Technocracy

This weblog post investigates the history of Technocracy, with its potential to develop a New World Order into something unexpected by the vast majority of modern critics: a currency that results in greater equality, or at a minimum, eliminates the extremes of wealth and poverty. Here, some references to contemporary issues will also be made to help clarify the subject.

Technocracy is derived from the Greek words techne = skill and kratos = rule. Thus, it is government by skilled engineers, scientists and technicians as opposed to elected officials. It was opposed to all other forms of government, including communism, socialism and fascism, all of which function with a price-based economy.

Technocracy can trace its origins to the scientific autocracy of Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and in the positivism of Auguste Comte (1798- 1857), sometimes referred to as the father of the social sciences. Positivism elevated science and the scientific method above metaphysical revelation. Technocrats embraced positivism because they believed that social progress was possible only through science and technology.

Technocracy as a social concept originated with William Henry Smyth (1855 – 1940), a California engineer, who used the term in Technocracy – Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy (1919), published in the Journal of Industrial Management. Smyth wanted engineers and scientists to be included in decision-making processes. Even in the new millennium, there is an effort to silence the influence of engineers, scientists and technologists in decision making. One has only to see the situation at Boeing, where after its merger with McDonnell-Douglas, in 1997, the company moved its head office to Chicago in 2005, to restrict engineers from having influence over corporate decisions. This allowed the short-term interests of share-holders to be placed above the makers (and users) of its products.

Norwegian-American economist and sociologist, Thorstein Veblen (1857 – 1929), known for his criticism of capitalism, significantly influenced technocracy with an article, Engineers and the Price System (1921). Here he argued for the formation of a Soviet of Technicians, a precursor to a more socialistic organization of economic affairs.

As an early advocate of technocracy, Veblen was a member of the Technical Alliance, consisting of engineers, scientists and others in New York City. Veblen predicted business enterprises would decay once they encounter new inventions. Clayton Christensen (1952 – 2020) makes a similar point in The Innovator’s Dilemma (1997) where he describes disruptive innovation. A typical example is that of steam/ power shovel manufacturers, none of whom were able to survive the disruption that came with hydraulic excavators. In the 21st century, one sees signs that legacy automotive manufacturers, are incapable of competing with Tesla, BYD and others.

The technocracy movement criticized the price system as incapable of effective action. The technocrats proposed phasing out the price system and replacing it with a measurable energy unit, today, most commonly, the joule. If this is not used within a specified period of time, the currency expires. People then receive a new allocation based on new energy production quotas for the next period.

In the early 1930s, the depression stirred public interest in finding alternative solutions. One of the major characteristics that distinguishes technocractic organisations from others was its energy-based accounting system. Technocrats saw this as a mechanism to help the economy heal from the the crisis. However, the public interest in technocracy declined by the mid-1930s following the emergence of Franklin Roosevelt’s (1882 – 1945) New Deal, introduced to counter the depression. The New Deal involved public work and financial reforms introduced between 1933 and 1939.

Another challenge facing Technocracy and, as will be shown in a subsequent weblog post, Social Credit, is its anti-war attitudes. Governments, particularly in the 20th century, were often eager to use war as a solution for their problems. Thus, before the Second World War, technocratic organizations were banned in Canada due to their alleged opposition to war. The ban in Canada was lifted in 1943 when the organizations pledged their commitment to the war effort by proposing a program of total enrollment to any war.

Technocracy is considered undemocratic, since it allows people with technical expertise to make decisions, potentially against the will of the population. I fail to see how this differs significantly from political parties using experts in economics or business management to propose, justify then impose political decisions. Most political decisions are not based on principles, but on targeting groups to impact. Frequently, those targeted groups are those that make the most significant donations to a political party.

Several technocratic organizations were established immediately after the First World War, such as New Machines and the Soviet of Technicians. However, these organizations did not last long.

Technocracy, as a non-political philosophy, was started in the United States by Howard Scott (1890 – 1970) and Marion King Hubbert (1903 – 1989) in the 1930s. They proposed replacing government with technocrats, scientists and engineers who possessed the necessary skills and experience to manage the economy. They argued that a society headed by technical experts would be more productive and rational.

Hubbert, then a young geoscientist who would later (in 1948-1956) invent the now-famous Peak Oil Theory. Hubbert stated that the discovery of new energy reserves and their production would be outstripped by usage, thereby eventually causing economic and social havoc. Many modern followers of Peak Oil Theory believe that the 2007-2009 global recession was exacerbated in part by record oil prices that reflected the validity of this theory. However, attempts to find collaborative evidence of this, have proved futile.

