The Mind of a Technocrat: What Drives Them?

This story has to do with the mind of a technocrat and my individual journey that led me to make some sense of that mind.

Recently, I had a fantastic discussion with Charles Eisenstein. We discussed totalitarianism, bullying, and nerve as a remedy to bullying. To name a few things, Charles stated something that resonated with me really highly —– something that most likely resonates with much of us today. He stated that he seemed like his whole life had actually prepared him for this minute in time, as if prior to 2020 he had actually been practicing —– and now whatever was genuine. I believed, wow, that’’ s precisely how I feel!

Since the start of COVID, I’’ ve been seeming like my whole life preceding 2020 was unexpectedly beneficial: my youth invested in Moscow, at the ruins of the USSR, my attempting to comprehend the generation of my grandparents who had actually been broken by the totalitarian system of their time, the dreams about robotics and business holograms in the sky that I had as a kid, my violent marital relationship that taught me about the expense of self-betrayal, my research study into Big Tech and transhumanism that I provided for years preceding COVID —– all of it unexpectedly formed and made good sense.

Those experiences —– a few of them unpleasant —– unexpectedly formed a mosaic assisting me comprehend the present minute with relative clearness. I feel obliged to share my understanding of the mental force that we are handling due to the fact that comprehending that effective supervisory force can assist us withstand it with intelligence and guts —– which’’ s what we require.

. Ray Kurtzweil: Joy! Happiness! Machines and individuals Will Be One, at Last!

Here’’ s straight from the horse ’ s mouth, specifically from the mouth of Ray Kurtzweil, who is the poster kid for the technocratic vision and likewise the main ““ daddy of singularity.” ” Publicly, Kurzweil upholds the belief that makers and people will undoubtedly and always assemble —– and quickly —– which the physical combination with AI will substantially enhance the mankind and promote our development gloriously.

Kurzweil’’ s other offering proposal is immortality– as in, we will live permanently, or a minimum of a few of us will. Offered the severe nature of his public declarations, Kurzweil personal views are anybody’’ s think. In the past, I utilized to believe that Kurzweil was primarily genuine when speaking about his vision of the future —– however today I presume that he understands that he is offering us a bridge. However, the act of offering this bridge pays him effectively, therefore he maintains his marketing pitch, such as the listed below:

Way of the Future: An Inglorious Attempt at Formalizing AI Worship.

Another enthusiastic gentleman, Anthony Levandowski, previously of Google, reached beginning a main church of AI, called Way of the Future. He began it in 2015 —– and after that in 2020, he silently closed it, while directly preventing a jail sentence associated to a case of taken copyright for self-driving automobiles and pointing out being moved by Black Lives Matters as a motivation for altering his mind (things can’’ t get any weirder):

““ The very first church of expert system has actually shut its conceptual doors. Anthony Levandowski, the previous Google engineer who prevented an 18-month jail sentence after getting a governmental pardon, has actually closed the church he developed to accept a godhead and comprehend based upon expert system.“ “ As they state, sic transit gloria mundi!

.‘‘ Plug and Pray ’.

Before we dive in the distressed mind of a technocrat, let ’ s listen to the sobering and smart words by Joseph Weizenbaum, a renowned German computer system researcher who died in 2008, and who was credited with the innovation of the very first ““ AI ” program called Eliza. The program, produced in the 1960s, was an easy chatbot imitating a treatment session.

Weizenbaum developed it as a clinical expedition. To his fantastic surprise, individuals connecting with Eliza began responding to it in a psychological way, as if they were speaking to a person. Weizenbaum didn’’ t like that advancement and made it extremely clear that his program was simply a predesigned algorithm, which it threatened to ascribe sensations to it.

Sadly, much of his contemporaries discovered the principle of ““ humanized ” AI rewarding and extremely appealing, and Weizenbaum was ultimately brushed aside by his passionate coworkers.

