Thoughts on Technocracy & Scientocracy? 🧪 👨‍⚖️

[DarkRange55]

Let's just GPT this to avoid misunderstandings in nomenclature-
Scientocracy refers to a system of government or public policymaking where decisions are explicitly based on scientific evidence and expertise — ideally prioritizing scientific methods and knowledge in shaping society's goals and policies. It literally envisions science as a central guiding force in governance, rather than just putting engineers and experts in positions of authority.

A technocracy is a system of government in which policymakers and leaders are chosen for their technical expertise in science, engineering, economics, or similar fields, and decisions are grounded in data, technical knowledge, and empirical methods rather than purely political considerations.


Technocracy
Government led by experts — scientists, engineers, economists, etc. — where policy decisions are based on technical expertise and data.

Scientocracy
Government or policy that specifically prioritizes science itself as the foundation for decision-making and societal goals. It's less about "experts run the country" and more about "science informs every major choice."


Before everyone points at Musk- thats not what I'm talking about. You can make arguments America or wherever is a plutocracy. But I'm not referring to "tech bro billionaire oligarchs." I'm referring to in the purest sense of the definition, think Star Trek.


What do you think of these systems? Is it like communism, good on paper?

Side note: I remember meeting the corporate VP of Engineering for this entire Fortune 500 company. My friend said, you need to be a politician to get to that level. And that this guy is just a bureaucrat and a politician.

 

[Hvergelmir]

If there was a technocratic party, I'd vote for that.
I can't be sure that super accomplished professors and the like would have the peoples best interest in mind, but I would be willing to try it. At the very least it ought to result in a lot of competence.

I think even some rudimentary requirements would be interesting to try.
Something like an IQ over 125, and at least one master exam. Not perfect. It wouldn't guarantee much on the individual level, and it would without doubt exclude some good politicians. At the same time, I think the overall mental acuity would increase drastically.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'm probably not understanding it correctly because I don't understand how you can separate one from the other. Science and data needs to be analysed by scientists- 'experts' in order to be presented- surely? How do we 'follow the science' without having experts in it?

There again- I suppose there are different types and definitions of an 'expert scientist'. Surely- the purest, legitimate scientist would allow the facts to inform their decisions. Not vice versa. So- if there are a bunch of people who call themselves 'scientists' but- who are really more about presenting a particular idea and backing it up with a few selected facts- are they in fact scientists in the first place? If legitimate contraditory evidence exists?

It sounds more like in the Technocracy, these 'experts' may just be people with a particular agenda pulling in a few relevent facts to back them up. Which can probably be found on both sides- to back their policy or argue against it. So- not really science. More like opinion backed up by a biased representation of facts.

But then- that's another problem. Do we even have a best answer for every problem in the world? Is there a 'correct' answer on how to run a country? Isn't it just a whole lot of trial, error and compromise to some extent?

Really though- I think it would take a phenomenal group of people to acquire power and then- hold back from pushing their own ideas forward. Surely- that's why people get into politics in the first place? Because they have an idea on how best to run a society- ideally speaking. If they're not just using it as a rung up on the career ladder themselves.

If I believed a Scientocracy could work though- I think it would be good to give it a shot. Remove power from individuals. Remove the temptation for corporations to bribe them. Let data and computers maybe decide on what works best presumably and have a few trustworthy people put the models into practice.

Imagine politics without all those egos! Would we even have another war? Most wars look to me like a handful of psychotic individuals deciding they want to plunder another country- for land, oil, resources etc. Or, they feel threatened by another country or, they want to impose their ideologies on it.

Would computers do any of that shit if they weren't programmed to? I doubt it. If the world were run by a super computer- wouldn't it be more harmonious generally? A whole system, rather than country vs. country. I wonder what all the data compiled would tell us is the best way of living.

Besides- how much are governments lead by 'experts'? Maybe expert economists! I'm not so sure they're as interested in other 'experts' opinions. They seemingly ignored scientists warnings that a pandemic was imminent before covid.

I suspect we probably mostly are Plutocracies being told we are Technocracies!