July 27, 2021


Daily Global New Media

Chris Bickerton: Welcome to the Technopopulist future

1 min read

37 thoughts on “Chris Bickerton: Welcome to the Technopopulist future

  1. Chris is missing the elephant in the room… the global military/financial/corporate complex run by the oligarchs can make or destroy anyone who doesn’t go along with the show…

  2. This strikes me as uber-lightweight academia that's run out of steam in a photo voltaic age and never even grokked molten salt reactor tech.

    I am surprised to find it here.
    Your usual clarity is underwhelmed.

    "All your isms are not isms but wasms" ~Department

  3. All previous good attributes of our politicians – integrity, humility, compassion, wisdom, courage -which were once forged in war and depression – have been replaced by doubletalk, evasion, subversiveness, venality and rank incompetence. Uruguay had a good leader for a few years, old guy who refused his salary and drove a battered car and lived in a little house with a wife. Ours have all been groomed to be MPs., theyre mainly self-entitled jobsworths with shrill voices and sticky fingers.

  4. For me, the class structure was completely left out of this discussion. This pandemic suits the technocrats where mostly the public sector on furlough dont suffer at all. The populists are those who serve a class which technocrats hypothesis end up hurting those in the private sector through social implications and the zero contract class. Politicians hide behind the technocrats. They can always shoot the messenger. Populists neither support technocrats or politicians. Under extreme circumstances representative democracy can’t work. The people eventually take control usually to stop the few in power and in academia making decisions they will never suffer from themselves.

  5. I've never heard such bullshit in my entire life. The problem we have today is there is no opposition at all. All the political parties agree with each other over lockdowns, climate change, vaccinations, woke ideologies.

  6. Aphorism: "The biggest difference between science at the purely theoretical or experimental level and science at the largely popular level is that the “this might or must be the way it is” becomes simply “this is the way it is."

  7. Aphorism: "Sensationalism in science? Yes, even there it can make the difference between getting attention – that is, getting published – and not. But woe to those who come up with sensational stuff considered to be unacceptable or that falls outside existing paradigms!"

  8. Aphorism: "Yes, the binary way of thinking – the “yes or no” or “true or false” way of construing or constituting reality – is dominant in science. But will anyone claim that discussing current events or the politics of the day is scientific? Why then is there this collective will to treat public matters, even those of a controversial nature, as if their structure and movement were as accessible to the mind as chemical or physical events? What generates this rush to find solid ground that, in the flux of things, can only prove illusory? What if not the heat of the moment, the lack of concern for long-term findings, the “unscientific” approach to this flux, and the multitude of desires and interests that comprise it."

  9. Aphoristic Dialogue:
    A: I wouldn’t want it on my conscience that, by making my life safer in any way, shape, or form, I was sacrificing the lives of much younger people in any way, shape, or form.
    B: Oh, come on! Most people don’t look at it that way! It’s rather everyone pulling together to make the world safe for all of us.
    A: The vast majority of governments, including related institutions, are run by technocrats who, unfortunately, a sizeable number of people think are god-like, if not in the best of times, then in the worst, which is exactly the worst time – the very worst time! – to think of them as god-like.
    B: They mean the best for us, I’m sure. If you say anything else, I’ll call you a conspiracy theorist.
    A: They want the best for all of us and they want the best for themselves. In unprecedented times, the first can be a misguided attempt at social engineering and the second a secure if not greater hold on power.

    B: I knew it! You are a conspiracy theorist!

    A: And you, my friend, are a fool for not recognizing that the danger of the times can present itself in more ways than one.

  10. Johnson governs by yougov and public opinion feedback now, just like with the various lockdown easings and implementations. Leak idea — see how public reacts — do what makes him most popular with least political capital lost.
    The UK also definitely leans towards authoritarianism, since the second world war the rebuilding of the country and the actual 'success' if you can call it that, during the war relied on authoritarianism.

  11. On the subject of Technology not Technocracy there is a new technology being made , that i feel is extremely dangerous . I will try to explain it – if you will bear with me . I did explain it in detail very recently and left the 'comment' under many News Videos around the world, but the Scientist who is making it works for Google who owns You Tube – and they are funding him to develop it and took down all my comments. So i don't know if you will get this at all –
    A nanobot is being developed that can be ingested through water, food or air – passes thru the blood/brain barrier and goes into the brain.
    It is designed to close down the person's normal brain functions of perception completely and replace it with 'virtual reality '.
    The virtual reality the person will perceive can be changed – so you can go into a world where you are sitting on top of a mountain , or on a martian world, or into a virtual world of a desert for example.
    Although this may sound benign at first glance , shutting down the person's normal perceptions, over-riding normal functions may well be permanent – they conveniently manged to leave out the VERY IMPORTANT part if it's temporary or even reversible . And it looks like it's not. They talk about getting used to living in virtual realities, including business meetings – sending out a cartoon avatar of yourself online to attend meetings – and even holding these meetings in a virtual reality world. And being sold to the public as an alternative to virtual reality glasses, which it is clearly far more than that.
    If this technology is permanent which is definitely what it seems to be – perceptions of the normal world will be lost to the recipient forever . They will never see a tree again in it's normal natural form, their home, their children or even themselves .
    I agree it's the person's Right to choose this type of Life when the nanobot comes to market in 15 -20 years from now – also if many people choose this type of life and if it becomes popular.
    But with nanobots , like microscopic viruses, they have a very real chance of getting into water , in food, or breathed in – unbeknown to the person and without their consent.
    Many people would not choose to live their lives within the graphics of a computer programmer – would not like to forget over time what the real world looked like and their parents and loved ones after years and years living in a virtual world.
    I have re-worded my original comment to make it sound like the whole idea of spending your whole life inside someone's pictures could even be a sensible consideration – i just hope You Tube will allow this comment to remain up.