Hubbert received all of his higher education at the University of Chicago, graduating with a PhD in 1937. He later taught geophysics at Columbia University. In 1933, Hubbert and Howard Scott formed an organization called Technocracy, Inc.

The principles of technocracy soon resulted in Hubbert and Scott also co-authoring Technocracy Study Course in 1934. This book is the root document to which most modern technocratic thinking can be traced. It can be downloaded at no expense. At is most basic, Technocracy postulated that only scientists and engineers are capable of running a complex, technology-based society. They argued that, because technology changed the nature of societies, previous methods of government and economy were obsolete. They disdained politicians and bureaucrats, who they viewed as incompetent. By utilizing the scientific method and scientific management techniques, Technocrats hoped to squeeze the massive inefficiencies out of running a society, thereby providing more benefits for all members of society while consuming less resources.

The other integral part of Technocracy was to implement an economic system based on energy allocation rather than price. They proposed to replace money with energy credits. This focus on the efficient use of energy hints at Technocracy being a sustainable ecological/ environmental movement in the United States.

In Technocracy Study Course, Hubbert & Scott state: Although [the earth] is not an isolated system the changes in the configuration of matter on the earth, such as the erosion of soil, the making of mountains, the burning of coal and oil, and the mining of metals are all typical and characteristic examples of irreversible processes, involving in each case an increase of entropy. (p. 49)

The modern emphasis on curtailing carbon fuel consumption that causes global warming and CO₂ emissions is essentially a product of early Technocratic thinking. As scientists, Hubbert and Scott tried to explain (or justify) their arguments in terms of physics, especially the law of thermodynamics = the study of energy conversion between heat and mechanical work.

Entropy is a concept within thermodynamics that represents the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work. Entropy thus increases as matter and energy in the system degrade toward the ultimate state of inert uniformity.
In layman’s terms, entropy means once you use it, you lose it for good. Furthermore, the end state of entropy is inert uniformity where nothing takes place. Thus, if man uses up all the available energy and/or destroys its ecological basis, it cannot be repeated or restored ever again.

Howard Scott wrote an article that appeared in Technocracy Magazine in 1937-07. It described an Energy Distribution Card in great detail, declaring it a: means of accounting is a part of Technocracy’s proposed change in the course of how our socioeconomic system can be organized.

He further wrote: The certificate will be issued directly to the individual. It is nontransferable and nonnegotiable; therefore, it cannot be stolen, lost, loaned, borrowed, or given away. It is noncumulative; therefore, it cannot be saved, and it does not accrue or bear interest. It need not be spent but loses its validity after a designated time period.

At one point Technocracy showed an updated Energy Distribution Card. It was similar to a contemporary debit/ credit card, with an embedded microchip, that contained all the information needed to use the card. Of course there is no need to restrict this to that technology. A smartphone could equally well contain an Energy Distribution app. It was contended that a card/ app could provide a universal identification document. This also sheds light on a more negative aspect of Technocracy’s philosophy, which allowed each person to be monitored and accounted for, to track their consumption of energy, and their contributions to manufacturing processes.

Modern Carbon Markets

The modern system of carbon credits was an invention of the Kyoto Protocol and started to gain momentum in 2002 with the establishment of the first domestic economy-wide trading scheme in the U.K. After becoming international law in 2005, the trading market was predicted to reach $3 trillion in 2020. Graciela Chichilnisky (1944 – ), an Argentine American mathematical economist, and one-time director of the Columbia Consortium for Risk Management and a designer of the carbon credit text of the Kyoto Protoco: [Carbon credits are] therefore all about cash and trading – but it is also a way to a profitable and greener future. She does not elaborate on how this profitability and greenness are related. Indeed, these are meaningless soundbites, unfortunately. It is all about greed. The largest carbon traders are also the largest banks: JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

Bloomberg noted in an article Carbon Capitalists 2009-12-04: The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.

Blythe Masters (1969 – ), the British fintec entrepreneur, with a bachelor’s degree in economics, who invented credit default swaps, was described by The Guardian newspaper (2008-09-20) as the woman who invented financial weapons of mass destruction. At the time, The Guardian was criticized for not giving her an opportunity to defend herself.

From 1995 to 2010, there were numerous articles advocating a carbon currency (CC). Below are some of those I have been able to find and read.

