powerscunner t1_ivuf0r8 wrote
Reply to comment by SWATSgradyBABY in Amazon introduces Sparrow—a state-of-the-art robot that handles millions of diverse products by maxtility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement
Distribute and track energy, not money.
> At the core of Scott's vision was "an energy theory of value". Since the basic measure common to the production of all goods and services was energy, he reasoned "that the sole scientific foundation for the monetary system was also energy", and that by using an energy metric instead of a monetary metric (energy certificates or 'energy accounting') a more efficient design of society could be made...
WikiSummarizerBot t1_ivuf2hv wrote
>The technocracy movement was a social movement active in the United States and Canada in the 1930s which favored technocracy as a system of government over representative democracy and concomitant partisan politics. Historians associate the movement with engineer Howard Scott's Technical Alliance and Technocracy Incorporated, prior to the internal factionalism that dissolved the latter organization during the Second World War. Technocracy was ultimately overshadowed by other proposals for dealing with the crisis of the Great Depression.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
AssWreckage t1_ivum5x0 wrote
Technocracy is saying "Mainstream economics is a hard science like Physics, you can't argue against it because it is natural, therefore we ignore democracy to favour policies designed by economists based on theories they learned in college".
This is what Technocracy means, and this is what put us right under the finger of neoliberal free-market systems, because that is what mainstream economics teach.
Don't muddy the waters with bad understanding of terms or fringe definitions.
SkaldCrypto t1_ivv628f wrote
Incredibly based
SWATSgradyBABY t1_ivvlhx2 wrote
I wasn't going to even bother really correcting the contribution but thank you for doing so
powerscunner t1_ivuxmxi wrote
The 1930's were a naïve time, but it is hard to argue against the tight coupling of economics and energy. Does anything affect the economy like energy?
Plus, it's harder to hide energy use than to hide money use. And I feel like it's easier to distribute energy than money too. The technocrat's whole getting rid of a representative democracy is a bit much - but don't we all wish we could get rid of politicians ;)
Energy accounting (in the technocrat sense) is one of the few alternatives to money I've heard of. My other favorite being an beneficent, omnipotent superintelligence as the only entity with the PIN number to humanity's checking account. But that's still kind of a dictatorial setup, even if benevolent.
I like the idea of allocating energy. It feels fair and closer to true value than abstract moneys.
SgtAstro t1_ivwf2vu wrote
If we followed this, solar panels would be much more expensive.
The energy to extract raw materials from the earth's crust does not factor in the scarcity of those elements. So as a corse example, a salt mine and an iron mine having the same value because the same energy is used to extract the mass.
SWATSgradyBABY t1_ivvkgyp wrote
In this vision, how does the average person obtain consumables when there are no jobs?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments