrolle"[/B] nennen. In meinen bisherigen Betrachtungen zu Wirtschafts- und Gesellschafts-Themen hatte ich bisher immer nur die manuelle Arbeit (in Form von Arbeitszeit) erfasst, und mich gefragt, wie man Energie und andere natürliche Ressourcen angemessen in diese Betrachtungen mit einbeziehen könnte. Der Vorschlag eines "Energie-Guthabens" scheint der richtige Weg zu sein, um all diese Dinge miteinander kombinieren zu können. Ich will versuchen, den Prozess (so wie ich ihn verstehe) an einem kleinen Beispiel zu zeigen: 1. Angenommen, zur Herstellung eines Produktes ist eine Energie von 1 Volt * 1 Ampere * 1 Stunde (= 1Wh) nötig. 2. Angenommen, eine Person braucht 1000 Produkte pro Tag (= 1kWh) um gut leben zu können. 3. Angenommen, eine arbeitende Person kann 1000 Produkte (= 1kWh) pro Stunde herstellen. 4. Angenommen, von einer Gemeinschaft aus 10 Personen sind 5 in der Lage zu arbeiten. 5. Wenn jede dieser 5 Personen 8 Stunden am Tag arbeitet, erzeugen sie 40000 Producte = 40 kWh pro Tag. 6. Diese "gemeinsamen Ressourcen" von 40 kWh pro Tag ergeben, durch 10 dividiert, das Guthaben je Person. 7. --> Jede der 10 Personen hat ein Guthaben (bzw. einen Kredit) von 4 kWh (4000 Produkten) pro Tag. 8. Wenn alle 10 Personen einen Tag gut leben und 1 kWh verbrauchen, bleiben 30 kWh gemeinsame Ressourcen. 9. --> Es werden immer mehr Ressourcen verfügbar, und es wird kein großes Problem sein, wenn einige Leute manchmal nur 1 Stunde am Tag arbeiten, oder an Sonn- und Feiertagen zu Hause bleiben. 10. Das Hauptproblem ist, sicherzustellen, dass jederzeit genug gemeinsame Ressourcen vorhanden sind. In Wirklichkeit ist dieser Prozess viel komplizierter. Die zur Herstellung eines Produktes nötige Energie ist von Produkt zu Produkt sehr verschieden. Manche Produkte (wie Nahrungsmittel) sind nur begrenzte Zeit haltbar. Zur Herstellung mancher Produkte sind Wochen oder gar Jahre notwendig. All das muss berücksichtigt werden. Es muss so genau wie möglich festgestellt werden, wo und wann wieviele Produkte einer bestimmten Art verfügbar sind (oder verfügbar sein werden), und wie sie an die Menschen verteilt werden können, die sie gerade benötigen. Ja, dieser Prozess ist sehr kompliziert, aber mit neuen Technologien wie Computer und Internet kann er realisiert werden. Ist das [B]"Ressource Watching"[/B] nur ein Traum von ein paar Spinnern? Nein, keineswegs. Die Werkzeuge dafür sind bereits heute [URL=http://www.intershop.de]vorhanden[/URL], und sie werden schon heute von großen Distributoren und Herstellern wie [URL=http://www.otto.de]OTTO[/URL], [URL=http://www.quelle.de]QUELLE[/URL] und [URL=http://www.intershop.de/kunden]Anderen[/URL] genutzt. Aber wenn "alle Ressourcen und Industrien in einem großen, Kontinente übergreifenden Informations-Netzwerk" verteilt werden sollen, dann ist da kein Platz für Jene, die [URL=http://www.nachtwelten.de/vB/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30028]aus der Armut von Menschen Profit schlagen[/URL] wollen, indem sie Information privatisieren und "Kopierschutz" installieren ... ----- "Ressourcen-Kontrolle" ist ganz sicher nicht die ultimative Lösung für alle nur denkbaren Probleme. Aber es ist eine Lösung, die es wert ist, in Betracht gezogen und auf ihre Nutzbarkeit geprüft zu werden. Es könnte eine Wirtschafts- und Gesellschafts-Alternative sein, bevor der Prozess der Globalisierung unsere Lebens-Kraft vollständig zerstört hat. Es ist besonders wichtig, den Unterschied zu erkennen zwischen einem "materiellen Überfluss" und dem (hier propagierten) "technologischen Überfluss". Ein "materieller Überfluss" ist nicht reproduzierbar, wenn er aufgebraucht ist, ist er weg. Ein "technologischen Überfluss" dagegen hat die Fähigkeit, sich zu regenerieren oder sogar zu vervielfachen. Fast all unsere Ressourcen können regeneriert werden. Von diesen uns gemeinsamen gehörenden Ressourcen erhält jeder einen gleichen Anteil an "Energie-Guthaben", das er verbrauchen kann. Ein solches "Energie-Guthaben" könnte zum Beispiel in Form eines Kreditkarten-Systems realisiert werden. Es gibt keinen "Mehrwert". Die Kosten für ein Produkt kompensieren immer nur die Produktionskosten. "Ressourcen-Kontrolle" ist das Werkzeug, mit dem Menschen herrschen können - nicht über andere Menschen, sondern über Maschinen. Die realen Bedürfnisse der Menschen haben oft lokalen Bezug, und darum würden Entscheidungen vorwiegend individuell und durch direkte Demokratie (Stadt-Staaten, Öko-Kolonien und ähnliches) getroffen werden. Vielleicht werden dann 80 Prozent aller Entscheidungen auf dezentraler Basis getroffen. [SIZE=1][ EDIT: Nicht mehr funktionierende Links aktualisiert ][/SIZE] |
