So would ASL, yet here we are.
The education system is for schooling, not learning.
So would ASL, yet here we are.
The education system is for schooling, not learning.
We're cooked. 😭
This is a really good response. Thank you.
I think we can have both the benefits of democracy being decentralized and resistant to systemic manipulation, and of technocracy having some minimum bar to deter ignorant individuals from harming society. There are trade-offs for sure, but currently, we the people ultimately voted for someone who openly said he'd impose tariffs (among other things).
One potential example (among many, many possibilities) is a system where academic organizations and think tanks stake their reputation to nominate candidates, and then the people vote on them.
For example, let's say the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) nominates a pro-tariff candidate to manage economic policy. And then let's say the people end up voting for them. After the tariffs wreck the economy, the reputation of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) will deteriorate considerably. In the next election, the people will vote the candidate out and ignore future EPI nominations.
Yeah, this is probably the main criticism of technocracies.
I personally advocate for a more decentralized version of technocracy. I don't really have stake in which decentralized system is best, but each decentralized system has at least some minimum bar to deter those who have absolutely no idea what they're doing from assuming power.
AI can type tedious snippets faster than me, but I can just read the code and revise it if needed.
You can still have a technocratic system that allows moral weights to be 'baked into' it.
For example, currently, in some states, judges are elected. The people decide what kinds of judges align with their values.
However, most of these states require judges to have a law degree to run, which is technocratic—you cannot run for a judge position without graduating from law school (and passing the bar in some states) first.
Sure, there are no good solutions and a vast amount of conflicting legal theories on how to address or interpret certain things, but as a whole, the judicial system is at least more grounded in some understanding of the law rather than random individuals who were able to market their way into judicial power.
I imagine a similar thing would happen for other issues.
I don't trust people either. 😭 I had no idea about the EU vs climate protestors. That's wild.
Yeah, it's sort of a chicken before the egg problem - you need an expert to identify one. The potential for echo chambers is there.
In practice, though, wouldn't it be similar to how any other role is filled?
Here's one criterion: Outcomes. What is their track record? Have they made meaningful contributions that solve complex problems? I don't need an intimate knowledge of carpentry to see that a contractor's reviews have photos of great (or not so great) work.
The actual electoral process could be a variety of approaches, and all have their weaknesses, but most would be 'less wrong' than the current system.
Hardly any economist would agree with a tariff, yet here we are.
I don't have a stake in whether it's a nomination system by academic organizations, or some other minimum bar, or whether the process is still ultimately democratic, etc. One can theorycraft all kinds of technocratic electoral systems and their weaknesses, but I'm gonna need some convincing that any systems' flaws are worse than what we have now.
This seems like a game you'd do with other programmers, lol.
I can understand using AI to write some potentially verbose or syntactically hell lines to save time and headaches.
The whole coding process? No. 😭
I'm not proposing anything specific, no. I said it was an example (and I even bolded the text).
I don't really have a stake in the specific example I gave, so I can't really comment much else on your critique of it.