… When do we want it

 

… When do we want it

Building a Better Tomorrow

Introduction

This is the third in a series of three articles about building a future society. The first outlined our choices. The second article was about the type of society that I envision. And this last article is about how we could get there.

There are basically two main approaches to building a better future. We can either plan for the future and so we are ready for when the current system collapses or we can be pro-active and start building today.

Foundation

In the Foundation series, Asimov wrote about a post collapsed galactic civilisation. Before the collapse a mathematician by the name of Hari Seldon was able to predict the collapse using a method he called psychohistory. He also predicted that the coming dark age could be shortened if two foundation were established to preserve knowledge.

Today we face, I would argue, a situation of potential collapse as our current socioeconomic system is fundamentally unsustainable. But even so, there are forces at work that will try and preserve this current socioeconomic system. As a result, any attempt to move to an alternative substantial system will be thwarted, so the argument goes. Thus, all we can do today is set up “foundations” to preserve knowledge, prepare for a collapse, and then wait to the system collapses.

The “foundation” approach is basically the approach taken by Technocracy Inc. and The Venus Project (TVP). The idea goes, at least, back to Thorstein Veblen in his book “Engineers and the Price System”. In his book, Veblen proposed a Soviet of Technicians to take over the means of production in the US, but not by force, as he says :

“… and what will of necessity be the manner of organization which alone can hope to take over the industrial system, following the eventual abdication or dispossession of the Vested Interests and their absentee owners. And, by way of parenthesis, it is always the self-made though reluctant abdication of the Vested Interests and their absentee owners, rather than their forcible dispossession, that is to be looked for as a reasonably probable event in the calculable future. It should, in effect, cause no surprise to find that they will, in a sense, eliminate themselves, by letting go quite involuntarily after the industrial situation gets quite beyond their control.”

Jacques Fresco follows the same idea as he said :

“The transition to a resource-based economy will not happen through violence or revolution. It will happen when the old system collapses under its own weight, and those who are prepared can offer a viable alternative.”

He also pointed out the need for being prepared for the collapse on other occasions :

“The future is not something we wait for—it’s something we design. The question is: Will we be ready when the old system fails?”

and

“The only way to create real change is to make the old system irrelevant. Build the new world in the shell of the old, and when the collapse comes, people will naturally gravitate toward what works.”

“The Venus Project is not about predicting collapse—it’s about preparing for it. When the old system fails, we must be ready with a viable alternative.”

and then he also warned :

“The people who control the world today—bankers, politicians, corporate leaders—do not want change. They profit from scarcity, war, and debt. A resource-based economy would eliminate their power, so they will fight it with everything they have.”

The idea of collapse first and the need to be ready for it can also be seen in some of Technocracy Inc. publications such as :

“We are not waiting for the system to collapse—we are preparing the blueprints for what comes next. When the old system fails, those with a viable alternative will lead the way.”

“The first step is education. People must understand that another system is possible—one that is not based on money, politics, or scarcity.”

The problem I have with this approach is what kind of world will be left after a collapse and would that world be a good bases to build a future sustainable, moneyless, world from? I doubt it. Even if we were to prepare, a collapsed society will be a desperate place and we could see the rise of more irrational ideologies instead.

Evolution

Jacques Fresco makes an interesting point :

“We are not trying to overthrow the system—we are trying to make it irrelevant. The Venus Project is about building a new world in the shell of the old. When the old system collapses, we will be ready with an alternative.”

There is a tendency, I think, to dislike revolution among groups that propose a technocratic like socioeconomic system. You can see that in Technocracy Inc. as well :

“We don’t need revolution—we need engineering. The solution is not to overthrow the system, but to make it obsolete by designing a better one.”

I would also go down the “no revolution” route. I would also agree, we need to actually build an alternative and demonstrate that it can and actually does work. We also need to test the ideas out. The ideas for a better society, whether from me, from Technocracy Inc, or from TVP have never been tested. It would be seriously unwise to overthrow a government and install such an untested alternative. That could lead to an even worse disaster than trying to preserve our current unsustainable system.

The “MillennialProject” is a book written by Marshall T. Savage. It is not really about building an alternative, sustainable, moneyless, socioeconomic system. However, it does argue that our current system is unsustainable and the solution lies off world in colonising the galaxy. To achieve that, Savage proposes a number of steps. The early ones, like forming a Foundation and then sea colonies, relies on working within our current system and then moving in to space. A sort of evolution and it is this idea of evolving to a desired state that I would propose for moving towards a better socioeconomic system.

