Talk:Technocracy movement/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Technocracy movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

notes on edits

Jacques Fresco does have connections to Technocracy Inc. having been a former member. Some members of Tech inc have helped him with his design and his design has similarities and Technocracy thus there is an interest to place a see also link to Jacque Fresco. NET for formed in 2005 and registered in 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isenhand (talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fresco and Venus Project are not related to the Technate design for North America. Fresco disavows Technocracy Incorporated. There is no design connection at all. You have restored the criticism section. It has already been talked about as being ridiculously over long. This is not about what you consider technocracy to be. It is about Technocracy Incorporated skip sievert (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Its irrelevant whether or not JF “disavows Technocracy Incorporated” and so are your personal problems with JF and the Venus Project. This is a page about the technocracy movement. JF’s ideas have significant similarity to technocracy and technocrats from Tech Inc have help in developing the ideas. JF was also a member of Technocracy Inc. Thus, a link to JF is of interest to anyone interested in Technocracy. Isenhand (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. He has no relevance. He disavows the concept even. Could you please post on the bottom of the page to end the confusion of where you are placing your commentary in relation to past posting on pages such as this ? This is a old post you are responding to here. skip sievert (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Splitting article

Ok if I understand correctly, you want to make this article into a short one describing what the Technocratic movement is, then have a large article about Technocracy Incorporated (but which doesn't talk about it's proposals), and then have an article called Technocracy (the design) (or something of that nature) which will deal with the proposals and designs like, Continental Hydrology and Urbanates, etc. Well I can already see some problems with this arrangement, firstly which proposals will be contained in this design article? Will it only be Tech Inc.'s stuff, or will NET's stuff be there as well?

The point I'm making is, that different groups in the Technocracy movement have different designs. So what is the point of creating an article called the design, when there may be no common design? I think it is better to simply have Tech Inc.'s designs in that article, and perhaps have mention of the different approaches in the movement article. Though both of those objectives are already fulfilled in this article (i.e. it talks about Tech inc. and the other groups and it talks about the designs of the different groups in different sections). So I think that if there is to be a split (which I'm not convinced of) it should be in-2 rather than in-3. --Hibernian 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Hibernian, that is essentially what I am proposing. I can put up samples of the two new articles any time it is decided for opinions and editing. --Kolzene 05:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As you say there is no one design so I think the design article should have design from both Tech Inc and NET as well as other technocratic organisations. Isenhand 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to see NET get attention, speaking objectively I think that newer groups should not get the same "weight" as the design put out by Technocracy Inc., do to its history and level of research that has gone into it. Otherwise, the problem becomes that any person or group can take whatever they like of Technocracy's ideas, change what they don't like, and suddenly we have dozens of "technocracies" to cover. A good example of this is Skip's claim of his organization "Technocracy Incorporated CHQ 44.94 -93.29". 77siddhartha has already given his vote of "no weight" on this organization for reasons given further below, and I agree with him. A mention of NET on the design page would be fine, in my opinion, with a link to the main NET article, which could cover some basics of the differences. This would in essence be giving some weight to NET, but not as much to Technocracy Inc. This is especially true since NET's design is derivative. If NET were to suddenly gain in popularity with gaining many members and mentioned in regular mainstream periodicals in Europe, then obviously that would change things and more weight could be applied.

An important issue arises however when one considers that the position of Technocracy Inc. is that certain portions of the technocratic design are not negotiable because otherwise it would not work. Obviously differences in how that design is applied would arise when applied to continents other than North America, but here is were it must be clearly marked out what is an essential tenet of technocratic design methodology, and what in Technocracy Inc.'s (or anyone else's) proposals are the result of the application of that design methodology. In case that is confusing, let me give a quick example. The Continental Hydrology proposal is specific to North America and the result of the attempt to make overall transportation as efficient as possible. This would not necessarily work in other areas of the Earth, and thus could be dispensed with if something similar was found unsuitable. However, the basic tenet of efficiency (as Technocracy describes it) is intrinsic to the design methodology, and cannot be done away with; it must be included in order to be considered "Technocratic". Since Technocracy Inc. has never had any interest in other areas, preferring to concentrate their few resources on getting the North American Technate started first, and then worry about other areas later, they have not easily made this distinction themselves. Any other area (or derivation of the design) must do this first before anything else. In theory, there should be scientific consensus on this point as to what is central, but that is going to be difficult I suspect. I the meantime I think that the quickest and most fair way to deal with the issue of what gets included in the "Design" article is as I have stated. --Kolzene 05:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we would have something like; general principles of design (efficiency, application of science), Tech Inc’s plans and then a section at the end mentioning other plans such as NETs? Isenhand 06:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If we want to go to that much work, that would be nice I think. --Kolzene 06:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So, “ideas and goals” would go in the new “Technocracy (design)” along with “criticism of the movement” (renamed to “criticism of Tech inc design” or something similar). We could then shorten the history down and move parts referring to Tech Inc itself to the Tech inc page. The Tech Inc publications can also go there as well. I can add a bit more about the Technical Alliance and how it folded after about a year, the reformed in the 1930s to the history section as well.

