Technocracy: A Techno Utopia or Virtual Prison?‏

Hello Friends!

Everywhere we go, it seems we are surrounded by screens. Have we entered a techno utopia or virtual prison? Should we be celebrating unreservedly or should we be cautious and skeptical? Is it the greatest leap in productivity or the biggest setback from the things most meaningful in life? Has today’s connectivity drawn us closer to one another or strangely more disjointed? Is our social experience richer and deeper or more shallow and artificial? Is it all of these things or none of them? Does God’s word addresses the unique media challenges we face? Consider some insightful answers to these questions in the following excerpt on this important issue…

Technocracy: A Techno Utopia or Virtual Prison?

 

Mention “Technocracy” today and a mix of responses emerge like “It’s in a lot science fiction books” or “It’s a model for a utopian world run by technology.” I’ve even herd it said that “It was a crack-pot idea with a cult following. Thankfully it died long ago.” Graham A. Laing is known for the following rhetoric:

“Rugged individualism must go… The individual must subordinate himself to the community…” 

Mr. Laing’s disturbing words didn’t spring out of Nazi Germany, Benito’s fascist Italy or Stalin’s heavy-handed Soviet Union – although the text was common to that era. Rather, the idea that “individualism must go” was the language of a very American movement, one that rapidly spread during the 1930s. From Columbia University to newspapers coast-to-coast, Technocracy was the buzzword for a new way of organizing humanity.
 

Technocracy was all of the above: a utopian dream, a cult-like movement, and a concept that captured the public’s attention. But it was and is much more; it’s the prime motivator. Today, the fingerprints of Technocracy are deeply impressed upon the political, economic, military, social and spiritual landscape. There isn’t anything that Technocracy hasn’t touched, chiefly because as a type of meta-philosophy, it rests on the most basic principle of human rebellion: By pursuing god-like illumination, Man can become as God.

Man, not God, is the ultimate engineer of human destiny – therefore, Man is God. Technocracy represents the pinnacle of Man’s quest for self-deification: The perfectibility of Man through the thoughts of his mind and the subsequent works of his hands. It’s the cosmic taunt, stemming from the most ancient of days. What God can do, Man can do. The Garden of Eden will be remade.

The following telling quote from last week’s EC article titled “Global Change: Education & Social Engineering” bears repeating:

"Fifty years is ample time in which to change a world and its people almost beyond recognition. All that is required for the task are a sound knowledge of social engineering, a clear sight of the intended goal and power." Arthur C. Clarke

That quote describes the heartbeat of Technocracy: Man’s desire to re-shape humanity in Man’s image.

 
At its core Technocracy seeks the “engineered society” – not through conventionally understood ideologies such as capitalism or socialism, but through a scientific/engineering mindset. In this sense technology plays a defining role in society, and “social engineers” wield the technical means to transform a population. From economics and industry to population size and general education, the desire of Technocracy was to remake the world in a way that exemplified “efficiency” and guaranteed social harmony.

Technocracy as envisioned by the movement’s leaders in the 1930’s didn’t have a traditional political agenda. In fact, part of its sales-pitch was its disdain for governments, politicians and bankers. It wasn’t looking to form a government, it was looking to replace the entire system with the totally engineered society. This was to be called a “Technate,” and under a Technate you wouldn’t be governed, you’d be managed by “the brotherhood of efficiency, the freemasonry of science...” (From the 1936 movie, Things To Come)

The term “freemasonry of science” could hardly be accidental, and indeed is pregnant with meaning. Used H.G. Wells’ movie, Things to Come, a propaganda piece that heralded a Technocratic utopia arising from the ashes of a world crisis, this phrase proclaimed that a Brotherhood would oversee the transformation of society. And in the movie, advanced technology wielded by this “Brotherhood of Efficiency” overcame those who opposed “progress.” Not unlike the Masonic Lodge with its “Brotherhood of Man,” Wells’ Brotherhood would be bound by the common goal of bettering humanity.

Did H.G. Wells understand this spiritual/scientific link? Whether or not he was a Freemason is debatable, but he did have some understanding of the Lodge. Moreover, he was a Fabian Socialist and a member of the Coefficients – a socialist dinner club with technocratic leanings. Wells believed that the “supreme duty” of the individual was “subordinating the personal life to the creation of a world directorate.” He envisioned a world civilization that would replace socialism and communism; “It will be more, it will be a world religion.”

