In recent years, there has been a lot of opposition against the idea. "Learn to code!" or anything "STEM" are the two most popular slogans in that regard.
You can't expect humanity to adjust to technology by force, especially knowing natural limitation of this. Next decade you will side with sterilisation of unfitting "modern civilization".
GDP flows & spreads in economy on all jobs shaping salaries. If humanity do makes technological progress it means GDP do grows and so people with lowest salaries should gain buying power. If they don't it's not their fault, it means something goes wrong with the progress that we all blindly assume is happening. But since 1970 there is no progress on West. There is a centralisation of global wealth scheme going on & we don't get natural replacement of those generations of civilization and progress builders as before. Middle class is literally being eradicated.
Mindless consumption is 99% of what people do in shops. Healthy human species proper diet food is 1% of products in shops. Most of stuff around is toxic & fake.
We don't need augmenting human intelligence. We need to build civilization for everyone & for humans.
Society is a pyramid. Bottom produces top and achievements of top are co-owned by bottom from where they originate.
I agree fully with algoentertainment. But making whole society into mindless efficient machines will be the other extreme to go to.
Coding in itself is not normal natural human activity and the optimum for humans is what they evolved for in nature in their natural environment. Not observing matrix code.
Fixing eyes & natural vision, not augmenting it first. Starting with true human food not replacing it. Making humans drug free before drugging them for specific performance.
What people do is shaped by their (re)education, parenting, quality of their sources of information, choices surrounding them, their understanding of what a civilized human behaviour & ethics standard is, what their subjective self-assessment & habits let them become.
Big part of it is infosphere around them which they never consciously chosen to be exposed to. Human don't even have a free will so how can he be fully responsible for "own" choices?
A physical ratcage in overcrowded concrete labirynth seems far from humane thing.
Digital escapism is like wrapping shit up in shiny paper of a magic pill to avoid facing true colours of modern reality & degredation of civilization.
We made enough progress to start reverting millennia long unnatural changes & mistakes, reinventing our optimal human state with technology & push the technology evolution in direction serving human true self.
Processing this basic truth gives a profound insights.
Everyone doing liberal arts means nobody has the skills to run the modern technologies that power our society. Nobody wants to pay for a vague qualification
Teach arts as part of a rounded education sure, but also teach STEM so we can actually get things done and people can get paid for doing something that organisations actually want done.
Over-optimisation towards one or the other leads to either arts qualified young adults who can't do much for work, or highly literal engineering types who only see value as utility.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education#Modern_...
In my view, the purpose should be: - enable each individual to function independently in society.
For poor individuals, a technical education that helps land you a good job is absolutely great and is an enabling factor for many things to come.
For individuals from richer families with a wide array of opportunities (e.g., middle class in the west), no doubt a traditional liberal arts education is fantastic.
Which is a bit sad, pre-industrial revolution children could work and help with chores, both for sustenance farmers and for tradesmen. They were a net positive from a rather early age, and I'm pretty sure this had a (positive) impact on their psychological development as well.
Why do you immediately separate eduction by wealth?
I suspect you mean that the purpose of eduction is to ensure that an individual can be gainfully employed and not be a burden on the state. One of your aims would be heading off any poor students pursuing a less lucrative degree (liberal arts).
This seems like a rather sad view of education.
I'm not suggesting in any way a class-based education system, which are awful. I'm simply stating that if you are poor, your best bet is to pursue whatever education lands you the best possible job.
I know how to code (no thanks to our education system), so I ended up getting a job anyway, but I have unemployed friends who are around 30yo with master's decrees and the best they can get is a part-time job as a cashier. They've mostly just given up on life at this point and live on welfare. They're very civilized though.
How's that opioid crisis going on btw?
Money must be like democracy. The worst possible way to organize society with the possible exception of everything else we have tried.
This is an extremely low quality article that I hope was written by an AI model so no human brains were harmed during it's production.
A newborn seems to be incredibly curious about the world. With age, this curiosity seems to fade, for some more so than others. If we can prevent curiosity from fading, people would be excited about learning.
It should not be funded by taking away from those funding it themselves or educating themselves.
Nothing harms more than state propaganda, except state propaganda funded by corpostate.
Homeschooling should be promoted. Nothing teaches you more than walking 1000 miles.
PS Society & Europe was better when there were marks instead of euro. Especially looking at South of Europe.
Two marks sounds even better than one ;-)
In aggregate, yes. But no one person gets the entire body of knowledge that humanity has accumulated for thousands of years. This is impossible for any single person to understand.
Each person can only hope to get a piece, and hopefully some of those useful skills the author derides so that they can contribute a piece of their own back to the whole. Because simply understanding civilization - even if it were possible for one person to do - does not prevent any of the decay the author is concerned about. It must be improved upon and re-transmitted to the next generation in order for it to endure.
Second: "civilization building", "maximally realizing human potential" and so on are occupations that very few individuals can have. Civilizations simply don't have the disposable resources to sustain a significant portion of their population focusing on such things.
I'll rectify those deficits soon.
It's not though, it's about maximally inserting the human into the machine. That's why the machine is funding the education.
I also suspect the author mistakes the term education for kwoledge. And yes, some knowledge is lost, but that is due the technological progress. It's always been that way.
