Article 1
Technats…
This word has not yet entered dictionaries, but it is already used in daily life.
Technats is not the name of a profession, a class, or people involved with technologies.
This is a worldview – a perspective that considers only the measurable, calculable, and codifiable part of the world as fundamental.
Technats are individuals or groups who think, live, and make decisions according to the logic of technologies; for them, technical efficiency is prioritized over humanitarian, ethical, and cultural values. For them, the algorithm is more important than the human.
The main characteristics of this type of people are:
–Technocratic thinking;
–Blind faith in algorithms, artificial intelligence, and automation as universal solutions;
–Disregard for tradition, memory, and moral responsibility;
–Dry, functional, managerial language;
–Perception of humans not as individuals, but as resources, data, or parameters.
As we can see, Technats stand at the opposite pole of the classical intellectual position. They build the future, but who will live in that future is of no interest to them.
More specifically, Technats is a concept currently promoted by Donald Trump and the forces behind him. And Trump is the main driving figure of the Technat concept in the modern era.
Looking at the concept from a slightly broader perspective, Technat is a modern technological and the latest scientific
concept of an autonomous or semi-autonomous technocratic state (or city) governed using methods. The Technat idea envisages the creation of areas where governance, economy, and social life are based not on traditional political systems, but on principles of efficiency, rationality, and technological progress.
The Technat concept may also include the unification of the USA, Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, and Greenland within a single Technat framework…
***
The roots of the Technat idea trace back to the technocratic movement formed in the early 20th century. According to the concept of technocracy, the governance of society should be carried out not by politicians, but by technical specialists, scientists, and engineers.
In the 1930s, the technocratic movement was particularly popular in the USA and Europe and was presented as an alternative to capitalism and socialism.
The modern Technat idea began to develop as a model of an autonomous technological city or state in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Advances in artificial intelligence, robotics, the “internet of things” and other technologies gave a serious impetus to the spread of this idea. In the 2000s, “smart cities” projects became the first steps towards the realization of Technat ideas.
For the Technat, the world is a tangle of problems. But the problem must be solved somehow. The aesthetics, ethics, or memory of the solution do not interest them. The main thing is that it works. Quickly, efficiently, measurably. The Technat believes that if a process is put into an algorithm, then no questions or doubts remain. Humans, within this process, are either users, resources, or raw data.
This view is not new. Technology is ancient. However, Technat thinking gained a dominant position after the second half of the 20th century, especially in the digital age. Previously, technology was a means. Now it is the goal. Previously, the tool was in human hands. Now, humans are inside the tool.
The Technat sees the world not as a map, but as a diagram. A map has history, layers, errors, forgotten names. A diagram, however, only has connections: input–output, cause–effect, signal–reaction. A diagram does not require memory. A map, however, cannot exist without memory.
At this point, humanitarian thought and the Technat perspective confront each other. For the humanitarian, the human is the center; for the Technat, it is the system. The humanitarian asks: “Why?” The Technat asks: “How faster?” The humanitarian knows that the future cannot be built without looking at the past. The Technat, however, considers the past an archive problem…
It is also useful to see the difference between a technocrat and a Technat here:
A technocrat denotes an administrator, an official position, a profession, and status within the system.
A Technat, however, is not a profession but a form of consciousness, not a duty but a worldview, not just power but a mentality…
Borges had long seen this difference. His labyrinths were not technically perfectly constructed structures; they are spaces of memory, probability, confusion. For Borges, knowledge is never complete. Every book is the shadow of another book. Every answer creates a new question. The Technat, however, does not like labyrinths. They prefer straight lines. Because a straight line is optimized.
Wittgenstein said, “The limits of my language are the limits of my world.” The Technat reads this idea differently: “The limits of my model are the limits of my world.” Everything that does not fit into the model is either wrong or does not exist. However, a large part of humanity does not fit into the model: feeling, fear, conscience, regret, memory, silence. The Technat calls these “noise.”
Artificial intelligence further exacerbated this confrontation. Because artificial intelligence is the pinnacle of Technat thinking. It gives statistically correct answers. But it does not distinguish between “correct” and “right.” It recognizes text but does not experience meaning. It has memory but no recollection. It knows history but does not understand destiny.
For the Technat, this is sufficient. Because the goal is not to understand, but to predict. But humans are not just predictions. Humans are a surprise. They are wrong. They are a contradiction. The Technat, however, considers contradiction a system error.
This is also the most dangerous point. Technats build the future, but they do not question in what form humans will live in that future. For them, an ideal society is a mechanism that functions without problems. However, a problem-free society is a lifeless society. Everything alive has cracks.
Humanitarian thought tries to protect these cracks. Because light falls through the cracks. Literature, philosophy, history are born precisely within these cracks. The Technat, however, wants to close the cracks. Because a crack hinders optimization.
This article is not against technology.
Technology is necessary.
But it is against the thinking that turns technology into an end.
Humans do not fit into algorithms.
And when forced to fit, humanity is lost.
The future will belong to Technats – this is inevitable.
But if humanitarian memory, language, and ethical reflection do not find a place in this future, then a technically perfect, but spiritually empty world will be built – Fast, silent, and alien.