| Roadkiller | Dann will ich gleich auch mal was von Northlord übersetzen. Technokratie ist kein Kommunismus. Technokratie ist die Herstellung und Verteilung eines materiellen Überflusses. Dies soll durch den Gebrauch von Informationen, einer effektiven Verteilung und Herstellungsnetzwerken erreicht werden. Auch kann man das technokratische Prinzip nicht "Planwirtschaft" nennen, weil in dem "Technate" der Verbraucher das Design, Ausgang und die Qualität seiner gewünschten Ware durch eine interaktive Kommunikation mit den Fabriken selbst bestimmen kann. Die Regierung soll nicht über dem Menschen, sonden über den Maschinen stehen. Kombiniere Technikratie mit Anarchie, und du bekommst das fortschrittlichste demokratische System, welches auf kleinräumigen ökologischen Kolonien basiert, welche autonome und zugleich demokratische Stadtstaaten sind. Die häufigste Fehlinterpretation ist die, dass die Menschen uns "Technokraten" als gierige, gesichtslose, machthungrige Techniker sehen. Nichts könnte weiter von der Wahrheit weg sein. Unser Ziel ist es einen stabilen Überfluss zu schaffen, keine Armut, Mörder oder andere Kriminelle. Demokratie muss in Relation zu etwas anderem errichtet werden. Es darf nicht die "Herrschaft der Mehrheit über die Minderheit", noch die "Herrschaft aller über alles" sein, es muss die "Herrschaft über die Maschinen", es muss Technokratie sein. Die Energiecredits dürfen nicht als Zahlungssystem unserer oder damaliger Zeiten bezeichnet werden. Es ist die Menge der Energie, umgewandelt in einen Wert, welcher von den Bürgern erzeugt werden kann. Mit diesem Wert ist es nicht möglich zu feilschen, handeln oder unsere Inflation zu beeinflussen, das soll garantiert sein. Die Arbeitswoche soll 4 Stunden am Tag, vier Tage die Woche betragen, und die Autokratie impliziert ein dezentralisiertes Verteilungsnetzwerk über den ganzen europäischen Kontinent, welches eine Föderation autonomer Okö-Kollektive, Fabriken Stadtstaaten und "Supraregionen"(?) sein soll. Europa wurde noch nicht richtig geschaffen, und es wird auch nicht geschaffen, solange wir an einer Kultur hängen, welche gestorben ist, und verrottet. Wir müssen die Bürde der Renaissance und der christlichen Dogmen ablegen und eine neue Zivilisation schaffen, nein, keine Hochkultur, eine Zenithkultur, die Norden und Süden, Westen und Osten zu einem leuchtenden Turm, der "Sonne der Erde" vermischt. Ökotechnokratie steht im Gleichgewicht mit der Natur. Ich bin ziemlich sicher, dass nahezu alle von euch bemerkt haben, dass unsere momentane Zivilisation( von der ich überzeugt bin, dass sie innerhalb der nächsten 60 Jahre zusammenbricht) auf Parasititmus basiert. Wir müssen eine Zivilisation schaffen, die auf Symbiose, direkter Autonomie, Zwischenmenschlichkeit, (europeanism?) und einem Verteilungsystem, welches in Balance steht zwischen den menschlichen Bedürfnissen und den zur Verfügung stehenden Ressourcen. Ich bin überzeugt, dass Technokratie das Werkzeug dazu sein könnte. Eine System, welches dieses EnergieAccounting nutzt, wäre das erste, in dem Überfluss verteilt werden kann, und nicht den Untergang von Zivilisationen bewirkt. |
| Any Body | [QUOTE][i]Original geschrieben von Northlord 25.08.2004 14.16h[/i] Yes, your assumption is correct. But the system is never static, with new processes and a continued improvement of technology, the qualitative and quantitative measurement of services and products would increase, as the waste loop down. That means a form of "realgrowth", instead of "speculative growth" as today. You are well aware of the kirurgy of "Agenda 2010", right? It would mean that the majority of Germans would recieve lousier service to higher costs, but the state get richer, hence it could "discipline" it's budget, and growth could be accumulated. The problem is that the majority of the Germans get a worse life, but still, the brokerages would note "growth". This "growth" i actually hurting the German citizens. In a technate, the burdens of the "welfare"-state would be nonexistent, although all benefits would remain. Free services, free education, free retirement, free transportation, free housing, free healthcare, and even an equal income of energy credits. [/B][/QUOTE] Der Versuch obigen Passus zu übersetzen, um es verständlicher zu machen: ... Ja, die Annahmen sind richtig. Aber das System ist niemals statisch, mit neuen Prozessen und fortlaufender Verbesserung der Technologie, die qualitative und quantitative Analysen von Service und Produkten würde verbessert werden, und "Unrat" würde reduziert werden. Das heißt, es würde ein "reales Wachstum" anstelle des heutigen "spekulativen Wachstums" entstehen. Bist Du vertraut mit den Themen/Inhalten* (*vermutete Übersetzung, da sich keine Übersetzung von "kirurgy" finden lässt) der Agenda 2010? Das würde bedeuten, dass die Mehrheit der Deutschen einen schlechteren Service trotz höherer Kosten geniessen würden, und dass der Staat immer vermögender werden würde, aber dieser "diszipliniert" das Budget, und ein Wachstum könnte nur angenommen werden. Das Problem ist, dass die Mehrheit der Deutschen schlechter leben würde, auch wenn die Börsen von "Wachstum" sprechen. Dieses "Wachstum" schmerzt die Deutsche Bevölkerung heutzutage. Bei einer Technisierung würde ein lastenausgleichender "Wohlfahrts"-Staat nicht existieren, obwohl alle vorhandenen Pluspunkte/Benefits bestehen bleiben würden. Also unabhängige Dienstleistungsangebot/-nachfrage, unabhängige Ruhestandsregelungen, freie [Wahl/Recht? auf] Wohnraum/Wohnort, ein unabhängiges Gesundheitswesen und ebenso einen gleiches Einkommen in Form von Energie-Guthaben. *** My comments to this, so far that I understood it in a right way: I won't get conrolled by machines - sorry - I do understand, that we have to improve our technology in general to compete with world nations like US or the Far East - Germany is center of EU, but only one part of the European Country with it's own culture, different than France, Spain and Eastern Europe cultures. To reuninite all these cultures to become one European nation shows the difficulties nowadays. Free Services, Free retirement, free housing - what exactly does this mean? Allways a lot of policians/economics are promising to become free, if you are doing this or that or if you asign this or that contract. I am tired in listening to all these promises... which perhaps never won't come true. [DE] Es tut mir leid, ich möchte nicht durch Maschinen kontrolliert werden. Ich verstehe und sehe ein, dass es notwendig wird, dass die technologischen Mittel verbessert werden müssen, weil der Wettbewerb mit den Weltnationen wie die Vereinigten Staaten und auch Asien dieses einfordern. (Technologieverbesserungen um Bestehen zu können) Deutschland ist der Kern Europas, aber mit eigener Kultur, die sich von der französischen, spanischen oder auch der osteuropäischen Kultur unterscheidet. Diese Kulturen in eine Gemeinsame einfließen zu lassen, stellt sich heutzutage als reichlich schwierig heraus. Freie Dienstleistungen, freie Wohnortwahl/freier Wohnort, freie Ruhestandsregelungen - was genau bedeutet das oder ist gemeint? Es wird doch stets und ständig von Politikern oder auch der Wirtschaft versprochen, mehr Freiheiten zu erlangen, wenn hier oder dort zugestimmt wird, oder gegengezeichnet wird. Ich bin müde, diesen Versprechen zuzuhören, die sich doch meist als "Finte" herausstellen. |
| Northlord | These promises, aren't really described as "promises", they are part of the design. And I think that it is better to try to create a new European culture instead of becoming America II. And a technate is'nt about machines controlling humans (that sounds more similar to the Patriot Act system). |
| Any Body | Maybe I did understand something wrong - :rolleyes: I believe, we have to keep or develop our own style and we have to develop something independent - but how? If you take a look on the balance sheet how many goods and performances are imported into the European Countries, not produced by themselves - how will and can you really stop this? How can we work on something huge, if we are not able to solve the innerpolicical difficulties? The weakness within each European Country increases the strenght of the worldnations - not only US - the influence of Far East ist much more bigger |
| Northlord | [i]How can we work on something huge, if we are not able to solve the innerpolicical difficulties? The weakness within each European Country increases the strenght of the worldnations - not only US - the influence of Far East ist much more bigger[/i] We should not go through politics, we should go beyond it, is my solution. The design of ekotek is not depending on the existence of politics. You must not see the nations as static or permanent entities. We must rather think in regional terms, because on the national stage, we cannot accomplish much. I do not say that we will create the European technate tomorrow. This is probably the greatest change in our history, and we will need to study this concept with all attention, and even try to practice some of the concepts on local scale. We must also make contacts with people that are studying the concept of Thermodynamics. We'll need contact with economists, biologists, engineers, chemists, physicists and sociologists. If we contact the politicians in this stage, they would probably corrupt the design, so that it would be adapted to their own political goals. I believe in grass-root work. I'm are not saying that the EU should turn into a nation state. It is an impossible solution. The unification process of the EU sometimes reminds of the unification process of Germany in 1815 to 1848, but the structure of the EU is multilingual, and would probably be it for generations. In fact, the technate is not destroying diversity, but encouraging it, due to local direct democracy. If you want to know more, contact me on [url]http://www.technocracy.ca[/url] |
| Northlord | By the way, Wolfsherz, I have started a thread about the Wörgl economy on technocracy.ca - could you be so keen to describe it there? |
