What do you think?
Rate this book
Technocracy;: Science vs. chaos,
Unknown Binding
Published January 1, 1933
1 person want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 16, 2025
Half-baked ideas about replacing capitalism that came about during the great depression.
My assorted notes:
Technocracy replaces wealth which they claim to be debt-based with a currency based on energy. Since energy is required for all creatures to live (and plants to live) energy becomes the common currency. This model in some ways is not that different than our existing currency in that only the energy cost is involved, if pollution is created there is no way to account for any cleanup cost because often the cleanup has been deferred to some unspecified time in the future. Inherently an energy based currency would be inclined to discount future costs and only focus on current costs, much like CAFO’s maximize feed to animal ratios.
There is inherent racism in the text. The half a billion poor people in China are never expected to rise out of poverty. Italy is looked down upon as unindustrialized. One senses that the Author sees only the US as successful and in a sense civilized.
The author states that the cost of having toll keepers for a subway system inherently makes that system inefficient since they consume more energy than it takes to run the system, and therefore the system should be toll-free.
Goods are judged by their energy input. Unfortunately this would have to imply durability which almost certainly would elevate cost judging only by energy input guarantees shoddy goods. Hence energy input and durability both need to be taken into account. At some point durability costs too much. At what point would society decide there was too much durability?
Does this imply only one style of clothes is made? Advertising is banished as it is wasteful.
My assorted notes:
Technocracy replaces wealth which they claim to be debt-based with a currency based on energy. Since energy is required for all creatures to live (and plants to live) energy becomes the common currency. This model in some ways is not that different than our existing currency in that only the energy cost is involved, if pollution is created there is no way to account for any cleanup cost because often the cleanup has been deferred to some unspecified time in the future. Inherently an energy based currency would be inclined to discount future costs and only focus on current costs, much like CAFO’s maximize feed to animal ratios.
There is inherent racism in the text. The half a billion poor people in China are never expected to rise out of poverty. Italy is looked down upon as unindustrialized. One senses that the Author sees only the US as successful and in a sense civilized.
The author states that the cost of having toll keepers for a subway system inherently makes that system inefficient since they consume more energy than it takes to run the system, and therefore the system should be toll-free.
Goods are judged by their energy input. Unfortunately this would have to imply durability which almost certainly would elevate cost judging only by energy input guarantees shoddy goods. Hence energy input and durability both need to be taken into account. At some point durability costs too much. At what point would society decide there was too much durability?
Does this imply only one style of clothes is made? Advertising is banished as it is wasteful.
Displaying 1 of 1 review