Technocratic Republic

It's been a while since I posted anything on this blog. It was started for different reasons and my world-view expanded significantly since 2014. 

So now onto main subject. This isn't a deep, technical dive but rather an opinionated perspective on technocracy. Technocrats and aspiring technocrats get a bad name. Just a word itself is a slur similar to word "feminist". But it is an emotional reaction and most people don't look at what technocracy actually means. I often criticize Wikipedia but it is useful here for a brief introduction.

Technocracy is an ideological system of governance in which a decision-maker or makers are elected by the population or appointed on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge. This system explicitly contrasts with representative democracy, the notion that elected representatives should be the primary decision-makers in government, though it does not necessarily imply eliminating elected representatives. Decision-makers are selected on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than political affiliations or parliamentary skills. The term technocracy was originally used to signify the application of the scientific method to solving social problems. Concern could be given to sustainability within the resource base, instead of monetary profitability, so as to ensure continued operation of all social-industrial functions. In its most extreme sense technocracy is an entire government running as a technical or engineering problem and is mostly hypothetical. In more practical use, technocracy is any portion of a bureaucracy that is run by technologists. A government in which elected officials appoint experts and professionals to administer individual government functions and recommend legislation can be considered technocratic. Some uses of the word refer to a form of meritocracy, where the ablest are in charge, ostensibly without the influence of special interest groups. Critics have suggested that a "technocratic divide" challenges more participatory models of democracy, describing these divides as "efficacy gaps that persist between governing bodies employing technocratic principles and members of the general public aiming to contribute to government decision making".

Just a quick search on the subject reveal mostly negative articles.

https://theduran.com/mercola-technocracy-is-the-masterplan-for-the-great-reset/

https://prepareforchange.net/2020/08/28/the-pressing-dangers-of-technocracy/ 

Main fear seems to be social engineering and transhumanism 

https://axisofeasy.com/aoe/transhumanism-the-new-religion-of-the-coming-technocracy/ 

But lets think about this objectively. Technocrats often suffer from arrogance and egomania. This problem is easily solved. All they need is a remainder of their own mortality to reconnect with humanity. A God-like syndrome goes away rather quickly when we are reminded that we all have red blood.

Think of the benefits of a technocratic republic. We could have a sort of counsel of science elders who are dependent on others for survival. This dependency must be maintained as check on their ego. The political system of technocracy is fundamentally different from any other. As you know capitalism rely on wealth-power and socialism rely on social power. Technocracy doesn't need any of it. I just think a technocratic republic could propel humanity to incredible heights of scientific progress. Am I naive to propose such experiment? 

Anything would be better than current plutocracy.