Well put sir. It sounds like you might be familiar with Technocracy? If not, you may find it interesting, since they are saying the same thing you are (and indeed have been for about 80 years).

I'm glad you brought this up. It's a pity that you weren't modded any better though. Until we take the money out of the equation, fighting battles like this is all up-hill.

"It is about a planned economy and wealth redistribution."

Not like any planned economy you know of. The people decide themselves what gets produced, while science determines how. See this article for more on that.

"And these democratic decisions, how would they be enforced. What if 40% of the people disagree, and start disobeying? What if just 1% disagree, can they be forced to comply? (with bullets)"

You should probably read a little more in depth about the subject, rather than just the quick summaries as it's easy to misinterpret some things. The vast majority of these "democratic" decisions would what I mentioned before, people deciding what is to be produced, and they do this simply by choosing what to consume in the first place, so there is no way to "disobey" in the sense you are thinking about. About the only way someone could "disobey" is if they were working as part of the production-distribution chain and were not doing their job, in which case the reason would be investigated and if it couldn't be fixed right away then they would be replaced, simple as that. The rest of these "democratic" decisions would be things like "what should the flag look like?" so really there is nothing to enforce.

"What if I don't want to control my technology scientifically. Suppose I don't care about science, or maybe I believe in a different scientific method. What would such a system have to offer to me."

First of all, there are no different scientific methods, just the one. Perhaps you are thinking about issues where there might be two competing scientific theories, neither of which have proven themselves above the other? This wouldn't really affect the economy much, because in what needs to be done, there are no such issues. On the forefront of science however, there are plenty, and systems relying on such things simply wouldn't be used unless and until the correct answer could be arrived at with certainty.

Second, there is no private property in Technocracy, so you would "have" no technology with which to control however you choose. You may work in a position that you are qualified for that involves operating said technology, but if you do not do so according to clearly defined scientific measures, then the problem is investigated and dealt with as I mentioned before. But even this short description can be misleading if you don't know more about how this works. Suppose you are thinking that you want to drive around the country in an RV, does that have to be done scientifically too? Where you drive and when, no. How you drive, well yes, for safety reasons. It all comes down to the separation of technical and objective issues from subjective ones, much like how was discussed in the Technocracy Comparative article I linked to above. Technocracy does not interfere with your subjective choices in how to live your life. Objective issues however affect others and need to be done a certain way. You could not, for instance, decide to drive that RV into buildings or through areas where there is pedestrian traffic only, just like today.

So what does it have to offer you? Just the highest standard of living possible on the planet in terms of consuming power, coupled with the highest degree of freedom possible in how to live your life and use that consuming power. Plus all the other goodies.

Heh, it appears some anonymous person doesn't know very much about Technocracy or communism.

The need for this was already determined scientifically over 80 years ago. You may want to look at this summary of why that is. What we can do about it you can find here.

Good for you for noticing this! This is precisely what Technocracy has been saying for 80 years now.

Holy crap, those are Tron helmets! Make them the right colors and light up and I'd totally wear one!

"However, as science grows more powerful and government more technocratic..."

I *wish* government was becoming more technocratic, given the original meaning of the term.

I don't see this as a defence of abortion at all. Here's another way to look at this scenario: I was kidnapped and given a medical condition that will, on it's own, clear up in 9 months. However, I also have the option of clearing it up right now, provided I am willing to murder someone to do it. So do I have a moral obligation to "keep this person hooked up?" Um, I'd say a big yeah!

I'm glad that the rest of the psychology community is catching up. We've been doing this with NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) for at least a decade. Just look up NLP and trauma.

That's a very tidy way of sorting them, except that in a communism there is no government. In fact there are no prices either (moneyless society and all). People get confused about this because the USSR was "communist", but it was only in ideology, not function. "Communism" was what they were trying to achieve, but never did. They described themselves functionally as being socialist, which Marx said was the road between capitalism and communism. Heck, it's even in the name USSR (one of the few countries to accurately describe themselves).

Actually, this sounds like me, as I usually took notes, but seldom had to refer to them afterwards (perhaps a little brush-up to test myself before a big exam). But I believe I know why this works for me, and why so many other people insist differently: because we're different! People learn better with some senses than others; some are visual, some auditory, etc. Myself, I am very weak in the auditory digital (hearing words), but strong in auditory tonal (sounds, like music), visual, and best of all kinesthetic. This means that reading works fairly well for me, but writing things down works best, but just listening to someone talk results in the least retention and comprehension for me. I wish I had known that earlier in my school life because I probably would have done a lot better.

Personally I like the Tranquility Calendar. I first read about it in Omni magazine years ago. It makes more sense than the current one, having 13 months of 28 days each (making each week, month, and year start on the same day), is easier to learn and remember, since the months are alphabetical you don't even need to know the names (just say the date as D-13 and it is understood) and has a science-based theme to it. I think it's better to honor important scientists than Roman gods and emperors. Plus it's based on one of the most well recorded moments in history (the Apollo 11 moon landing), rather than some obscure historical/mythical event thousands of years ago. It's just too bad that changing a calendar would be too difficult in today's society.

I can't believe that no one's ever thought of this. The solution is simple: a national (or international even), publicly accessible database of all products and services. It would treat all products, services and companies the same, list all the relevant info, be sortable and searchable by product details (size, color, performance, etc.), contain pictures, reviews, even videos of it being used (like on ThinkGeek) instead of flashy ads that look like hollywood movies showing how cool the thing is with special effects, dramatic camera angles, catchy music, stupid jokes, repetitive slogans, and people looking oh-so-happy now that they have that product, or implications that said product will improve your love/sex life. You could easily compare any of them side by side, and when a company has a new product they want the public to know about, like in your example, they simply send the relevant details to whatever agency handles the database. It'd be accessible online, over the telephone, or you could have a catalogue of a certain category (say, mid-sized cars, or personal computers, or local pizza places) mailed to you for the cost of printing and mailing it, in case you really can't get to a internet capable computer (pretty rare these days), or somehow prefer hardcopy.

But of course economics makes the world go round, right? And it's far too late to stop this multi-billion dollar locomotive now. Too bad, because I'd love a service like this, and for my TV, radio, and Internet to be free of stupid ads once and for all.

I don't know about other people, but I use my HDMI port all the time. With 16 GB internal and a 32 GB sd card, I can carry entire seasons of tv shows and plenty of movies as well at normal resolutions and take them over to my friends' or family's place to watch on their TV. Even HD stuff I can carry enough to watch in one evening, and that not even getting into having more cards which are easy to carry. Much better than carting around DVD cases. My phone can also do Dolby 5.1 if the movie or show has that, so the port allows that as well. Plus it's useful for showing those beautiful HD movies I take with the camera on the phone on a nice big TV rather than just a computer monitor. And yes, high-res photos do look good on the TV as well. And all this on a poor little 680 MHz ARM 11, does just fine. So I find it much more useful than you are making it out to be. And I didn't have to buy the converter, it came with the phone.

This is the Nokia N8 I'm talking about, in case you're interested.