Sound ok? Isenhand 06:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the basic idea yes. We can discuss the details of the exact contents of the articles in their own talk pages when I put them up. Does this weekend sound ok? --Kolzene 06:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the Technocracy movement article wouldn't ultimately result in being only a paragraph at best. Remember before that there was a Technocracy Inc. article, but there was so much overlap between it and this article that it moved into one. I would like to see the following:

Technocracy Inc.: details the history of the organization itself, the Technical Alliance (perhaps a merge is necessary?), its current form, websites, headquarters, etc. What it advocates should be summarized in one or two sentences with a link to...

Design of Technocracy: the main principles of the North American design, with criticisms. Possibly any changes that have been made to the initial design since inception. European design mentioned in a short paragraph, linked to main article.

I think that any additional article (e.g. Technocracy movement) would simply be too short. I think the articles will be clean enough as long as there is a clear distinction between the form and the players. I suppose once more data is gathered, the NA and EU movements themselves can be talked about (i.e. how many people participated, the drives, Operation Columbia, etc.), but until then I can't see this being more than a few sentences. Perhaps though, it would be a start? --77siddhartha 07:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is now suggested that the NET section be dropped from this article. Net is not connected to Technocracy. Net is an autonomous group that is a proponent of sociological concepts regarding culture. That does not fit into the Technocracy mode. Technocracy is based on science. Please chime in as to this proposal. Net does not belong in the Technocracy movement category for obvious reasons. They are not connected to the concept. The Technate design is only meant for North America. It is not applicable to Europe. (skip sievert 04:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Skip, as I pointed out above, what exactly can be called a "true" technocratic organization and what can not is not an easy question right now, and certainly not something to be arbitrarily decided by a single person. I have proposed above a method of dealing with this until a method can be devised (although that may involve something other than Wikipedia to resolve). That is what is up for discussion and determination at this point, not NET's appropriateness in whichever article. Given this, and the rule clearly posted on this talk page that no edits are to be made without first discussing it here, your removal of that portion of the article was inappropriate and should be reverted. We're at a stage here Skip where we need consensus on issues or non-trivial changes before they can be made. You unsderstand that, right? Please stick to it. --Kolzene 06:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that this article is about the Technocracy movement. I take that to mean any notable attempt over time to disseminate Technocracy's core principles. Technocracy's core principles:

Conservation of resources
Scientific rationality
Efficient distribution

NET, I think, keeps with these principles. Furthermore, they also are notable in that they have been around now for some time, attracted a following, and are unique in that they are the first real organized attempt to bring Technocracy overseas. They clearly lay out how their movement differs from the original Technocracy [en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=96], but the core concepts above remain. In an article about the movement, NET certainly deserves to be mentioned in at least passing -- as is the case now. --77siddhartha 06:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don`t think so. Net is composed of 4 or 5 bloggers that self publish their stuff. It is self serving, and has nothing to do with the 'principles' as you say of Technocracy. Here is an example of one of their latest posts as of this morning

quote, " duh'. science and religion is the same thing. just systems of interpretation supremacy on behalf of a self-declared "enlightened" class which is oh so intelligent and therefore have the "right" to control police and tells us ordinary guys how to behave and act. to tell us what we should long to. i am against all systems of interpretation and control. that is why we cannot allow them to exist at a[b]ll. that is why we in the antifa are beating up fascists. so that people would be afraid to be fascsists so they cannot control us [/b]and force us to grow normal haircuts and get jobs. we want to be free. as long as others just leave us alone, it's ok, but we cannot accept ideologies which put abstract ideals above your and me head, even if they are voluntary. the reason why is that such ideologies WILL eventually grow repressive. therefore, we cannot allow churches, exactly like we cannot allow people to become fascists." end quote. Is this the kind of stuff you want to link to in regard to Technocracy? en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&id=820&catid=10&limit=15&limitstart=15 Network of European Technocrats - Re:Churches in a technate - N.E.T. Forum The Net group should be dropped as a link and not even mentioned here. The article has turned into a promotion vehicle for Dr. Andrew Wallace. His book is heavily advertised on that site. Andrew Wallace is of course the wiki editor Isenhand. This violates basic wiki policy of promoting self published material or advertising. Net has NO place in relation to the Technocracy movement.

