How exactly could a "Technocracy" come about and what would it be like? It's not an uncommon science fiction concept to have a government ruled by science and scientists but I don't see how that could ever really happen. Is it possible in the real world?

How exactly could a "Technocracy" come about and what would it be like? It's not an uncommon science fiction concept to have a government ruled by science and scientists but I don't see how that could ever really happen. Is it possible in the real world?
No, not in this world it isn't. The governments are run by politicians (and some self-serving dictators) and always will be.

Depends on to what extent you're talking about. Realistically, we here in the "Western World" already do live in a technocracy.

Depends on to what extent you're talking about. Realistically, we here in the "Western World" already do live in a technocracy.
I don't know what part of the Western World your speaking of, but that isn't true here in the U.S.

Scientists don't determine the course for our government. It's all done by the politicians and they are heavily influenced by lobbyists, PACS and major campaign contributors. (All of whom have a political agenda as well.)

I wasn't referring to your type of 'open technocracy'; moreso to the subtler variety, where the bodies who design and distribute technology hold power. And this is indeed the case in the US (as well as Canada, Australia, Britain, etc.). Political power doesn't necessarily have to fall within the realm of systems that were designed or intended for that very purpose; e.g., in the US, pharmaceutical companies hold more political sway than your average 3rd 'party'.

I wasn't referring to your type of 'open technocracy'; moreso to the subtler variety, where the bodies who design and distribute technology hold power. And this is indeed the case in the US (as well as Canada, Australia, Britain, etc.). Political power doesn't necessarily have to fall within the realm of systems that were designed or intended for that very purpose; e.g., in the US, pharmaceutical companies hold more political sway than your average 3rd 'party'.
Sorry, but that doesn't even qualify as a Technocracy. The companies you're talking about are run by politicians who have both profit and political agendas. They are seldom scientists and certainly don't let science set their agendas. Their companies employ scientists, certainly, but they are in no position to direct anything - much less the direction of government.

Perhaps you should check the definition of the word, I don't believe you are thinking of it properly.

LOL
Playing semantics now?
And I suppose you're going to refer me to some fabulous source like Wikipedia?
Try again.
The term was developed by Neil Postman in his 1993 book "Technopoly".

I believe corporations hold the world. And those corporations bribe the politicians, hire the scientists, and sell the technology. ;)


[Renrue]

Ah, but that is still not a true technocracy. That's more of a plutocracy (rule by the richest). A technocracy would be like what the robots tried to make in "I, Robot"- machines ruling man directly, making the decisions.

So the only way it could come about is through some sort of scientific + social revolution?

Either that, or some scientific breakthrough that allows us to literally plug ourselves into the internet and live entirely there, literally.

I am more interested in use of technology in democracy.

The digital voting machines are used for faking vote counts,
now thats a use of technology in democracy.

Bombing an enemy into totally submission. Democracy in action.

Wouldn't a technocracy just be a subset of meritocracy? Wouldn't such a society br impractical because of jelously from the common people who want a say in government? A democracy may not be the best form of government, buts it's the best STABLE form of government in a society with at least a decent level of literacy and education.

Actually Money governs politics. It doesn't matter how great your brain is, or how good your policy is, It's about votes, control and of course earnings through taxation, not to forget the phat sendoff's in redundancy cheques.

I believe that technology already rules our life. We and our corrupt government are so overly dependant on technology that there would be chaos if there wouldn't be technology.

With Technocracy you can have a political technocracy and/or an economic technocracy.

With the modern version of a political technocracy, a government is run by trained public servants rather than scientists. Public servants will be required to have specific governmental training, according to the department which they are assigned. They then can rise up through the ranks depending on their competence. They would be promoted on the reccomendation of their peers.

One change I would make would be that once they reach the highest level, they will be nominated for the elections. The public will then have the chance to vote for which public servant they want to be president. There would also be limits on property ownership for public servants.

So this type of government should have more competent people, have less corruption, plus the public still has a controlling influence. But then it's a mix of Technocracy, Meritocracy, and Democracy.

This is very unlikely to happen as corrupt politicians and greedy corporations, will resist any efforts to remove their power. The only way would be for a country to have a revolution.

Politicians can come from any walk of life. But for as far back as I'm familar with American history, the overwhelming majority of our politicians at the federal level have been lawyers. They work their way up from the community level, starting on school boards and city councils, then into the state government and finally to Washington.

School boards and city councils are full of members who aren't lawyers. Yet the lawyers among them are the ones who percolate upward. The state legislatures in the large states look just like Congress: a noticeable number of physicians, economists, clergy, and other well-educated people, a few business executives and the occasional writer or other intellectual, but still mostly attorneys.

Scientists are few and far between even at the local level. Anybody here know of a physicist or biologist on your local school board or town council? They're all much too interested (and too busy) in their work. When doctors and lawyers become successful they are able to carve more time out of their schedule for other pursuits. When scientists become successful they don't even go home at night.

The chance of the profession of science undergoing a massive personality change any time soon is negligible, so we're not likely to see a government run by scientists.

If by "technocracy" you include engineers and technicians, perhaps it could happen. Lots of computer professionals are active outside their career.