The Fallacy of the Death of Technocracy

Ron Miller

1998

Published in:

The Northwest Technocrat, 1st quarter 1998, No. 350

This article is slightly different than the version printed in the magazine as this was converted directly from the author's word processor file.

When one has to manufacture a certain number of words, on schedule, every day, it is possible that not all of those words will contain great intelligence nor purvey information worthy of the time required to read them. The article of October 3, by Mr. Walter A. McDougall on ``The Death of Technocracy'' must rank somewhere in this area. Mr. McDougall discusses the fallacy of ``Technocracy'' while himself using the well known fallacy of ``The Straw Man.'' That is, he has ascribed to Technocracy a concept that was never a part of Technocracy, making it possible for him to easily disprove the idea. If one has indeed, a valid concept, there is no need to utilize logical fallacies.

Technocracy was never designed as a mystical shield protecting science and technology from the correctly perceived evils of political manipulation. Politics, at its best, results in compromises between competing interests that result in the best solution for all parties including society as a whole. This is a fairly rare occurrence. It seems that, in most cases, some are more equal than others. Issues, technical or otherwise, are warped, if necessary, to fit the inclinations of those who might profit from a particular interpretation. Cynicism regarding political decision making is widespread and, judging from results, deserved.

One error in Mr. McDougall's article is that he looks no further for such behavior. Is such behavior only exhibited in governmental bodies? Is it possible that a private corporation would make a decision to produce a particular product based solely on profit without considering any further consequences? To subdivide the question even further, is it possible that a division head in a corporation might make a decision or shape an issue to his own monetary benefit or that of his group? Is it possible that, if one looks, one might even find the same behavior in non-profit organizations or possibly even in religious groups?

If the behavior described by Mr. McDougall is that widespread, it would appear that something deeper is at work. Some years back an internal discussion about the location of the gas tank in a Ford Pinto came to light. Evidently, Ford executives were made aware that the location of the gas tank was dangerous. A calculation was made as to the cost of lawsuits that would result from lives lost as a result and the cost of altering the production line that would be required if the location of the gas tank were changed. They came to the conclusion that the resulting lawsuits were the least expensive decision. Most found this conversation incredibly callous.

Similar conversations have occurred in the tobacco industry. This is called a cost benefit analysis and is standard behavior in industry. One, of course, can assume that when doing an analysis involving loss of life, it is not done on the basis of those doing the calculations losing their lives.

If a person arranges a laboratory petri dish so that conditions for the growth of bacteria are ideal, then introduces some bacteria in the dish, the bacteria population will expand to the edge of the dish, then drown in their own waste. There are two questions here. Is that what the human race is currently doing? Why do they behave this way? It is best to begin by answering the second question first.

Bacteria, as far as we know, are only aware of their immediate environment. That is, they do what feels good at the time. They are not capable of observing the effects of what they do and then correcting their behavior to produce better results or, at least, their ability to do so is very limited. They are not capable of projecting the results of their behavior into the future to predict what the results of that might be. If they could, they might arrange for a better outcome.

Human beings should be able to do much better than bacteria and yet it appears that we are unable to do so. The commandments of operating within a price system force us to behave with a very short term view even when we know better. Physically it makes no sense to pay farmers not to produce food when people are starving. But the financial dictates of a price system demand a scarcity of goods lest they become worthless to everyone except those using them. It makes no sense to strip the land of all its trees then destroy the topsoil so that nothing will grow, but it is financially advantageous to do so in the short term. The area referred to as the fertile crescent for hundreds of years is now mostly desert. Human activity made it that way. Some years back singer Bob Dylan, in one of his songs, put it quite well when he said ``money doesn't talk, it swears.'' The Bible's statement that ``the love of money is the root of all evil'' seems rather apparent from simply reading the newspapers. ``He who dies with the most toys, wins,'' is a sad commentary on how to live a life.

