IT SEEMS I'M A TECHNOCRAT
January 9, 2008
For many years now, I have entertained the notion that our much-lauded political system is completely outdated. My primary objection is that it is simply not keeping up with the technology.
We just don't seem to get it. We don't need other people to manage us (call them representatives or what you will), we need technology. And we have more than enough at our disposal. But it seems to be characteristic of the species to always lag behind the current technological repertoire.
I take some solace in the fact that we have already begun to allow the machines to exercise at least a modicum of governance over us. In fact, we've been doing it for quite some time. I am referring to traffic lights. We take them for granted. Yes, we may get a little irked at them at times, but even when we do, it's not the light itself (the machine hanging from the wire), it's the circumstances. We are not upset with the light. We're upset with the circumstances of our timing, of which the light is merely an indicator.
I truly believe that we would be much happier if machines were managing the political dynamic, in much the same way that we are happier when a mindless traffic light is managing the highway. We have all noticed how much worse it is whenever a light has malfunctioned and a human being is sent to the location to direct the traffic. It always seems to get backed up for what feels like miles. But all the while the machine is in charge, the traffic just keeps moving right along, just like the proverbial clockwork.
But how could we take it up a notch and turn over the political process to machines? Well, as a matter of fact, we've already begun doing that too. Have you ever been selected for jury duty? How do you think you got chosen? Do you think that a group of people sitting in a room at the courthouse poring over the list of registered voters, or everyone who holds a driver's license, just somehow picked your name?
There is absolutely no way that the judicial system could properly function if we did not use computers to make selections like this for us. A computer is programmed to choose prospective jurors. And do we hear anyone bitching and moaning about it? Well, yes, I suppose we do hear some complaining about being selected for jury duty, but whenever we do hear it (as with the traffic light) it's not the computer they're griping about. It is the mindless circumstances of their dumb luck.
Since we are already accustomed to allowing a computer to randomly select us from a qualified pool of candidates to serve on a jury (where we could very likely be called upon to decide the direction of someone's life), why can't we take the next step and permit a computer to select us (again, from a pool of qualified candidates) to serve in the state or national legislature? We can be chosen at random to be jurors, so why not legislators as well?
Why do we have to bother with the expensive, absurd (not to mention sometimes embarrassing) popularity contests that only the wealthy may participate in? Just because they happen to be wealthy, does that mean that they are - ipso facto - also more qualified to make the laws of the land?
If all men are truly created equal (an idea that we hold as virtually sacrosanct), then they should be considered as equal in capacity and judgment. The qualifications for selection for service in a legislative body should be limited to citizenship (in good standing of course) and literacy, not how much money you have in the bank, or can raise to pay for advertising to run a campaign. To be qualified for public service, in other words, you should only be required to be a legal adult and know how to read and write.
And anyone who did possess the requisite qualifications, would be fully aware (just as we are now aware of the possible expectations of jury duty) that the current privilege of public service would be an obligation (again, just like jury duty).
Technology has the power to completely level the playing field in the arena of public service, to fully eliminate the social-status requirement that is currently in effect. Technology is the only way to ensure that the poor and middle class participate in the legislative process, the only way that we can change what is currently a privilege (for the rich) of public service into the obligation that it should be for everyone.
Like the television show (The Six-Million-Dollar Man) used to say: "We have the technology." The aim of technocracy is to goad us into using it for the benefit of everyone. It is all too obvious that politicking isn't working. If anyone actually believes that any of the current candidates running for the highest office in the land is truly going to make a difference, to make the much-touted changes that they keep carping about, then they are greatly deluded. Politicians do not make changes. They make promises, usually empty ones.
Science and technology (and its ensuing wealth of information) is what changes things. If we had the proper computers in place, randomly selecting legislators (as well as jurors) to serve in the various state houses, as well as the House in Washington, we could liberate ourselves from all the bickering (not to mention expense) of partisan politics.
The only exception to this technocratic solution would apply to the Senate. It would be a fitting compromise with the current system to keep the Senate just as it is - an elected body. That way we could have our cake and eat it too. We could still exercise our right to vote, and at the same time support a system that would not only make a way for everyone, rich and poor, to be involved in public service, but make it a requirement.