3 ms·
Technocracy shouldn't be inherently wrong choice. Especially when states really do depend increasingly on technology and productivity. In that view selecting a
by Ekaros 1y ago
Technocracy shouldn't be inherently wrong choice. Especially when states really do depend increasingly on technology and productivity. In that view selecting a CEO in high role in government is probably a reasonable option. What are alternatives? Career politicians? Career bureaucrats? Maybe a CEO with proven history could be reasonable choice.
Now if oil companies are bad or good, is much more political question. And really up to voters. Vote for party which supports your political direction.
- nradov 1y agoRex Tillerson wasn't even a terrible Secretary of State, all things considered. We've certainly had much worse.
- dns_snek 1y ago> What are alternatives? People who aren't so boxed into the status quo (ideologically and financially) that they can't fathom anything being more important than technology, "productivity", and the almighty GDP. People whose top priority is to actually listen to society with an open mind, and find ways to improve the quality of life of everyone. Technocrats hear about the mental health problems plaguing society and rush to invent a robotic therapist and stronger psychiatric medication to try to curb the symptoms instead of treating systemic causes that have lead to the situation, like the role of our economic system, exploitation that people face, lack of access to mental health services. A CEO who's guaranteed to be invested into maintaining the status quo is the worst possible option, it's a comical conflict of interest. What does a "proven history" look like, anyway? We need to figure out a way to link the compensation of our representatives to how well the bottom half of society is doing to get the incentives aligned. Any ideas?