где брать таких людей (и как переделывать существующих в нужных);
Необходимое количество подготовленных людей -- это одно из условий построения Техната (
http://www.technocracy.ca/tiki-index.php?page=roadmap ). Что же касается поведения остальных людей, то этому посвящается Урок 20 TECHNOCRACY STUDY COURSE. Рассматриваются условные раздражители (conditioned stimulus), условные рефлексы (conditioned reflex), условные реакции (conditioned response), а также возможность подавления (inhibited) реакций . Показано, что человек мало отличается от животных в механизме образования условных рефлексов (отличия в том, что человеку нужно меньше повторений и он способен на условные рефлексы более высших порядков: речь и письмо -- это условные рефлексы 1-го и 2-го порядков). Исследуются вопросы влияния окружения и желез внутренней секреции на поведение. Показано, что поведение груп людей идентично и полностью обуславливается окружающей средой, при этом поведение отдельных людей группы может несколько отличаться (всегда есть лидеры, доминирующие и те, кто склонен подчиняться). Это всё в современном мире не учитывается:
https://ia801806.us.archive.org/20/items/studycourse5thed00unse_1/studycourse5thed00unse_1.djvu , Page 193 писал(а):
Of no less importance in social control are the conditioned inhibitions. If they are taken young enough, human beings can be conditioned not to do almost anything under the sun. They can be conditioned not to use certain language, not to eat certain foods on certain days, not to work on certain days, not to mate in the absence of certain ceremonial words spoken over them, not to break into a grocery store for food even though they may not have eaten for days. Of course, the human being rationalizes all this by saying that it is 'wrong,' or that his 'conscience' would bother him, but the interesting thing about 'wrong doing' and 'guilty consciences' is that they are involved only in those cases where one's past training has rigorously inhibited him from performing the actions in question.
https://ia801806.us.archive.org/20/items/studycourse5thed00unse_1/studycourse5thed00unse_1.djvu , Page 208 писал(а):
This basic fact shows the futility of all moralistic approaches to the solution of social problems. Such an approach always consists of the pious hope that human beings can be instructed to do the 'right' thing, regardless of how contrary this happens to be to what their environmental controls dictate.
https://ia801806.us.archive.org/20/items/studycourse5thed00unse_1/studycourse5thed00unse_1.djvu , Page 211 писал(а):
(4) There are basic physiological differences among individuals which are partly inherent and partly acquired through differences in diet, secretions of the endocrine glands, etc. It is these basic physiological differences among various human beings that upset all philosophic theories of equality and hence any governmental theory of democracy. In any group of human beings having practically the same external environment certain individuals always tend to be dominant, and others with regard to these are submissive and constitute the followers. If there were only two men on an island, one of these men would be No. 1 and the other would be No. 2. If this spontaneous natural order of priority among men is inverted by an artificial means whereby the submissive type is made superior to the dominant type, a socially unstable situation is created.
Таким образом, предполагается научным путем исследовать изменения среды так, чтобы изменить поведение людей:
https://ia801806.us.archive.org/20/items/studycourse5thed00unse_1/studycourse5thed00unse_1.djvu , Page 209 писал(а):
This being the case, the only possible way of eliminating those types of behavior which are socially objectionable, and of replacing them with types of behavior which are socially unobjectionable is to alter the controls accordingly. No amount of social moralizing ever has, or ever will, affect this to any appreciable extent.
Цитата:
что будет побуждать их трудиться (особенно на неприятных работах).
На неприятных работах будут работать волонтеры:
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... #p14461232 На нейтральных работах предполагается использовать инициативу (второй стимул из двух). Согласно нему, например, разрабатывается свободное ПО. Разработчики этого ПО получают взамен репутацию.
http://www.technocracy.ca/tiki-index.php?page=Human+Motivation писал(а):
Technocracy has long established that there are in fact two distinct classes of human motivation. One is the familiar incentive. The other, is initiative. While incentives are outwardly directed, such as fear, punishment, praise or reward, initiative is inwardly based. These motivators come from within the person, that drive them to do what they do largely due to their personality. It is what inspires the artist to paint, or the performer to sing. It is why great visionaries of the past built large monuments and created beautiful buildings. It can include the need to build, to explore, to create, or to improve. It includes all the lofty goals that we see in those few, strange people who try to help humanity without expectation of reward.
Эти вопросы также раскрываются в моей переписке с технократами. Что интересно, брак логики у критиков технократии -- довольно распространённое явление.
(Kolzene)
Цитата:
1 The cardinal problem my friends point out is human factor. Namely, people are supposed to be like technate needs, but really people are very unpredictable and not ideal tachnate citizens. Technate is beautiful concept , but how to force people to transform current economy to technate?.. Where to find people which will agree to work, even if it will be like hobby (e.g. operator of nuclear power plant, neurosurgeon, documentation/law writing labour, draftsmanship -- these cannot be hobby and cannot be automatized)?.. What to do if huge percent of people will be lying on the sofa, and it will be not enough volunteers?..
Technocracy's position is that it does not need to "change" people in order to make the Technate work. This is for two reasons:
1) Human behaviour is not simply a function of human nature, but also dependant on their environment. Change the environment, and their behaviour will also change. This is the point of the
Three Busses picture. Also, since the vast majority of unwanted work will be automated, most of what is left are jobs people want to do. Thus, as the TTCD states: "People do not normally turn down work that they actually want to do." For those jobs that may not be as pleasant, there will certainly be enough people who will be willing to do it. Firstly because, even with all the constraints of the Price System, people still find the time to do unpleasant work today for no compensation because they know (or believe) that it is important. And second, if those Price System constraints were removed, there would be even more people willing to do so in a Technate. For a more detailed look at this topic, read
this article.2) Technocracy is a strictly voluntary type of system. It cannot work if people are forced into it. Thus, to even get it installed, you need the willing consent of the majority of the population. If you've got that, then they know what needs to be done and why. They have thus already consented to do what will need to be done to make it work. The only question then becomes, how to get that consent in the first place. A far trickier question, but a separate one. It is important to manage the conversation to deal with these issues separately. The first question is: is Technocracy desirable (assuming it could work)? The second is, can it work (assuming it is installed)? The last question is, how to install it? The reason to keep these as separate conversations is because if the answer to the first two questions is yes, then the logical conclusion at that point is to do whatever you can to try and make it happen, because the alternatives are not desirable at all (collapse of the economic and environmental systems). It is unfortunate that people always like to conflate these issues however in an attempt to try and find a way to dismiss Technocracy. Most people are not well trained in logic, regrettably.
Also, most people would be surprised at what we can automate today, because most people don't keep up on these things. Many people like to use taking out the garbage and cleaning toilets as examples of jobs that cannot be automated without humanoid robots, but these things can be completely automated. These systems have already been developed and are in use, but not widely because they are expensive (a Price System interference).
Цитата:
My friends don't understand that their income will stay the same. They do not want to change anything and are happy in current market.
Such people are usually not the best to try to talk to Technocracy about. It is usually much easier to talk to people who already know that the current system is broken, and even better if they are not already invested in some "fix" they think will work. You can read
this article for more on strategic promotion.
However I do understand the desire to tell your friends about Technocracy, I've done it myself. If they are perfectly fine with the way things are, then the first thing you need to do before even getting into how Technocracy works is discuss why it is necessary. They have to see that the current system is broken and doomed to catastrophic failure before they will be willing to look at alternatives. If the current news of wars, crime, environmental crisis, the ever-widening gap between rich and poor, etc. are not enough to convince them of this, it will likely be difficult (unless they are simply unaware of these things, in which case bring lots of evidence of these things). But either way they need to know the fundamentals:
Why Technocracy, and for the environmental angle,
The Ecology of Man.
Technocracy Comparative may also be a good one.
You say your friends are from Russia? I'd think that they'd be very eager to look for a different system. Many of us in the west refer to Russia's system as "kleptocracy", which means "rule by thieves". I don't know why they'd be supportive of it unless they were among the rich, or is Russia's propaganda that good?
Цитата:
2 I see your post viewtopic.php?p=14461232#p14461232 . But it applies to ready-built technate and assumes that employees shortage is temporary. But what will technocrats do if employees shortage will be the fundamental and permanent problem.
Of course it assumes that, because as I described before, you have to keep these issues separate. When talking about whether or not Technocracy will work, you have to assume that it has all the requirements that it says it needs. I assume you know about these requirements, which includes having sufficient people trained to operate the equipment. If Technocracy is missing any of these requirements, then even Technocracy says it cannot work. It's like a recipe for making a cake. If you don't have the eggs that the recipe calls for, of course you can't make the cake. If the question becomes: What would an established Technate do if for some reason it lost one or more of its requirements, then the answer is that it would simply stop working. So the real question is: what would the people do in such a case? The answer is, whatever they can. Here is an important axiom to remember:
Problems of scarcity require scarcity solutions, and problems of abundance require solutions of abundance. Thus, if you can produce an abundance (those three requirements), then only Technocracy will work. If you do not have them, then Technocracy cannot work and all you can do is choose from the multitude of scarcity-based options. I can speculate on what might happen in this circumstance, but it would just be speculation. That can be fun, but not usually terribly useful, certainly not helpful to learning about Technocracy.
Also remember that Technocracy does not claim to be perfect or infallible. Some people seem to want to dismiss it because it cannot prove that it is. That is ridiculous. What Technocracy does say is that it is far better than the alternatives given the current situation.