Putting Mr. Wells and his movie aside, the public high-point for this “freemasonry of science” took place at Columbia University in 1932 and early ’33. It was during this brief period that the Committee on Technocracy, a small group who preached the collapse of the price-based system and called for the technical ordering of North America, was legitimized by one of the most prestigious schools in the United States. Although the group’s existence in Columbia was short lived, the concept of social engineering by technical experts has since ingrained itself into academia and government. Technocracy as an ideal never died.

Today, technocratic elements are observable in the push towards global governance, in organizations such as the Club of Rome and UNESCO, in the European Union and the United Nations, and in the maze of specialized agencies that surround governments. Its heartbeat can be discovered in the eugenics and trans-humanist movement, which seeks to reshape humanity by “directing evolution.” It’s embedded in the military culture and is visible in the rise of the security state - world order and global peace fall under its rubric, our educational system basks in it, and religious leaders and the spiritually interested paradoxically despise and embrace it.

What does this mean for society? Hint: think “social control” through the management of large populations. At its extreme end, Technocracy shoulders the weight of a deadly heritage, a lineage of technical proficiency – a family tree where the branches of Social Darwinism are pruned with lethal efficiency, and the poisonous fruit it produces has names like Auschwitz and Treblinka.

Technocracy in the modern sense is an idea that came to prominence during the early decades of the 20th century. A pair of little-remembered French philosophers who had a teacher-student relationship, Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and Auguste Comte (1798-1857) are deserving of special attention. Simon, a progenitor of modern socialism  and Comte, the father of “Positive Philosophy” are the co-founders of modern sociology. Both men envisioned a science-based “new age for mankind.” Saint-Simon believed that the:

“scientists and captains of industry will replace the priests and feudal lords as the natural leaders of society.” (Felix Markham, introduction to Henri de Saint-Simon’s collection, Social Organization, The Science of Man, and Other Writings (Harper, 1952), p. xxi)

Finding the idea of God defective, he saw a day when science would shape and rule mankind:

“…it is obvious that when the new scientific system has been constructed, a reorganization of the religious, political, ethical, and educational systems will take place; and consequently a reorganization of the church.” (Henri de Saint-Simon, “Essay on the Science of Man,” Social Organization, The Science of Man and Other Writings (Harper, 1952), p. 21)

 Auguste Comte expanded his teacher’s worldview into an identifiable “Religion of Humanity.” Understood through the laws of science, Humanity was the “only true Great Being,” and thus Humanity should “direct every aspect of our life, individual or collective.” Comte called this Positivism, and viewed it as the pinnacle stage of human development; scientific laws determine truth, therefore only a scientifically enlightened elite should guide humanity. Positivism was a “regenerating doctrine,” an “all-embracing creed” that would lead the world out of ignorance, corruption, and anarchy through a positive, scientific worldview. Building upon his theology of Man, Comte appointed himself the “High Priest of Humanity” and the “Founder of Universal Religion.” In the process he created a system of rituals to mark the stages of life, “from birth to ‘incorporation’ or ‘transformation’ in the Great Being.” Comte asked this question:

“Men are not allowed to think freely about chemistry and biology, why should they think freely about political philosophy?”

Science would birth a political and social priesthood: a technocratic ruling class. This notion of scientific rule in social affairs appealed to the Darwinist thinkers of the 19th century. Men like Francis Galton – the pioneer of eugenics and cousin to Charles Darwin – and Karl Pearson, the father of mathematical statistics and a promoter of eugenics, believed that the “herd” needed training. Evolution provided a “scientific” alternative to the “myth” of Genesis, and Man could now “play God.” Hence, evolutionary management through eugenics (“racial hygiene”) and “population control” found a technical justification. This was the drive for “nothing less than the scientific breeding on a universal scale of the Nietzschean superman.” (Note: Fredrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher who taught the death of God and the rise of the Ubermensch – the evolved superman, or Over-man).

Underpinned by Comte’s “religion of Humanity” and Simon’s “new scientific system,” a progressive concept of elite, science-based social planning took shape: Technocracy. The prophet of this movement proclaimed that Technocracy “should in time produce a race of man superior in quality to any now known on earth.” The premise was straightforward; Science will empower humanity – “in which man may become more than man.” Technology will save us from life-sapping labor, and engineers will efficiently re-build the Garden. Technocracy was and remains a modernist-type of faith with scientists and engineers acting as the new priesthood. The uncritical masses enjoy the fruits of technology while finding themselves inextricably bound to it, and in turn, genuflect to these priests. Life hangs on the sacred words of specialists. After all, who knows better than the “experts”?

 
Society from the 1880s to the 1940s witnessed a technical/scientific leap of mind-bending proportions. All one has to do is consider the jump from horse-and-buggy to human flight, and from coal-oil lamps to the electric light bulb. Today we’re still enamored with technology, but that earlier period had a fresh vibrancy; engineering marvels that we now take for granted were changing history. Momentum for technological progress was further demonstrated through industrial research laboratories and the scores of scientific facilities that sprang into existence. Consider the following: In 1920, America had some 300 research-based science and industrial labs, by 1940 it had more than 3400. Universities, governments, and bankers jumped on board, as research and development was both costly… and very lucrative. The need for highly skilled workers grew exponentially, and a multitude of engineering and technical associations were formed during those early decades, both in the United States and abroad. Universities created specialized departments that acted as nurseries for “progressive” ideas: Science found itself married to the new concept of socialism, for this was viewed as an “engineering-scientific approach to civilization.”

Equity and solidarity could be fostered and managed through a planned economy, and a planned economy meant a designed community. Finally, planning boards and advisory councils were formed, bringing an ever-widening stream of experts into the halls of government. It was the birth of a growth industry that bridged science, economics, and the weight of law. Germany, Britain, France, America and Russia all witnessed this ascendency of technical influence, and each country experienced diverse outgrowths of Saint-Simon’s worldview. In the United States a new power-base emerged: philanthropic foundations. Major tax-exempt foundations were, and still are, indispensable tools for cultural transformation, giving academic and government leaders access to vast sums of private wealth earmarked for social change. The Carnegie and Rockefeller groups, and their different agencies, are particularly noted for their work in promoting internationalism.

The 1954 Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations, along with the final Reece Committee reports, noted that these organizations have historically focused on “social engineering” and “techniques of control.” According to the Dodd Report, these groups and their social scientists tend towards the control of human behavior, international planning, centralization of power, and the substituting of individual freedom with group-think. Both the Carnegie and Rockefeller groups came to fruition before World War I. Andrew Carnegie’s pet project, one that dovetailed with his Endowment For International Peace, was the creation of the Peace Palace at The Hague. Carnegie called it a “Holy Temple of Peace,” and the doors officially opened in August 1913. It was a grand vision, and Carnegie had grand dollars to see his Temple built.

Copies of this grand plan were sent around the globe and organizations like the World Peace Foundation, the International Committee of Weights and Measures, the Astronomical Society of France, and the Institute of Physics at the University of Strassburg wrote letters of commendation. So too did the United States Commissioner of Education, the President of Stanford University, and the President of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - After all, it was a new century of scientific achievement and a year of hope – 1913, the same year Carnegie’s “Holy Temple of Peace” was to open. But in a flash everything changed. One year later the world started to slaughter itself in ways never before imagined.

It’s hard for us, almost one hundred years after the fact, to comprehend the cultural shock that came with the Great War – better known to us as World War I. Science and technology had promised a horn of plenty and human unity, yet it unleashed indescribable horrors. The Great War for the French (and others) started with its foot in the romantic past. But this was the era of science and mechanization; World War I was the first engineered slaughterhouse....

Keep looking up and sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ while there is still time… Hallelujah and Maranatha – come quickly Lord Jesus!

Blessings on your studies and involvement in understanding and sharing the Truth!

If you have been blessed by this message or have a specific question, prayer request or testimony, please send me a note to: encouragingconcepts@live.com

I love hearing from you.  Keep reading Encouraging Concepts!

Blessings!
Shane K. Morin <><

 

Encouraging Concepts

Truth for Today

"Living Life From a Biblical Worldview"

Lighthouse Publications <>< 
"Dedicated to the Never Ending Search for the Creator's calling within You" (TM)