In 1995, Judith Hanna wrote Toward a single carbon currency in New Scientist, where she proposed: to set a global quota for fossil fuel combustion every year, and to share it equally between all the adults in the world.

In 2004, David G. Victor and Joshua C. House published A New Currency in the Harvard International Review. It stated: For those keen to slow global warming, the most effective actions are in the creation of strong national carbon currencies… For scholars and policymakers, the key task is to mine history for guides that are more useful. Global warming is considered an environmental issue, but its best solutions are not to be found in the canon of environmental law. Carbon’s ubiquity in the world economy demands that cost be a consideration in any regime to limit emissions. Indeed, emissions trading has been anointed king because it is the most responsive to cost. And since trading emissions for carbon is more akin to trading currency than eliminating a pollutant, policymakers should be looking at trade and finance with an eye to how carbon markets should be governed. We must anticipate the policy challenges that will arise as this bottom-up system emerges, including the governance of seams between each of the nascent trading systems, liability rules for bogus permits, and judicial cooperation. The article concludes that: after seven years of spinning wheels and wrong analogies, the international regime to control carbon is headed, albeit tentatively, down a productive path.

In 2006, UK Environment Secretary David Miliband spoke to the Audit Commission Annual Lecture and flatly stated: Imagine a country where carbon becomes a new currency. We carry bankcards that store both pounds and carbon points. When we buy electricity, gas and fuel, we use our carbon points, as well as pounds. To help reduce carbon emissions, the Government would set limits on the amount of carbon that could be used.

In 2007, Hannah Fairfield wrote When Carbon Is Currency that appeared in the New York Times . She pointedly stated “To build a carbon market, its originators must create a currency of carbon credits that participants can trade.”

PointCarbon, a consultancy, partnered with Bank of New York Mellon to assess rapidly growing carbon markets. In 2008 they published “Towards a Common Carbon Currency: Exploring the prospects for integrated global carbon markets.” This report discussed environmental and economic efficiency, in a similar context to that of Hubbert in 1933.

On 2009-11-09, the Telegraph (UK) presented an article “Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance.’” It stated: … implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.

On 2010-01-26, Patrick Wood published an article titled, Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy? Global currency replacing all paper currencies, limiting manufacturing, food production and people movement. Wood discusses a proposed new Carbon Currency, designed to support a radically different economic system based on energy production and consumption, instead of price. The era of fiat currency = irredeemable paper currency, was introduced in 1971 when President Richard Nixon (1913 – 1994) decoupled the U.S. dollar from gold. Almost all other currencies eventually followed.
This approach is essentially technocracy, as seen through new eyes. Both want to find a more equatable currency that reduces poverty, encourages population reduction, reduces environmental hazards and global warming, and allocates energy and goods more equitably.

Some concepts are poorly explained in the article. For example, how will a CC allocate available energy to people? The energy supply chain is dominated by a global elite, that interacts with with energy providers and energy consumers. It is unexplained why and how this elite will abdicate its role in providing energy. Related questions will have to be asked about manufacturing, agriculture and services. It is understandable that many people want to be part of the allocation process. Wood notes that local currencies could remain in play for a time, but states that they would eventually wither and be fully replaced by the [CC], much the same way that the Euro displaced individual European currencies over a period of time. Wood has obviously misunderstood how the Euro became the currency of much of Europe. It did not evolve, it replaced national currencies on 1999-01-01.

Wood does bring up some other interesting facts, including literature influenced by Technocracy, including: Aldous Huxley’s (1894 – 1963) in Brave New World (1932), especially its scientific dictatorship; H.G. Well’s (1866 – 1946)The Shape of Things to Come (1933); and, George Orwell’s (1903 – 1950) 1984 (1949).

Entropy

Technocracy expanded the use of entropy to include social entropy. This unscientific and previously unknown term, was postulated to increase social efficiency by allocating available energy then measuring subsequent outputs to find a state of equilibrium.

In Technocracy Study Course, Hubbert & Scott, on p. 238-239 show how Technocracy proposes to allocate energy. People/ adults/ citizens (sometimes)/ residents (other times)/ would receive Energy Certificates (ECs) in order to operate the economy. These would be recorded by an agency called the Distribution Sequence, and be a matter of public record. Purchases of goods or services would require an individual to surrenders ECs. This allows a single organization to produce and distribute all goods and services: With this information clearing continuously to a central headquarters we have a case exactly analogous to the control panel of a power plant, or the bridge of an ocean liner.