The NET website can be used as a source to describe itself, but not much else. Just because someone on the forum made a dumb post doesn't mean the whole organization is a sham- it is a legally recognized entity. I do have a question about those Swedish links on its article though: what are they and who wrote them?--Wafulz 17:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wafulz, They are links to articles written by a journalist from the newspaper “The Node” which is a local paper in Umeå. Its about the only external investigation of NET in Sweden. Isenhand 19:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We seam to have an agreement with splitting the article. Shall we go ahead or does some have more to say? Isenhand 11:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Split now done. Isenhand (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have noted a number of times NET is a group of 3 bloggers in Sweden that self publish their own material. Isenhand you wrote many of their information ideas your self and are their director. You also have a commercial book that you are promoting. http://web.telia.com/~u11319012/index.htm Andrew Alexander Wallace That is a conflict of interest plain and simple. One of your sales sites is here [removed link to blacklisted URL] Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world by Andrew Wallace (Book) in Engineering This seems like a blatant policy violation. Most all the NET information is self published and most of it endorses your book, so more than any thing Network of European Technocrats is a commercial sales site for your book. Giving equal weight to a forum that is a fancy blogging site seems misplaced here. I do not think that Net should even be on this page. None of its written works are peer reviewed on the site. They are all self published. Also the fact that you also edit here under the name of Technocrate does not help things much. skip sievert (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Akin book

I notice that there is a review of this book in Technology and Culture, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Oct., 1977), pp. 714-715. This is available from JSTOR here. Since I graduated a while ago, I no longer have access through my university. Perhaps someone else does and they can post the gist of the review here? --77siddhartha 08:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately my University appears not to have access. :( Isenhand 10:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have noted a number of times NET is a group of 3 bloggers in Sweden that self publish their own material. Isenhand you wrote many of their information ideas your self and are their director. You also have a commercial book that you are promoting. http://web.telia.com/~u11319012/index.htm Andrew Alexander Wallace That is a conflict of interest plain and simple. One of your sales sites is here [Removed link to blacklisted URL] Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world by Andrew Wallace (Book) in Engineering This seems like a blatant policy violation. Most all the NET information is self published and most of it endorses your book, so more than any thing Network of European Technocrats is a commercial sales site for your book. Giving equal weight to a forum that is a fancy blogging site seems misplaced here. I do not think that Net should even be on this page. None of its written works are peer reviewed on the site. They are all self published. Also the fact that you also edit here under the name of Technocrate does not help things much. skip sievert (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Weight of 'other' forms of Technocracy

(Original thread archived here)

Given that skip seems to be a minority, unless he can present figures and facts about the membership of 'his' form of Technocracy, what weight should his view be given in accordance with WP:UNDUE? My vote is no weight. --77siddhartha 00:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hibernian here. I know of a couple of people that agree with Skip on some of his points, but I have no idea if they are involved in this organization that Skip mentions, since neither have they claimed membership that I have seen, nor has Skip claimed them as members. Skip is the only person I have seen complain about the TTCD in this fashion. I've had complaints about the book before myself, submitted changes to Technocracy Inc., and some were accepted, some where not. Most of these recommendations came in the form of format and presentation rather than content, however. Add to this that Skip's assaults on the TTS/CD are strawmen anyway, drawn from misunderstanding my (and other people's as well) attempts last year to explain some things to him regarding his issues. I could go into detail on this, but I don't think that this is the place to bring this "debate" if you will, plus it has been had before in other arenas to no positive effect, I'm afraid.

I'll also agree with 77siddhartha's original points, as well as vote no weight. Also, concerning the one point: "There is considerable overlap between the TSC and TTSD", I think that some people here may not be aware of this, but the TTSD was designed as a shorter replacement of the TSC. It's contents are essentially the first 20 lessons (on science and technology) greatly condensed into about the first third of the new book, while the majority of the remainder consists of basically the last two lessons (concerning Technocracy analysis and design) in the TSC in their entirety, with some minor updating given advances in science and technology between the publishing of the two books. The bits at the end have been added to clear up some common concerns of people noticed since the publication of the TSC, and were largely taken from previous sources of Technocracy literature (mostly the various magazines). I'd also like to point out that the orginal TSC was never intended as a "bible" as some seem to regard it, but rather as an interim book to satisfy the great numbers of people interested in Technocracy during the 1930's until a more definative work could be composed (see Technocracy Study Course, Fifth Edition, page ix, "Preface", first paragraph). It is a great misfortune I think that Technocracy Inc. did not complete that project. --Kolzene 06:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We regret that the By-Laws and General Regulations of Technocracy Inc., and the policies in general prevent us from giving you any figures on membership of any period of Technocracy's history. This has always been the policy of Technocracy. (skip sievert 04:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

A simple 'more than 100', 'less than 10', 'only myself' would suffice. --77siddhartha 06:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

'Unofficial' Technocracy websites

Net does not deserve a section on this page. They are a group of four bloggers.(skip sievert 05:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

From Technocracy Inc.'s Statement on Authenticity

Technocracy’s two official web sites are: technocracyinc.org and technocracyvan.ca