Basically the idea is similar to TVP and Technocracy Inc. educate, build, and prepare but instead of just waiting for a collapse start linking together, forming networks and gradually move society to an alternative without having to go through the pain of collapse. An example of this is EOS in Sweden. In the Design, they propose a process called stepping stones, where they work within the current system but towards a better system. For example, they have a project centred around a biodome and an urban garden where they are building a sustainable solution and testing it out. They are also forming a network with other EOS groups.

 

Umeå biodome

The argument against this approach goes back to the idea that those with a vested interest in the current system will stop any move to an alternative. As Jacques Fresco says about TVP :

“Any movement that threatens the status quo will be infiltrated, discredited, or destroyed. Look at what happened to the Occupy Movement—it was crushed because it challenged the financial elite. The Venus Project is a bigger threat, so they will ignore it, ridicule it, or try to co-opt it.”

And that maybe true and what will happen but I still think we should try to evolve society to a sustainable solution regardless. We still need to build something and test it out even if we are waiting for a collapse. We are still educating and preparing so even if the evolution fails we fall back to the waiting for collapse idea anyway. But if we try to evolve society to a sustainable socioeconomic system it might just work, especially if we can point to something and show that a moneyless system does actually work.

One more quote from Technocracy Inc. :

"The future will be built by those who prepare for it. The question is: Will you be part of the solution?".

What Do We Want …

 

Introduction

This is the second part in, what I plan to be, a series of three articles about the future. The first article looked at the choices we have about the future. It seems to me that we, as a species, have great potential to build a better world for all. A sustainable future that is also in balance with the planet. Yet, as it appears to me from my corner of the Universe, the groups and individuals that are successful in driving their idea of the future forward are also building what I would consider a dystopia. From techno-fascism to religious theocracy.

In this second article I thought I would outline my vision of the future. In some ways this could be considered a manifesto for the future.

A Future Society

The Goal : Highest standard of living for the longest time possible

The goal (which originates with Technocracy Inc.) outlines what I think a future society should aim to achieve, the rest that follows is about what I think the goal means when it comes to implementation.

1. Demarcation between the complex, technical aspects of society, on the one hand, and the social, people, side of society, on the other hand. The technical side effectively forms the life support systems that keeps society running such as mining, farming, production, distribution, and housing as well as health care, for example. The social, people, side deals with people to people interactions, ethics, morality, and spirituality, for example.

2. Expert management of the technical side of society. From the goal, I would argue, the highest standard of living can be achieved by the application of science and engineering to society. That means society will be hi-tech. A hi-tech, complicated, society has many different parts which takes many years to learn and understand before a person can make a competent decision in a given area. Therefore, this vision of a future society calls for teams of skilled domain experts to manage the areas that they have knowledge and expertise in (which makes this system a type of technocracy). This approach will allows us to build a substantial society that minimises work through robotics and automation and thereby increase individual freedoms. Giving people more time to be human. It also allows us to build a world based around what people can do, not what they look like, their gender, sexual orientation, or the clothes they ware. But even so, to benefit in this future society, you just need to be a sentient life form. It’s a society that works for all, regardless.

3. Direct democracy for the social side. Not all aspects of society have a correct technical solution. We propose that people would live in communities where they would use direct democracy to manage the social side of the community (people themselves are the best experts to manage people related issues). Following from the goal, individual freedoms are to be guaranteed. Freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of association, right to life, etc.

4. A moneyless socioeconomic system. This also follows from the goal. Sustainability is built right into the system from the start. We can’t maintain a high standard of living for the longest time possible in a society that is unsustainable like today society. Today’s socioeconomic system is a money based, for profit, system, that relies on infinite growth with finite resources. Instead, we would need an alternative resource allocation system. I propose a system of Energy Accounting as a means of managing the supply of goods within a society. In an Energy Accounting System we measure the production capacity of society in energy terms. The people can then choose the allocation of production capacity through the allocation of energy credits. The energy credits represents each individual’s share of the production capacity in energy terms. This also leads to a system that is extremely equal. Everyone has the same access as everyone else to the resources available.

5. A holonic socioeconomic structure. We propose a non-nation centric structure built around communities, network of communities, and projects. This would form a “building block like” structure where people would work locally within their own community on various projects. Projects could link up with other projects and communities with other communities in a network that would lead to a world around system. Using a holonic structure is a form of biomimetics, so we are emulating how nature works. It is also an example of applying engineering and science to society. This type of structure would allow for a great deal of diversity. Different groups of communities having their own culture and language as well as laws. Each community will deicide how much or how little it interacts with the technology side. So, we could find very primitive communities that want to be free from technology to all embracing transhumanists communities and anything in-between.

6. No private ownership. As all the means of production come under the management of experts, ownership makes no sense. Instead we would have a form of user rights. Some items such as personal items and housing would have exclusive user rights but most items people will have the right to use as they need such as ground vehicles.

