11 ms·

I don't see how that's relevant. The point I was making was that we have a hyper emphasis on science and technology and are careening down the path of technolog

I don't see how that's relevant. The point I was making was that we have a hyper emphasis on science and technology and are careening down the path of technological advancement without taking the proper time to consider the ethical problems that we'll encounter. Maybe becoming "middle class" isn't as important as people say it is? The vast majority of the world lives their lives far, far below what we consider to be a middle class lifestyle here in the U.S., yet it is our upper class techno-elite that are deciding the fate of humanity.

inimino 10y ago
It's relevant because that's what motivates people to go into those fields. The upper class is free to major in the humanities; if your degree is from Yale it doesn't matter what it's in. The struggling middle class and below has to be more practically minded. If college is your ticket out of poverty, you aren't going to waste it studying something useless like history or philosophy which only qualifies you to be a (well-rounded, intellectually satisfied) barista. Computer science is a popular major because of Google salaries, not because our high school students are fascinated by the mathematical beauty of Turing machines. In other words, fetishizing technology isn't the problem. Maslow's hierarchy suggests becoming middle class is important enough to block out all other considerations for almost all people. So, I agree with you that we emphasize STEM too much, but it isn't going to change unless incentives somehow change.