I must emphasize that if we are going to succesfully transform Earth from Price System to Technocratic System we have to watch on Siberian resources.
Another thing is this. All of us can see what a Price System is going to do together with capitalist elite politics. Destruction of Amazon Rainforests, wars in Middle East, global warming, destruction of greater part of world resources. As Technocrats we should watch for this. It is very likely that war will escalate on more greater scale in order to create New World Order. I'm scared that Amazon Rainforest will be destroyed.
From some facts in world today it is obvious that we won't be able to give highest standard to every individual. These factors will affect establishment of Technocracy. I thnk that in next 50 - 100 years Technate will not be established due to todays factors. I hope it will but it is unreal.
I'm afraid of next. What if happenings in world affect establishment of first Technate and instead utopian it becomes totalitarian like communism.
On my Web page I propose forming of
TECHNOCRATIC HOLONIC COLLECTIVE

Technocratic Holonic Collective should be group and eventually organization which would tend to create Technocratic Society. Its form is a technocratic hierarchical structure consisiting of Technarch, Collective Board, Sector Directors with Operational Sequences Directors. It is a technocratic network which should be spread around the world, working holonically.
First to explain term holonically. The word  "holon?? derives from the Greek "holos,'' meaning whole, and "-on,'' meaning part. A holon is a duality of entities, a singular unit, and yet a part of a larger, unifying whole. For example, cell in your organism is a holon. CPU is another example.
Holons function autonomouslywhich means that it carries out its own activities and tasks. A holon concentrates only to that task. Such activities yet contribute on other hand to a function of a larger system. With interactions of holons, sum of their actions results in a greater action thus contibuting to system more than any individual holon could ever contibute, ergo forming groups. Groups of holons from different areas of expertise form geographical areas, areas form zones and ultimately, zones on a given geographical teritory form sectors. I must to thank my fellow Technocrat Dr. Andrew Wallace for this idea.
Individual members would form holons, which would perform tasks and activities for Technocratic Communities. Techno-Communities are local parts or zones of some sector. Center of such organization is a Technocratic Holonic Collective. With its unifying role it allocates and directs all of holons tasks. It arranges all and every holon to its function.
With establishment of Technocratic Holonic Collective we should inform people globally trough media (Internet, Television, Radio, newspaper) and locally by organizing educational lectures on local level. This should attract more and more members for Technocratic Communites. With Technocratic Communites aka Zones close enough geographically we would be able to establish Sectors and ultimately a Technate of Earth.

Forming of this is very important, because I think Technocrats will be an imortant factor in future.

I think that establishment of Continetal Technates will be very hard so I propose that we expand our activites to whole planet. For time before forming Technate of Earth we should have Technocratic Holonic Collective as one central, operating mechanism directing all Holons. With Technocratic Communites all around world it is very likely that forming Technate of Earth will be more easier.

Post edited by: SciTech, at: 2007/05/27 14:23

Very interesting. Do you have a link to your website?

Milosh wrote:


Do these two things not contradict each other? It seems to me that you're trying to say that the holons are autonomous, but they receive their tasks from the Technocratic Holonic Collective. And they seems to be even less autonomous since they are created from above. Can you please elaborate a bit futher?

That is basically the same sort of function that Andrew and me have proposed for NET.

Milosh wrote:


Hmm .. I don’t think we have a conspiracy here to create a New World order. Warfare, I think, has a use if a capitalist society to trim things back a bit, remove some troublesome unemployed people and expand the econ.


Milosh wrote:


That’s a real possibility but I hope that having power distributed and working towards goals will minimise any such disaster.

Milosh wrote:


Where can we find your webpage?

Basically, yes. We have that as our plan and we call it a proto-Technate. I think we can establish it in Europe but I also thing we could also establish a world-around Technate if people in other parts of the world want to set up a technocratic organisation.

Milosh wrote:


Which resources are you talking about? In what quantities do they exist? What would their functional value be to a planet-wide technate?

Milosh wrote:


While I would agree, this exposes one of the main problems I have with the North American model, that it is provincial. I do not quite understand what you mean by "expand our activities" though, since it seems as though you would like to begin on a world-wide scale with a philosophy and science (technocracy) that is still quite provincial. What is needed first is a reformulation of the original technocratic principles in an international (or interncontinental, or global, or whatever you wish to call it) light. I would never endorse taking global action with the backdrop of a provincial design; never.

Andrew Wallace wrote:


Another thing that worries me; how would power be distributed? And how would "working towards goals" be functionally manifested? For example, as we have seen with the confusion of having autonomous holons that may receive orders from higher holons, where would these goals come from? (ie. would they be dictated by a central holon, designated by individual holons, or decided by the population at large?)

It is realistic to assume that the first technate would be regionally-based, i.e what you refer to as provincial. But that do not counter the fact that we should strive at one planet in balance. Not all areas of the globe are ready of technocracy yet, and I would like to discourage for example African nations or India from trying to form a technate with an insufficient technological base since that would produce disasters which not only would cause human suffering but lead to a rejection of technocracy.

Mansel Ismay wrote:


No one person will be an expert in everything. You will have experts in different areas making decisions in those area and not any other. Thus, power is distributed through a number of experts.

Goals for the reason for a project to exist. They can come from any source such as internally within a sequence or external as a customer requirement from other sequences or even the LCs.

In the UK, when I went to the local college, the most educated people I met came from those kind of countries you mention, where as local people had a very poor education and knew little about anything really.

I would actually say that countries other than the developed first nations might be a rather better place to start a proto-technate on the basis that the people there are often more old fashioned educated, have experience of self reliance, their planning laws are less strict, land is cheaper, and the people are often less apathetic.

I have even pondered myself moving to India for these very reasons, below is an excellent example of just the kind of thing I want to see in my own country (UK)

As you can see, they can manage to do far more than we can manage

www.monolithic.com/domenews/2002spr_sum/india

www.catalytic.com

Very nice. Something like this could be a good start. I think that the proto-technate should specialize in certain products or services, for starters. This of course does not exclude all the implementation of sustainable technologies, technocratic socio-economic and political system etc. We need to start with a high-tech edge, as much as possible, of course. It all requires careful planning so that the new implementations bring closer towards both sustainability and development.

EDIT: But I definitely think that we stand a better chance with a bottom-up approach than top-down. I have a feeling that we are going to even further refine our approach when we start implementing it and a bottom-up approach allows us to adapt with more ease.

Post edited by: lupus664, at: 2007/05/29 16:11

We cannot call our approach anascopic actually. It is katascopic, but from the other perspective.

Nice links, nanos.


Igor Srdoc wrote:


Yes, agreed. Software might end up as one option but I was also thinking of hydroponics. Growing things locally that we get from far away. Not something worth while doing at the mo but in the near future perhaps if oil prices rise and goods start to cost more.

Igor Srdoc wrote:
This of course does not exclude all the implementation of sustainable technologies, technocratic socio-economic and political system etc. We need to start with a high-tech edge, as much as possible, of course. It all requires careful planning so that the new implementations bring closer towards both sustainability and development.
[/quote]

Yes, and people to do it and funding.

Igor Srdoc wrote:
EDIT: But I definitely think that we stand a better chance with a bottom-up approach than top-down. I have a feeling that we are going to even further refine our approach when we start implementing it and a bottom-up approach allows us to adapt with more ease.<br><br>Post edited by: lupus664, at: 2007/05/29 16:11[/quote]

I think so too.

For hydroponics, one would need a large cheap energy source, for that I'd suggest GEOHIL technology www.bassfeld.ch and www.earthenergyexchange.com/GEOHIL.htm

That for me is the next step after a small cluster of solar panels. (Its hard to get permission in the UK for hydroelectric due to damage to fish, someone recently got permission for a new plant, but previously the last time was 50 years previously!)

Wind is also difficult in the UK now since most planning applications for wind turbines are being turned down in the grounds of spoiling the look of the landscape.

One reason I'm a little interested in underground windmills, as that would be planning department friendly.

Tidal is doable, but expensive to start up in compared with the others.

There is though some expected cost reduction in solar panels in the next 5 years, but not a huge reduction, once you factor in the associated inferstructure connected with the panels themselves, such as the converters, storage/etc.

Water for storing electric is about the current most cost effective way of holding power for later use, so a site with two lakes at different heights would be useful.

Yes I was thinking of specialising in a proto-technate re. software/coding/web design/etc. as a good starting point, as the inferstructure requirements are not too great and people can start in the business without needing to live in the proto-technate to start off with.

Already in the UK we are beginning to see farms going out of business because its cheaper to import food than to grow it locally due to high costs here such as fuel and food.

I would also be keen to promote in the local community an education spirit such as providing machine shop facalities, and courses in practical skills so we have an educated and skilled workforce, something rather lacking today, which leads people to throw away items rather than have them repaired.

As such, I'm also keen more on the bottom up approach than top down.

Post edited by: Nanos, at: 2007/05/30 08:47

One idea I see as possibly pivotal to starting up a proto-technate is renting of homes to establish a community. As it maybe difficult to attract the right sort of people, I had wondered that have a model that people are familar with, would simply attract Joe average, eg. cheap rents.

I had pondered rents based on income, eg. 10% of income after local taxes is paid in rent.

Someone else suggested to me just to offer rents below market price, but only something like 25% less than market, rather than a huge amount.

Looking more closely at that idea, I could see how it could solve some issues, yet create more of its own.

Eg. Good aspects of that approach would be, that one could rent out say 1,000 homes at 25% less than market price and use the profit from that to subsidise 1,000 homes with rent that is 75% below market price, that way you provide housing for the poor, whilst sticking with an accepted model that works and one you could get funding from a bank for.

Rough figures are that one could borrow 10 mil to build 1,000 homes charging 25% below market rents, payback over a 15 year period, during which time you could with the profits build another 1,000 homes and charge 75% below market price rents.

At the end of the 15 years, you'd be left with assets worth between 25 mil and 250 mil (the higher one on the basis that you now have land with housing on, and such land is usually valued higher than just scrub land, which is what you'd start with to build the housing in the first place.)

Whilst I could see that approach working, I'm concerned somewhat by the 5 mil profit taken by the bankers, money which if the whole thing was done another way, wouldn't be wasted so to speak.

Also, thinking about it, I could see an issue with the low 75% below market rental properties filling up with rich people who don't move out, and thus the poor still stuck without cheap housing.

I'm not sure I can see a solution to that issue without requiring income information from people to determine if they should still live in the cheap housing or not..

In the percentage income rental approach, one would have difficulty keeping the wealthy in the homes, as once people went from poor to rich, their rents would increase, and they might simply leave.

So there is also a flaw with that model.

Perhaps a blending of the two approaches might be what is needed, eg. charge set rents, but require also peoples income information, as someone moves out of the poor income bracket, at some level you then do not renew their tenancy agreement, so the rich are forced to leave the housing that is intended for the poor.

Whilst you could have several levels of rental property, so people could move up the ladder to a better one, with a finite supply, you could simply get to the stage that someone is too rich to live there..

Which I suppose brings us back to percentage rents, which whilst more complicated, would allow someone to stay in housing, but also pay up, and thus their contribution would pay for more housing elsewhere.

I'm still unhappy with the entire scheme, it doesn't seem to fit perfectly, so I think I need to develop it more to see if there is any way to avoid people taking advantage of the system, or the system failing in some manner, such as not providing housing for the poor, as that is my primary aim, being how the rich can easily afford housing someplace else