7. Environment design. We aim to design environments not only to allow people to develop to their full potential but also to discourage aberrant behaviour. Just removing money and making a more equal society where we can meet people’s needs could reduce crime dramatically, for a start. But environment design also means building a world with a high standard of living for people but sill balancing our needs with those of the planet. So even nature, and all life, befits from this future society.

Examples

This approach to society hasn’t been tried before. The closest real society I could find is the Inca empire, which was a moneyless society, but otherwise is quite far from my vision. But science fiction does provide a few examples that have some characteristics of the type of society I envision.

United Federation of Planets of Star Trek

“The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.” - Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek TNG.

Gene Roddenberry was influenced by a number of ideologies such as secular humanism. But in the design of the United Federation of Planets, some similarities between the Technocracy movement in the US and the United Federation of Planets can be seen. Both are moneyless, hi-tech, societies, for example. The United Federation of Planets also has similarities to the vision I present here. There is a high emphasis on education and self improvement, for example, which would be needed in a hi-tech society that values science and engineering. The decision making process is based on expert opinion and positions of importance and power are achieved through individual expertise and the contribution that they make.

There are some differences, however. The United Federation of Planets still maintains a democratically elected government. Society isn’t divided between a technical side and a people side. It is also a hierarchical society rather than a holonic society. It is a post scarcity society but doesn’t appear to use a resource allocating system such as energy accounting, so in that regard, it differs from my vision.

How the economy works in the United Federation of Planets is never fully explored beyond being moneyless. One could surmise that there will be a great deal of computer control. However, I would imagine that such a society is going to require some kind of expert management to be able to keep it running.

Another aspect of the United Federation of Planets is it’s level of freedom, opportunity, and equality. Like in my vision, it only matters what you can do and the effort you put in in the United Federation of Planets. This can also be seen in the high level of diversity, where people from all kinds of backgrounds are accepted.

“… the prejudices people feel about each other disappear when they get to know each other.” Captain James T. Kirk, Star Trek.

Moonbase Alpha

By JefferyWright

“And you are not political on Alpha?”

“No, we’re not!” - Zamara and John Koenig, Space 1999

In Space 1999, the moon is blasted out of orbit in a nuclear accident. The moon then drifts (with the aid of space warps) from one star system to another. Located on the moon is Moonbase Alpha, whose inhabitants now have to survive in a hostile environment.

The governing structure on the moonbase resembles, in some ways, my vision for the future. It is a technological society reliant on science and engineering and is ruled over by a base commander who has a number of technical experts, and a computer, to aid him. It is not quite a dictatorship as the commander and the various senior staff members arrive at their decisions through the application of science and engineering, making it a type of technocracy. Survival is the main focus of the moonbase’s inhabitants, which means resources are allocated as needed, so it can be seen as a moneyless society.

The governance also differs a bit from my vision. It is a bit more militaristic in it’s structure with a hierarchy and an overall commander in charge rather than a holonic structure, where power is distributed. There is no split between the people side and the technological side and there is no democratic element. There is diversity on Moonbase Alpha in terms of people but the culture is uniform.

Trantor

Trantor is a planet wide city and the capitol of Asimov’s Galactic Empire in the Foundation series of books. The planet is almost totally covered in domes, each with it’s own society underneath. In some ways Trantor is similar to a holonic structure. Each community under each dome is autonomous to a degree and has it’s own specialisation that contributes to the whole. Governance could be seen as a nested structure, similar to a holonic structure, that combines together to produce a planet around governance. In this way, Trantor is an example of the holonic structure that I envision for a future society. However, it doesn’t fit perfectly.

Trantor differs from my vision in that it doesn’t appear to have feedback loops, which would be needed for it to be a true holonic structure. The whole governance is still top down for the planet and the Empire as a whole with the emperor at the top. Rather than bottom up as it would be in a holonic structure.

However, Trantor is still a hi-tech society. It is at the centre of a Galactic, space fairing, Empire.

Summary

 

I envision a future society that has it’s roots in the application of science and engineering to society. A sustainable society that balances our needs with those of the planet. A decentralised society that is diverse and equal where people have more freedom. You can find out more about this vision of the future in The Design.

How can such a society be built? That will be the subject of the next article …

The Future We Deserve

 

Introduction

We have the world we have today because of the actions and inactions of people in the past. Similarly, the future will be the future it will be because of the actions and inactions of people today.

The world we live in today isn't really the world that I, and others, envisioned 30 - 50 years ago. It seems to me that our imagines of the future was much brighter than it turned out to be. This article is one of three that aims to look at what we have, what we could have, and how we could still achieve a better future.

A Future So Dark

There are many actors in the past and active today that are or have been pro-active in building, what I would consider, a dystopia. From religious fanatics to techno-fascists [tf]. And they have had success. Take religious fanatic groups such as the Taliban [tali] in Afghanistan, who came to power for the second time in 2021. Since then there has been a worsening situation for many Afghans. Human rights abuses are up. Religionous fanatics are not just limited to Afghanistan. They are pro-active from Iran to West Africa and onwards, including Europe and the US [xright, xtrump], where the religious right has been pro-active in implementing their idea of the future [2025].

But it is not just religious groups that are proactive in creating a dystopia. Dark enlightenment [dark] has appeared to have influenced American politics [darkp] with its dystopian, anti-egalitarian, “Snow Crash” [snow], vision of the future. Dark enlightenment can be seen as a type of fascism. And it appears, at least to me, that neo-fascism [neof] is on the rise with right wing popular parties gaining, or partly gained, power [rise] in many democracies such as in Sweden, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Finland, and France to name but a few. The Republican party under Trump, in the US, could be seen as having some anti-democratic and neo-fascists ideological elements [trumpf, soul].

Neo-liberalism could be seen as another ideology that is creating a dystopia. It could be argued that neo-liberalism has resulted in unsustainable damage to the environment and decrease in individual freedoms, and an increase in authoritarianism, exploitation, and inequality as it put profit above all else and making billionaires richer [scidir, scipsy, work, profit].

Techno-fascism [musknazi] is something that a number of influential individuals and organisations seem to promote such as Musk and J. D. Vance in the US [boar, kyle]. Some of the actions of the Trump government could be seen in terms of techno-fascism and Musk’s support of right wing parties would fit as well [afd].

A Future So Bright

On the other side, there are visions for a brighter “Star Trek” like future that people have been working on. We can start with the Technocracy movement [techn] in the US. This reached its peak in 1933 with people like Howard Scott, Thorstein Veblen, and Harold Loeb in the US and Peter Palchinsky in Europe. Of all the early technocracy organisations from that time, the only one to survive into the 21^st century is technocracy Inc. Technocracy envisioned a moneyless society of extreme equality. There are a number of offshoots of technocracy that offer a similar vision of the the future. One of the most well known is The Venus Project (TVP) [tvp]. TVP was started by Jacque Fresco, who was a former member of Technocracy Inc. TVP promotes a future, technological, moneyless society and a resource based economy.

Another technocratic organisation that actively works toward building a better future is the Earth Organisation for Sustainability (EOS) [eos]. Based in Sweden, EOS promotes a moneyless, sustainable, socioeconomic system based on the application of science to society where our needs are balanced with the needs of the planet.

Another vision of the future is the Millennial Project proposed by Marshall T. Savage, which is, today, represented by the Living Universe Foundation. The vision of the future sees humans expanding into the Universe, colonising planets. [luf]

Going the Wrong Way

It maybe a bit of a subjective opinion (and, perhaps, even a false dichotomy), but allow me anyway; given the choice we have between the dark future or the bright future, we appear to be choosing the dark future. At least, those who want to build a dark future, as it seems to me, are more proactive and more successful in their aims than those who wish to promote a brighter future. Why? What went wrong with the bright future that was envisioned in the 70s? In his video, “Why doesn’t 2025 feel like “the future”” [why], struthless puts forward three possibilities:

1. Extremists with political power and wealth that doesn’t promote or act in ways to benefit people as whole.

2. Negative media bias.

3. Unfettered capitalism.

Techno-fascism, pointed out earlier, would fit into point 1. When struthless mentions point 1, he also points out that the people who want to build a brighter future are also the sort of people that doesn’t want political power. This, I think, is another reason why. Technocracy Inc., for example, didn’t want politicians to become members. Politics is about people’s opinions and there manipulation where as people who want a brighter future are often focused on technical, practical solutions not people’s opinions. I think there is also a sense that politics will water down or distort the ideas.

The second point is about media’s tendency to sell the negative but are not interested in presenting solutions or ideas as that makes money (perhaps they don’t have solutions?), which leads into the third point.

The current socioeconomic system is all about making profit at whatever cost. Not about developing the best society for all or building a better future (if we get anything better then that is as a side effect not as a goal). I would argue that we are unlikely to get the bright future that we want within the current socioeconomic systems. We have to think of another system. The current system is too focused on profit making and is fundamentally unsustainable given its need for infinite growth with finite resources.

