Remove ads

The Fall and Rise of Man (Stellaris Quest)

Reader mode
Ghostdevil said:
Thats just false, or are you claiming the QM gave useless and redundant options?
Also how is meritocratic capitalism no different from those as well??
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No.

Science directorate is a group of influencial scientists that *influence* the government.
Technocracy + meritocracy means having them in chargeand governing to the best of their abilities.

To have both the government be run by top scientists and having additional science influencers of similar status to influence the government is redundant.
 
Last edited:
Nobody134 said:
To have both the government be run by top scientists and having additional science influencers of similar status is redundant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Disagree, the technocracy is about applying rationality and science to the principles of governing, to avoid having an unqualified elite, which amplifies the Science Directorate's ability of being that the Science Community having an huge influence if not outright ruling of that country. Technocracy is an approach to political thought, Directorate is the group with extreme political influence.
 
Last edited:
Ghostdevil said:
Disagree, the technocracy is about applying rationality and science to the principles of governing, to avoid having an unqualified elite, which amplifies the Science Directorate's ability of being that the Science Community having an huge influence if not outright ruling of that country. Technocracy is an approach to political thought, Directorate is the influence and the group with extreme political influence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Technocracy is a form of governing.
Meritocracy + oligarchy means that those that are governing are the most suitable to be governing in the first place i.e those who would otherwise be the directorate in the first place.

If you want another committee (with no direct power) to influence politics (and only politics, according to the text) to make the current government's rule stronger or whatever then that's fine, but the benefit is not as large as some of the other options and can probably be replicated through policy.
 
Nobody134 said:
Technocracy is a form of governing.
Meritocracy + oligarchy means that those that are governing are the most suitable to be governing in the first place i.e those who would otherwise be the directorate in the first place.

If you want another committee (with no direct power) to influence politics (and only politics, according to the text) to make the current government's rule stronger or whatever then that's fine, but the benefit is not as large as some of the other options.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No Technocracy and Meritocracy would not mean the Science Community would be governing, that is outright untrue. Technocracy makes zero assurances that would be the case as it is an approach to political thought, Meritocracy also even when combined with it doesn't mean anything about the goal of the Directorate civic.
The point i am making is that the three civics in my plan Synergize for a much stronger whole.
 
Ghostdevil said:
No Technocracy and Meritocracy would not mean the Science Community would be governing, that is outright untrue. Technocracy makes zero assurances that would be the case as it is an approach to political thought, Meritocracy also even when combined with it doesn't mean anything about the goal of the Directorate civic.
The point i am making is that the three civics in my plan Synergize for a much stronger whole.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes.
Technocracy is a form of governing and an approach for it (it does not guarantee good choices), meritocracy means that only the most most suitable will reach such a position in the first place (which guarantees good choices, which is kind of la la land).

Who are the most suitable people to control an oligarich, technocratic society?
 
Last edited:
Nobody134 said:
Yes.
Technocracy is a form of governing and an approach for it, meritocracy means that only the most most suitable will reach such a position in the first place.

Who are the most suitable people to control an oligarich, technocratic society?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That doesn't mean it'll be the scientists, just those two civics mean that the ones ruling will be competent ruling individuals, true but they won't necessarily be Scientists or the like. The Directorate makes that a guarantee and it makes the other two civics more powerful due to the nature of such a Directorate.
 
Ghostdevil said:
That doesn't mean it'll be the scientists, just those two civics mean that the ones ruling will be competent ruling individuals, true but they won't necessarily be Scientists or the like. The Directorate makes that a guarantee and it makes the other two civics more powerful due to the nature of such a Directorate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Mm, I see what you are saying now.

Still, I do not think that you are right
The directorate is a group of influencers, not governors or rulers.

Scientists are not experts in governing, which would contradict the idea of a technocracy.
 
Last edited:
Nobody134 said:
Scientists are not experts in governing, which would contradict the idea of a technocracy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Normally true in RL, but the way this society is set up means that you'll have Pure Scientists with lots of political support, and then the Scientists that also specialize in governing according to a rational basis and a scientific systemic method. It'd basically be a doctorate of Governing.
 