The declaration listed below is from the trailer for a terrific documentary about him called ““ Plug and Pray ”: “ It is dreadful that the majority of my associates think that we can produce a synthetic human. This enormous rubbish is connected to misconceptions of splendour. Perhaps, if I had actually understood at that time what I understand now, that I’’d have actually stated, ‘ I put on ’”t like beingin this lot. ’ ”

. Man as an Imperfect Machine.

To a technocrat, a human is an imperfect maker, a modest meat bag that is run by software application, which is produced by the brain. The technocrat’’ s understanding of life is based upon an extremely primitive, direct vision; it’’ s devoid of spiritual secret.

The mind of a technocrat is stuck in a location where it can’’ t relocation past the mechanical concept. It ’ s nearly as if like he has actually never ever established an organ to sense or understand spiritual appeal, therefore he frowns at that appeal and attempts to damage it in whatever, with cold-minded effectiveness.

Much like spiritual enthusiasts of the centuries past, who buffooned and knocked other cultures’ ’ spiritual customs, based upon their own sensory restrictions, technocrats seem like they have actually determined the concept of human presence, that it’’ s a matter of time for the science to translate the software application of life and produce it from scratch. They believe it’’ s inescapable, and they are making it our issue.

.Frederick Taylor and ‘‘ Scientific Management ’.

Technocrats use the concepts of Frederick Taylor’’ s clinical management to every element of human life, while seeing their fellow residents as a resource to be handled with optimal performance.

Scientific management was a technique of commercial optimization established by Taylor in the late 19th and early 20th century. The essence of his technique was severe fragmentation and compartmentalization of the production procedure.

It needed taking an intricate procedure, simplifying into really basic jobs, timing each job, enhancing it to the optimum utilizing the stop-watch, and after that appointing each of those basic jobs to various employees, while firmly insisting that the employees must just utilize the pre-optimized motor patterns and work as effectively as possible. Under clinical management, there was no space for employees’ ’ imagination.

Famously, Taylor’’ s technique was embraced– and improved —– by Ford who worked with Taylor to assist enhance his car production. Collaborating, they had the ability to cut the production times and increase the earnings drastically. Obviously, what was lost at the same time was the imaginative sovereignty of the employee who was efficiently developed into a human robotic.

To make up for the tension and psychological vacuum and exhaustion that included the speedup, and to avoid what in today’’ s language we call ““ employee burnout, ” Ford used competitive pay to his employees on the condition of ending up being a loyal robotic. No disobedience was endured. The ambiance of the speedup was depicted really poignantly by Charlie Chaplin in ““ Modern Times ”:

. Seeking Total Control.

The force driving the mind of a technocrat is the self-important psychological requirement for overall control, integrated with skepticism for other individuals in basic. They relatively aim to make up for their psychological hardship.( In other words, there is no factor to appreciate their successes as their successes are based upon theft of other individuals ’ s right to free choice.)


The technocrats ’ desire to totally manage their environments is anxiety-driven. They merely can ’ t stand the sensation of unpredictability that features permitting other individuals ’ s subjective options to play any function. They put on ’ t trust others to do the ideal thing, similar to a really aberrant moms and dad doesn ’ t trust his kid ’ s capability to pick carefully without guidance– however far less benevolently.


Their desire for control is extremely unstable. They are resting on needles, so to speak( a Russian idiomand a pun in the light these days)– and in order to moisten their stress and anxiety, they turn to attempting to execute their managing aspirations.


A rhetorical concern: Does Bill Gates think that our world can not sustain a growing population– and for that reason, he needs to action in and throw down the gauntlet in order to avoid an overall collapse of the human civilization (due to the fact that he is the male for the task) —? Does he think himself to be a rescuer and a saint?


Short response: I wear ’ t care whether Bill Gates self-identifies as a bad guy or a saint. Despite whether he thinks himself to be an effective bad guy or an effective saint, he has no genuine service in my relationship with the world– and while his frame of mind and his wealth enable him to de facto enforce his vision with force, he stays a trespasser as far as I am worried, and I wear ’ t wish to abide by his vision of my future.


