3 ms·

What is the purpose of "society with refined members" when majority of these members need to do thinking-free, menial jobs? It only builds up discontent. Result

What is the purpose of "society with refined members" when majority of these members need to do thinking-free, menial jobs? It only builds up discontent. Result is that the government needs more violence applied against people to keep them in check, or the society blows up in endless, unfixable conflict where people just ask for the impossible and won't settle on less than that. Especially in a democratic society where applying violence may be impossible or hard to push through (catch-22 of people having to vote for it), it can simply end the country - any country. This is how Soviet Union ended. "Workers and peasants" were 100% OK with Communism. It's the educated masses who were too educated and did jobs that did not justify their qualification, and lived in deep poverty, ended it.

kergonath 5y ago
> What is the purpose of "society with refined members" when majority of these members need to do thinking-free, menial jobs? Enough culture to recognise a demagogue when they see one? Enough basic scientific knowledge to avoid falling into wellness scams and understand how climate change works? In a democracy, a well-educated people is absolutely required. You don’t need to apply all of your knowledge in your daily work; it does not mean acquiring it was a waste of time. > This is how Soviet Union ended. "Workers and peasants" were 100% OK with Communism. It's the educated masses who were too educated and did jobs that did not justify their qualification, and lived in deep poverty, ended it. The problem with the Soviet Union was not too much education. It is also a strange example to pick when arguing about democracies.
- anovikov 5y ago
  In a democracy, people who don't depend on the government, but other way around, are absolutely required. It doesn't matter if they are much educated or not - when they vote with their money, NOT for "free" money they get from government, everyone gets very rational. And universal higher education doesn't help with that. And Soviet Union is a good example because a democracy would fare worse in same conditions. Soviets could apply unlimited violence to keep people in check, democratic government can't do that.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    It's the same argument that was used to restrict voting to landowners. It's a fallacy. Lots of people are careless or misguided even with their money and there is no indication that rich people, who are those that can afford unsubsidised higher education, are better at running a country than poorer ones. And even if that were not the case, you don't spend public money like a family budget. I am not quite sure how rewriting history somehow validates your argument. The USSR was in a very specific situation and you'll never know how a democracy would have fared. In all likelihood, a democracy would not have ended up in that specific situation anyway.
mdp2021 5y ago
> What is the purpose of "society with refined members" To enable democracy, which depends on a population endowed with well developed judgement to work properly. And to enable society, which depends on counting a large amount of members the individual will trust, professionally and personally, to be hold as a value triggering synergy. So, to enable widespread civilization, which is required to achieve the basicmost goal of a liveable environment. Cultivation is one of the tentative ways to increase civilization. Education shapes the person; the impacts from the environment may be random in gain or loss, while education comes out of a positively progressive effort. It shapes your neighbours and the professionals you rely on.
kwere 5y ago
>It only builds up discontent as it should, we humans arent here to do menial task but to solve problems both personal and societal and MAYBE we should give more value to people as factor of production?

kergonath 5y ago

> What is the purpose of "society with refined members" when majority of these members need to do thinking-free, menial jobs? Enough culture to recognise a demagogue when they see one? Enough basic scientific knowledge to avoid falling into wellness scams and understand how climate change works? In a democracy, a well-educated people is absolutely required. You don’t need to apply all of your knowledge in your daily work; it does not mean acquiring it was a waste of time. > This is how Soviet Union ended. "Workers and peasants" were 100% OK with Communism. It's the educated masses who were too educated and did jobs that did not justify their qualification, and lived in deep poverty, ended it. The problem with the Soviet Union was not too much education. It is also a strange example to pick when arguing about democracies.

anovikov 5y ago
In a democracy, people who don't depend on the government, but other way around, are absolutely required. It doesn't matter if they are much educated or not - when they vote with their money, NOT for "free" money they get from government, everyone gets very rational. And universal higher education doesn't help with that. And Soviet Union is a good example because a democracy would fare worse in same conditions. Soviets could apply unlimited violence to keep people in check, democratic government can't do that.
- kergonath 5y ago
  It's the same argument that was used to restrict voting to landowners. It's a fallacy. Lots of people are careless or misguided even with their money and there is no indication that rich people, who are those that can afford unsubsidised higher education, are better at running a country than poorer ones. And even if that were not the case, you don't spend public money like a family budget. I am not quite sure how rewriting history somehow validates your argument. The USSR was in a very specific situation and you'll never know how a democracy would have fared. In all likelihood, a democracy would not have ended up in that specific situation anyway.

mdp2021 5y ago

> What is the purpose of "society with refined members" To enable democracy, which depends on a population endowed with well developed judgement to work properly. And to enable society, which depends on counting a large amount of members the individual will trust, professionally and personally, to be hold as a value triggering synergy. So, to enable widespread civilization, which is required to achieve the basicmost goal of a liveable environment. Cultivation is one of the tentative ways to increase civilization. Education shapes the person; the impacts from the environment may be random in gain or loss, while education comes out of a positively progressive effort. It shapes your neighbours and the professionals you rely on.

kwere 5y ago

>It only builds up discontent as it should, we humans arent here to do menial task but to solve problems both personal and societal and MAYBE we should give more value to people as factor of production?