Archive for the ‘Patheon of technocrats’ Category
Follow the link that follows to a series of classic technocracy videos now more than 25 years old on a future that, in part, may yet evolve: Technocracy ideas and archive
Tbone offers a link to a classic video on the history and core ideas of technocracy…25 minutes from 1981: View here.
Author Kevin Baker wrote a column appearing on his website that labels early technocrat Howard Scott as “weird.” I expect Scott was so though I have no evidence (nor have I looked for any) and Baker offers little that is more damning than that usually turned up about U.S. presidential candidates. Overall, it’s sort of an innuendo column, but it does drive a pretty deep blade. The point is made…these guys are weird, shy away from them.
Scott was almost certainly a crackpot of sorts. I’m sure Ayn Rand was one and look at the kooky following Objectivism has built. Historians will have to try and ultimately condemn Howard Scott further, if he ever merits the review. I think he is still significant in the way any crackpot who plows up ideas of a rather new style can be–just as Ayn Rand is, in fact. I can’t disagree more than I do with Rand who I credit with more mayhem that she probably merits, but still take her egoist follow-on army quite seriously. They are the core of what we call “libertarian” in most of my experiences.
For whatever denial is worth, I’m not a “traditional technocrat.” Never have been, and have no desire to start. No one likes labels much who has half a brain, and I wouldn’t opt in to any I know of off the cuff. I believe in pluralism, human rights, markets, liberty, and all the other motherhood ideas and litmus tests usually applied…including motherhood. I also believe democracy is full of implicit problems and that governance under democracy is woefully short-handed in its capacity to deal with the sorts of crises the world now faces.
As I have written and will assert at some length, I am much more inclined to what is now industrial ecology as practiced at Yale and at several other institutions at present. To my mind, those domains represent an extension of planning. If their roots extend to kooks and charlatans, it staggers me little. Of course many pursuits have origins in less than esteemed pools of muck.
Technocracy is clearly a word associated with blackguards and mind-stealing in some quarters. I find it in Google searches nearly always associated with anti-bureaucratic arguments toward which I have considerable sympathy, myself. Whatever. Straw men are the least interesting opponents to anyone who has something genuine to say.
What more concerns me is evidence and evidence-based governance. Even opting for the term “science” or “engineering” fills any random group of intellectuals with moans and sighs. Justly so, in most cases, I’d argue. We have little good history of sustained bureaucratic successes even in obvious areas like environmental management. It is for just those reasons I backed away from the formal study of public administration, though I stil find government to be our best singular hope of implementing post-pricing systems that account for other evidential criteria as policy measures rather than attempting to monetize them. I doubt governments will soon do so unless necessity is even more painful than I currently anticipate as we transition through market volatilities associated with carbon problems including, most accutely, shortfalls.
I’m not sure I’m well suited to the old fights in what has been the technocracy world. I really have no stake in those battles.
I stand for technocracy as ideal of governance that emphasizes using science to make key policy frameworks and boundaries that even democratic actions, particularly market-based pricing actions, cannot overrule–particularly without due processes that articulate the reasons for overrule down to fine details. To my mind this is the only logical way of moving forward. We have to have certain metrics that overrule market conveniences, and these must go beyond “leadership” at any given point.
Howard Scott, perhaps more than any other person, is associated with the rise of technocracy as an ideal. He belongs in any technocracy pantheon. However, no one of course owns technocracy as an ideal nor will the word ever resolve down to a refined ideal any more than democracy does. If any one person “owned” the idea of technocracy, it would be Howard Scott. Of course he’d be just the sort to eschew any leanings toward control of ideas or their diffusion.
I am indebted to Tbone in the comments for a link to the wikipedia bio of M. King Hubbert. He is a new historical figure to me, but he’s clearly someone any technocrat should know. I’m going to have to start a pantheon, so I hereby induct M. King Hubbert into my personal pantheon of technocrats.