Technocracy admits that control of a currency results in a controls of an economy, and its overlaying political structure. Energy-based accounting could fundamentally change world economic and political systems.

I had read in some forgotten source, that Technocracy is now growing rapidly in Europe and other industrialized nations: For instance, the Network of European Technocrats was formed in 2005 as “an autonomous research and social movement that aims to explore and develop both the theory and design of technocracy.” The NET website claims to have members around the world.

This is undoubtedly an exaggeration. NET had very few members. Full disclosure: I was a member! A few insignificant organizations, even with websites, cannot create/ implement a new global energy policy. They can barely dent the old. They may gain some influence on modern energy thinking, with a focus on Hubbert’s Peak Oil Theory, introduced in 1954. Much of the ecological/ environmental movement incorporates Hubbert’s Peak Oil Theory, along with an emphasis on global warming. John Walsh concluded: The issue of peak oil impinges directly on the climate change question. (see John H. Walsh, “The Impending Twin Crisis – One Set of Solutions?, p.5.)

Technocracy likes to emphasize two key differences between price-based money and ECs: 1) money is generic to the holder while EC are individually registered to each citizen, and 2) money persists while ECs expire. This second feature would greatly hinder, if not altogether prevent, the accumulation of wealth and property.

At the start of WWII, Technocracy’s popularity dwindled as economic prosperity returned.

Smoke screens

Technocracy brings with it a number of irritations.

Technocracy’s original focus was exclusively on the North American Technate. Yet, membership was only open to American and Canadian citizens, despite this Technate having an unusual composition. In addition to Canada and USA, it also included: Greenland, Iceland, St Pierre and Miquelon, Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, as well as Venezuela. One wonders if Venezuela’s massive oil wealth influenced this cartographic aberration.

When I look at the map of the North American Technate (shown in the background in the above photo), I always wonder if petroleum engineers with American citizenship will have a far too dominant influence. In a transition from a price-based to an energy-based economy, I wonder if corporate loyalty to wealthy oil companies will have an undue influence on these individuals, and their scientific reasoning.

The second problem this map brings forward is the assignment of energy costs. Take the cost of transporting perishable foods to Nunavut, and other remote areas. These are normally air-freighted in. Who will bear the energy costs? Will it be only those living in the north, or will these costs be distributed over the entire Technate? In searching Technology literature, I have not found any answers.

In a Scandinavian context, people have often been encouraged to buy locally produced foods. This meets considerable opposition. Take tomatoes. In Scandinavia the only practical way to grow tomatoes is in greenhouses. This is increasingly the way they are grown in other places, in more southerly locations. The main difference between two such places is the heating costs which, in the north, far exceed transportation costs.

At one time, I was a proponent of multispecies grazing, at least theoretically, since I have no practical knowledge of farming. This involves grazing two or even three species of livestock together on pasture land, typically sheep, cattle and goats. A diverse range of plant species encourages a diversification of grazing animals. Cattle prefer taller, coarse grasses, sheep prefer shorter species (including grasses), while goats browse woodier species. Because species’ preferences vary, multispecies grazing can work without negatively impacting animal performance or plant sustainability.

However, what I note is that local farmers do not even attempt to engage in multispecies grazing. Part of the reason can be the excessive cost of providing shelter (read: barns) for animals, which are specific to each species. In addition, it is cheaper to import feed from South America, and other distant places, than to encourage animals to use existing pasture land.

Hannah Fairfield wrote When Carbon Is Currency which appeared in the New York Times on 2007-06-06. The article reflects back on 2003, when George E. Pataki, then New York’s governor, invited governors of 10 other states from Maine to Maryland to discuss a program to cut power plant emissions. All but one of the states joined the program; Pennsylvania has observer status.

The article looks at the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, over the course of three years. The program sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that the 10 states — as a whole — can emit. Starting in 2009, each state will receive a set amount of carbon credits for its power plants, and each plant must have enough allowances to cover its total emissions at the end of three-year compliance periods.

Officials have closely watched the European Union, which started its carbon trading market in 2005. To build a carbon market, its originators must create a currency of carbon credits that participants can trade. In Europe, power companies received these credits directly and could buy or sell from one another as needed. But most companies passed the cost of the credits on to consumers even though they received them free, giving the companies windfall profits.

