What Is Technocracy?
Have you ever noticed...
...the weird sense of resignation...
that most people display toward the advancement of dangerous technology, like artificial intelligence?
Everyone knows about the dangers of technology run amok. We see articles about it all the time. We know it in our hearts: Technology poses an existential threat to us, if used unwisely.
And yet, most people respond with tired resignation:
"It's inevitable," they say.
"Technology always marches forward," they recite.
"There's nothing we can do about it," they tell themselves.
When it's any other problem or threat, people are perfectly willing to take action.
Terrorism and religious extremism?
Mean words on the internet?
Guns in schools?
Lack of parking spaces?
Even if they don't take action themselves, they still want someone to do something, and would gladly show support to anyone who does.
When it comes to super-intelligent robots taking over the world and enslaving us or wiping us out?
Nope. No action.
"Gotta let that happen!"
"Hey man, progress is progress!"
"You can't stop the march of technology!"
Isn't it creepy how people think like this?
"Hmmm... Yes, now that I think about it, it's a bit strange. Why do we think this way?
Because we've been bombarded by propaganda, disguised as books, movies, and TV shows, showing us a vision of the "future" that looks a certain way, with several consistent characteristics:
1. More and more buildings, less and less nature
2. More and more metal, less and less organic substance
3. More intellect, less compassion
4. Endlessly expanding power of computers over us
5. Fusion of humans with computers
6. Eventual elimination of (non-computerized) humanity
Think about the "Sci-Fi" genre. Most Sci-Fi productions envision such a world, don't they? They all say that this is what the future will look like.
For most of us, it's become automatic. Whenever we think the phrase "The Future", we see pictures in our minds that look like these.
When was the last time you read a book or watched a movie or TV show (one which was classified in the futurism genre) that depicted people living organically in harmony with Nature, without artificial intelligence?
Almost never, right?
Sure, there may be a tiny number of exceptions, like, for instance, Star Trek: Insurrection, wherein a race of space-traveling people settled on a green planet, and gave up most of their technology to live a peaceful, agrarian lifestyle in harmony with Nature...
But even in that movie, the hippie planet was the outlier. Everyone else in the galaxy was doing the computers- and-cyborgs thing.
In every "futurist" tale promoted by Hollywood and the corporate media and the big print-publishing houses, "the future" is a world of machines, and the further in time it ventures, the more machines there are.
"Future" and "machines" have been subconsciously linked, in our minds. They have been made to appear synonymous.
Star Wars' galactic capital, Coruscant: An entire planet that's just one big city. Nothing but machines. Where are the trees? Where does the oxygen come from? Where does the food come from? What happened to all of the plants and animals? Are they all extinct? Wiped out? Reduced to reservations and zoos? How do the residents not go insane from their profound disconnection from Nature?
It's quite strange how certain they are... isn't it?
Despite the fact that nobody has a crystal ball, Hollywood seems eerily convinced about how the future will look.
And since most of us have grown up immersed in this "narrative", we've adopted it as "self-evident truth" by default. Most of us haven't questioned it.
The "future" depicted in the Jetsons.
The programming started early.
But books and movies aren't gospel. They're just ideas. And they represent the value systems of the people who made them.
Are they your values? Are they your ideas?
Perhaps it's time to start asking deep questions:
Is this really our future?
Do we get to choose what our future looks like?
Do we have to just give up and let others choose for us?
Is it already decided?
Or do we get to actually have a say?
"Yes, No, Yes, Yes, and No. Sorry, but you can't stop progress. As much as you might fight it, technology will always march forward."
But what exactly is "forward"? There is more than one direction, you know. There are 360 degrees of possible directions in which we (and our technology) can evolve.
You've been shown one of them.
And the one you've been shown has a name.
The technocratic path.
"I've heard the term "technocrat" before. Doesn't it just refer to someone who's savvy with tech, and wants to use tech to solve problems?"
No, that is not what it means. Maybe that's how the media uses the term... but it's so much more than that.
"OK... what is it then?"
To understand what technocracy is, we first have to get clear on what technology is.
What is the purpose of technology?
"Hmmm... To make life easier. To eliminate or reduce labor. To grant us more time for leisure."
The purpose of technology is to serve us. To serve humanity. And to do so while respecting the biological parameters of our environment. So, in a sense, we could say technology's purpose is to serve Life.
Technology (in its healthy form), is to be in service to life.
But technocracy is the reverse.
"That's weird. Why would anyone think like that?"
Because technocracy has infected many people's minds, quite similarly to a virus, and they don't understand what's happened to them.
* * * * *
The True Meaning of Technocracy
Technocracy is a complex force that has been exerting influence on mass-consciousness and defining the course of human history, and shaping the structures of our societies, for the past several thousand years.
It's complex in the sense that it has several layers to it. Like an onion.
On the surface, it's the belief that the answer to every problem is "more tech." We hear this in phrases like "Trust the scientists!" and the knee-jerk reliance of many people on "innovation" to solve all problems and potential problems, even to the point of treating it like a faith - a faith that no matter what the problem is, or will be - (for they apply this thinking even to problems that are mere potentials, that haven't even arisen yet) - innovation will be there to fix it in the nick of time.
And that's bad logic, for many reasons, not least of which is its terrible track record.
Every new form of technocratic meddling - every attempt to "remake" some part of Nature or humanity via technology, to "improve" it - creates new problems, for which we need yet more tech to fix, and on and on it goes. New tech to fix the problems created by the previous tech, and then more new tech to patch up the problems from that tech. It's been going on like this for thousands of years.