Ghostdevil said:
Normally true in RL, but the way this society is set up means that you'll have Pure Scientists with lots of political support, and then the Scientists that also specialize in governing according to a rational basis and a scientific systemic method. It'd basically be a doctorate of Governing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What you are describing sounds like a bunch of cutthroat economists and regulators that do everything according to numbers, which is what our society looks like already.
I'm not really convinced that this will add much of an effect on anything.

Besides, having a lot of public support shouldn't really matter as much in a technocracy - if our influential celebrity scientists get chosen as decision-makers then we have failed as a society imo.

I'm not really keen on it myself, though I do see your point unlike before.

I myself prefer efficient bureaucracy - I feel like, given our origin, we are going to need that extra bit of efficiency.
Even in real life, poor bureaucracy can kill a nation just as much as war or a pandemic - and I think that having our government be extremely efficient and competent will not only increase the support of the people for our merit-based system, but it will also increase their fate in their leaders to do their jobs.

It should be noted though that, unequivocally, our government is basically an expansionist, sociopathic dystopia.
 
Nobody134 said:
What you are describing sounds like a bunch of cutthroat economists and regulators that do everything according to numbers, which is what our society looks like already.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It'd be scientists instead of economists and regulators :p
Nobody134 said:
Besides, having a lot of public support shouldn't really matter as much in a technocracy - if our influential celebrity scientists get chosen as decision-makers then we have failed as a society imo.

I'm not really keen on it myself, though I do see your point unlike before.

I myself prefer efficient bureaucracy - I feel like, given our origin, we are going to need that extra bit of efficiency.
Even in real life, poor bureaucracy can kill a nation just as much as war or a pandemic - and I think that having our government be extremely efficient and competent will not only increase the support of the people for our merit-based system, but it will also increase their fate in their leaders to do their jobs.

It should be noted though that, unequivocally, our government is basically an expansionist, sociopathic dystopia.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I said political support not public, the latter doesn't matter but the former means lots of resources and support to advance their fields.
Besides were gonna have a normal bureaucracy, it won't be complex but it won't be slim either like the civic would, but due to our political methodology it won't be as cancerous as it could be.

Governments are usually sociopathic that just pretend their not so not much change there. At least here it'll be sociopathic to a functional degree rather than idiocy.
 
[X] Plan Scientific Committee
-[X] Science Directorate
-[X] Technocracy
-[X] Ascended Meritocracy
 
Ghostdevil said:
It'd be scientists instead of economists and regulators :p
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Technically, a doctorate in economics *is* a scientist.
Although I really am not sure regarding how a doctorate specifically would help in this case.

and again, influencers, not rulers - I just think that this is very small bonus to this sort of system.

Ghostdevil said:
I said political support not public, the latter doesn't matter but the former means lots of resources and support to advance their fields.
Besides were gonna have a normal bureaucracy, it won't be complex but it won't be slim either like the civic would, but due to our political methodology it won't be as cancerous as it could be.

Governments are usually sociopathic that just pretend their not so not much change there. At least here it'll be sociopathic to a functional degree rather than idiocy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Public support only matters if we don't get overthrown by an angry mob.
Political support probably won't be as beneficial if we are under the (nonsensical) assumption that literally everyone in our government makes policy entirely based off math - there might be some places where the human factor of it comes in, but this are relatively minor tackles and I'd prefer not to have scientists involved in them.

Aren't we currently suffering from a population boom? that's a lot of paperwork to deal with in terms of resources allocation, logistics, and infrastructure, not to mention the fact that we don't all even inhabit a single planet - that will require a lot of planning as well.
Even normal Beuracracy is a lot paperwork, but as of right now our society is kind of a mess with the constant risk of running out of resources as well.
I think that maximizing and streamlining our operations should be a high priority

Governments usually pretend that they care about you when in reality they care largely about power and the interests of their groups of interests.
Our government is going to be unapologetic about it, and certain societal ideas such as equality or freedom are probably going to be curbed quite considerably.
We are basically going to be China, only without the huge economic basis and political power.
 
