I didn’t find the linked post very interesting, mostly because
1) I don’t see a lot of self identified technocrats explaining their position—prior to reading this, I might have classified “RadicalxChange” as technocratic. Now I’d categorize them as “Technocrats who don’t want to be called that.”
2) Claims that aren’t backed up, particularly of impossibility/intangibility, and similarly rejecting things without making it clear why (like consequentialism).
If an important task is impossible then we should give up. If it is possible, solutions seem like the place to start.
3) Saying ‘one of the problems with Technocratic governance is focusing on legibility—with historically disastrous results.’ And then following that up with ‘We should fix Technocracy/governance by focusing on legibility...’
I’m interested in why the link was posted.
(I could read it via chrome.)
I didn’t find the linked post very interesting, mostly because
1) I don’t see a lot of self identified technocrats explaining their position—prior to reading this, I might have classified “RadicalxChange” as technocratic. Now I’d categorize them as “Technocrats who don’t want to be called that.”
2) Claims that aren’t backed up, particularly of impossibility/intangibility, and similarly rejecting things without making it clear why (like consequentialism).
If an important task is impossible then we should give up. If it is possible, solutions seem like the place to start.
3) Saying ‘one of the problems with Technocratic governance is focusing on legibility—with historically disastrous results.’ And then following that up with ‘We should fix Technocracy/governance by focusing on legibility...’