this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
-6 points (39.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

38792 readers
1122 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Genuine question. It seems like a topic that isn't discussed in-depth often anywhere I can find online.

To be clear, I'm talking about technocracy as in policies are driven by those with the relevant skills (instead of popularity, skills in campaigning, etc.).

So no, I don't necessarily want a mechanical engineer for president. I do want a team of economists to not tank the economy with tariffs, though.

And I do want a social scientist to have a hand in evaluating policy ideas by experts. A psychologist might have novel insights into how to improve educational policy, but the social scientist would help with the execution side so it doesn't flop or go off the rails.

The more I look at successful organizations like J-PAL, which trains government personnel how to conduct randomized controlled trials on programs (among other things), the more it seems like we should at least have government officials who have some evidence base and sound reasoning for their policies. J-PAL is the reason why several governments scaled back pilots that didn't work and instead allocated funds to scale programs that did work.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Who decides what the relevant skills are?

Who gets to decide social justice issues? Cops or advocates?

Edit: what about climate policy? big Oil? Or climate people?

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 22 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It may be described as that on paper, but in our reality what it seems to translate into is the tech CEOs making policy decisions, and all those that have actually been proposed are just regulation cuts that benefit their particularly company or industry and actively harm everyone else. So, yeah, thats bad.

[–] EnthusiasticNature94@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, I agree that's an issue. In a way, Americans are experiencing that live, today.

What about a variant of technocracy that accounts for conflicts of interest?

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I dont believe in hierarchy, so you lose me there. Decentralized government with a centralized education system is probably a good combination abstractly speaking.

[–] EnthusiasticNature94@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Valid. Why do you think education should be the exception to decentralization?

[–] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

We've seen decentralized education and it tends to have problems with resourcing and economies of scale, and content policies get easily hijacked by loud people with personal vendettas.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Pretty much, a lot of decentralization can have this problem. But our current state speaks plainly against centralization and even ours was supposed to be separated to a degree.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That would be something like an AI technocracy where the AI owns itself and is considered as a living human being for all intents and purposes.

If the AI's continued existence was predicated on them ruling fairly and maximizing happiness without causing any kind of like asimovian technocratic exterminations, then you might have a chance at something working like that.

The problem is the people who think they are smart enough to pull off such a specific combination of events to make something like that possible are not smart enough to pull it off and will kill us all if given the opportunity.

That would be the ideal, but even without AI, you can still have a society that is more technocratic-leaning than it is now. It's not like technocracies were historically impossible before AI existed.

I agree about the problem you mentioned. I would not trust someone who is proposing their AI will magically fix all of society's problems.

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Knowledge being the key to power, I can't say I'm inherantly against it (though power in and of itself is a risk).

The problem of course is, generally speaking... all fields run as a business under capitalism, and thus the top of them is generally the person who runs the business side.

IE I would love for knowledgable doctors to be in charge of healthcare decisions... unfortunately in practice what we get is hospital CEOs, health insurance executives etc... That specialize in how to help extract money from sick people... and not prioritize helping people not get sick, and making sure everyone can be treated if they are.

I see where you're coming from, but I mean, looking at the current president, we're already living your hypothetical.

[–] jayemar@lemm.ee 10 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

How do you select the psychologist, social scientist, and team of economists that fill these roles?

[–] EnthusiasticNature94@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If we're talking about which forms of government are "better" than others, we need a benchmark of what makes one better or worse. I'm a big fan of the ideal stated in the US declaration of independence: governments exist to preserve the rights of their people, in the broadest possible sense.

A technocracy, where established experts make relevant rules, is probably the worst form of government that's still trying to be good. For whatever topic you have, the original paradigm becomes fiercely embedded, and because power wants to preserve itself that basic framework would be even worse than what we have now.

Imagine if a group of goldbug economists had been in charge of markets and banks when the great depression hit. Or if ma bell has been in charge of telecommunications when the Internet was invented. Or if the same GM engineers who killed the EV1 and bet on trucks were in charge when electric cars and hybrids started becoming popular.

Technocracies don't have a way to change perspectives. You get all the bad parts of a bureaucratic democratic Republic, and none of the way to short circuit bloody revolutions that makes democracies the least-bad option. You might as well just go back to monarchies -- at least for those, there was a person who could be almost impartial when it comes time to decide if old ways need to change.

I agree experts can be wrong and have been wrong many times throughout history.

I can also see the concerns for maintaining the status quo.

What I'm thinking of is a less extreme variant of technocracy, where academic organizations, think tanks, etc. nominate candidates according to their own criteria. That way the overall bar is raised while leaving the decision on who is 'qualified' decentralized among the public.

My issue isn't that goldbug economists are promoting harmful policies during a depression. Some issues are complex, and people are fallible.

My issue is that tariffs are widely agreed to be harmful, yet we have tariffs wrecking the economy now. Tariffs arguably constrain people's rights by reducing their freedom to purchase what they want at fair market prices.

Like, at the very least, we should be avoiding blatant mistakes that most experts agree on. The fact that we did, in fact, make a glaring mistake against the advice of basic economics means that something is broken with the system.

[–] shani66@ani.social 0 points 8 hours ago

Democracy, inheritance, blood sport, etc. Technocracy would (probably) only be part of the title of a ruling system, America is a republic but also a democracy.

[–] shani66@ani.social 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

What's wrong is that definitions don't mean anything these days. Maybe ever. Technocracy now refers to oligarchy but with tech CEOs specifically. I would also prefer a system where there are technical requirements before you when get the chance to try to get power.