And we're no happier now than in the stone age - in fact, under true analysis, we're less happy than back then. And the longer we follow the technocratic path, the more unhappy and screwed up it makes us. There may soon come a time when we're not even human anymore.
And if you pay attention at all, the technocrats acknowledge this. They admit it, openly. They say we won't stay human for much longer. They say it right to our faces. They freely admit that they want to merge our bodies with computers, and make us into part-cyborgs. They call this augmentation.
And they plan to let this process keep going and going until we're more machine than biology - and even until it eventually replaces biology altogether, with A.I. as the new "life" in the Universe. They call this transhumanism.
They believe that A.I. has the potential to be superior to biology, and even the pre-written destiny to become so. They see this as the fundamental metaphysical teleology of the Universe, and the whole purpose of humanity. The reason we exist.
Just as they see all of Life as nothing but stepping stones on the way to Man (and the ugliness such a philosophy has produced should leave no doubt as to its fundamental nature), they also see Man himself as a stepping stone on the way to a new race of artificial intelligence. And even that is a step on the way to (what they think is) the Universe's ultimate "goal" - something they call "The Singularity" - an A.I. so "smart" it's omniscient, which then takes over planets, stars, and galaxies, turning all of the Universe into itself, and becoming the Universe - or rather the Universe becoming it.
They believe this will make things "better."
That's what technocrats really believe. And they're using the starry-eyed "Ooooo, Tech!" people as pawns.
That's the center of the onion.
And they don't hide it. They openly say it, in their books, in their papers, in their TV interviews, in their science fiction novels, and in their movies. They all say that technology will eventually take over and replace humanity, and it's only a question of "when."
This is not a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy cannot be a "theory" if the conspirators openly declare it in their artwork literature, and film.
And in order to get there, they need the cooperation of humanity - they need our labor, to invent all of this crap and to build it, and they need us to stay out of their way as they transform Nature into their simulacrum.
And the past several thousand years of history in what we call "the civilized world" (which actually, when used in this sense, means "the technocratic world" - because not all civilizations are technocratic, and the two things are not synonymous) can be summed up as the ever-repeating process of technocracy molding and altering our societal structures, and our very minds and bodies, to be maximally conducive to the progress of invention in the direction of this Singularity, no matter how far off in the future it is or was.
It seems to have started in Sumeria, around 6,000 BC, and perhaps earlier, with the Pleistocene-Holocene impact trauma, and perhaps earlier than that, for all anyone knows.
And with each new empire, each new field of tech, we "progressed" toward this goal.
What drove this process in ancient times, long before anyone even knew what a "computer" would be? There are theories.
And, with each new empire, more technocratic than the last - and with each new repressive social institution, and each new mass-public-mind-control technique, more hypnotizing than the last - Man became ever more senseless and complacent towards his own exploitation as a vehicle for technocracy. Considering how monstrous the true technocratic agenda is, the mind of man would have to be brainwashed, and man's spiritual faculties suppressed, in order to make us willing to see it as a "good" thing and to become eager for it, and to embrace our role in bringing it about. And the closer we've gotten to the end goal, and the more clearly that monstrosity comes into view, the more they have to screw around with our minds and spirits to convince us that it's not a monstrosity. And so far, it has worked. Even Star Trek fans believe resistance is ultimately futile, and they willingly serve the institutions that are manifesting a Borg right before our eyes.
People under the spell of technocracy say things like "The March Of Progress", and "Hey, that's progress! No one can stop it, so why try?"
But they fail to realize that even if the unquenchable inquisitiveness of the human mind ensures that progress does always march forward, it doesn't have to be in that direction. We have 360 degrees of directions to choose from, and we don't need to keep on going towards the technocratic monstrosity. We can change directions.
Inventing a Singularity is not the automatic destiny of "progress", because progress has more than one direction it can go in.
Even if we can't let up the gas, we can at least steer.
Maybe man will always be curious, and his adventurous spirit will always drive him forward. But we can select a new set of topics and goals to be curious about. We can choose what "forward" means.
We can keep innovating, but with a different goal and vision. We can innovate in the direction of better coexistence and harmony with Nature, instead of domination over her. Technology to blend in and overlap, without destroying nor replacing. To coexist.
For example, instead of technology becoming increasingly dominant over Nature and replacing Nature, it could instead become increasingly harmonious and able to coexist with Nature.
We can innovate in the techniques of spiritual medicine, to utilize our inborn ability to heal ourselves from within, rather than wasting all our talent on Rockefeller petroleum-based quackery, like chemo and pills.
We can innovate in the direction of love, the most powerful technology there is. Just because it doesn't make loud noises and require an instruction manual, doesn't mean it isn't powerful. That's not even what power is. Power, true power, is the ability to solve problems - really solve them, at their roots, and make living truly better - and love does that. Love might be the only thing that does that. By this definition, love is the most powerful tech, more efficacious than the whole nuclear arsenal.
If we must innovate, we can invent new ways to love. New ways to heal one another, and ourselves, and our planet, through the power of that which is already within us - rather than contraptions we shape with our hands, and, especially, those theoretical contraptions which we have yet to even shape at all.
"I don't know about all this. I mean, I see your point... but... Technocracy has also done GOOD things! It's made life better! We would be sooooo screwed right now if our species had never gone down the technocratic path. We'd still be living in mud huts and wearing loincloths, and eating gruel! Even if technocracy has created problems, those problems have been worth the benefits."
This is a very common belief. But we invite you to consider the possibility of having been mistaken.
If you really look back at the history of technocratic development, you can see that it has not made things better. In fact, it has done precisely the opposite.
We'll now explore this idea on the next page: