Let the Engineers Rule!: The Alternate Economic System of Technocracy

April 28, 2008

Ever wonder what society would be like if it wasn’t run by politicians and economists, but by engineers and scientists? If every part of society could be developed from the ground up, including borders and locations of cities, by technicians who could optimally plan the most efficient use of resources? If fiat money were abolished and replaced with something more advanced? In the 1920s and 1930s, a man named Howard Scott and a group called Technocracy decided to plan out a system devoted to reaching economic efficiency via empirical studies and evidence. Technocracy Incorporated is not remembered much today, but at its peak had over half a million members in California alone. Some of the most notable Technocracy advocates include M. King Hubbert (originator of Hubbert Peak Theory, or “peak oil”), Thorstein Veblen, (economist and author of Theory of the Leisure Class) and Upton Sinclair (author of The Jungle).

What is Technocracy?

Technocracy is the system of thought that holds that as society progresses, the old Price System of using tokens of debt (”money”) is no longer a reasonable way to sustain a society. Technocracy seeks a zero growth economy based on efficient use of resources, especially energy, and the abolition of relics of the traditional past, such as the democratic political system and the borders of nation-states. They believe that these constitute an inefficient allocation of resources, which leads to the illusion of scarcity. Therefore, if societies could be re-organized into Technates (energy-independent regions with a sufficiently qualified engineering population), that humans would move to a post-scarcity society. That is, goods and services would be practically free, due to the fact that society would be able to easily produce anything required for minimal cost.

How Would Everyday Life Be Different from Today?

Private ownership of most things, aside from personal belongings, would come to an end. However, most anything you need will be available for your use, including communications devices, transportation, etc. Large metropolises such as New York will dwindle as their reasons for existence - trade and commerce - are eliminated. People will live in smaller, more self-efficient and spread-out pre-planned communities called Urbanates. It would be easier to get around in these population centers, as they would be planned to be easily navigable and walkable instead of the hodge-podge of inefficient development that cities have seen in the past. Traditional social life would not change, and any social legislation (problems not related to the conversion of energy to produce for the populace, such as divorce, gay marriage, etc.) would be passed by Technate-wide referendum.

One of the main results of the move to Technocracy would be a vast increase in the amount of leisure time. As people would receive the current equivalent of $500/day in energy credits, more than could possibly be spent, the only reason for working would be the approval of one’s peers. Retirement would be possible (but not mandatory) at age 45. People could work on anything they wanted, resulting in a flourishing of culture as never before. Citizens of the Technate could spend time learning anything that they wanted to at school throughout the course of their lives. Education would become a lifelong drive, not something to do at the beginning of life in order to learn a skill to survive.

Traveling in the Technate, both within an Urbanate and to other areas, would be incredibly easy due to a Technate-wide system of canals (”Continental Hydrology”), high-speed rail and air transport, and widely available individual vehicles. All of these vehicles would be designed to be as energy efficient as possible.

What About Money?

The monetary system as we know it would no longer be used. Instead, people would get “energy credits;” each unit would equal a unit of energy used to run the society. They could not be saved or earned, but only distributed equally among the citizens of a Technate by the planners. They would be distributed according to the needs of the populace, as determined by the Technate planners. The first advantage of this system is that ecological costs are automatically included in the “cost” of items, since energy is the main resource used by citizens. The second advantage is that socioeconomic problems will be eliminated, or at least greatly reduced, by the broad socioeconomic equality produced by the equal distribution of energy credits. Finally, energy credits would be like the “gold standard” - they could not appreciate or depreciate in value since they are directly mapped to a unit of energy. Thus, a Technate would have no issues with inflation or debt.

How is the Technocratic Economic System Different from Communism?

Technocracy advocates argue that both communism and capitalism are outgrowths of a scarcity mentality, and exist to live with scarcities instead of working to eliminate them. Also, traditional communist thought holds that the State will “wither away” once society is ready for it to happen. However, Technocracy thinks that their version of a “state” (actually, the Technate) is permanent. People may be equal on an economic basis, by everybody receiving the same amount of energy credits, but there is a meritocratic system of advancement through the Technate. They believe that people will want to advance up the ladder due to both intrinsic motivation and to get more respect from their peers. It is possible to cite examples such as Wikipedia, the free software movement, and other actions that people contribute to without monetary reward. They argue that personal initiative will flourish like never before, as people will no longer have to rely on the archaic scarcity mentality that limits their choices in life.

Map of the Proposed North American Technate. This work is the copyright of Technocracy Incorporated, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

How Would Relations With Other Regions Work?

There would be a”Sequence,” or profession, that would work similarly to an expanded version of our present day Foreign Service. They would work to offer assistance to any regions of the world that had an emergency, no strings attached.

For foreign trade, any items that were needed from a foreign country would be obtained via a barter-like system. However, since the Technate would be able to produce basically everything that its citizens need, this would most likely be a rare occurrence.
For individual citizens traveling abroad, people would receive the equivalent of their energy credit usage in foreign currency when they leave the Technate. All extra foreign currency would be relinquished upon returning to the Technate.

Citizens who wished to leave the Technocracy would be free to do so, either permanently or on vacation. In addition, tourists and students would be invited to see the Technate in action and learn more about introducing Technocracy in their own homelands. Although the minimizing of trade between the Technate and other areas makes it seem as if this is an “isolationist” theory of economics, this is due to the lack of a Price System and thus, lack of need to trade. Technocracy would maintain and enhance the two-way flow of information between the Technate and other areas of the world.

How Would the Leaders be Chosen?

The antiquated concept of letting the masses decide who is the best person to lead them will be replaced by a process similar to the way corporations promote technical personnel today. Those who are the best at their current positions and are found, via objective methods, to be the best candidates for the next higher position will be promoted. Recommendations from both above and below will play a major part in the promotion process. This way, a system in which those who are at best at doing what they do for society will play a larger and larger role in that society.

Criticisms of Technocracy

The first and most major criticism of Technocracy is that the Earth does not support their concept of a post-scarcity society. There will always be more things that people can consume and want to own than the Earth can conceivably produce. Technocracy advocates retort that their studies show that there is sufficient energy to convert to a post-scarcity society, and that energy is the limiting factor in most production equations.

Another criticism of Technocracy is that it provides no incentives to better oneself or progress in society based on hard work, consequently de-legitimizing work and going against human nature. Technocracy advocates assert that the incentives under Technocracy would merely be different, not nonexistent. In a post-scarcity society, people would work to earn praise and self-respect, instead of monetary rewards. An example is the world of science, where scientists work hard to make great discoveries for personal fame.

Critics also note that due to the low unemployment rate in developed countries, there is an obvious need for many people to be working. This means that one of Technocracy’s basis premises - that machines can take over for most production, and that work in general will be greatly reduced - is flawed. However, many professions in today’s capitalist society are irrelevant under Technocracy, such as finance, marketing, and advertising, and most industries are wasteful due to competition. By streamlining these sources of production and eliminating needless jobs, people will have more leisure time to enjoy life.