Is a Technocracy even possible? It seems like the ideal form of government to me, but I have no idea how you could maintain leaders based on their knowledge instead of their charisma. You could make them dictators, but then how do you handle succession?
>>1313378
> It seems like the ideal form of government to me
Why? It seems like a terrible form of government to me. Just because someone is a gifted scientist/engineer/doctor/whatever, doesn't mean they'd be a good administrator, negotiator, or lawmaker. Plus, you'd think that you'd want to keep your top scientists and technology people doing science and tech development.
>>1313395
This.
We only usually know the best course of action in hindsight, just because people have fancy technical degrees does not mean that they have superior judgement.
>>1313395
Its the idea of those people being able to create very well polished and effective laws.
What these theories fail to realize are that anyone who is above a certain level of intelligence is an autistic and depressed piece of shit. Ive never been happy nor have I met someone my intellegence level or higher who is happy, nor functional in society for that matter.
You are entirely right, these need to stay out of government beause all hell will break lose when laws that do no take into account social contracts betweem demographics are put into place.
Hell if you where to change united states law to be completely egalitarian the dindus and gibsmedats would fucking destroy everything around them.
>>1313395
>doesn't mean they'd be a good administrator, negotiator, or lawmaker.
Neither are politicians. They are not judged by their governing ability or technical competency, but purely on their charisma and ability to sway the minds of the masses. Many politicians are absolutely idiots who destroy nations with their decisions.
At least with a technocracy, we can guarantee the leadership will have some base level of intelligence and understanding of how the world works.
>>1313422
>At least with a technocracy, we can guarantee the leadership will have some base level of intelligence and understanding of how the world works.
And how are you going to do that? What link have you given that top scientists understand how the world works, or would make better policies than what we currently have?
I mean hell, you could completely refluff your argument to say the same thing about rule by a military junta. After all, they rose to the top through hard work, and you can't get into a senior military position today without a good chunk of academic credentials. We should all run our governments by the military, it totally won't be a failure like every time it's tried!
>>1313419
>What these theories fail to realize are that anyone who is above a certain level of intelligence is an autistic and depressed piece of shit.
lol, what? Why is it then that pretty much all psychological studies show a correlation between most standard metrics of intelligence and general happiness?
>Ive never been happy nor have I met someone my intellegence level or higher who is happy, nor functional in society for that matter.
Shouldn't you be getting back to /r9k/?
>>1313422
>Many politicians are absolutely idiots who destroy nations with their decisions.
Protip: Angela Merkel has a PhD in physical chemistry.
>>1313422
>charisma and ability to sway the minds of the masses
That's exact what makes them suitable to govern. They have excellent people skills and so are likely to be good negotiators and leaders.
Let's put it this way, who would you rather have as captain Kirk or Scotty?
>>1313434
I got banned from r9k