[–] EnthusiasticNature94@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I appreciate you agreeing with some technical requirements, but I want some perspective for why it's not a good idea. It seems like we're in agreement, though.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Its not a good idea because those requirements must be drafted by people, which tend to be the people in power. Historically, this ends in hand crafted requirements to get the people they want instead of the best people for the job. We also dont really require that. Plenty can be accomplished with flawed people in roles so long as those flaws dont override their responsibilities to their constituents. We do it at our jobs every day. It just so happens a flawed person in their role has the ability to control people's lives. Which is why extremely centralized modes of power suck absolute ass.

[–] EnthusiasticNature94@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I actually agree with you there. I don't like an extreme form of technocracy where some individuals dictate who is qualified to rule.

In practice, what I'm thinking of is socially delegating the requirements. Have various organizations dictate their own standards, and let them nominate the candidates.

Sure, one could just make their own jank Tariff Society and nominate their own pro-tariff candidates for economic policy, but the people would see that and vote accordingly. The reputation of the organization would be self-regulating in a decentralized way without the extremely centralized power issues you mentioned. I highly doubt a candidate nominated by the Tariff Society would stand a chance against a candidate nominated by the American Economics Association, for example.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

A decentralized coalition government would probably be the sweet spot for now. Anything based on merit or qualifications or whatever will just be seized by people with agendas or will be designed with a bias to begin with. Technological based ones will just be ruled by the people with the technology. Our only viable option right now are liberal democracies that actually invest in their populace's education and electoral information. I've grown more towards anarchism in reality, as I no longer believe people can be trusted in a post-truth society. Even the EU is clamping down on climate protestors. Its authoritarianism all the way down in one way or another.

I don't trust people either. 😭 I had no idea about the EU vs climate protestors. That's wild.

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

There are two levels of problems with a technocracy.

The first is a problem that's common to all hierarchical systems, entirely regardless of their specific nature. They will, each and all, sooner or later come to be dominated by people who hold the positions they hold solely because they most lust for those positions and are most willing to do absolutely whatever it takes to gain and hold them.

It makes no difference what sort of limitations or stipulations might be in place - if there is a position that holds authority over others, it will eventually come to be held by the most vicious and conniving bastard in the organization, because they will be willing and able to go to lengths to which nobody else will go.

The second problem with a technocracy is ancillary to the first, and common to all hierarchical systems that focus on some specific philosophy or identity. The positions of power will still come to be held by the most determined psychopaths, but unlike in a more general system, the abusers in power will have an additional claim to legitimacy by paying lip service to the ideal. They're generally able to act even more destructively than other psychopaths, since they can hide their malevolence behind the philosophy or identity both before and after the fact.

Or more simply - problem 1 is that you end up with psychopathic assholes, and problem 2 is that you end up with psychopathic assholes who have even more power than your run-of-the-mill psychopathic assholes because, after all, they're experts.

Yeah, any hierarchical system is susceptible to abuse.

In contrast to the current system, do you think a technocracy would be more vulnerable to these problems?

I'm also interested in hearing your proposal for a non-hierarchical system. I've wanted to look at some decentralized systems (and ironically, Lemmy is sort of like that), but I haven't really found anything that seems promising.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

@jayemar already gave a valid counterpoint, about how to select the technocrats in the first place. But let's suppose we did somehow select the best and brightest of their fields. The next problem is that life is messy, and there often isn't a single answer or criteria which determines what is in the public interest.

Btw, for everyone's benefit, J-PAL is the Jameel Poverty Action Lab at MIT, with branches covering different parts of the world, since policies on addressing poverty necessarily differ depending on local circumstances. They might be described as a research institute or maybe a think tank, as they advocate for more-effective solutions to poverty and give advice on how to do that.

Poverty, as an objective, can be roughly distilled into bringing everyone above some numerical economic figure. There may be different methods that bring people out of poverty, but it's fairly straightforward to assess the effectiveness of those solutions, by seeing how many people exit poverty and how much the solution costs.

Now take something like -- to stay with economics -- management of the central bank. The USA central bank (The Federal Reserve) was created with a dual mandate, which means they manage the currency with care to: 1) not let inflation run amok, and 2) keep USA unemployment low. The dual mandate is tricky because one tends to begat the other. So when both strike, what should a technocrat do? Sacrifice one goal short-term to achieve the other long-term? Try attacking both but perhaps fail at either?

Such choices are not straight yes/no or go/no-go questions, but are rightfully questions of policy and judgement. Is it fine to sell 10% of parkland for resource extraction if it will iron-clad guarantee the remaining 90% is protected as wilderness for time immemorial? How about 25%? 60%?

Subject matter experts (SMEs) are excellent at their craft, but asking them to write public policy -- even with help from other SMEs -- won't address the fuzzy dilemmas that absolutely arise in governance.

In a democratic republic, voters choose not only the politician with views they agree with, but also are subscribing to that politician's sense of judgement for all of life's unknowns. Sometimes this goes well, sometimes that trust is misplaced. Although it's imperfect, this system can answer the fuzzy dilemmas which technocracies cannot.

To be clear, J-PAL addresses a variety of issues outside of poverty, and some are even fuzzy, like women's empowerment.

I agree that inflation and unemployment are mutually exclusive when it comes to managing the central bank. However, is it really that much different from other problems with constraints? It's not like an engineer just abandons a project and leave it up to 'judgment' - they find optimal ranges to adjust the dials to.

If your ultimate goal is to have more prosperity (in terms of employment and prices), the central bank is simply one of many tools that can affect this (and a pretty constrained one at that). You'd be better off looking at additional tools at your disposal, such as evidence-based vocational training programs, and scaling them nationwide.

[–] EnthusiasticNature94@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know why you were downvoted. I really appreciate how thorough you were and the links you provided.

I'm still drafting a reply. I just think it's weird you got downvoted.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think I was? As a rule, I always remove the automatic +1 for my own comment, since I prefer to start the count from zero.

Ah, my bad. Well, thank you for your well thought out response.