It is the function of human social organization to provide individuals with a structure permitting them to work together for the mutual advantage of all. As the technical proficiency of our civilization becomes ever more powerful and pervasive, social decisions become ever more critical and the margin for error becomes ever smaller. The view of government has to be long range, protecting our future as well as permitting enjoyment of the present. Our current form of government does not do very well with the future. It, by design, is focused almost exclusively on the present, on the transitory, often, on the trivial.

Democracy is the mantra of every public discussion. Few seem to notice that a republican form of government is some distance from the shining ideal. There is, in the U.S., about one elected official for every 180 voters. Yet few seem completely content with their government. It might be an interesting exercise to take a statistically significant sample to determine how many people know the name of their state representative and senator on the state level, not the federal. It is probably a good bet that few people have very much understanding of issues requiring decisions on the national level, let alone on the state and local level. They are easily lead by slogans (be tough on crime!) and well financed campaigns. People constantly vote against their own best interests, then wonder what happened. But they usually come to the conclusion that getting rid of who ever is now in office or making certain the office is elective will solve the problem. Occasionally an issue catches the imagination of people, but seldom is it treated with any real depth of understanding with the decision usually made on emotional appeal.

The prime requirement for a successful politician is political skill. One needs to know how to ``frame'' issues to catch peoples attention. One needs to know how to ask for money the right way. One needs to be able to attract supporters. One needs media consultants skilled at steering the media in the proper direction. One needs to be able to look right and to sound right. What is actually behind the mask matters little. National candidates require armies of consultants who, in turn, require lots of money. The skills required to attain office bear no relationship to competent performance in office. As a rule the issues to be decided require technical competence that takes years to obtain. No matter who is elected, change, if detectable, is slight.

To assist the office holder a plague of highly paid lobbyists descends on every governmental center by the thousands. Each has his own tightly controlled agenda designed to convince that the rights and privileges of his employer are paramount to others. Issues currently awaiting resolution include complex issues such as disposal of nuclear wastes, telecommunications issues, and security versus freedom in computer communications. All these are complex arcane issues with far reaching consequences. Virtually none of those in charge of making the decisions have any first hand knowledge of what is involved or the possible ramifications of the decision they may make.

The average citizen, totally preoccupied with the urgencies of his own existence, has little time to reflect or even try to understand the issues, let alone decide who is right and who is wrong or which course of action is best. But it will be he who, eventually, will bear the brunt of whatever course of action is chosen. The real question, the one seldom asked, is who decides what the issues are? Are the issues under discussion those that should be? Are they the real issues facing us or are they just a smoke screen designed to deflect citizens from asking the right questions? Are questions only raised when large sums of money are involved and major corporations fear for their profit margin?

Frequently, the most important questions require decisions that are unpopular with just about everyone in the present, but are things that are essential to our future existence. At the beginning of the second world war people gladly gave up cars, all large appliances, luxuries of almost anything physical, they even gave up part of their food supply. Loosing the war could have destroyed the chance to ever enjoy such things again. The issues were clear, the wolf was at the door and highly visible.

There are some mistakes that once made can not be later corrected. It is necessary to live with the results. Some decisions will often be unpopular with people who are wealthy and powerful. The world is full of the remains of dead civilizations. The survivors could always move on to a new area and start again. That option is now gone. One is reminded of an old joke. A person jumped off of a tall building. On one of the lower floors someone shouted a question out of a window. How is it going? The reply came: so far, so good. The end result may not be worth the path we are currently on.

In 1992, over 1,500 of the worlds leading scientists issued a warning to humanity. It was stated that if the human race continues the current rate of environmental degradation and population growth, the planet will be irretrievably damaged, condemning future generations to vast misery. One would think that this would certainly be a cause for concern and a call to action on the part of the governments of the world. Not surprisingly it appears that profits come before survival. It might also be instructive to know what percentage of people are even aware of such a warning.

