The article treats highly autocratic leaders like Robert Moses, Mao and Stalin who had no desire to implement the recommendations from domain experts because they thought they knew better and who did their as being in the same reference of technocrats as people who push to make decisions on well-researched evidence-based models.
If that’s what you need to argue to attack contemporary technocrats your case is very weak.
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...’
With an ad blocker, I see almost nothing on the page. No, I am not going to turn it off.
The article treats highly autocratic leaders like Robert Moses, Mao and Stalin who had no desire to implement the recommendations from domain experts because they thought they knew better and who did their as being in the same reference of technocrats as people who push to make decisions on well-researched evidence-based models.
If that’s what you need to argue to attack contemporary technocrats your case is very weak.
Couldn’t come up with a way to view the article. Downvoted without reading.
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...’