Thinking About Technocracy

Where to from here?

Evidence-based Governance

with 3 comments

Little of what we do to govern our institutions relies on solid evidence.  Governance is not an art, it’s tribal medicine.  It certainly isn’t science.  Approaches like adaptive management are applied (occasionally) to environmental problems, but what about running government-owned corporations or providing evidence-based health care?  Do we even think about those?  No.  At most we used risk-based models and those are typically primitive.

We are badly in need of an era of evidence-based governance.  If I were to start an NGO I think I would strike out in exactly this direction…the training, research and social tools necessary to build, access and deploy evidential thinking in the realms of institutional governance.  It’s just not done.   Increasingly the fallout from the failure to build evidential models will be tragic as societies continue to muddle through toward “best practices.”

Advertisements

Written by ryanlanham

January 11, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The injection of monetary concepts into all discussions of natural wealth and income, wholly confuses the people as to the actual issues at stake. Furthermore, it serves as a handy screen behind which, with a little word juggling, the business/political operators of this Price System can continue their profitable activities without being too greatly embarrassed by outside interference. — Howard Scott.

    Tbone

    January 11, 2009 at 10:05 pm

  2. Money isn’t going to go away soon. I believe that energy vectors and applying policy tools that do not necessarily monetize outcomes is worthwhile. It is a great discussion to have whether or not money is the only possible socially fungible good on a large scale.

    I am not against profit. I am not even against excessive profit. I am against market or democratic actions doing harm where science and knowledge make obvious clear policy criteria that no stewardship governance vehicle would fail to implement and condone.

    Again, if that is not technocracy as it has been, I am sorry to be heterodox with my use of the term. I see no advantage to joining old fights particularly when those fights have little relevance to the billions who must live and thrive today. If the old ideals were best, that will, I’d think, out soon enough. The discussion is the key. Good thoughts are continually re-founded.

    Ryan Lanham

    January 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm

  3. Old fights?
    Not sure what you mean.
    The Technocracy technate concepts were so far ahead of their time that people are just now barely catching up in so called academia. Systems theory is the basis of the Technocracy Study Course.

    The ideas could have been implemented pretty easily in the mid 1930’s. Now the clock is ticking and the window is closing.

    If we do not implement the basic technate construct chaos will make the world a very unpleasant place.

    Money could very easily go away tomorrow… our system with its high conversion of energy is extremely vulnerable. Take the average Americans car keys away and they are helpless.

    In some ways we are as vulnerable as many so called undeveloped parts of the earth.

    If we destroy our resource base… then it is all over.. and civilization as we know it will end.

    ”””””I am not against profit. I am not even against excessive profit. I am against market or democratic actions doing harm where science and knowledge make obvious clear policy criteria that no stewardship governance vehicle would fail to implement and condone.”””””’

    Well… you do not know how a Price System works. Rules of the Game. A Price system has to grow… if it does not it collapses. Globalism is collapsing now for several reasons. Money number one. Debt tokens.

    “Debts are subject to the laws of mathematics rather than physics. Unlike wealth, which is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, debts do not rot with old age and are not consumed in the process of living. On the contrary, they grow at so much per cent per annum, by the well-known mathematical laws of simple and compound interest … It is this underlying confusion between wealth and debt which has made such a tragedy of the scientific era.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth,_Virtual_Wealth_and_Debt

    Tbone

    January 12, 2009 at 2:43 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: