Post by Chairman Ryan on Oct 20, 2008 19:22:24 GMT -5
The government of Universalis has been restructured along lines combining elements of technocracy and on ideas inspired by HG Wells' novel The Time Machine.
So to start with the basics let us discuss technocracy. Wikipedia describes it as thus:
Basically this follows how a scientist writes a scientific article. The article is written, such as a thesis paper, based on a great deal of research on the part of the author. The article is then published in a respected scientific journal, which is further reviewed by educated peers for consistency, accuracy, and so forth. In technocracy, it is the person his/herself that is scrutinized for dependability, knowledge, and administrative ability. It doesn't matter if they have "saviour faire", it matters if they have the ability to fill the job asked of them. Most people agree that this would be the ideal way society would choose its leaders. Unfortunately that often isn't the case. Perhaps in some future time, when the world becomes sick enough of two-faced politics, we may actually enter such a period of responsible leadership. But not right now. Here, however, we have the option to conduct such a government.
I may not be a doctor with a PhD, but I am a scientist in environmental affairs, which potentially qualifies me for the role of Chairman. As the only present citizen and founder, I thus accept that role as default. But if someone better educated were to arrive and become a citizen, I would be responsible to them to justify my position based on a quantification of my knowledge. But there also has to be a balance. In a real world setting there are thousands of scientists, and justifying your position to every scientist who disagrees with you would mean that you'd spend all your time just doing that. Thus here we need to have what can be called "justification elections". Basically this means that any qualified citizen can become Chairman, but that they have to justify their skill and ability to lead before the entire population, who must then pick who they feel best to lead. As with America electing GWB, this can also lead to a mistake in choice. But that can also be alleviated by providing the general population with a higher level of education, not just the elementary basics.
This goes into the second part of this discussion; the Science Governing Board. This concept is based on a part of HG Wells' The Time Machine. At a distant point in the future, the time traveller happens upon a utopian world governed by a board of four top scientists each representing a specific quarter of the overall "world science" needed to properly administer Earth. This is unimaginatively called the "World Science Governing Board", which I simply and also unimaginatively dropped the "world" title from.
The idea behind this is that while there is still a chief executive to "lead", there is a board of other skilled scientists to balance the role of knowledge in determining the actions of government. Opposing opinions and ideas are essential to forming accurate solutions. Just like an experiment in a laboratory, a piece of legislation must be tested, reviewed, revised, and virtually dragged through the mud before it can be considered worthy of application. With a team of skilled people this can be done within the chambers of the board room, and that's entirely what this branch of government is intended to do.
More will be written in a second post.
So to start with the basics let us discuss technocracy. Wikipedia describes it as thus:
Technocracy (bureaucratic), a governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly skilled and qualified they are, rather than how much political capital they hold. A form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control; "technocracy is described as that society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge".
Basically this follows how a scientist writes a scientific article. The article is written, such as a thesis paper, based on a great deal of research on the part of the author. The article is then published in a respected scientific journal, which is further reviewed by educated peers for consistency, accuracy, and so forth. In technocracy, it is the person his/herself that is scrutinized for dependability, knowledge, and administrative ability. It doesn't matter if they have "saviour faire", it matters if they have the ability to fill the job asked of them. Most people agree that this would be the ideal way society would choose its leaders. Unfortunately that often isn't the case. Perhaps in some future time, when the world becomes sick enough of two-faced politics, we may actually enter such a period of responsible leadership. But not right now. Here, however, we have the option to conduct such a government.
I may not be a doctor with a PhD, but I am a scientist in environmental affairs, which potentially qualifies me for the role of Chairman. As the only present citizen and founder, I thus accept that role as default. But if someone better educated were to arrive and become a citizen, I would be responsible to them to justify my position based on a quantification of my knowledge. But there also has to be a balance. In a real world setting there are thousands of scientists, and justifying your position to every scientist who disagrees with you would mean that you'd spend all your time just doing that. Thus here we need to have what can be called "justification elections". Basically this means that any qualified citizen can become Chairman, but that they have to justify their skill and ability to lead before the entire population, who must then pick who they feel best to lead. As with America electing GWB, this can also lead to a mistake in choice. But that can also be alleviated by providing the general population with a higher level of education, not just the elementary basics.
This goes into the second part of this discussion; the Science Governing Board. This concept is based on a part of HG Wells' The Time Machine. At a distant point in the future, the time traveller happens upon a utopian world governed by a board of four top scientists each representing a specific quarter of the overall "world science" needed to properly administer Earth. This is unimaginatively called the "World Science Governing Board", which I simply and also unimaginatively dropped the "world" title from.
The idea behind this is that while there is still a chief executive to "lead", there is a board of other skilled scientists to balance the role of knowledge in determining the actions of government. Opposing opinions and ideas are essential to forming accurate solutions. Just like an experiment in a laboratory, a piece of legislation must be tested, reviewed, revised, and virtually dragged through the mud before it can be considered worthy of application. With a team of skilled people this can be done within the chambers of the board room, and that's entirely what this branch of government is intended to do.
More will be written in a second post.