Technocrats might believe they are the best of the best. They might believe that their dazzling vision benefits the world. Regardless of whether they thinkthemselves to be the good excellent people the bad guysPeople their thirst for total overall is a pathological, anxiety-driven expression. They can ’ t stand being reliant on other individuals ’ s totally free will, and so they aim to squash it, which is not existentially.

’. An Old Problem.

While the technocrats these days have actually lastly discovered their ideal supervisory buddy in the kind of AI– which they can have configured in any method that fits their interests, and after that pretend that AI is unbiased– their damaged mindset is an old one.


We are not the very first generation facing this obstacle, and we can find out a lot from the past. The Great Reset gave us by the technocrats of the 21st century is the very same old effort at dominance, using brand-new shoes( or rather, brand-new digital boots).


One of the very best analyses of the underlying despair was done by Steven Newcomb , the scholar of theSystem of Domination. Steven is Shawnee and Lenape, and his roots enable him to take a look at the problem from a distinct viewpoint that I discover really smart and informing.


Among other things, Steven Newcomb takes a look at the linguistic distinctions in between the principle of nature-based “ independent and complimentary presence ” that was mainly widespread amongst individuals all over in the world for thousands if not countless years– regardless of the unavoidable flaws of the human condition and the presence of wars– and the reasonably brand-new paradigm of “ supremacy ” which keeps that in order to be “ human ” or “ civilized, ” one needs to knock one ’ s spiritual and physical sovereignty and one ’ s internal relationship with nature, and send to a mechanical concept, the Machine– be it the state, an institutional religious beliefs,” a business council,’or a communist celebration committee( the latter’examples are mine). Steven ’ s work is vital for the understanding of technocracy.

. A Sensory Problem.

I think that the genuine factor for the method a technocrat ’ s mind works the method it works is broken sensory circuitry. Humans require to go through specific experiences in order to establish humbleness and wonder– both certifiessorely doing not have in technocrats– and in their case, those experience never ever’took place. They are metaphorically two-dimensional, do not have depth.


Thus, we can ’ t repair them, and it ’ s not our task– however it definitely — assists to comprehend their thinking so that we can secure ourselves from their recklessness as much as we can. Personally, I wish their recovery similar to I wish the recovery of all– however I accept myrestrictions as far as conserving the technocrats. Most likely not my top priority!


As an intriguing visual illustration of this mental state, here is young Steve Jobs with a happy shine in his eyes, revealing the well-known 1984 launch of a Macintosh computer system. Both his statement and the noticeably odd “ 1984 ” commercial that he reveals to promote his brand-new item– where his computer system conserves the world from the bleak Orwellian future– deserve taking a look at:

. Man Worshipping His Brain.

I ’d like to end the storyabout technocrats with an allegory that I composed in 2017 BC( prior to COVID):


Lord Brain, produce a lie for me, a lie appealing and so grand that it will be difficult to withstand.


The world as it was produced prior to me, feels all of a sudden dull. I desire something brand-new, even if it ’ s a lie. A location where I wear ’ t understand any other God however me. A location where there is no vulnerability, a location where I put on ’t need to offer or be grateful to any person, a location where there is no unpredictability of love however just predictability of ownership– of whatever and everyone, by me.


I wish to forget the world in’which I belong of the so called ‘ whole, ’ something that I did not style. May there be no roots, just Holy Innovation.’May there be no duty, just Holy Disruption.


May whatever around me end up being inanimate, and might I be – constantly caught in re-living my achievement,so that absolutely nothing advises me of what I will lose. And therefore, the ‘guy who’ requested whatever to be inanimate– since just inanimate things can be owned– lost his soul and ended up being a robotic.

. About the Author.

To discover more of Tessa Lena’s work, make certain to have a look at her bio, Tessa Fights Robots .

Read more:

You may also like...

Popular Posts