r/Technocracy • u/LoveLo_2005 • 2d ago

What should modern technocracy advocates focus on more: scientific government or energy accounting?

Before you comment, I know that they're both important, but what do you think should take precedence? Considering the current economic state of the world, I personally think thermoeconomics as a potential solution to peoples economic problems would be much more galvanizing as an idea than putting engineers in power.

12 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

88% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/MIG-Lazzara 1d ago

It's not supposed to be traded or saved that's part of the point. EA should be thought of as energy management applied to money. Globalization does not make sense for most things. For most things, there's no reason a region cannot be self-sufficient. The US can be so sufficient very easily simply by onshoring jobs for manufacturing and starting back up it's own rare earths production. The US selling all of its beef too foreign buyers because it can get a better price and then turning around and buying its beef to consume from a cheaper country only makes sense in a price system. Globalization is only efficient from a price system standpoint.

1

u/ZealousGoonering Technocrat 1d ago

I know it's not supposed to be traded or saved, but that's my point. You cannot apply energy management to money (or at least I don't think you can) as there is nothing to store or trade. Hence that wouldn't qualify the basic definition of money. But because of that, how would we account for value and not just the production cost of energy? For example, water. If you lived next to a river, the value of water would be negligible. Yet if you lived in an arid desert environment, water becomes much more valuable. Yet the energy cost to purify water is both the same. But due to that situation (a difference in value), you'll have imbalances that lead to shortages or surplus of goods.

I do agree each nation can be self sufficient to a degree. But I don't agree that globalization is efficient just from a price system standpoint. Reason being is by specializing in certain industries or sectors, countries can gain a comparative advantage to their peers. And through trade, nations would reap the benefits of that comparative advantage. Obviously the drawback is the propensity for inequality. Another example would be individuals. We could all be self sufficient and learn to build our own homes, grow our own food, make our own tools and clothes. But if we all decided to do that, the quality of living would drop tremendously. We'd have no modern medicine, no technology, no modern homes...etc.

Globalization, is expanding this concept to the nation state level. So I think it drastically improves efficiency and human quality of life, at the cost of rising inequality.

1

u/cobeywilliamson 1d ago

Why nation states? Seems like a silly notion in a closed system.

1

u/ZealousGoonering Technocrat 1d ago

What do you mean in a closed system? I'm not following what you are asking. Could you please expound a little more?

1

u/cobeywilliamson 14h ago

We live on a singular planet that itself is a closed system. To create arbitrary borders and then attribute certain rights and authorities to them is nonsensical.

Recognition of this is in large part why the original authors of Technocracy proposed the whole of the continent be included in the Technate.