While a technocracy is a good thing in theory, I'm always concerned about the likelihood of it turning into a serious echo chamber. If the only people involved in, say, banking are people who have domain-specific knowledge, what is the likelihood that you're going to get anything new out of it? It seems to me that it'll almost always devolve into a terrible feedback loop. That said, it isn't necessarily worse than what we have now.
I'm not sure I'd go that far; I don't believe that technical experts are by virtue of their expertise the best at making judgments, weighing alternatives, etc. I certainly wouldn't want a judge with only technical expertise making decisions.
I'm just wondering whether you can be a good judge without understanding the technical details as well as the legal ones, or at the very least be an exceptionally fast learner. At the same time, few people are both technically and legally proficient - even most patent lawyers don't need to fully understand the tech they're dealing with to write cease and desist letters, or advise their clients to settle, etc.
But maybe the judges do, and as tech progresses even more, how can we reasonably expect judges to know enough of both? I'm not trying to make the obvious point of "gee, shouldn't judges know how an iPhone works before ruling on it" but asking whether it's even possible to understand both technical and legal sides well enough.