Nobody134 said:
We are basically going to be China, only without the huge economic basis and political power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nah China is weak sauce, if we went Police state than it'd be basically nothing compared to us, Remember were station based which means the government literally runs and maintains your very ability to breathe and LIVE.
 
Ghostdevil said:
That'd be fanatic competitive, so vital services remain in the government's hands. So the life support system would stay in government hands.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, when I said outsource I meant in terms of saving money or whatever.
We do have at least some leaning for it, so if the pros and the cons of outsourcing vs not outsourcing it are similar, I would assume that we would outsource it.

Fanatic competitive would kind of contradict that idea of efficiency outright since it wouldn't just be a bias but an outright preference that might not be backed by expert opinion.
 
Nobody134 said:
Well, when I said outsource I meant in terms of saving money or whatever.
We do have at least some leaning for it, so if the pros and the cons of outsourcing vs not outsourcing it are similar, I would assume that we would outsource it.

Fanatic competitive would kind of contradict that idea of efficiency outright since it wouldn't just be a bias but an outright preference that might not be backed by expert opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ironically it might actually be worthwhile due to how our civics (if my plan wins) work combined with our ethics means that any outsourcing that happens HAS to maintain their competence or they WILL be replaced because the numbers run against them.
 
Nobody134 said:
We are basically going to be China, only without the huge economic basis and political power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nah we wouldn't be like China cause 1 we aren't corrupt, 2 we don't cut corners, 3 the leaders do care about our people, 4 the leaders are rational and competent and 5 we didn't pick authoritarian on ethics.
 
Last edited:
Ghostdevil said:
IC? Ehhh thats debatable. But luckily the national spirit (us) won't let them get fucked. :p
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well I mean we even listen to our peoples requests and try to do it the best way possible and we don't run them over with tanks or shoot them. If people are looking for authoritarian government they would have voted for the authoritarian ethic but it didnt win so here we are.
 
Ghostdevil said:
Ironically it might actually be worthwhile due to how our civics (if my plan wins) work combined with our ethics means that any outsourcing that happens HAS to maintain their competence or they WILL be replaced because the numbers run against them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not really sure how your plan specifically leads to that.
As is, if the numbers guide us then that's what we shall do - right now we might have a small bias towards doing that if all things are equal.

Ghostdevil said:
IC? Ehhh thats debatable. But luckily the national spirit (us) won't let them get fucked. :p
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, our elected officials do seem to care based on all of the flavour text and backstory regarding our rise.

Alternatively, it might just be about power.
We aren't authoritarian so I kinda doubt that though.
I got the impression that IC we want to help our people rise up, which might be partially because we care about them and partially due to our pride.
 
Last edited:
Nobody134 said:
As is, if the numbers guide us then that's what we shall do - right now we might have a small bias towards doing that if all things are equal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because of the Ascended Meritocracy civic, that alone means that them being competent is a must, but combined with Technocracy and Directorate as well as fanatic materialist means these people are running the numbers and taking a long view so if they are starting to stutter, then they will notice and the numbers will make them want to shift gears to someone or something else.
 
Ghostdevil said:
Because of the Ascended Meritocracy civic, that alone means that them being competent is a must, but combined with Technocracy and Directorate as well as fanatic materialist means these people are running the numbers and taking a long view so if they are starting to stutter, then they will notice and the numbers will make them want to shift gears to someone or something else.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sure, but I don't see how the directorate ties into it
 
Health of a society in the long view and care for the well being of the people in the short term don't always line up. Banking on a Great Leap Forward by the most competent people who care about numbers isn't a good way to ensure a great system. Just a *possibly* successful one (assuming they didn't screw up the fundamental modeling in some way).
 
KarmaA said:
Health of a society in the long view and care for the well being of the people in the short term don't always line up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
True, but its not like any other system is particularly good at it either, part of the reason why i went competitive so that failures on the government don't propagate throughout the entire system completely and vice versa.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top