Okay, so what should be done about other material that is from websites claiming to be about Technocracy and not listed here? I am talking about technocracynow.blogspot.com and technocracy.ca. Both of these sites say that the other is not legitimate. Neither are official according to the organization's 'real' site. I can't believe that such an obscure movement can bring about so much confusion. I think this article is in need of a moderator to determine what constitutes a reference. This is absolutely ridiculous and is almost turning into a waste of my time. --77siddhartha 06:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to list NET. They are not connected to either group. Net does not deserve a place on this page. They are four bloggers that are based in sociological concepts. That is not connected to Technocracy which is based on science. Net is not a part of Technocracy. (skip sievert 05:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Hang in their Sid, The big boss Wafulz, who is named that for a reason I think, has already said that TechCa should not be linked here after he got a look at it. Check out this link http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~educator/faq.htm Webmasters choice. FAQ file for another perspective. Check out David Ravlin. Ask him a few of your questions. He is a smart and interesting guy and a hardcore Technocrat. He has some interesting things to say in this more 'real' Q and A. Please read through that, and do not give up just yet. It is starting to get a little interesting. TechCa is not an official site by either Technocracy group. Kolzene though partially edited the TTCD faq`s material, so he and Hibernian are 'betting the farm' on his 'funny' ideas. The Net site is not even connected to Technocracy ideas except that each and every member there was 'brainwashed' by Kolzene who claims to be a 'witch', and I believe him Ha ha. Kolzene is not a member of TechInc or our group, and Ross/Hibernian, his gopher on that site is not eligible in either. Kolzene here has 'trained' the NET people to believe in the TTCD, except for Isenhand/Dr.Wallace Phd. ha ha, who does not 'believe' in church building in a Technate. Enrique Lescure does and others on the NET site, technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399

Network of European Technocrats - Re:"War" on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum which is here soldiering for NET, and recently reverting my edits despite no involvement here or creative imput (Technocrate). Also Kolzene the editor here is a practicing Wiccan, and is a psychologist as is Mansel Ismay the Net director. This fits the pattern of recent years of our material being taken over by 'believers' in sociological concepts. All this is sad but true. Most real technocrats are alienated because of bad management. The group headquarters was captured by a bunch of Canadians, that also captured the money involved. By the way, that is several several millions of dollars. My group is not interested in the money. We do not care. We are interested in the ideas. Technocracy, the real thing is very cool. Well, that may be more info than you want to know, but those are the facts. (skip sievert 07:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

I take a bit of offense to that. Being that you said Kolzene is a Wiccan, I think I met him about ten years ago at a Technocracy conference in Aldergrove. He was very genuine and I remember him especially because he said that he was a Wiccan. He changed my previous beliefs about the religion in the time I spoke with him (really, who cares what religion people are?). I am a Canadian too and to say that CHQ was taken over by Canadians is simply false as the headquarters are still in the States. Oh, and I think the average age for the Canadian technocrats in Vancouver is about 75. I doubt that they would be so concerned with money at this point in their lives. I really could care less right now about the NET stuff, I just want to focus on the North American issue. --77siddhartha 07:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and that FAQ you wanted me to read links to his page on Energy Accounting, which uses the terms 'debits' and 'credits'. --77siddhartha 07:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

AND, if you read what Walfuz said, it was that, "What I'm trying to say is that blindly removing all citations to technocracy.ca or blindly defending the addition of the website to 'External links' are both bad ideas- some content is good; some is not." A link to the site's main page brings up the forum that bashes you, but, there is good content on the site that can be linked to directly. Walfuz also thinks that it is unnecessary to reform those articles as independent PDFs. Anyway, I have to go to bed, and I would really appreciate if people who advocate science as the answer to our problems become a bit more rational. --77siddhartha 07:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that David Ravlin was perfect. Also when a user put the link to TechCa up yesterday Wafulz immediately took it DOWN and yelled a bit. He said he does not want that as a external link ~!~ Today he said it, and yelled ~!~

Take offense ? Well that is your privilege. If the article were renamed Technocracy movement then there would be no Net section, and that would be fine with me. If you look in the files of the beginners page you will see that Kolzene spawned Net on TechCa. I think he created a silly monster.

Ahh you said that the headquarters is still in the United States ? That is true, sort of. The Canadian branch though have taken it over. Did you know that it is illegal for an American corporation to be run out of Canada or incorporated in Canada ? Did you know that all the people running Techinc Cordsmeyer, and George Wright are Canadians, and did you know that it has been a steady down hill slide for the group since the TTCD faqs material was published in 1975 and reedited by Kolzene a few years ago and endorsed by Cordsmeyer, both of whom in my opinion are second or third rate thinkers , and what about wiccans ? You disagree that they in general try to put spells on people? Manipulate people ? Trick people ? He claims to be one, so I am only stating that. This is a far cry from the brilliant minds of the original group. Sociologists were never a part of the Technocracy movement. That is the vein of thinking of those mentioned individuals, and the source of the disputed material.

I would also say that David does not mention in a very excessive way what you are talking about. This is the thrust of what he is saying,

Energy Certificates.

Some citizens may choose to use paper energy certificates.

There are a large number of different bookkeeping devices whereby the distribution to, and records of rate of consumption of the entire population can be kept. Under a technological administration of abundance, there is only one efficient method that of employing a system of Energy Certificates.

By this system all books and records pertaining to consumption are kept by the Distribution Sequence of the social mechanism. The income is granted to the public in the form of energy certificates These certificates are merely pieces of paper containing certain printed matter. They are issued individually to every adult of the entire population. The certificates issued to an individual may be thought of as possessing some of the properties both of bank cheque and of a traveller's cheque. They would resemble a bank cheque in that they carry no face denomination. They receive their denomination only when being spent. They resemble a traveller's cheque in that they possess some means of ready identification, such as counter-signature, photograph, or some similar device, so as to establish easy identification by the person to whom issued, and at the same time remain absolutely useless in the hands of anyone else. The record of one's income and its rate of expenditure is kept by the Distribution Sequence, so that it is a simple matter at any time for the Distribution Sequence to ascertain the state of an unknown customer's balance. This is somewhat analogous to a combination bank and department store, wherein all the customers of the store also keep bank accounts at the store bank. In such a case the customer's credit at the department store is as good as his bank account, and the state of this account is available to the store at all times. (skip sievert 08:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Wow, how is this allowed to continue? Isn't Skip's comments here a violation of the No Personal Attacks policy? I know that I am not the best person to be pointing this out, but am I wrong? I shouldn't have to defend myself here. I can however set the record staight here regarding these claims if it would help. I can point out at least 12 inaccuracies in his statements, but I am not sure if that would be appropriate here. I've been pretty quiet about this type of thing for a while now, not wanting to be seen as getting into a "war" with Skip, but really, how must longer is this going to be allowed to go on? Just to make it official: Skip, please stop with the personal attacks. --Kolzene 05:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Response about sources. (sorry for the bold, I needed to separate this somehow. In general, http://www.technocracy.ca/ , http://technocracy-incorporated.wikispaces.com/ and http://technocracynow.blogspot.com/ are not good sources. The only material that should be used from those websites is material that has been previously published, and only if the material is hosted in its entirety (ie, no condensed versions of articles). The stuff from the NET website should only be used to describe the NET itself, since we're trying not to give undue weight to a relatively new organization. The best sources for this article would be printed sources published by a third-party (no self-published stuff). The full nitty gritty on sources is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--Wafulz 22:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with all of this. I'd also propose that addition of the idea that it would be inappropriate for links to one of these sites to be posted by their respective administrators, and should be instead left to other editors. --Kolzene 06:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Technical Alliance sources

I know that this has been asked in other avenues, but I have not yet come across a clear answer. Put simply: where is the original scientific data that the Technical Alliance collected? Technocracy is built upon those findings, and I would think that sourcing this article to that body of research would add mountains of credibility. I realize that this was research done almost a century ago, but has anyone tried to look? What about contacting Columbia University? Are there any relevant scientific journals from the period? --77siddhartha 05:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Columbia University, but several Technocrats and I travelled to CHQ in 2005 to look for this research. It is in theory somewhere in this big warehouse of documents, books and other artifacts located on CHQ's premises. There was a lot to look through, and other work that needed doing as well. We did come across many slides of the original charts that were drawn up as a result of the research, but we had technical troubles digitizing them. In short, it's buried in there somewhere, but CHQ has too little manpower to look for it on its own. I completely agree that its availability would add a great deal of credibility to the movement, which is why we went down there in the first place. But, our resources were limited and it would take a lot more time and effort to go through all the stuff, so we had to give up and go home. Technocracy has members but few are willing to go all the way to Ferndale to work for weeks on end. Part of the problem also is that a lot of very prominant members died around 2001-2002 (up to 18 in one year, including two of the three "head" people at CHQ), and they had not propoerly documented their knowledge of the organization and its material, including things like the location of this research.

So in answer to your question, yes, some of us have tried. But I don't think that the research is going to be found until the movement gets a lot more members. Almost a catch-22 it would seem. --Kolzene 06:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's encouraging, actually, it's like a treasure hunt. :) I wonder how much a temp agency would charge to sift through and digitize the relevant documents. Members have related to me that the organization has quite a bit of money in reserve. --77siddhartha 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a treasure hunt nor a mystery. The information is located in the back of the Technocracy Study Course. http://technocracy-incorporated.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/Technocracy%2520study%2520guide.pdf

Technocracy%20study%20guide.pdf (application/pdf Object) That information was boiled down and presented there. It is that simple. Why turn this into a mysterious adventure when it is not ? The pertinent information is there. That is the energy survey. It is the relevant facts regarding the resource base of North America. North America contains about 52 % of the worlds resource base. That was the figure when the Study Course was published. That figure is now higher due to the use of the rest of the world of using their limited resource base. (skip sievert 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

The whole idea is to get the information before it was boiled down. --77siddhartha 06:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-constructive discussions

I've archived non-constructive discussions to Talk:Technocracy_movement/Archive_4. I realize that there had been a block and then an unblock as discussed here. Let's keep discussions from here on out civil and I'll try my best as well. There has been a consensus reached on the extent of certain edits regarding the TTCD, etc., so reverts of those edits should not be tolerated. I look forward to seeing how this article looks after being split! --77siddhartha 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Split in movement

None of this can be verified as it was related to me by one of the last few members still alive at the time (apparently there is an old document about it that I can dig up though), but this is a summary of what he said. In 1947-48, there was growing animosity between the Vancouver, BC section's appointed directors and 'outsiders'. It became such an issue that Howard Scott ordered a board election process to be conducted by the director of the Seattle section, Ron Stevens. The election went through and all board members were voted out except for one (he is still alive and lives in Powell River, BC, but I forget his name -- Ross-Something A___). Anyway, Vancouver was the only section at the time to have an elected board. In 1950 at the Chicago Conference, a group led by Stevens put forth a couple pages of recommendations to improve the organization -- such as elected directors at HQ. Scott refused and as a retaliation, fired the entire elected Vancouver board. That action caused at least six sections in the Northwest area to close in disgust. That's the story at any rate. There was never any 'controversy' over the TTCD or anything of the sort. It appears the biggest controversy was over Scott's leadership technique. --77siddhartha 05:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of it. If it did happen then it most likely wasn't permanent, as I've not heard of any rival Technocracy organizations in North America in the 1950's or afterwards. As far as I'm aware there was several groups in the 30's, but by the 50's (and certainly now) Tech Inc. was the only North American group in existence. Even if such an event did happen, I doubt we will be able to find any sources on it, and it's not particularly notable anyway. --Hibernian 16:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It is suggested that most of the info. in the beginning of this article is incorrect.

Please read this link and comment about it. http://www3.sympatico.ca/cypher/technocracy.htm the problem with technicism. The information in this Technocracy movement article about Veblen is particularly off base. He played no real role in developing Technocracy as is implied. "In fact, Thorstien Veblen’s ENGINEERS AND THE PRICE SYSTEM resulted from his notes on a number of seminars at Columbia University that Scott and he jointly chaired just after the end of World War One". Also this reference, which gives a context to the history of the Technocracy movement, is not reflected in the opening section of this article, http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy.

Also it has been suggested that the description of Energy accounting/Energy certificates, is misrepresented here, as 'Energy Credit', a concept that is not in accordance with basic Technocracy as it is presented in almost 100 % of its official literature. So why is the phrase 'energy credits' repeated multiple times in the Energy Accounting section?

Also a question arises. Why is the TTCD Q&A Faq`s material set up in a link here ? That material has its own special box on the Techinc.org site. (skip sievert 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

These 'issues' have all been discussed to death and a consensus has been reached. Quite simply, the way it is now is the way it stays. Also, when you post crap like this your opinion seems to dwindle even more. 77siddhartha 06:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder that you are not addressing the issues I have raised about this article. (skip sievert 16:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Skip seems convinced that I'm too biased to mediate this anymore, and that the article is being controlled by a cabal. I suggest we file a Request for Comment for this article to finally resolve all disputes and move on with our lives. If we choose this path, then I recommend we leave this article as is (except for minor edits or for providing images/citations) until the process is completed.-Wafulz 01:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! 77siddhartha 08:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like that is the best course. I would hope Wafulz, that you remain a part of the process, if you care to be. Perhaps you could remove the link in question I have brought up, before the article is frozen up. That would be to remove the special link that goes to the TTCD in external links. Again, this seems like a non controversial change as the material is already presented on the official TechInc site in a special place, with emphasis. I am suggesting this, since that link is being given undue emphasis presently, and is also controversial as a document, among the larger movement. Also the redundant references to energy credits seems like a pity to leave as is now. Other wise WP:RFC Request for Comment, Yes. Thankyou. (skip sievert 04:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Preparing for the RfC

If we want to list a Request for Comment, everyone will need to prepare their statements about the article. Keep it brief. If it's more than two sentences, you've said too much. Do not talk about each other in your statements- just state the material that you believe the article should/should not include. Here is an example of a RfC.-Wafulz 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, do we really have to do that? I mean personally I'm so sick of this whole thing, and I've already said what I think, about a million times. I don't really see the point of doing it, but if you insist, I suppose I can state my piece again. --Hibernian 01:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My contribution for the RfC : Since the concepts of Technocracy were invented by Howard Scott and the Technical Alliance, and they later published said information formulation through Technocracy Incorporated, it would seem that their official information on how the whole thing started and what its purpose is should be the golden mean here for accuracy at the start of this article. [1] History and Purpose of Technocracy.Howard Scott. I also request that the energy accounting section be redone according to the concept of Energy Certificates/Energy Accounting, also using Technocracy Incorporated material as its reference point. (skip sievert 19:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Criticisms of the movement?

Is it just me or is the "Criticisms of the movement" section simply a list of straw man arguments. It deals very little with "real" problems faced by Technocracy such as the calculation problem, lack of incentives, and the lack of success of central planning. --Jayson Virissimo 00:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs a complete rewrite, as do the other sections, and for some reason this has now stalled. Wafulz... what is the time line for the review RfC process ? Who ever wanted to weigh in probably has by now. I would like to begin to rewrite the beginning of this article in particular, and also the Energy Accounting section.