Participants in the United States want to avoid that problem by selling some or all of the credits at auction, with the proceeds going to state energy efficiency programs. In Europe, energy credits have been complex because of the many businesses wanting to earn offset credits. To avoid this complexity in the north-east, the program limits offsets to five categories: capture of landfill gas, curbs on sulfur hexafluoride leaks, planting of trees, reductions in methane from manure, and increased energy efficiency in buildings. Power companies can offset 3.3 percent of a plant’s total emissions from any combination of the five categories.

In discussing Carbon Currency, Technocracy often positions itself as the originator of the idea, equating it with Technocracy’s Energy Certificates (ECs). These ECs originally applied at the Technate = continental level, where they acted as an exchange mechanism. While there was discussion about a more equitable distribution of energy, there was no discussion about the consequences of CO2 emissions.

When I read this article, I discovered that New York State was one of only two jurisdictions to use a 20-year time horizon to account for the damaging effects of planet-warming gasses. Others use 100 years.

Fast forward to 2021, and New York has a new governor, Kathy Hochul (1958 – ), who wants to take less aggressive action to slash greenhouse gasses. According to her, New York’s law was the most ambitious statutory mandate requiring emissions reductions when it passed in 2019. It required emissions to be reduced by 40 % from 1990 levels by 2030 and by 85 % by 2040, with the remainder offset. It also requires zero-emissions electricity by 2050.

This legislation makes methane = the main component of natural gas, more potent than under the longer accounting timeline. Some say the shorter timeline more accurately reflects the short-term warming impact of greenhouse gasses, and the urgency around reducing emissions.

The latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warned global action is not happening quickly enough to avert some of the most damaging potential effects of a warming planet.

New York is unique in using three factors that increase the emissions that have to be reduced: the 20-year metric, out-of-state upstream emissions from imported fuels and biogenic emissions from burning fuels like wood and ethanol.

I have an appreciation of all three measures, but will comment only on one. My irritation is sparked by Inderøy municipality allowing a wood burning heat distribution centre to be built in its most densely populated area. They did not even bother to examine the PM2.5 levels, arguing that wood is a natural product, and that burning it is, somehow, natural.

Howard Scott quotations

In the original publication of this post there was a quotations allegedly by Howard Scott cited. However, it is difficult to vouch for its authenticity. Thus, it has been removed. All of the following quotations below have been found in Wikiquote, with sources provided.

We owe nothing in our origins from Adam Smith, Ricardo, Pareto, Proudhon, Bakunin, Karl Marx, Lenin, or any of the rest of the political philosophies. We do owe a debt to J. Willard Gibbs, Nikola Tesla, Steinmetz, Mac and John Rusk, and a thousand other American chemists, engineers, scientists, and technologists. Howard Scott interviewed at Radio station KYW, 1964-11-19.

A number of engineers became so-called disciples of Frederick W. Taylor, even though he had passed on to his reward in 1915. A considerable number of engineers took up the so-called scientific management of Frederick Taylor and further embroidered it and publicized themselves as efficiency engineers and management consultants. Henry L. Gantt had been Taylor's assistant at the Midvale Steel and the Bethlehem Steel Company. Gant, Morris L. Cook, Leffingwell, Emerson, H. K. Hathaway, Frank B. Gilbreth, Harlow S. Person and C.G. Barth were among the many prominent advocates of Taylor's efficiency system with some variations. Howard Scott, History and Purpose of Technocracy in Northwest Technocrat (1965-07) p.7

Gant, Barth and others tried to start an organization, ' 'The New Machine." ' 'The New Machine" never got off the ground; all of them wrote articles and delivered papers in the engineering societies and management conferences. But their chief purpose was in creating a national image so they could sell their services to large-scale private enterprise as scientific managers and efficiency engineers who would be able to install the system that could extract more productivity from the American worker.
Howard Scott, "History and Purpose of Technocracy" in Northwest Technocrat (1965-07) p. 7

We never had any use for Taylor or any of the efficiency or scientific management crowd. They never realized that human toil was the last thing in the world you had to be efficient about; the only way to be really efficient is to eliminate it entirely, and this would have been heresy to any of the Taylor, Gant, Barth, Cook efficiency crowd.