  12. This dude has the Trump aspect completely wrong. Trump was not against 'the science'. Maybe Bickerton does not understand that 'science' is not monolithic. It is indeed fractured and these days heavily political in terms of its own worship of evolution and Leftist politics versus those that still hold objective reality and reason as its core, enabling challenges to everything. Trump accepted the advice of 'experts', just not the views of the WHO and the lock down and mask advocates – who have turned out to be wrong. But if not for Trump's Warp Speed program, there'd have been no vaccines available so early if at all. He was opposed by Fauci for example. The division is not 'populism versus experts' only. There are the Individualists that fight to decide for themselves, in the frame work of Individual Liberty and its socio-economic system capitalism. Trump was not a popularist. He was called that by the main stream media who turned out to be the propaganda arm of the Leftists. Trump is supported by those that reject government dictate and at the same time the authority of scientists. We can think for ourselves and will do Individually. And we reject those that will command us on issues such as the Leftist hypothesis of 'climate change'. This fight is not over and it is not simple

  13. Brilliant conversation, really loving these interviews. My only criticism would be that Freddy’s lighting is a bit dim – his high quality video is actually more flat than the webcam feeds of the guests!

  14. To me it sounds like a misunderstanding of what technocrats are. In an ideal world scientists say 'If this, than that with a certain confidence interval and based on a certain set of assumptions/preconditions', politics balances and prioritizes different interests and sets objectives after which the technocrats marry the science with the objectives to define the policy. What imho goes wrong is that politics isn't transparent how it balances different interests and work the other way around. They set goals, the technocrats come up with policies to optimize for these goals and then they say science says this is the way to go. Which obviously is nonsense, science can't decide on policy as it's intrinsically subjective. Science doesn't make value judgements and consequently is unable to balance the consequences of different policy options it can't decide between deaths/illness versus economy, short term effects versus long term effects etc. What really is happening is that politics tries to avoid transparency and responsibility it's just another disguise to get their own way without taking responsibility if things go wrong.

  15. Bee following your interviews since the beginning, excellent, thank you. Lately, I feel less engaged, perhaps trading waters? Like to see innovators, creatives, writers, and mystics, artists, fringe people. I like to be in your program. You can contact me at santiagosartorius@yahoo.com.

  16. On point, the real negative was the damage done to science by scientists. Becoming involved in politics e.g., the editor of Nature newsletter and comments of various "scientists" in the commentary about the American election found there last fall. I even wrote a letter to the editor as I believed it would further undermine the public's confidence in science given the rejection of science since the 60s, aka anti-vaxers etc. The ongoing publication of nonsense as science e.g.,"Feminist Glaciology", the lockstep falling into line by universities to teaching the trans denial of biology. Confidence in science has been seriously damaged in the last few years. The public or at least a sizable portion has always known that the Emperor had no clothes but the explicitly public self-alignment by the technocrat class with the Emperor has pulled back the veil on the experts. You wold think being "educated" they would know from history what always happens.

  17. What unites the two groups is both believe in absolutism. They do not recognize everything is a trade-off. A childish understanding of reality. Humans like simple answers. Thinking fast, thinking slow. D. Kahanman. The psychology of human thinking.

  18. I may have heard this wrong but if the statement that science is a truth and scientists are apolitical was made then I would have to disagree on both accounts. science is performed by biased and politically opinionated scientists. science free of bias is a myth.

  19. Technocrats talking:

    Technocrat 1 “We hate politicians, they are money grubbing, uneducated, baboons.”

    Technocrat 2: “ I agree! We should become politicians!”

    Technocrat 1: “ Brilliant!”

  20. No laptops around the cabinet table? See that as a good thing. Not something to wet your knickers over. Good old Trump, if nothing else he drove these swampists out into daylight.

  21. For heaven's sake, populism isn't anti-science it's anti the rise of experts who distort science for political ends. Haven't these boffins worked this out???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

seventeen − 12 =