For more generalized information on Energy Accounting/Energy Certificates and the method of degrading energy as a way to measure and accommodate consumers you may want to check here Jayson. http://technocracynow.blogspot.com/ Technocracy - The Design of the North American Technate. Jayson the 'calculation problem' you mention is not an issue to my knowledge. It is lain out clearly how that works in the Study Course, and other writings. Also it is not a central planning system like perhaps you are thinking of a communistic political system. One really obvious mistake in this section is the comparison of diamonds in regard to scarcity. The tone of this section is all down hill in the sense that "The movement is too obscure to attract much criticism,(not true) "however, Technocrats themselves would argue that those in power, politicians and heads of corporations, are a form of organized opposition."[citation needed] (skip sievert 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

My proposal for the rewrite of the Energy Accounting section:

Energy Accounting is the hypothetical system of distribution, proposed by the Technocracy Study Course, which would record the Energy used to produce and distribute goods and services consumed by citizens in a Technate, as the movement calls it. The units of this accounting system would be known as Energy-certificates. Energy-certificates would replace money in a Technate, but unlike traditional money or currencies, energy certificates could not be saved or earned, only distributed evenly among a populace. Energy-certificates would probably not have to be physically used by the populace themselves, as the system would be computerised. In this proposal, the Technate would use information of natural resources, industrial capacity and citizen’s purchasing habits to determine how much of any good or service was being consumed by the populace, so that it could match production with consumption. It is this balance between production and consumption that is represented by the Technocrats' chosen symbol, the Monad. The reason for the use of energy-accounting given by Technocrats, is that it serves to ensure the highest possible standard of living as well as equality among the Technate’s citizenry. It is a method to balance resources with consumption.(skip sievert 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

Current Net Director has resigned. Updated accordingly in article.

"Hi folks, After a lot of careful thought and deliberation, I've decided to step down as Director of NET and recommend that Andrew fulfill the position. My apologies to the three of you, whom share the same ideals as I and the additional desire to see them used in a pro-social manner. There are two main reasons that have brought me to this conclusion, both which I will briefly list below. It is not my intention to disappoint the three of you, or to harm NET in any way, and I feel that my stepping down will be a greater service to NET in the long run."

This is an excerpt from this... technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=8&id=2255#2255 Network of European Technocrats - Mansel Ismay - N.E.T. Forum (skip sievert 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

Here is an example of why 'energy credits', the term is not used, and why.

It does not apply to Technocracy. This is from the NET site, and was recently written by Enrique Lescure who also has been involved here on wiki. Here is an excerpt from his published article on Energy Accounting. "The user-ship right is a part of the social contract which is the technate. It is physically manifested through an energy certifikate. The available capacity is divided into energy units, which could also be called energy credits although it might be misleading. Why? Because the units, since they most correspond to the available consumption capacity in the technate during a given time period (minus of course usage during said period), would not be possible to save over that period. Instead, the certifikate will be reloaded with a new share more corresponding to the new total production capacity of the technate." technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=93&p=7 Network of European Technocrats

Although I do not agree with the NET site, and its approach in general, I am quoting this to make a point. Wafulz has asked the participants here to back up claims on this issue, and I am going to do that with older articles from Technocracy publications, and I am also going to site this article since Isenhand (Dr. Andrew Wallace)from Net is an editor here, it is appropriate to use recent material to 'prove' my point. There is no use in Technocracy of the term energy credits, and the article called energy accounting and the passage here in this article about energy accounting must be rewritten, and my model for this above is an accurate account of what energy accounting/energy certificates are. More to come on this issue which is very important if the article is to represent a unbiased portrayal of the subject here.(skip sievert 03:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

While it may be possible to dig out an obscure reference to energy credits from somewhere in the material of TechInc there are very few, and it is argued that it is a misnomer http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate (skip sievert 15:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Here is another 3rd party description of Energy Accounting/Energy Certificates http://gloryoftechnocracy.blogspot.com/ Glory Of Technocracy This site makes it very clear that the term credit is not a good description.(skip sievert 00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Oh, come on, that's clearly another one of your sites. 77siddhartha 18:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, "a 3rd party source"? What a joke. --Hibernian 00:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I have nothing to do with it. Information on it is not edited or controlled or connected to me except by that posters wish (Dennis Cradock). Again I ask that people refrain from personal attacks here, and work to make this article correct. It serves no one to do other wise. Siddhartha your reappearance here to make a wrong, false and derogatory comment is not helpful. (skip sievert 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

It is now established even by Kolzene director of TechCa. that Energy credits is a misnomer.