It is sad to contemplate that men of the technical ability of the names mentioned in this paragraph were so lame in their thinking and social outlook that they missed the boat so completely. Who in hell wants to be efficient with a shovel, and what sense would there be even if you succeeded? They should have had their heads opened with a shovel; it might have been more effective. Howard Scott, "History and Purpose of Technocracy" in Northwest Technocrat (1965-07) pp.7-8

The technological concepts of Technocracy are completely beyond any of the political and social philosophies, from Adam Smith, Ricardo, Proudhon, Bakunin, Karl Marx, Lenin and various other promulgators of rightist and leftist political philosophies. Howard Scott, "History and Purpose of Technocracy" in Northwest Technocrat (1965-07) p. 23

Quotes about Howard Scott

Technocracy originated in the winter of 1918-19 when Howard Scott formed a group of scientists, engineers, and economists that became known as the Technical Alliance--a research organization. Howard Scott was chief engineer of this group. The Alliance lasted about fourteen years. Its membership embraced many of America's top scientists and engineers, including such personalities as: Frederick Ackerman, architect; Leland Olds, statistician; Thorstein Veblen, economist; L. K. Comstock, electrical engineer, and Charles Steinmetz. It conducted what became known as the famous 'Energy Survey of North America.' Out of the survey, and under the guiding genius of Howard Scott, there emerged a completely new way of looking at life and human affairs. The social assets and liabilities (in a physical sense) of North America were laid bare for the first time. The social trends and tendencies were analyzed scientifically and for the first time in history a continental area (North America) had a glimpse of its future, or at least of the broad alternatives.Technocrat (1976), Nr. 257-271

The technocrats made a believable case for a kind of technological utopia, but their asking price was too high. The idea of political democracy still represented a stronger ideal than technological elitism. In the end, critics believed that the socially desirable goals that technology made possible could be achieved without the sacrifice of existing institutions and values and without incurring the apocalypse that technocracy predicted. William E. Aikin, Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocracy Movement 1900-1941, University of California Press (1977), p. 150.

Technocracy's heyday lasted only from June 16, 1932, when the New York Times became the first influential press organ to report its activities, until January 13, 1933, when Scott, attempting to silence his critics, delivered what some critics called a confusing, and uninspiring address on a well-publicized nationwide radio hookup.Howard P. Segal, Technological Utopianism in American Culture, Syracuse University Press(2005), p. 123.

Origins

This post has been in development since about 2010, as anyone can see from the numerous quotations dated immediately prior to this year. The topic has been messy to work with, mainly because content would disappear from sites, and only sometimes reappear on other sites. With hindsight, I note that I should have made copies of all of the content. I didn’t, and my time machine has been ineffective in bringing me back to prior events.

Originally, there were two organizations representing Technocracy in North America: Technocracy, Inc., located for most of my life at 2475 Harksell Road, Ferndale, Washington, 98248. There were also American branches in Portland, Oregon and San Francisco, California. Earlier, there were other branches, particularly along the American east coast. However, these had been disbanded by the time I took an interest. Thus, it always appeared to me as a left-coast phenomenon. Currently, the head office appears to be located in a post office box, at Huntington Beach, California. It’s website can be found at www.technocracyinc.org to which www.technocracy.org redirects.

A sister organization in Canada, had its head offices in Vancouver, British Columbia, about 70 km north-west of Ferndale. I remember Technocracy from my childhood, especially when taking the Pacific Stage Lines bus from New Westminster to downtown Vancouver along Kingsway. Just after crossing the boundary from Burnaby into Vancouver, on the south (odd-numbered) side of the 3700-block Kingsway, one encountered a large monad (yin-yang) sign in red and grey, proclaiming Technocracy’s Canadian headquarters. That block was redeveloped in 1976, when the Telus boot, was built. This boot was an unusually shaped office tower that, for a period, became the head office of Telus, previously known as the British Columbia telephone company.

Other signs of Technocracy’s presence in Vancouver were its grey cars, with red detailing. Presumably, these were privately owned vehicles. However, they were marked with an identification number. Section numbers were important in Technocracy. Most began with 123. The section number for Vancouver was 12349, which combined longitude 123 West with latitude 49 North. Portland used 12342.

At some point the Canadian headquarters moved to 2946 272nd Street, Aldergrove, British Columbia, Canada V4W 3R4. This is about 40 km away from Ferndale, navigating the border at Blaine, Washington/ Douglas, British Columbia. The direct line distance is only about 20 km. At one time, the Vancouver Technocracy website could be found at: www.technocracyvan.ca. It no longer exists.

Publication of this weblog post has been postponed numerous times, most recently from 2023-03-11 at 12:00 to 2024-03-09 at 12:00. After this last postponement, I told myself that if this post needed to be postponed further, it would never be published!