Those who have the most access to governmental decision making, the wealthy, are seldom those with the most knowledge about what has to be done. This is the way it has been for thousands of years. It has to be noted that the performance of human civilization over that time period has not been exactly stellar. The usual response of our government to any kind of change, is either to ignore it or try to stop it unless there is a substantial amount of money to be made by the ``right'' people. Our current form of government acts at a glacial velocity in the accomplishment of virtually any task it attempts. When they do act, it has usually been so convoluted by compromise with various pressure groups that one would almost be better off without it.

What is needed in a governmental structure is action by those most qualified to make the decisions involving the subject of discussion. Governmental leadership needs enough distance and insulation from assault by pressure groups within the society, so that long term decisions can be made and implemented for the good of the whole society, without being shredded by pressure groups with personal issues to defend.

What Technocracy proposed was that those with the greatest level of understanding of social operations should be the one's running them. What was proposed is a functional governance, that is, a control of the technology that makes our civilization possible by those who understand its operation and implications. The decision making process would have to be unencumbered by a price system. What this implies is the greatest social transformation in all of human history. But the last 150 years have been the greatest social transformation in all of human history. Almost everything but our social structure has been transformed beyond recognition.

Would such a form of social organization eliminate errors? No. The operation of a social system is still a human endeavor. Would leaders be exempt from human foibles? No. Would the likelihood of bad decisions be greatly reduced. Yes. Would people have access to their leadership? Yes. Would the society as a whole have input into the direction the society is to take? Yes.

A legitimate question arises about the willingness of U.S. citizens to accept a government peopled by experts in their respective fields. As it is now, Americans are barely able to stomach a government that they themselves elect. The answer to this question is, again, yes, if certain conditions are met. They would have to be certain that the selection of people for those positions is solely on the basis of competence and no other basis. They would have to know that their voices could be heard without fear of retribution and would be listened to as long as a carefully reasoned argument for their position were presented. If people were convinced that decisions were made on the basis of the best interests of the society as a whole and not on the basis of personal prejudice. If people knew that they could have input into the decision making process at any time and into the general direction the whole society is moving.

Mr. McDougall might be somewhat surprised if, upon boarding an airliner, passengers were told they would have to select a pilot from among their number by common agreement. It is most likely that no one thinks very much about the pilot as long as he does his job and takes the passengers where they were planning on going without incident. One always hopes for an uneventful flight. Most people don't care anything about the pilot as long as he does his job. They don't care anything about his religion, his politics, his color, his moral quality, his appearance, or his or her gender. The real question is, if such a thing were to occur, ``how many people would choose to remain on the aircraft?''

Social systems develop a natural selection particular to their design. The ancient Roman Empire produced military leaders because they were just about the only ones capable of rising to the top of such a structure, a few became leaders by inheritance, but not very many, and most were not outstanding. Desperate circumstances produce desperate leaders. The social turmoil in Germany produced Hitler, in Russia, Lenin, in France, Napoleon, and in Cambodia, Pol Pot. When leadership is left to inheritance it is usually degraded to a low level in a few generations.

Our system produces clever, well connected politicians. Our social system is based on science and technology. Few of our citizens understand much about either, nor does our leadership. One recent U.S. president even used astrology in decision making. The methods of science, perfected slowly over several hundred years, are the best methods humanity has ever developed for analyzing anything. It is time to incorporate this into our social system. In the social system proposed by Technocracy, leadership would naturally rise to the top.

Every civilization on Earth has destroyed itself. But the impact of that destruction was small compared to the size of the Earth. The resources required to build a new civilization could always be found somewhere else. Our civilization covers the Earth and the impact is enormous. Not only are we degrading irreplaceable natural resources at an alarming rate, devastating the area where they are found, but we are converting replaceable resources into irreplaceable by our destructive methods of consumption. Just how much time the current civilization has before it self destructs is not known. This is a problem that humanity must solve or the future will belong to other species. It is a problem that no other civilization in history has solved. It has been left to us.