|Axiology||A branch of philosophy that studies ethics and aesthetics.|
|Meritocracy||Responsibilities are objectively assigned to individuals based upon their “merits”|
|Technocracy||A government run by scientists, engineers & area specialists.
Pros/Cons Video (15 mins)
My Idea for reform:
The idea was made apparent by a friend of mine who braught it up during a discussion about parliament. It centers around the House of Lords and how it could be used in a better way. As it stands now, the House of Lords is filled with Lords Spiritual (the 26 Bishops of the Church of England) and Lords Temporal (life peers and hereditary peers).
The idea is to replace these Lords with a multitude of scientific field-specialists:
- PhD holders, elected by diploma/degree holders (18/21+)
- Completely secular, with bias regulated by axiology department
- Non-elected scientists can attend, but not speak
- PhD students must attend at least once (pseudo-meritocracy)
If given more power, the new House of ‘Lords Scientifc’ would give a much needed technocratic influence on our science-illiterate democracy. The house would ofcourse push for more funding for the sciences (the UK spends 0.55% of GDP on research and development). With situations like economists debating alongside axiologists we will see regulations for trading models surface, mathematicians have long since spoke out against certain methods and would finally have voices in government. This isn’t attacking capitalism or the monetary system, it’s observing the ever-consuming debt and economic hacks that take place. Two relevant documentaries:
Politics has a vast spectrum of subjects, I don’t have a view or opinion on every single one. I suppose my upmost believe I have is that the scientific method should be applied all through out life, this leads to my second view on politics. That is: Politics should NOT be like supporting a football club. By this I mean chosing a party and sticking with them out of pride is extremely foolish and counter-productive (although I don’t mean support who ever is in power). Political parties will change their views over time, you may also – if they no longer correlate – change party.
I don’t have a grounded view on my position on the political compass, I’d like to call myself a technocrat but the system (as a replacement for democracy) has too many flaws. The closest to a Technocratic Party was Russia’s Politburo (the executive committee for a number of communist parties) which was 89% Engineers in 1986.
I suppose my views at the moment put me somewhere around Liberal-Democrats but as of yet I don’t feel I know enough about the parties or my ideologies to place myself anywhere specific. Oh yeah, I think university should be free!