Here is proof positive of that. From the TechCa site, " Now, RE: Energy Accounting. You are spouting the same semantics that Skip is. Yes, "energy credits" is a somewhat misleading term. However, until the appropriate materials can be rewritten in a more modern context, we are stuck with it. Let me give you a little advice from Technocracy's Operating Instructions #7: Guide for Writers: "Preserve an attitude of cool and detached dignity, without emotionalizing, and without indulgence in personalities." Why is this? Because doing otherwise hurts your credibility. I know that it may seem like it is the fault of others, but you have to take responsibility for your own actions.

If you must know I agree that "credit" is not the best term for it, and should be purged from Technocracy material. But right now it is all the material we have, so until we get enough talented and knowledgeable writers to rewrite everything from scratch, the best thing you can do is simply clarify the discrepancy to those people who are confused by the term " end partial quote, Kolzene, a wiki editor here, and the administrator of TechCa. I think this sums up the problem of energy credits very well. It makes sense to make this more clear to the public. Here is a link to Bills, (Kolzenes) statement in part 3.http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=21497&POSTNUKESID=a75b01cf42e4b110f2eef44e041f5cc1 Technocracy.ca :: Advocating control of technology, not people. (skip sievert 02:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Yes Skip, and thank you for also including the part where I say that there is nothing to be done about it right now. Changing it on Wikipedia would most likely be confusing since it would not agree with Technocratic material. The purpose of these articles, in case you haven't noticed, is to report what Technocracy Inc. is about, and claiming, not to promote what may or may not be 'accurate' Technocracy ideas. I think this is the point you've been missing all this time. If what Technocracy Inc. has been publishing in all its works is all hogwash, Wikipedia is not the place to correct it, Technocracy Inc. is. Here is just the place to report what Technocracy Inc. says, inaccurate or not. If you have a problem with something they say, take it up with them and get them to change it. But give this up on Wikipedia and stop bothering these nice people who have better things to do with their time.

By the way, isn't it funny how everything I write is so terrible and misleading, until it appears that I agree with Skip, in which case my words become "proof positive"? --Kolzene 13:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

terms

Pardon me but what you saying is that you are advocating censorship. I pointed a long time ago that there is a cabal of 3 or 4 people that control this article. Mostly they are bloggers on your site.

A cabal is probably not the same as a consensus. Is it ?

I am interested only in accurate information here and not personality issues. You are also making this personal by name calling. I have never tried to change any meaning of the basic material, and many Technocrats of long standing think the term energy credit is a non starter. I am trying to elucidate the concept of Energy Accounting here.There is a wealth of information on TechInc that I am quoting such as http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate I am trying to present accurate information here. Within any organization, there are always people that do not agree on how the same material should be presented. I have never said that every thing you are doing is terrible or misleading. Those are your words, and please do not try to program people here.

Both Net and TechCa, sites, have this corrected information now, at least your site has finally stated by yourself that the information is sourced badly. You yourself have said and published that the term credit is misleading, and confusing. Since the Technocracy Study Course, and most all related information concerning Technocracy from all most all sources for decades has used the term energy certificates to explain how things are quantified in Energy Accounting in regard to Kilowatts,Joules etc, it just makes sense to use that term. It is the most simple and most redundantly used term in most of the literature. I am trying to keep it simple here.

(skip sievert 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

a new link on this site

This link is Howard Scott stating who exactly the intellectual fore father of Technocracy is. Formerly the article gave the impression of that being Veblen which is wrong. http://www.technocracy.org/origins-1.htm The Origins of Technocracy - go to the page and watch the video interested party`s. Also read the history and purpose of Technocracy which states the same thing. http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy

Also I gave a link to and also explained a bit about the actual person that Howard Scott states as the originator or inspiration for his later ideas, that being Willard Gibbs http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Willard_Gibbs Josiah Willard Gibbs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And excerpt...The technocracy movement claims origins in 19th century scientific thought, largely in the works of Willard Gibbs, a scientist teacher at Yale University who was a preeminent American mathematical-engineer, theoretical physicist, and chemist noted for his famed 1876 publication of On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, a graphical analysis of multi-phase chemical systems, which laid the basis for a large part of modern-day science. As one of the greatest American scientists, he devised much of the theoretical foundation for chemical thermodynamics as well as physical chemistry. As a mathematician, he was an inventor of vector analysis. He spent his entire career at Yale, which awarded him the first American Ph.D. in engineering in 1863 . The Director of Technocracy Howard Scott claimed Gibbs as the intellectual forefather that laid the way for the concepts of Technocracy. A video below in external links makes this point which Scott stressed. skip sievert (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC) http://www.technocracy.org/origins-1.htm

Veblen while interesting is not the intellectual fore father of Technocracy

Technocrate please do not remove information in this article on Willard Gibbs. This information is documented here http://www.technocracy.org/origins-1.htm The Origins of Technocracy, in a video on an official Technocracy Inc. site and also here http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy Howard Scott stated directly that Gibbs was the scientific intellectual forefather of Technocracy. Veblen, while a member of the Technical Alliance had very little to do with the underpinnings of the movement which are based on engineering principles. Veblen was dead (1929) many years before the Technocracy Study Course was published. skip sievert 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

←