Цитата:
Who will limit humans infinite wants? Enegy setificate (http://technocracy-think-tank.org/4%20nau%20groups.htm "200,000 kilogram calories per day")? But if people will buy beluga caviar, enegry will suffice for very short time.
This is a strawman argument because no one can fulfil "infinite" anything. Sure, people may "want" infinite things, but they will never get it. That's obvious. How is that a failing of Technocracy? In a Technate, many things will be in abundant (more than enough) supply to satisfy human consumption; food, clothing, housing, health care, entertainment, etc. For any specific thing that cannot be produced in abundance, it is therefore scarce. And remember what I said before about scarcity problems? They require scarcity solutions. An example I like better than caviar is space travel. Lots of people will want to travel in space, but our capacity at the moment to satisfy that desire is entirely scarce. So how do we deal with it? Technocracy has nothing to say on the matter because it only deals with abundance. So then it will be up to the people to decide collectively how to deal with the situation in a way that is satisfactory to the most people. Perhaps that will mean a lottery, or first-come, first-serve, or perhaps as rewards for work done (like the Nobel Prize), etc. Who knows? It's all speculation. But it has nothing to do with Technocracy, or how it works, or whether or not it can work.
(Kolzene)
Цитата:
What unpleasant work do you mean?
Pretty much any volunteer work you care to look at. Here's
a short list of examples. I myself have done volunteer work, as has most of my family, usually helping poor and disadvantaged youth, or handicapped people. Both of my roommates have also volunteered. In fact that's how they met (they are married).
Цитата:
TSC says energy incomes are equal so some sort of energy credits is present to limit people's wants:
This is written a bit confusingly, but it was written over 70 years ago. Nowhere does the TSC mention "energy credits", only energy units, and the distinction is important. Technocracy is not a method of "exchange", where the citizens are given some sort of credit which they later exchange for goods and services. This "amount" that the quote you cited refers to is the upper limit on individual consumption based on the Technate's ability to produce, but this amount does not matter to the individual, since it will be by definition (of Technocracy) higher than the individual's ability to consume. As far as each person is concerned, they simply pick up (or order) whatever they want, and that's it. The amount gets registered by the Energy Accounting system, which measures it in terms of energy units (joules, kilowatt-hours, BTUs, etc.), so that they know how much of that item/service to make sure is available for the next production cycle. It all happens "behind the scenes". If the amount mentioned in the quote were not higher than what people could consume, then it would not be in abundance, and Technocracy wouldn't work.
Цитата:
But here
http://www.technocracy-think-tank.org/g ... 0stuff.htm is described situation with buying up cigars. Site says that public pressure will limit human infinite wants.
Even that site says that this is only speculation, and that the exact method of how to deal with this will be up to the people of the Technate at the time. But honestly, why would someone want more cigars than they could consume? There's a limit to how much a person can smoke in a day. All they would be doing is taking up space in their home. Hoarding behaviour is a symptom of scarcity, when one does not have the kind of economic security that the Technate ensures.
So no, "credits" will not exist. No credit, no debt, no money. Just the amount that is consumed (and produced) measured in simple, scientific units that the individual does not need to concern themselves with.
Цитата:
How to expropriate yachts, plants, mineral deposits which are now owned by some individuals? As I understand it, when technate will be established, all millionaires will voluntarily donate his yachts to usufruct system. Is it correct?
This is a transitional question, which Technocracy generally doesn't go into because it would only be speculative. Only the people at the time of transition will know the exact conditions under which they will have to make these kinds of decisions. Also, if transition to the Technate is happening, we will have the continent's best and brightest working on the problem. All you and I can do is speculate. If the Technate wins 100% on the referendum, then yes, the rich will voluntarily give up their property. This is unlikely though. So how they will behave is up in the air. It is likely that some will and some won't, so it's just a matter of how many of each we need to deal with. But, remember that "property" is a legal concept, protected by the laws of the land. If Technocracy goes forward, then by necessity the old government would be dissolved, along with all of its laws, including the ones protecting private property. These formerly rich people would have no legal recourse. Their only options would be to try and ship their property out of the country before any of this happens, or take up arms to defend it. Which they choose, and how many decide to do so are just some of the many factors that will go into the decision as to what to do about them. Upon reflection though, defending their property through the use of arms would not really be productive though, because what use is a yacht that you cannot legally park at any dock in the country? Would you just go and live out on the ocean, shooting at anyone who dares to come near it? The same goes for airplanes, which you could not legally fly anywhere in the country. As for cars, they will be of very limited use once the urbanates are constructed, because they will have no roads. Most of the cities will be demolished, so you'll only really be able to drive on highways, and where would you get fuel? Even the few cities that remain as (I personally speculate) museums of the Price System will be largely abandoned. Would you still want to live in there, all alone, with no power, water, or other amenities? Life defending your "property" would be a poor one indeed.
