Virginia Postrel has an interesting book - above.
She argues that the old "left" and "right" politcal divisions are becoming divisions between "stasists" and "Dynamists". Ie the greens, anti-free traders etc versus people (like me) who see great benefits from unregulated spontaneous experimentation and creation, with the market (ie the aggregate decisions of the public) deciding which methods, companies and products stay and which are discarded.
Examples of technocracy: The minitel in France - govmt organized. Quickly overtaken by the superior unplanned Internet and WWW.
Also : France's "plan informatique" in the 90s to subsidies local computer manufacturers versus
Toshiba - launching dozens of laptops and keeping on manufacturing the ones that were successful.
French style technocratic planning sucks, big time. Nothing exciting or groundbreaking has ever come from it, that I know of.
Imagine having a technocrat deciding for you which slimming diet was "best", or which laptop design was "best". How pompous, elitist and unrealistic.
That we are stuck with bad public education is not surprising given the massive centralization of that effort.
True to its Progressive Era origins, the pure technocratic vision combines the frisson of futurism—a combination of excitement and fear—with the reassurance that some authority will make everything turn out right. In 1984, amid the personal computer revolution, Newt Gingrich marveled at its creativity, but he worried that such uncoordinated enterprise lacked the focus necessary for national greatness. "These developments are individually striking," he wrote. "Taken together, they form a kaleidoscope that is difficult to develop into a coherent picture. Yet it is by sweeping dreams that societies shape themselves."
For technocrats, a kaleidoscope of trial-and-error innovation is not enough; decentralized experiments lack coherence. "Today, we have an opportunity to shape technology," wrote Gingrich in classic technocratic style (emphasis added). His message was that computer technology is too important to be left to hackers, hobbyists, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and computer buyers. "We" must shape it into a "coherent picture." That is the technocratic notion of progress: Decide on the one best way, make a plan, and stick to it. Looking for a model, Gingrich had kind words for the French Minitel system of terminals run by the state phone company—a centrally administered system whose rigidity has stifled Internet development in France.
In recent years, Gingrich has become more skeptical—and so has the rest of the country. In 1984, he expressed his enthusiasm for space exploration in demands for new heroic technocratic programs like the moon landing. By 1995, he was musing about the great things that could happen "if we got the government out of the business of designing space shuttles and space stations....The challenge for us is to get government and bureaucracy out of the way and put scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and adventurers back into the business of exploration and discovery." Far from creating a promising future, technocracy had stifled its spontaneous evolution.
full article:
http://www.dynamist.com/tfaie/index-excerptB.html
She argues that the old "left" and "right" politcal divisions are becoming divisions between "stasists" and "Dynamists". Ie the greens, anti-free traders etc versus people (like me) who see great benefits from unregulated spontaneous experimentation and creation, with the market (ie the aggregate decisions of the public) deciding which methods, companies and products stay and which are discarded.
Examples of technocracy: The minitel in France - govmt organized. Quickly overtaken by the superior unplanned Internet and WWW.
Also : France's "plan informatique" in the 90s to subsidies local computer manufacturers versus
Toshiba - launching dozens of laptops and keeping on manufacturing the ones that were successful.
French style technocratic planning sucks, big time. Nothing exciting or groundbreaking has ever come from it, that I know of.
Imagine having a technocrat deciding for you which slimming diet was "best", or which laptop design was "best". How pompous, elitist and unrealistic.
That we are stuck with bad public education is not surprising given the massive centralization of that effort.
True to its Progressive Era origins, the pure technocratic vision combines the frisson of futurism—a combination of excitement and fear—with the reassurance that some authority will make everything turn out right. In 1984, amid the personal computer revolution, Newt Gingrich marveled at its creativity, but he worried that such uncoordinated enterprise lacked the focus necessary for national greatness. "These developments are individually striking," he wrote. "Taken together, they form a kaleidoscope that is difficult to develop into a coherent picture. Yet it is by sweeping dreams that societies shape themselves."
For technocrats, a kaleidoscope of trial-and-error innovation is not enough; decentralized experiments lack coherence. "Today, we have an opportunity to shape technology," wrote Gingrich in classic technocratic style (emphasis added). His message was that computer technology is too important to be left to hackers, hobbyists, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and computer buyers. "We" must shape it into a "coherent picture." That is the technocratic notion of progress: Decide on the one best way, make a plan, and stick to it. Looking for a model, Gingrich had kind words for the French Minitel system of terminals run by the state phone company—a centrally administered system whose rigidity has stifled Internet development in France.
In recent years, Gingrich has become more skeptical—and so has the rest of the country. In 1984, he expressed his enthusiasm for space exploration in demands for new heroic technocratic programs like the moon landing. By 1995, he was musing about the great things that could happen "if we got the government out of the business of designing space shuttles and space stations....The challenge for us is to get government and bureaucracy out of the way and put scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and adventurers back into the business of exploration and discovery." Far from creating a promising future, technocracy had stifled its spontaneous evolution.
full article:
http://www.dynamist.com/tfaie/index-excerptB.html
No comments:
Post a Comment