4 ms·

We desperately need to move away from these education systems. They worked well when resources were limited and identifying gifted students took priority. The w

We desperately need to move away from these education systems. They worked well when resources were limited and identifying gifted students took priority. The world is a much different place now and we should focus on individualized curriculum and mastery.

emodendroket 7y ago
Resources are still limited.
- thrwaway69 7y ago
  Give free birth control everywhere and stipend to poor couples including a free state sponsored education program for stopping them from becoming poor parents. Will save the state and possible parents much more in resources to spend. What a simple solution but of course, that won't happen because you need low tier workers in the society that the state and others can leech off from. Rich need their prostitutes, drivers, maids, low cost labor and employees. Society need numbers, labor which they can abuse for cleaning the filth and boosting themselves in a sacrificial ceremony. For example, UP state in india has a population density of 828 persons per km² What good reason do you think there is not in spending money to stop poor people from having kids? I don't get the ethical issue about it other than it being made up by people for patting their backs. Government can ban smoking, drugs, porn, video games, internet sites, alcohol, and many other things to keep you safe from "harming" yourself. Doctors can veto your opinion or voice if they think you are a danger to yourself. All research shows kids living in extreme poverty has a dire future, lot of bad health issues and will most likely remain in poverty. Why can't we ban or at least try to spend money to that cause? 3.6k kids die due to hunger/deficiency every day in india. What if they weren't born? Why have so many people that you need to resort to filtering for everything in life?
  - econcon 7y ago
    >What good reason do you think there is not in spending money to stop poor people from having kids? Dystopian world where people aren't allowed to have kids, just because they are poor? Much better is to make sure poors have enough money to raise their kids. Offer them government assistance.
    - thrwaway69 7y ago
      That only solves one of the problems and the GP was talking about limited resources which doesn't change even if you make the income/wealth distribution equal. One person would still need 8 litres of water, a piece of land, food and other essential limited resources. How do you plan to let all the people have kids with an existing population density of 828 persons per km² without ruining it for everyone? What other filter do you propose is realistic? Do you think there should be a test, higher age requirement, education background or something? Clearly, the current population is too much here. Sure it is declining (predicted to be normal replacement fertility rate by the end of 2020) but that will take long time to materialize and then you have government doing something to stop it because failing economy. Why even set your whole structure in a way that requires numbers? This is a perverted incentive and should be stopped. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-015-9711-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-015-9711-5 Optimum world population is something around 2 billion. Not 8 billion and growing.
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        As a counterargument, we're taking only a tiny amount of land that's feasible to develop, and even less of total area of Earth. Scarcity is caused by concentration of jobs in cities. Where there are jobs and education, there become cities. There's more than enough water to go around, but not energy to desalinate in drier places like China and India. There is a surplus of food in many areas, and most of lacking ones are limited by water. You cannot speak of an optimum without having decided a target. It's optimum everyone having their own private jet?
- sumedh 7y ago
  You have so many options to learn now specially in Tech
  - emodendroket 7y ago
    That means you have to work harder, not easier, to stand out, because everyone else has the same resources you do.
    - sumedh 7y ago
      Which is a good thing, earlier people did not even have access to these resources.

emodendroket 7y ago

Resources are still limited.

thrwaway69 7y ago
Give free birth control everywhere and stipend to poor couples including a free state sponsored education program for stopping them from becoming poor parents. Will save the state and possible parents much more in resources to spend. What a simple solution but of course, that won't happen because you need low tier workers in the society that the state and others can leech off from. Rich need their prostitutes, drivers, maids, low cost labor and employees. Society need numbers, labor which they can abuse for cleaning the filth and boosting themselves in a sacrificial ceremony. For example, UP state in india has a population density of 828 persons per km² What good reason do you think there is not in spending money to stop poor people from having kids? I don't get the ethical issue about it other than it being made up by people for patting their backs. Government can ban smoking, drugs, porn, video games, internet sites, alcohol, and many other things to keep you safe from "harming" yourself. Doctors can veto your opinion or voice if they think you are a danger to yourself. All research shows kids living in extreme poverty has a dire future, lot of bad health issues and will most likely remain in poverty. Why can't we ban or at least try to spend money to that cause? 3.6k kids die due to hunger/deficiency every day in india. What if they weren't born? Why have so many people that you need to resort to filtering for everything in life?
- econcon 7y ago
  >What good reason do you think there is not in spending money to stop poor people from having kids? Dystopian world where people aren't allowed to have kids, just because they are poor? Much better is to make sure poors have enough money to raise their kids. Offer them government assistance.
  - thrwaway69 7y ago
    That only solves one of the problems and the GP was talking about limited resources which doesn't change even if you make the income/wealth distribution equal. One person would still need 8 litres of water, a piece of land, food and other essential limited resources. How do you plan to let all the people have kids with an existing population density of 828 persons per km² without ruining it for everyone? What other filter do you propose is realistic? Do you think there should be a test, higher age requirement, education background or something? Clearly, the current population is too much here. Sure it is declining (predicted to be normal replacement fertility rate by the end of 2020) but that will take long time to materialize and then you have government doing something to stop it because failing economy. Why even set your whole structure in a way that requires numbers? This is a perverted incentive and should be stopped. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-015-9711-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-015-9711-5 Optimum world population is something around 2 billion. Not 8 billion and growing.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      As a counterargument, we're taking only a tiny amount of land that's feasible to develop, and even less of total area of Earth. Scarcity is caused by concentration of jobs in cities. Where there are jobs and education, there become cities. There's more than enough water to go around, but not energy to desalinate in drier places like China and India. There is a surplus of food in many areas, and most of lacking ones are limited by water. You cannot speak of an optimum without having decided a target. It's optimum everyone having their own private jet?
sumedh 7y ago
You have so many options to learn now specially in Tech
- emodendroket 7y ago
  That means you have to work harder, not easier, to stand out, because everyone else has the same resources you do.
  - sumedh 7y ago
    Which is a good thing, earlier people did not even have access to these resources.