I would add another reason; in my experience, there was an expectation that the future was going to be as it was envisioned in the 70s without having to do anything to create it. It was inevitable, so we didn’t act. But others did and they build the future they wanted. So, we ended up with supermarkets instead of colonies on Mars. In the end we got the future we deserved through our own inaction. But I don’t think it is too late to build a better future. But what future? In the next article I aim to layout a vision for a brighter, sustainable, future, for all.

References

[tf] https://liberality.net/what-is-technofascism-part-one.html

[tali] https://www.nytimes.com/article/who-are-the-taliban.html

[xright] https://theconversation.com/the-christian-right-is-taking-over-america-according-to-talia-lavin-but-what-is-the-best-response-253232

[xtrump] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-energizes-conservative-christians-with-religious-policies-and-assaults-on-cultural-targets

[2025] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do

[musknazi] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfYjPzj1Xw

[snow] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash

[neof] https://www.cadtm.org/The-Age-of-Neofascism-and-Its-Distinctive-Features

[trumpf] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/trump-fascism-what-to-do

[dark] https://time.com/7269166/dark-enlightenment-history-essay/

[rise] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66056375

[soul] https://peri.umass.edu/wp-content/uploads/joomla/images/publication/Palley-June-2021b.pdf

[tvp] https://www.thevenusproject.com/

[techn] https://technocracynow.com/about-technocracy

[eos] https://eosprojects.com/

[darkp] https://cascadeinstitute.org/dark-enlightenment/

[scidir] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352154620300905

[scipsy] https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12438

[work] https://www.workers.org/2023/01/68835/

[profit] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_over_People

[boar] https://theboar.org/2025/03/founders-funders-fuhrers-is-techno-fascism-on-the-rise/

[kyle] https://kylechayka.substack.com/p/the-history-of-techno-fascism

[afd] https://www.dw.com/en/german-election-why-elon-musk-is-promoting-the-far-right-afd/a-71186763

[luf] https://luf.org/

[why] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zZ3uWQyx5w

The Beginning ...

 

We have the potential to build something better ...

Introduction

 

President Trump

 

On the 5^th November 2024, the US electorate decided to vote Donald Trump to the highest office in the land. He is the first convicted felon to be elected president (imagine! If only Nixon had known!). He has been convicted in a US court of falsifying business records and of liable but did not serve a prison sentence. Instead, he ended up pardoning himself. He also pardoned several people involved in insurrection. Trump has also been accused of rape and is the first president to be impeached twice. He can be seen as anti-American and anti-West and pro-Russian [rus]. Since elected, he has used his presidential powers to make a number of controversial decisions such as ending DEI programmes, reevaluating foreign aid, and closing government databases. He has been supportive of Christian Nationalists [cn] (not that Christian Nationalists are Christian [cn2] nor are they nationalists as Christianity in the US is more like the worship of money [cm] and the Christian Nationalist don’t exactly support the US constitution). His pro-Russian position makes war more likly [war] as he proposes defeat for the West, NATO, and Ukraine in his "peace plan" for Ukraine. And he has the support of the majority of the American people [sup] to do all this.

Along with Trump comes a set of controversial figures. For example, Elon Must has connections with far right movements and performed a Nazi salute at a Trump rally. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of National Intelligence, is considered a threat to national security [DNI]. Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of State for Defense, supports far right ideologies and has been accused of sexual assault as well as being accused of using funds from a non-profit for himself [ph].

And there is more but I think that is enough to get the point; to many, Trump and his associates are not the best people for the US nor the West and they have come at the worst time for the US and the West.

The End if Nigh

“… it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;” - Winston Churchill.

To some people, to have had such a set of controversial figures elected to rule the US is understood as a failure of democracy [failed]. But has democracy failed? Democracy is the rule of the people. But the US doesn’t have a true democracy. Like many democratic countries, the people don’t rule but representatives of the people rule. And those representatives are elected every few years or so with the one that gets the most votes taking office. There is nothing in the definition of either democracy or representative democracy that says that the government so elected would be competent, moral, ethical, or even work for the best interests of the country. One could argue that when it comes to how society works, many politicians in democratic countries have little clue about things. So, I would argue that democracy has not failed in America. This is just part of how it works. If we actually want a competent government then we need people in charge that have expert domain knowledge of how the system works. And that would be a type of technocracy.

Another argument I have seen is that Trump represents the beginning of the end of the US [end] or even the West. Is it? People tend to be here and now thinkers. We tend to think what is happening now as being all important. In some ways it is but it is also part of a bigger picture and we need to see that too. I would say it is too early to tell if we are seeing the beginning of the end. Empires do fall but they can also stumble and get back up again.

On the other hand, it could be argued that Trump is not the problem but only the symptom of a deep rooted problem that has plagued the US for a long time. Only 79% of US citizens are literate [lit] with over half of Americans having a reading age worse than a 12 year old (the poor level of education in the US is evident to those of us who have interacted with many Americans on the Internet). Poverty [pov] is about 14% but social security is paid out to 27.8 million Americans to keep them out of poverty. The US also has many social problems [prob]. With internal problems such as those, one could be forgiven for thinking America is on the way out. But we will have to wait and see if this is really the end of America (personally, I'm expecting a mixed bag. Some good stuff and some bad stuff including damage done to the US and the West).

The Future is Bright

An easy life is not our friend.

It is not just the US where we find problems. We have problems the world around. Global warming (we all remember the fires in California?), resource problems, poverty, to name but a few. But could all this actually work to our advantage?

Jacque Fresco used to argue that the current system has to collapse before we can build something better but maybe we don’t have to go that far. When things are easy and we are comfortable, we tend not to want to act. Even when we see the danger before us. Global warming, for example, we have known about for over 100 years but so far haven't acted (one could argue that Trump’s government is even acting in the opposite direction to what is needed). But Trump’s government and the effects of global warming, just to name a couple of problems, are starting to make things a bit uncomfortable. That could be good. We have a potential here to move in a better direction as people might seek out alternatives to the current system. And EOS offers such a system [EOS]. The more people and the more resources we have the greater our potential becomes to build a sustainable, moneyless, "Star Trek" world. At the very least, we could start building a Foundation for the future to act as seeds for a brighter future. So, if we are seeing the end of the US and the collapse of the West, we could also, potentially, be seeing the start of a brighter future. Trump could be the catalyst that we need. The potential is there but we need to make it happen. We need to act. Will we? If we don't, we will only have ourselves to blame.

"Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times." - Those Who Remain by G. Michael Hopf,

 

References

[DNI] https://democrats.org/news/tulsi-gabbard-is-a-threat-to-americas-national-security/

[ph] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/pete-hegseth-5-controversial-facts-about-the-new-us-secretary-of-defense/articleshow/117542597.cms?from=mdr

[sup] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/02/09/trumps-approval-rating-at-53-in-new-poll-but-americans-are-less-sure-about-elon-musk/

[rus] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/12/trump-russia-putin-fbi

[cn] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/07/trumps-executive-order-anti-christian-bias

[cm] https://medium.com/backyard-theology/christianitys-love-of-money-ed6cd56a5e97

[cn2] https://www.johnwhitsett.com/blog/authentic-christianity-versus-christian-nationalism 

[war] https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2014086/donald-trump-making-world-war

[failed] https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/guest-commentary-america-failed-democracy/

[end] https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/11/10/trump-act-ii-spells-the-end-of-the-american-empire/

[lit] https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/post/literacy-statistics-2024-2025-where-we-are-now

[pov] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2024/demo/p60-283.html

[EOS] https://eosprojects.com/

[prob] https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/examples-of-social-issues-in-the-us/

The Expert in the Room Problem

 

Introduction

Peter Joseph did a podcast in December 2024 called “Revolution Now! Episode 53”. Somehow I managed to miss all the previous episodes but I caught this one and listened to the whole thing.

The first part was a good explanation of why we need to explore the idea of an alternative socioeconomic systems. For me, this is a bit of preaching to the choir as I’ve been looking into this sort of stuff since the 1990s. To me, the unsustainable nature of our current system is obvious but to anyone new to the subject, the first part of Peter Joseph’s podcast is worth listening to.

The part that interests me the most starts around the 49:22 mark, so I will concentrate a bit more on that.

Self organising and all that jazz

The thing that caught my attention most with Peter Joseph’s podcast is the overview that he gave of a possible future socioeconomic system. What was proposed has a lot of similarities that the system proposed by the Earth Organisation for Sustainability (EOS), which is based in Sweden, and is laid out in The Design. To start with Peter Joseph talks about self organising distributed, decentralised, systems. At 51:39 he states:

“Efficiency

Efficiency emerges through decentralised cooperative networks, with all knowledge shared, infused with direct democratic mechanisms to arrive at economic action.”

EOS also proposes a decentralised cooperative network. Not much is given in the podcast about the network topology however. The impression I got was it was a full connected network. EOS, however, does present more details about the network topology. In EOS’s Design the network is a holonic system. Holonic systems form part – whole constructs, similar to what we find in nature. These type of cooperative decentralised systems can work well if a number of criteria are met:

• Goals

• Communications

• Rules

The system has to have an overall goal. Peter Joseph doesn’t actually say anything as such about goals but goals can be inferred. EOS, however, explicitly states the goal as:

Highest standard of living for the longest time possible

That goal is borrowed from Technocracy Inc. and I would imagine that the goal of Peter Joseph’s network would be much the same (or at least compatible).

Communications is the next important attribute that self organising systems need to function. Peter Joseph talks about feedback loops and certainly feedback in such systems is vital for them to work. However, there is more to communications than just feedback. New ideas need injecting into the system as well, for example.

The last thing that self organising systems need is a set of rules to work with. At the very least they will have the laws of physics to work with but a network of human communities would need other rules in common. Such as a basic set of human rights.

These aspects of self organising systems weren’t explored (although I can infer them as “natural law standards” and “scientific analysis” is mentioned) in the podcast probably because the last section was really a short introduction to a complex subject. I hope, however, Peter Joseph will go into these in more details in later podcasts.

An example of how these three aspects enable self organisation can be seen in the following video. In the video the metronomes fail to synchronise at first. They have rules (the laws of physics) and they have a goal (to measure time) but there is no communication channel. However, when they are put up on to two cans, the vibration form each is able to influence the others. With communications established, the metronomes synchronise automatically.

An other interesting overlap is the presentation of food production as an example. That is something that EOS has also been looking at. EOS was part of a cooperative project to build a biodome in Sweden. 

 

The biodome built by EOS in Umeå, Sweden

 

The technical aspect

Now we come to the bit I have most problem with. Both Peter Joseph’s ideas and those presented by EOS aim for a hi-tech society. Both see the system being demand driven rather than centrally planned. Both look at efficiency using science driven analysis and AI. Both see the system as being open source. So far so good. But then we come to complexity. Peter Joseph makes the point at about 54:12 that as participation grows complexity grows. Yet, the system proposed by Peter Joseph relies on democratic mechanisms. I would argue that that is going to require management by technical experts if this is to work. Peter Joseph does make a quick reference to the need for management and how that can be worked out later. I would argue that this point is so fundamentally important that it needs to be worked in from the start.

If the system is to use scientific analysis then it will need people to understand that scientific analysis. If the system is to have technology, then it will need people who can understand that technology and can design and implement it. If the system is to have zero waist then it will need to be able to efficiently manage its resources and that will take knowledge and expertise.

The problem with knowledgeable experts is they tend to be in the minority but the majority, who have a poor understanding of the subject, tend to over estimate their abilities. Thus, you will most likely get wrong decisions being confidently made and correct decisions being overruled if you leave the decision making to the masses. This is known as the expert in the room problem. Imagine needing brain surgery and the brain operation being decided by the masses who have no idea about brain surgery. How confidant would you feel about going under the knife?

You can still have the people participating in what a society does and what is produced. But at the level of a customer. The people can demand what is to be produce but behind the scenes you will need a team of experts making the decisions to get the whole thing to work. This problem is addressed from the beginning in the Design preposed by EOS.

This system will also need regulation and control. Both Peter Joseph’s and EOS’s systems are moneyless systems but there still needs a control mechanism. As they say, you can’t control what you can’t measure and from what I see there is no measurement system in what Peter Joseph proposes. There is a mention of time banks, which is something that could work on a small scale but this system wont take into account the energy and material needs of the system. And as the system becomes more complex, I would expect a system using time banks to run into problems. EOS has a system energy accounting. All systems require energy to work and we can measure the energy we have available and what we need to produced items. If we allocate the energy to the people, this becomes a mechanism to allow people to decide what gets produced. It also allows us to monitor demand and production and to manage the system. The energy accounting system will also scale as the system becomes more complex.

Conclusion

Much of what Peter Joseph proposes is compatible with the Design proposed by EOS. However, there is a need of expert management behind the system. This need for expert management will become more important as the system becomes more complex. This is something that is central to The Design by EOS but appears to be an after thought in Peter Joseph’s proposal.

Technocracy : What is it and why would we want it?

 

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.” - Winston Churchill, UK parliamentary speech, 1947 – 11 – 11

Introduction

In this article I want to give a quick introduction to technocracy as an alternative form of government. It could be interesting to look at this form of government given the complexity of the world we live in and the apparent difficulty we are having with dealing with serious problems such as global warming as well as our failure to build a sustainable society. Perhaps we are unable to fix the problems our current system has created within the same system? Perhaps we need to look to an alternative if we really want solutions?

What is technocracy?

To put it simply; technocracy is the rule of the skilled. That is, a government formed of people who know what they are doing. The word “technocracy” comes from combining two Greek words. The first is “tekhne”, which means “skill”, and it can be found in other “tech” words such as “technique”. The second word is “kratos”, which means “power”, and can be found in words like “democracy”.

Why would we want it?

The why we might be interested in exploring technocracy can be summed up in one word; “complexity”. Modern society is complex. Many of the other forms of governance were developed in less complex, pre-industrial, pre-scientific, times. They were not developed to handle the modern complex world. It could be argued that that is why we have been failing to deal with complex problems such as global warming, just to take one example. Global warming is a complex technical problem and it could be argued that we haven't even started to solve that problem (we have even done the opposite like muddle the waters and call it “climate change”). And there are many other such problems. There is nothing in other forms of government that actually guarantees technically competent people will be in a position to make the necessary complex decisions. Authoritarian regimes reward loyalty and democracies reward popularity. No technical skills, qualifications, or even understanding of society are required.

So, why would we want technocracy? Because it is the only form of government that guarantees technically competent people will be making the technically complex decisions in our modern technically complex world.

So, what is technocracy?

I’m coming back to the first question again. I gave a simple answer above and then a brief explanation as to why we might want to look at technocracy. So, now I want to given a better answer to the first question. I’m going to look at technocracy in a little bit more detail with the idea that we live in a complex society in mind.

The Rule of Scientists

One of the most common views of technocracy that I have come across is the view that the government would be made up of scientists. A good view of that type of government was presented in an old children’s programme from 1970 called Timeslip. In the episode called “The Year of the Burn Up”, two children travel forward in time to a future world of the Technocracy, where a government of scientist are remaking the world according to the “master plan”. Things go wrong and the planet starts to warm up to the point where all life on Earth was threatened with extinction.

Personally, I’m not surprised a “rule by scientists” would end in disaster. If you ever meet a real scientist you would understand why they may not be suitable to run a country. Just because a person is skilled in one area doesn’t mean they are skilled in another area. A physicists may be brilliant with physic but it doesn't follow that they would know the first thing about ruling a country.

The Rule of the Computer

Another type of technocracy could be seen in The Venus Project (TVP). TVP originates with Jacques Fresco, who was at one time a member of the Technocracy movement in the US. TVP envisions a society run by computers. Computers would monitor all the variables that are vital for running society such as crop production, the water supply, energy supply, and so on. The computer would then make what ever decision is needed to run society. Jacques Fresco didn’t go into details of how all this would work but I would imagine it would be a distributed system with many computers inter-connected. It would also need teams of experts to manage the system but this is another detail that isn’t clear to my mind. The system is a moneyless system but, again, how it would work isn’t fully explored in Jacques’ works but there are a nice set of ideas for future buildings and cities. 

Jacques Fresco

 

The Design

“The Design” is another form of technocracy, this one has been put forward by the Swedish based group called EOS. The Design see society divided into two; the people side and the technology side. The people side deals with cultural issues and communities and is ruled by direct democracy. The technological side then deals with the technical aspects of society such as production, transport, computers, and so on. It is the technical side that is more of interest so I’ll focus on that. The technical side is run by teams of experts. The aim is to apply science to society but the experts are not all scientists. They are teams composed of experts from a variety of domains. Food production, for example, could be managed by teams composed of biologists, ecologists, agro-engineers, and farmers. The teams work towards a goal;

Highest standard of living for the longest time possible

This goal originates with Technocracy Inc. in the US. The goal puts people first so we see rights such as the freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement, etc., as an integrated part of the over all goal. Also part of the overall goal is the idea of sustainability; the need to balance our needs with those of the planet.

To achieve the goal, the Design calls for a moneyless system based on the idea of energy accountancy. This idea originates with Technocracy Inc., but the Design extends the idea. Instead of energy, the Design uses exergy as exergy is the usable energy and that is more of interest when managing a complex system.

The Design also advocates the use of technology to minimise work. That would give people more time to be human. This is achieved through the technical management of resources, automation, and robotics.

Of all the designs for a technocracy, The Design is probably the most comprehensive. However, it is not complete. The Design calls for testing and verification in order to develop the ideas to a complete system (taking a scientific approach).

Technocracy Inc.

The ideas of technocracy go back to the 19^th century but the oldest technocracy organisation still in existence is Technocracy Inc. in the US. They date back to the 1930s. They have a plan that includes forming urbanates (cities of the future), how to manage food production, and energy production but they have a more American focus.

Further reading

This was only a very quick look at technocracy but if you want to know more there are various publications / sites to read to go into this subject in more detail.

One good starting point is Technocracy Inc. site and their plan. The Venus Project has a book called the “Best That Money Can’t Buy” by Jacques Fresco and that can be found at their web site. Kenneth S. Keyes, Jr. and Jacques Fresco also wrote a book called “Looking Forward”, which also explore the ideas of TVP. That book is free. The Swedish EOS group has published their ideas in a book called the Design.